Key points:
- A childcare system should value both provider stability and family ease
- Why so many students struggle in math before learning even begins
- College readiness starts in kindergarten: Why rethinking K–12 math is the key
- For more news on early learning, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub
New York is currently standing at a historic crossroads. With a rare alignment of executive leadership in Albany and NYC and a tireless advocacy community, the state is poised to transform the promise of universal early childhood education (ECE) into a reality for tens of thousands of families. We are seeing a shift from a decade-long, bottom-up struggle for recognition to a top-down prioritization driven by a clear sense of urgency. But as we move from the “why” to the “how,” there is a sobering truth: Success isn’t just about the size of the check New York writes; it is about the administrative architecture it builds.
The history of government-led expansions is littered with well-intentioned programs that buckled under the weight of their own bureaucracy. ECE-specific programs have faced the additional combination of big expectations on a shoestring budget. To stand up a system quickly without destabilizing the already fragile childcare ecosystem, New York must move beyond outdated procurement models. The path forward requires an approach supported by agile, purpose-built technology rather than the rigid, custom-built monoliths of the past.
The power of the mixed delivery model
A truly universal system cannot be built on the backs of school districts alone. To attempt to do so would ignore the reality of how New York families actually live and work. “Mixed delivery”–a system that integrates public schools, private centers, licensed home-based providers, and faith-based programs–is the only way to scale with the urgency this moment demands.
The advantages of this model are not just logistical; they are foundational to equity:
- Utilizing existing infrastructure: New York cannot afford to wait years for new facilities to be bonded, designed, and built. A generation of three- and four-year-olds will miss their window of opportunity in the interim. By utilizing existing classrooms in schools and community centers, faith-based organizations, and high-quality private centers, the state can activate thousands of seats almost overnight.
- Meeting families where they are: True access is a myth if the classroom is 20 miles in the wrong direction. Families need choices that align with their lives, whether that is a provider near their workplace, one that offers the non-traditional hours required by shift workers, or a program that provides culturally and linguistically specific care.
- Protecting the birth-to-five ecosystem: There is a persistent, valid fear among advocates that a school-district-only Pre-K model will hollow out the infant and toddler care market. When three- and four-year-olds (who require lower teacher-to-student ratios) are pulled out of centers and home-based providers, those programs often lose the financial cushion that allows them to afford the 1:3 or 1:4 ratios required for babies. A mixed-delivery model keeps these providers financially viable, ensuring that by expanding Pre-K, we aren’t inadvertently creating a “childcare desert” for infants.
Why “Big Tech” fails early childhood
For decades, the standard government playbook has been to hire Big Tech firms or massive global consultancies like Deloitte or Salesforce to create custom-built solutions. We have seen this play out across many states–wasted taxpayer dollars, a worse experience for families, all because each effort starts from scratch and relearns the same hard-won lessons, and, ultimately, slowed progress for our field.
These firms are experts in software, but they are rarely experts in the nuances of early childhood. They build exactly to the specifications they are given. However, ECE leaders are experts in program delivery, not in writing technical product requirements. This creates a significant translation gap. When a state agency asks for a portal, a consultancy builds a portal–but they don’t know how it will handle the nuances of provider licensing, the complexity of braided funding streams, or the specific needs of children with disabilities.
Furthermore, custom builds are notoriously rigid. In a custom system, any necessary change–a new legislative requirement or a shift in eligibility–requires a new contract (or at least amendment that needs to be scoped), a new round of “statement of work” negotiations, and months of expensive development. System knowledge becomes trapped with a small number of power users, and the platform eventually becomes a Frankenstein of bolted-on features that rarely feels like one cohesive system.
The SaaS advantage: Speed, equity, and iteration
The alternative is Software as a Service (SaaS). Purpose-built platforms designed specifically for ECE allows a state to launch in months, not years. In Colorado, a statewide Pre-K application and enrollment system was implemented and launched in just three months.
By adopting a SaaS model, New York can benefit from a rising tide of innovation. In this model, every improvement built for one state is immediately available to every other state on the platform. If Alabama develops a better way to track teacher certifications, New York gets that feature automatically. This prevents the reinventing of the wheel that costs taxpayers millions and delays service to children.
Lessons from Colorado and Alabama
We do not have to guess what works; we can look to the hard-earned lessons of our peers. In Colorado, the success of Universal Pre-K (UPK) was rooted in a state agency presenting a united front. By creating a unified Department of Early Childhood, the state reduced fragmentation and signaled that the era of agency infighting was over. They also leveraged Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) organizations, Early Childhood Councils, and family-oriented nonprofits to serve as local coordinating organizations (LCOs), which act as the essential bridge between state mandates and community trust.
In Alabama, the focus has been on framing Pre-K not as a social program, but as an essential function for workforce preparation and school readiness. By moving beyond ideology, they built a system that has led the nation in quality benchmarks for nearly two decades.
Operationalizing equity through technology
Infrastructure is the primary engine of equity. In Colorado, the use of sophisticated matching algorithms ensures that 90 percent of children are placed in their first-choice provider. This transforms the parent experience from what might feel like a lottery to a model of true empowerment.
A purpose-built system also drastically improves the experience for children with disabilities. By aligning placement data with legally required services from the very start, the system ensures that a child with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is placed in an environment equipped to support them and fulfill their legal rights.
Finally, New York can and should build accountability into the foundation of Pre-K by legislating an independent evaluation by the third year of the program just as Colorado did. This forces a culture of data-driven course correction, and signals that iteration is not a sign of failure but a prerequisite for excellence.
A call to action
New York has the political will. It has the advocacy. It has the funding. What it needs now is the courage to choose the right tools.
The priorities must be SaaS over custom builds, mixed delivery over school-district-only models, and iterative growth over static, five-year planning. By building a system that values both provider stability and family ease, New York can do more than just expand access. It can set the national gold standard for how a modern state cares for its youngest citizens. The children of New York are waiting; it is time their administrative infrastructure caught up to them.