After reviewing the proposed changes, I am exceptionally disheartened by the recommended changes. As the director of a childcare organization that serves over 700 children annually, these changes overall will add a significant amount of administrative and financial burden. For every item that reduces (minimally) the administrative burden, there is another that increases it 10-fold.

The savings on activated charcoal are completely undermined by the significant addition of cost and training for epinephrine. I am at a loss how requiring childcare providers to have epinephrine on hand will have any sort of a positive effect on either the supply shortage, or how it will help the children. Parents are required to provide epinephrine to be on premises for their child if needed. It does not appear that this requirement is being removed. If we are now requiring an emergency health plan, then there should be no instances where suddenly and unexpectedly a child has an allergic reaction requiring epinephrine that has not already been provided by the parents/guardians. There has to be another way to look at this problem. It was clear from the comments on the epinephrine town hall that this is something childcare providers overwhelmingly disagree with. Pushing this forward is directly hurting childcare providers. 

The reduction in unnecessary information requirements (parent employment, name/number of child's physician, addresses of emergency contacts, etc.) is a great step in the right direction as this information is utterly useless to the childcare providers. The proposed changes to physical examinations, TB screenings for staff, and training and qualifications for staff are a welcome and reasonable change. However, the requirement for a documented daily health observation adds a significantly larger administrative burden than the paperwork requirements remove. 

While I appreciate that the state is trying to better support children with special needs, the number of children that our program serves would make the new special needs provisions nearly impossible. This would require us to hire a significant number of staff and to implement numerous different programs which we can honestly not afford. At some of our locations this would need to be done for over half of our children. I am not sure how this is tenable and how we are expected to afford a professional to provide this support and these recommendations. There has to be another way to solve this issue. 

Overall, while there are several positives, the end result of these new regulations detrimentally affects childcare providers. This very much feels like an attempt to sway the voting base without any actual thought or care given to how this affects the providers. Additional burden on the childcare industry, which is already on life support, is a bad idea and will continue to cause childcares to close. Childcare providers need a break right now, not new, more restrictive and more administratively burdensome regulations sold to them under the guise of "supporting parents". Parents need their childcare providers to stay open, and they need their costs to stay down. Increasing administrative burden and overhead increases the cost of care and causes childcares to close, reducing available childcare for parents. This legislation would do the opposite of what is intended. 

After the last time these new draft standards were proposed, the public and childcare providers gave overwhelmingly negative feedback that the new proposed standards would:

• increase costs significantly
• cause centers to close
• increase administrative tasks without a corresponding increase in quality or safety
• kill joy in the classroom in ways that make no sense (we will have to get rid of our class parakeet, the zoological program we have that brings reptiles will be cancelled, our sandbox will have to be closed because it's too big to be covered, water play in the summer will have to be severely limited, etc.)

You kept all of the provisions that cause these problems. We warned you. If you don't change them this time, you will be responsible for the continued deterioration of this field. I wish you could be present to see the broken hearts when I tell my kids about their class parakeet. Shame on you.

Suggested Change to Self-Reporting Regulations

I believe the licensing standards should be revised regarding how child care centers are treated when self-reporting incidents of staff misconduct or suspected child abuse. Currently, centers that responsibly self-report and take immediate corrective action—including terminating the employee and ensuring the safety of children—are still penalized and written up, which negatively impacts their licensing safety rating.

This approach discourages transparency and could unintentionally lead to centers hesitating to report serious concerns in order to avoid penalties. Programs that act responsibly to protect children and uphold ethical standards should be recognized, not penalized, for their accountability and commitment to safety.

Please consider updating the list of required out-of-state background checks for child care employees. Many of the current links and contacts are outdated or nonfunctional, making it extremely difficult to obtain background clearances in a timely manner. This often results in delays and unnecessary violations for centers that are actively trying to comply.

For example, California only allows background checks through the Department of Justice, making it nearly impossible for out-of-state employers to complete the process. These outdated requirements should be reviewed and revised to ensure the system is both practical and fair for providers.

