On the risible statement DOE makes about Pearson & their proposed $8.6M no-bid contract to be voted on tomorrow night

To: fbaptiste@schools.nyc.gov, ecleveland@schools.nyc.gov,  nfruchter@schools.nyc.gov,vleung@schools.nyc.gov, lpodvesker@schools.nyc.gov, rpowell@bronxbp.nyc.gov, rreffkin@schools.nyc.gov, lzingmond@schools.nyc.gov, ICarmignani@schools.nyc.gov, ddillingham@schools.nyc.gov, kpaynehanks@schools.nyc.gov, mzorrillaaristy@schools.nyc.gov  
CC: panel@schools.nyc.gov

  

Dear Panel members:

1.       First of all, the DOE page listing items to be voted upon tomorrow for public review and/or comment does not list contracts though it should.

2.       Secondly, I am writing about the no-bid  $8.6M, 7 year contract for Pearson’s software line.

All the DOE says on pp. 82-83 to justify this no-bid contract is that “Pearson Education is the sole provider of this software, so a Request for Bids was not practical.”  Huh?  Of course Pearson is the sole provider of Pearson software, but this is tautological.  Where is the analysis showing a detailed comparison of the cost/benefits of other similar software?  Where is there any evaluation of the quality of this software at all?

The subsequent statement that “DOE has found Pearson’s performance to be satisfactory on prior work” is risible, considering the well-documented low quality of Pearson exams, the repeated errors they have made in scoring both here in NYC and elsewhere, and the corruption they have engaged in, as determined by the NYS Attorney General.

I cannot see the rationale for this contract stated anywhere that would counter NY’s repeatedly deplorable experience with Pearson products and service.

Finally, I urge you to check out Prof. Alan Singer’s recent column on Pearson at and vote no.

Yours, 

Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters