One Curriculum Doesn't Fit Every Child: What NYC's Preschool Shake-Up Means for Teachers
A New Direction for Early Childhood Education
The best conversations in education rarely begin with the question, Who's right? They usually begin with a much more important one: What's best for children? That is exactly the conversation New York City is having after Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration announced that publicly funded preschool programs will no longer be limited to a single required curriculum. Instead, schools will be able to choose from several New York City Department of Education-approved curricula, including the highly respected Bank Street curriculum. The administration's goal is to give schools greater flexibility while maintaining high instructional standards and allowing educators to select the curriculum that best reflects the needs of their students and communities.
As someone who has spent years teaching young children, I don't think this decision is as simple as saying it's either good or bad. Like most changes in education, it has the potential to be both. That's exactly why teachers need to understand what is changing, why it is changing, and what it could mean for the future of early childhood education.
What Changed?
For years, many New York City preschool classrooms operated under a single required curriculum. There were certainly advantages to that approach. Teachers received the same professional development, administrators knew what instruction should look like across classrooms, and new teachers had a clear roadmap to follow. Consistency can be incredibly valuable in a school system as large as New York City's.
Under the new policy, however, schools now have the flexibility to choose from several DOE-approved curricula instead of relying on one mandated program. While all approved curricula are aligned with New York State's early learning standards, schools have greater autonomy to select the one that best reflects their educational philosophy and the needs of their children.
Why Did the Administration Make This Change?
Anyone who has spent more than a week in a preschool classroom knows one important truth:
Children don't read the curriculum
Every class is different. One year they are fascinated by insects. Another year they're obsessed with construction vehicles. The next year they want to learn everything about space. Young children are naturally curious, and the best learning happens when teachers can build on that curiosity rather than constantly redirecting it.
I've experienced this firsthand.
I remember one year when my pre-K class was expected to complete a unit on trees. It was thoughtfully written, developmentally appropriate, and aligned with the curriculum. There was just one problem—my students simply weren't interested. Every conversation somehow found its way back to construction vehicles. They wanted to know how excavators worked, why bulldozers had tracks, and how cranes could lift such heavy objects. I could have spent weeks trying to convince them that trees were more exciting, or I could meet them where they already were and use that enthusiasm to teach literacy, math, science, and language.
That's what great teachers do.
Children don't learn because page 42 of a curriculum says today is tree day. They learn because something captures their imagination.
I believe that's one of the driving forces behind this policy change. Giving schools more flexibility allows teachers to be more responsive to children's interests while still meeting developmental goals and academic standards.
Why Bank Street Stands Out
What excites me most about this change is that Bank Street is now one of the curriculum options available to schools. For those outside the field of education, Bank Street may sound like just another curriculum. For educators, it is anything but. Bank Street College of Education has been shaping early childhood education for over one hundred years and is considered one of the pioneers of developmentally appropriate practice. Its developmental-interactive approach emphasizes learning through play, exploration, inquiry, relationships, problem-solving, and meaningful experiences. Rather than asking teachers to simply deliver scripted lessons, Bank Street encourages educators to observe children closely, understand their developmental needs, and create learning experiences that build upon their interests.
That philosophy has influenced generations of educators and teacher preparation programs across the country.
As a teacher, I've always admired Bank Street because it trusts teachers to be professionals. It recognizes that effective teaching isn't about reading from a manual. It's about understanding child development, building relationships, asking thoughtful questions, and knowing when to adjust instruction based on the children sitting in front of you. That's one of the reasons Bank Street continues to be one of the most respected names in early childhood education.
The Benefits for Teachers and Children
There are several reasons why I believe this change has tremendous potential. Teachers may finally have the flexibility to select a curriculum that truly aligns with their students rather than trying to fit every classroom into the same instructional model. Children may benefit from learning experiences that feel more engaging because teachers have greater freedom to follow their interests while still meeting learning standards. Schools may also develop stronger educational identities instead of every classroom looking exactly alike. Perhaps most importantly, this change acknowledges something experienced teachers have known for years: Great teaching isn't about following a script. It's about knowing when to follow the child.
The Challenges We Can't Ignore As optimistic as I am, I'd also be naïve to pretend there aren't challenges.
Giving schools more choices also creates more responsibility. Professional development becomes more complicated because administrators and instructional coaches must now support multiple curricula instead of one. Teachers transferring between schools may need to learn entirely different instructional frameworks. Collaboration between schools could become more difficult if educators are using different planning methods, terminology, and assessment systems.
Consistency is another concern. Flexibility is valuable, but without strong leadership and quality training, curriculum choice could lead to inconsistent implementation from school to school. The curriculum itself doesn't determine success; how well teachers understand it does.
What Does This Mean for Future Teachers?
Perhaps my biggest concern is what this means for new teachers entering the profession.
When you're in your first classroom, having one curriculum can provide comfort. You're already learning classroom management, lesson planning, assessments, family communication, and how to manage twenty curious preschoolers all at once. Now imagine interviewing at several schools. One school uses Bank Street; one uses Creative Curriculum; another uses High Scope. Each has different expectations, planning methods, classroom environments, and instructional philosophies. That can be overwhelming for someone just entering the profession.
Teacher preparation programs may also need to evolve. Rather than preparing future educators to become experts in one curriculum, colleges may need to expose teacher candidates to multiple educational philosophies while helping them understand the research behind each one.
Tomorrow's teachers will likely need to become more flexible, reflective, and eclectic than ever before.
A Curriculum Doesn't Teach Children- Teachers Do
One thing I hope never gets lost in this conversation is that no curriculum—no matter how respected—can replace an effective teacher. I've seen phenomenal teachers make average curricula come alive through creativity, relationships, and thoughtful instruction. I’ve also seen outstanding curricula fall flat because they were implemented mechanically without considering the children sitting in the classroom. Children rarely remember the name of the curriculum. They remember the teacher who believed in them. A curriculum is simply a tool. Teachers are what bring it to life.
Final Thoughts
Overall, I believe this change has the potential to move early childhood education in a positive direction. Not because one curriculum is necessarily better than another, but because children are different, teachers are different, and communities are different.
Giving schools thoughtful choices—while maintaining accountability and providing meaningful professional development—allows educators to do what they entered this profession to do: teach the children sitting in front of them instead of simply following the pages of a manual.
I am especially encouraged that Bank Street is now one of the options available to schools. Its long-standing reputation for child-centered learning, inquiry, and developmentally appropriate practice has earned the respect of educators around the world, and I believe many schools will benefit from having access to that philosophy. At the same time, flexibility without preparation can quickly become inconsistency. If New York City is going to embrace curriculum choice, it must invest just as heavily in teacher preparation, coaching, and ongoing professional development as it does in expanding curriculum options. In the end, I don't believe the success of this initiative will be determined by which curriculum a school chooses. It will be determined by whether teachers are given the time, training, and support they need to make that curriculum meaningful. Because no curriculum teaches children on its own. Teachers do.