I would like clarification in the Standards on the following:

1. the Epipen issue just mentions that the 'code will need to be followed; if this is actually will be going through (we hope not!), we need guidance on how to implement and on which procedures to follow e.g. where to obtain, how often to weigh children just in case they might need an epipen, how long is that 'weight' good for, waiver for parents that do not want their children be accidentally stuck by a random epipen, insurance needed for businesses etc.
2. the authority contributed to the superintendent is very vague, it seems the superintendent can make decions for schools based on unclear criteria
3. the renewal licensing visit should be an announced visit, so we can make sure no one has a day off, or we do have a special event. Also, the renewal could be every 3-4 years, as we get 'checked' every six months anyway.
4. It is a burden on the school to do a daily health observation as soon after arrival as possible. Drop off time is already a busy time, so why add this to the already morning rush, and putting more work on the staff's plate.
5. To not force people that claim religious exempt from providing a physical is discriminatory, and might lead to others not wanting to provide that either. This should be a business decision made at the school level, and not something licensing can mandate.

The regulations for childcare should be to create family day homes and centers that ensure safety and compliance. The inspections seem to be a I got you instead of educating and working with centers that are striving to be compliant. Initial inspections for new centers should 1. not be written up for ratios because you are newly open with know way to identify enrollment or sustain employees. 2. Minor issues like micro tears in changing pads should not be written as a violation but a secondary requirement to have repairs completed before next inspection. 3. We need to have regulations that prevent parents from defaulting on payments and leaving and moving to the next center with there subsidy. 4. Parents that receive assistance should be required to give a 2 week notice as instructed by the contracts with the facilities they belong to unless they are being kicked out. 5. Centers need to have inspections that are for improvement of the facility. We are violating good centers and missing bad centers and waiting until major things happen.

Daycare centers are faced with the difficulty of hiring people that need to clear backgrounds, get CPR certified, take trainings and then are unable to pay them a living wage. We are written up for being out of ratio, when people quit working to go and make more money doing fast food. We need something in place that allows centers, that would otherwise be in ratio to have 60 days to replace the employee that quit. We need regulations that motivate and encourage things to keep children safe. These regulations should be a push to have well run centers. 

I am writing to express concern regarding the proposed standards for "Daily activities" under 8VAC20-781-310, specifically regarding visual media. While prohibiting media for infants is a necessary step, the current draft remains insufficient because it permits toddlers to view up to two hours of media daily without parental notification and creates a loophole for "educational content" that could theoretically allow unlimited screen time for children over two. This lack of specific restrictions prevents parents from effectively monitoring the total screen time exposure their children receive and does not align with best practices for early childhood development.

I strongly urge the Board to amend Subsection C to place control of media consumption in the hands of parents, similar to the existing standards for field trips. Instead of arbitrary time limits that are difficult to enforce, the regulation should require that written parental permission—either specific or via a detailed blanket agreement—be secured before any visual media is used. Adopting this parental consent model ensures transparency, protects children from unchecked screen exposure, and respects the right of families to regulate media usage for their young children.

Our Neighborhood Child Development Center has been writing articulately about the licensing standards and their impact. I urge you to listen to them. I hope you will consider adopting a minimalist approach like the one they outlined here. https://oncdc.substack.com/p/mimimalist-child-care-standards 

I think what resonates with me most about what they have written is:

• reducing the policing nature of early childhood programs by updating our supervision expectations to match something more realistic while keeping children safe
• reducing not adding to reporting to the department, further considering a partnership rather than policing approach
• evidence should be present for any increase in regulation

The current regulations have no restrictions on children’s media use, and I agree that we should limit children's media use but this regulation is the worst of both worlds. It limits providers while still leaving parents in the dark about what media their children are consuming. Because of the way that it is written, it allows for significant visual media use in early childhood programs, up to 2 hours per day starting at 16 months old. This is not in the best interest of our children.

Maintain the ban on visual media use for infants. Offer parents some means of being involved in visual media selection and use for children toddler age and older. It could be a permission form like a field trip form or it could be a requirement to share the visual media used the way we share lunch menus. Parents have a right to know what their children are watching. We don't need strict oversight by the state if we focus on regulating for parental envolvement. 

Is the proposed regulation regulating something that is happening or likely to happen?

Yes! Children are often watching screens while in child care.

Is this a health or safety concern?

Yes, AAP recommends no passive screen use for children under two and that older children’s screen use is limited.

Current licensing regulations do not have any requirements for providers’ use of visual media. Children in child care can watch TV or play video games at any age for any amount of time!

What is the appropriate expectations to address the safety concern?

Good news! The new regulations limit children’s use of screens. The draft standards state:

8VAC20-781-310 Daily activities

C. If the center uses media such as television, videos, video games, software, and computers, the following shall apply:

1. For infants, the use of visual media is prohibited.

2. For toddlers, media use up to two hours per day is permitted if the center operates more than six hours per day.

3. For children two and older, not more than a total of two hours per day, when content is not based on curriculum or educational content.

4. All media provided by the center shall be limited to age-appropriate programs and meet all the requirements in subsection A of this section.

D. Requirements in subdivision 3 of subsection C of this section do not apply to school-age children who attend educational programming that incorporates technology into curriculum learning activities.

Bad news! This still allows children starting at 16 months of age to watch television for 2 hours each day without any requirement to notify parents. For children over two if the content is considered educational, which includes shows like cocomelon, there is no limit on the time that screens can be on for children.

Well regulated visual media use in ECE might look like this:

We can do better! We propose that we put control of media in the hands of parents exactly like the standards require for field trips. Our draft language!

If the center uses media such as television, videos, video games, software, and computers, the following shall apply

1. For infants, the use of visual media is prohibited.

2. Written parental permission for media use shall be secured before the scheduled activity.

3. If a blanket permission is used instead of a separate written permission it must detail the times and types of media that will be permitted.

4. All media shall be limited to age-appropriate programs.

5. Parental permission is not required for school-age children who attend programming that incorporates technology into curriculum learning activities if disclosed in their parental materials.

If this feels too burdensome, we think a basic reporting system where there was a schedule of visual media that is posted to parents the way that a lunch menu is posted and updated would at least be progress towards informing parents.

New Proposed Regulation

Notify parents and the department when there is a lapse in supervision.

8VAC20-781-400 Parent communication and notification

C. The center shall notify the parent immediately and provide written documentation pursuant to subsection B of this section if the following incidents occur:

4. A situation in which the child’s whereabouts is or was unknown, including a lost or missing child, a child left unattended in a vehicle or on the playground, or a child who wandered away unattended from the facility or assigned group.

*AND*

8VAC20-781-70 Attendance records; reporting

C. The center shall inform the superintendent as soon as practicable, but not to exceed one business day, of the circumstances surrounding the following incidents:

4. A situation in which a child’s whereabouts was unknown, including a child left unattended or unsupervised, a lost or missing child, or a child who wandered away unattended from the facility.

Is the proposed regulation regulating something that is happening or likely to happen?

Yes. One of the things that the child care standards regulate is incident reporting. There have been recent cases in which children have wandered away from facilities or been left unsupervised and the current licensing standards only require reporting of a missing child when local authorities have been contacted for help. We agree that there is a need for an update in the requirements for communication.

Is this a health or safety concern?

Yes, young children need the continuous care of a trusted adult. The language here is quite unclear. If a child is hiding in a classroom as the rest of the class goes outside they have been separated from their group? Does it matter if it is one minute, five minutes, or a half an hour? If the child runs away in a dysregulated state at what point are they lost? If a child is left on a playground with another class but they were technically not alone, does that need to be reported?

What is the appropriate regulation to address the safety concern?

Overall, we think reporting and tracking incidents is good. We think notifying parents about lapses in supervision is a good thing (8VAC20-781-400 C 4). We also think that parental notification is sufficient and notifying the department (8VAC20-781-70 C 4) is unnecessary and likely to cause unintended consequences.

We would like to see the notification of the department removed or kept as currently written in the standards. At the very least clarification is needed. Would a child who hid in the loft during the transition outside but then was noticed by the teachers one minute later warrant a report to the department? These regulations should focus on clear observable standards and they are not clear.

What are the possible unintended consequences of the current proposed regulation?

If the regulation goes into effect as written we think there are a number of possible unintended consequences that could seriously impact children, families, and teachers.

There is a culture of policing, licensing inspectors are seen as police by educators and that creates a significant amount of stress in early childhood programs. Adding requirements like this amplifies that dynamic and will add stress in a field in which retention is already difficult.

Reporting to the department provides a paperwork burden to the department both in managing incoming reports and in deciding which ones warrant further investigation. The inspection system is already burdened by the injury reporting that was added a few years ago and it is already unclear what warrants further inspection. This is an area of concern that is ripe for biased implementation of the standards and this proposed regulation will likely make that worse.

It is unclear what is required to be reported which will likely lead to over and under reporting which will lead to more licensing violations for not properly reporting. Programs that report more will be seen as neglecting their supervision requirements while small lapses simply go unreported at other programs.

If everything that could possibly meet this standard is reported there will be a massive amount of reports to the department. Those of us with young children know that they hide or run away at times. There are times where you get to the hallway and do your second count only to find someone was hiding. Those systems working and quickly getting the child back to their group should not be called out. Even in high quality programs there are times in which there are lapses in supervision.

If the stress above and the pressure to avoid any types of supervision lapse becomes serious children will be impacted. Children who run away or hide will be expelled from early childhood programs because programs fear that their license will be threatened if they make these reports. Children feel the stress of their adults and children who are already struggling will be most impacted. There are staggering statistics about the long term downstream effects of expulsion from early childhood programs and this regulation could further marginalize children whose response to stress is to flee.

We would like 8VAC20-781-70 C 4 removed from the proposed regulation.

I am writing to offer specific feedback on the proposed regulations regarding lapses in supervision. I strongly support the proposed requirement in the Parent Communication and Notification section, which mandates that parents be notified immediately if their child is left unattended or wanders away. Parents are the primary guardians of their children's safety and have an absolute right to know about any supervision lapse, regardless of duration. Transparency builds trust, and this requirement is a positive step for family engagement.

However, I strongly oppose the parallel requirement in the Attendance Records and Reporting section, which mandates reporting these same incidents to the superintendent within one business day. The current language is dangerously ambiguous. It fails to distinguish between a critical safety failure and a minor, momentary occurrence—such as a child hiding in a classroom loft for sixty seconds during a transition. Requiring reports for every minor instance will flood the department with paperwork, distracting from genuine safety threats, and increase the "policing" atmosphere that exacerbates teacher stress and turnover.

Furthermore, this regulation creates a perverse incentive for programs to expel children who exhibit age-typical behaviors like hiding or running when dysregulated, simply to protect the program’s license. I urge the Board to remove the new reporting requirement to the department or restrict it solely to instances where local authorities are contacted, while keeping the robust parental notification requirement intact.

Parents should absolutely be made aware of lapses in supervision of their child, but the requirement to report every lapse in supervision, for any period of time, to the Department will have harmful consequences, including discrimination against neurodivergent children. All young children occasionally wander away or hide when they don't want to move to a different activity (e.g., come inside from the playground, change classrooms). This tendency is sometimes higher in children with neurodevelopmental diagnoses like autism or ADHD, and childcare centers will be disinclined to enroll students with these diagnoses under the belief that doing so will result in more reports to the Department and endanger their licensure. 

We believe teacher to child ratios should not be able to be changed with an allowable variance.

New Proposed Regulation

Solidifies the pandemic allowance that programs can temporarily operate at a higher teacher child ratio than allowed in the standards.

8VAC20-781-270 Staff-to-children ratio and group size requirements

C. In accordance with Part V of 8VAC20-820 and with approval by the superintendent, a center may temporarily alter the staff-to-child ratios (i) by one child for groups of children from birth up to school-age eligibility, and (ii) by two children for groups of children school-age eligible through age 12. Under this provision, group sizes three times the approved ratios may be implemented for children ages birth up to school-age eligibility. Group size for school-age children shall meet the requirements in subsection A of this section.

Why has this been added

During the pandemic early childhood programs faced severe staffing shortages and so the department allowed programs to notify the department and the families and temporarily increase the teacher-child ratios. Adding of this standard (8VAC20-781-270 C) allows the practice of higher ratios to continue through the variance process. 

Our concern

This was a bad idea when it was offered and continues to be a bad idea.

