We are not against provider changes.
Some families in this coalition — including organizers — have advocated for provider changes when a program was failing children. Incumbency is not entitlement. A long-running contract is not, by itself, evidence that a school is well-served.
Our position is consistent in both directions:
- When a program is failing, listen to families and make a change.
- When a program is succeeding, do not remove it without showing what becomes better.
Ella Baker (Pre-K–8): when the community asks for a change and the system still doesn't listen.
Ella Baker is the clearest example, from inside this coalition, that the same DYCD scoring process can also deliver the opposite of what a school community asks for — in this case, where families wanted a different provider and the award did not deliver it.
An incoming awardee, the Imogen Roche Foundation, flagged the same pattern in formal Council testimony: some schools were awarded providers they did not select, while other schools that did select Roche were awarded different providers.
Preserve programs that work. Replace programs that fail. In both cases, listen to the school community and show the evidence.
Presented as a firsthand case study from a coalition organizer. We do not claim school-wide opposition at Ella Baker; we point to the decision-making process that produced an award contrary to community preference. Roche testimony is linked on the Responses page.
Principles
- 01Public money requires public reasons. School-by-school awards demand school-by-school explanations.
- 02Community voice must matter both ways — when a program succeeds, and when one fails.
- 03Continuity of care is an access requirement for many students with disabilities, not a sentimental preference.
- 04Afterschool is family infrastructure, not merely enrichment.
- 05Children attach to people, not to award lists. Workforce disruption is student disruption.
- 06Provider diversity should expand strong local ecosystems — not dismantle the ones that already work.
- 07Equity reforms can backfire when government removes functioning pathways instead of expanding access to them.