[email protected]NOTE: We have integrated two websites/mailing lists. If you receive this and do not want to, please scroll to the bottom and click unsubscribe.
CORRECTION-At ECEA we strive to always provide accurate information. Yesterday, I inadvertantly sent out draft language on the Memo of Dissnet from Colin Stewart. Here is the final version:
TO: Dr. Lisa Roy, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Early Childhood
FROM: Colin Stewart, Member, Rules Advisory Council
DATE: May 26, 2026
RE: Written Statement of Dissent: UPK Ratio Rulemaking Process
Purpose
I am submitting this memorandum as a written statement of dissent pursuant to RAC Bylaws Section 6.3 and the RAC Guidebook’s provisions on dissenting opinions. The May 14, 2026 RAC meeting minutes further authorized RAC members to draft individual letters or briefs explaining their respective positions on the UPK Mega Rule directly to Dr. Roy. This memo serves that
purpose and is submitted for inclusion in the public rulemaking record ahead of the Public Rulemaking Hearing scheduled for May 28, 2026.
I opposed the direction this rulemaking took at the May 14 RAC meeting regarding the proposed ratio reduction. I am putting my concerns in writing because I believe the process that unfolded between the April 9 and May 14 meetings raises serious questions about how the RAC’s role in rulemaking is being treated by the Department.
I want to be clear at the outset: I respect the Department’s authority and the individuals who work there. Nothing in this memo is intended as a personal criticism. But the sequence of events I witnessed requires documentation, and providers across the state deserve to understand what happened.
What Happened: April 9 Through May 14
On April 9, 2026, I presented a policy impact analysis to the Rules Advisory Council examining the financial consequences of the proposed UPK staff-to-child ratio decrease for community-based childcare providers. That analysis, drawing on ECEA survey data from 241 Colorado UPK programs, showed that the 109 programs at Quality Ratings 1 through 3 faced a combined $2.88
million in annual revenue loss, with an average per-program impact of approximately $60,000. It further showed that 234 children would lose access to preschool and that 53% of affected programs were completely unaware the rule change was coming.
Based on that analysis, I moved that the RAC recommend postponing both the ratio decrease to 1:11 (scheduled for July 2026) and the subsequent decrease to 1:10 (scheduled for July 2027) to new effective dates of July 1, 2028 and July 1, 2029, respectively. The motion passed unanimously.
Following that vote, CDEC communicated to providers statewide that the RAC had recommended this delay. Providers across Colorado received that communication as welcome news. Many had been planning around the original timeline and were relieved that the Council had acted on their behalf.
Then, between the April and May meetings, the following occurred:
The meeting materials circulated in advance of the May 14 meeting contained a redlined draft that still reflected the original July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2027 effective dates rather than the postponed dates the RAC had unanimously recommended. On May 11, I emailed the RAC Coordinator to flag this discrepancy and request clarification. I received no response. On May 12, I escalated my inquiry directly to Dr. Roy. I again received no response. I subsequently learned that these emails were intercepted by the state’s spam filtering system and were not delivered until after the May 14 meeting. I note this without further characterization. However, the practical effect was that a RAC member raised a substantive concern about the accuracy of the meeting materials, and that concern went unaddressed before the meeting at which the Department reversed course on the Council’s prior unanimous recommendation.
At the May 14 meeting, CDEC informed the RAC that it had received “significant feedback” sincethe April meeting and proposed new language: proceed with a ratio reduction to 1:11 effective July 1, 2026, while striking the previously proposed reduction to 1:10. The source of this feedback was identified as the Family Voice Council.
The Family Voice Council and the Question of Relevant Expertise
Understanding who the Family Voice Council is matters for evaluating how its feedback should be weighed in this context.
The Family Voice Council is a body established and operated by CDEC itself. Formed in August 2021, it consists of twelve parents and caregivers of children from across Colorado whose urpose is to provide input on the design and delivery of early childhood programs and services. Its members bring lived experience as parents, including experience navigating programs for
children with disabilities, single parenting, and accessing early childhood services. They are doing meaningful work in the areas they represent.
The Family Voice Council does not, however, have expertise in childcare provider operations, program economics, early childhood licensing requirements, staff-to-child ratio compliance, or the financial impact of regulatory changes on licensed childcare businesses. None of the Council’s publicly listed members appear to operate childcare programs or hold backgrounds in early childhood program management or provider finance.
I am not questioning the value of family perspectives in early childhood policymaking. Family voice matters, and families are essential stakeholders in the quality of care their children receive. But when the specific question before the Department is whether a regulatory change is financially survivable for the small businesses that deliver childcare, the relevant expertise sits with the people who run those businesses.
The Rules Advisory Council exists precisely because provider expertise is needed in the rulemaking process. CDEC convened the RAC, asked for its recommendation, received a unanimous answer, and then turned to its own internal parent advisory body for input on a question about provider economics. The Department also consulted Montessori programs and family child care homes, neither of which are subject to the UPK ratio change. The "significant feedback" that was used to justify departing from the RAC’s unanimous recommendation came entirely from groups that are not affected by this rule. The source and substance of that feedback were not disclosed to RAC members until the meeting where the reversal was introduced.
This raises a direct question: if CDEC can use feedback from its own internal council to set aside a unanimous recommendation from the statutory advisory body created for this purpose, without advance transparency into the source or substance of that feedback, what is the functional role of the RAC in the process that Section 26.5-1-105(2), C.R.S., requires?
The Vote Shift
At the April 9 meeting, the motion to delay the ratio reduction passed unanimously. Every RAC member present voted in favor.
At the May 14 meeting, after CDEC introduced its revised language citing the Family Voice Council feedback, my motion to delay the 1:11 ratio change to July 2028 failed on a vote of 4 in favor, 5 opposed, and 3 abstentions. That shift from unanimous support to a divided vote with three members choosing to abstain entirely occurred within the span of a single month. RAC members can speak for themselves about the reasons for their votes, but the shift itself is a
matter of record and it is striking.
It is equally important to note that the Department’s own revised language also failed to achieve a RAC recommendation. Under Bylaws Section 5.6, decisions of the RAC require a simple majority vote of the members present. With 12 members present, the threshold was 7 votes. The motion to recommend CDEC proceed with the 1:11 ratio as drafted received 6
votes in favor, 4 opposed, and 2 abstentions, falling one vote short.
The result is that the RAC was unable to issue any unified recommendation on this rule. Neither the delay nor the Department’s revised language achieved a majority. Under the RAC’s bylaws, the two failed motions, their vote counts, and the accompanying discussion will be forwarded to Dr. Roy for her consideration ahead of the Public Rulemaking Hearing.
The QRIS Exemption Pathway Remains Closed
The original rule included a meaningful exemption: programs at Colorado Shines Level 4 or 5 could maintain the current 1:12 ratio. CDEC’s own materials stated that providers had two years to pursue a higher rating and qualify for this exemption. For many programs, that exemption was the provision that made the rule workable.
That pathway is now closed, and not just temporarily. Governor Polis’s balanced budget proposal for FY 2026-27 included a request to decrease QRIS funding. QRIS observational ratings will be paused for the full fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. Beyond that, CDEC is transitioning from the current QRIS to an entirely new Quality Improvement System over a 19-month period running through January 2028. The rating system is closed to application updates during the transition. Providers cannot pursue a higher rating through the process they were told they would have access to, and the replacement system does not yet exist.
This is happening in a state where more than half of Colorado’s counties are already classified as childcare deserts and families are struggling to afford the cost of care. Providers are being asked to absorb a direct revenue cut from the ratio change while simultaneously navigating a multi-year transition to a rating system that has not been built, in a market where demand for affordable childcare already exceeds supply. The ratio reduction will make both problems worse: providers who lose enrollment capacity will raise prices on remaining families to offset the revenue loss, making care less affordable while simultaneously reducing the number of children they can serve.
The exemption designed to protect providers from the financial impact of the ratio decrease is structurally inaccessible for at least the next two years, and likely longer. This was the central argument for the delay in April. Nothing about that argument has changed.
The 1:11 Ratio Is Not a Compromise
The revised language proposed at the May 14 meeting was characterized as a reasonable compromise. I want to be specific about what this language means in practice for providers.
In Colorado, maximum group size is twice the staff-to-child ratio. At 1:12, a classroom with two teachers can serve 24 children. At 1:11, that same classroom with the same two teachers can serve only 22. Adding a third teacher does not solve the problem because the group size cap is set by the ratio, not by the number of staff. The only options are to disenroll children from classrooms that are currently full or to move them into other classrooms that may already be at capacity. For a program with multiple classrooms, this is a direct and unavoidable revenue loss. The dollar amounts are the figures the ECEA survey documented: tens of thousands of dollars per program, compounding across every affected classroom.
A compromise requires mutual concession. CDEC sought to reduce the ratio to 1:10. The revised proposal lands at 1:11. The Department moved toward its own goal and described the remaining distance as a concession to providers. That is not a compromise. It is a smaller version of the same mandate, imposed on an industry already operating at financial margins where the loss of even one or two enrolled children per classroom is the difference between viability and closure for some programs.
If this rule is adopted at the May 28 hearing, providers will have approximately 30 days to implement changes that directly reduce their enrollment and revenue. There is no transition period, no accessible exemption pathway, and no funding to offset the loss. Programs that have already set their fall enrollment, hired staff, and made commitments to families will be forced to
reverse those decisions mid-cycle.
A genuine compromise exists and it is straightforward: accept the 1:11 ratio, but delay implementation to July 2027 or July 2028, giving providers time to adapt their enrollment, staffing, and financial plans rather than forcing a mid-cycle revenue cut with 30 days notice. This is not a retreat from quality. It is a recognition that a policy change affecting the financial viability of hundreds of programs deserves a transition period, particularly when the exemption
pathway that was supposed to protect those programs does not exist. The Department can achieve its quality goals without destabilizing the providers who deliver the care.
What Happens Next
The Public Rulemaking Hearing is scheduled for Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 1:00 PM. This is the hearing at which Dr. Roy will consider the full public record, the RAC’s discussion, and all input received before making a final decision on whether to adopt these rules.
Because the RAC was unable to reach a consensus recommendation, the voices that appear at the Public Rulemaking Hearing will carry significant weight in shaping the outcome.
I urge every provider who participated in the ECEA survey, every provider who read CDEC’s communication about the postponement and felt relief, and every provider who is now learning that the postponement did not hold, to attend the hearing and speak directly to the impact this rule will have on their program, their staff, and the families they serve.
The questions that deserve answers at that hearing include: Why was a unanimous RAC recommendation set aside on the basis of feedback from CDEC’s own internal parent advisory body, which has no childcare provider expertise? How does CDEC plan to address the closure of the QRIS exemption pathway for providers affected by the ratio change? And what does the Department’s rulemaking process look like when the advisory body created for this purpose cannot influence the outcome?
Formal Requests
I am requesting written responses to the following:
1. What specific feedback did the Department receive from the Family Voice Council regarding the ratio delay? Who was consulted, through what process was that feedback solicited, and how was it evaluated against the RAC’s unanimous recommendation?
2. How does the Department reconcile consulting its own internal parent advisory body on a question that directly affects childcare provider economics, when the statutory advisory body specifically convened for that purpose had already issued a unanimous recommendation?
3. What steps will be taken to ensure that RAC member communications are received and addressed in a timely manner between meetings, so that substantive concerns about meeting materials are resolved before the meetings at which those materials are discussed?
4. How does the Department plan to address the structural inaccessibility of the QRIS exemption pathway for providers subject to the ratio reduction, given that the current rating system is closed and the replacement Quality Improvement System will not be operational until at least January 2028?
Closing
I am committed to serving on this committee in good faith, and I believe the Department’s staff are working hard on behalf of Colorado’s children and families. But good faith requires that the advisory process function as intended. When a unanimous recommendation from the RAC can be set aside on the basis of feedback from the Department’s own internal advisory body, a body
with no provider expertise, solicited through an undisclosed process, and introduced at a meeting where a member’s prior communications went unaddressed, the integrity of that process is called into question.
Under Section 26.5-1-105(2), C.R.S., and RAC Bylaws Section 6.7, the Executive Director must provide a written explanation when adopting a rule inconsistent with the RAC’s recommendations. The April 9 RAC produced a clear, unanimous recommendation. If the Department proceeds with a rule that departs from it, I respectfully request that explanation address each of the concerns raised in this memorandum.
Colorado’s childcare providers, and the families who depend on them, deserve a rulemaking process where provider participation is treated as substantive input rather than as an obstacle to be managed across successive rulemaking cycles. I am asking the Department to demonstrate that the RAC’s role in this process is meaningful.
Respectfully submitted,
Colin Stewart
Member, Rules Advisory Council
Colorado Department of Early Childhood
How to Ensure Your Voice is Heard
Email THIS MORNING: [email protected](opens in new window)
Register to testify at the rulemaking hearing ttoday at 1 p.m.: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfM-upa-4XWAhUnptEXGahpAwtWsySQUSbusFCgr10MSAaEQw/viewform
To Read the CURRENT Set of Public Feedback Emails: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IjpxjqOl-vGptaGLhLmNQXQj0hPeQ4zi
Want to see what our UPK Survey results were for Community Based UPK Providers rated 1-3? See it here: https://www.coloradoecea.org/ratio-decreases-may-2026-feedback
Our Meeting with CDEC Leadership
Yesterday at 4:30 p.m. I met with CDEC leadership. We were told by Dr. Roy that:
1) They like the solutions that have been brought forward, however, they heard from school districts and home providers that they agreed with the decrease. Two sectors of the mixed delivery system believe the decrease should happen. I identified those as technically being competitors to the community based programs where this ratio decrease is most at issue.
2) Programs were spending quality funds to work towards ratings. Programs had the opportunity to rate previously. At ECEA we heard from plenty of providers who delayed in this process but when they got ready to rate they were told they would have to wait until after the refresh.
3) Here's the big one: "Providers signed contracts agreeing to the decrease in ratios." Dawn Odean confirmed this for Dr. Roy. Our problem? Contracts that we are reviewing right now do not contain that language. We are proactively working to confirm language via a signed contract right now. CDEC is working to locate and send the precise language to us. We will provide updates on this on our FB page, as we needed to get this Corrected update out asap. After all, rulemaking is TODAY at 1 p.m. The only reference we can find in the contract says that programs agree to comply with the rules. This process is about changing the rules and so the only way that these contracts hold you to the decrease is if they pass it in rule making today.
Some good news in all of this? CDEC has been telling people on the national stage that they do not intend to pursue a requirement for a BA. When it was pointed out that this is language that is in statute, the response was "it does not work for mixed delivery." GREAT! ECEA expects that the department will put forth language in their next cleanup bill to remove the terminology requiring them to be working towards a "BA to the extent practicable".
|