We do not believe that it is safe to have five infants cared for by one teacher. We cannot imagine that safe care much less quality care can be offered if there are six toddler or nine two year olds with one teacher. I want to encourage people to imagine what it might be like to be responsible for caring for, loving, educating, and supporting nine two year olds or five six month olds. This is not safe.

Burnout in early childhood is real and staffing struggles are difficult. Nothing will push educators out of the field faster than increasing the teacher to child ratios. This is ill advised. 

We advocate for removal of 8VAC20-781-270 C.

I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed increase in staff to children ratios. As an experienced early childhood educator of more than 15 years, I strongly oppose the proposed increase. Young children NEED secure relationships with attuned caregivers and the proposed number of children, toddlers, infants per caregiver will make what is already difficult in a classroom environment nearly impossible. This is not good for children, families or teachers. The proposed increase will decrease quality of care, attunement and supervision wherever it is implemented, increase teacher overwhelmed and burnout, and decrease the quality of the services families are depending on. Please remove this section from the proposed amendment. 

Sincerely, 

Robin Criscuolo DeButts 

Robin’s Nest Nature Playschool

Crozet, VA

When there is a change in a regulation the Office of Regulatory Management completes an Economic Review Form and the form published with these proposed standards is intentionally misleading. The Economic Review Form published states that the new standards will likely result in additional net revenue of $35,902.40 for each licensed child day center. This is based on the ill advised and already allowed ratio increases. 

While the economic review forms are always subjective because each program is different and the impact of regulations is difficult to estimate. In this case the largest numbers in the document are false. The Economic Review Form states that programs could have a direct benefit of $37,600 as a result of increased staff-to-children ratios. This is inappropriate to include. We wrote yesterday about how the increased ratios are ill advised and though we advocate against them even if they pass they would never account for increased revenue for each child care center.

There are three problems with the inclusion of revenue from increased staff-to-child ratios: it is already allowed by the current regulations, the standard specifically says it is temporary, and it is largely inaccessible to programs. 

• This increase in staff-to-child ratios was allowed during the pandemic if programs opted in to the increased ratios and communicated with families. 200 of 2,600 programs in the state programs opted into this - this is less than 10% of programs. Those programs may have realized that increased revenue as a result. Therefore it is inappropriate to include the revenue in this economic review form.

• Children in our care are not widgets on an assembly line, 90% of programs did not opt into this increase because it is impractical. Many programs, like ours, operate below the state mandated ratios to better serve the children in their care. Most programs construct classrooms based on square footage required to serve a specific number of children which was based on the original teacher child ratios. 

• Even if more programs were to use the allowable variance to increase their teacher child ratio the standard says “temporarily alter their staff-to-child ratios” which means that programs could not use this standard to find, enroll, and maintain a higher level of enrollment and increased income.

We should have a true economic review that does not include this pre-existing and inaccessible ratio increase as a basis for justifying the increased cost of the rest of the updated standards. While this regulation does move towards reducing some burdens for providers, it actually will cost providers more to provide care under these new regulations. This regulatory change is actually costing $1,698 at least based if this ratio related revenue which was already realized by the 10% of programs opting in and never realistic for 90% of providers is removed.

Ninety percent of programs didn't take advantage of this option to increase ratios when it was implemented because it is ill advised. Increasing ratios is not in the best interest of children. Doing so and then claiming that it will save providers money is misleading. 

An updated Economic Review Form is needed. 

Children love playing in the sand. ECE programs should have large sandboxes! The new language of 8VAC20-781-250 J will be problematic for big sand areas. We urge you to keep the old language.

With the expectation of laundering soft materials every week it would limit the amount of soft sensory materials available to children inside the classroom. Instead of having comfy couches to read and connect on children would be exposed to hard plastic, metal, or wooden chairs which seems overly sterilizing for a space for preschool aged children. This also means that children will not have the same access to dress up and materials which greatly foster imagination and group work. On the other hand there will be less materials available because the constant washing of it will deteriorate the material as well as a waste of water if we are constantly laundering materials. 

The new regulations are going to just directly lead to classrooms getting more plain and sterile, a trend that already has been hastened by numerous other policies. 

"When used by children, the center shall wash stuffed animals, cloth dolls, dress-up clothes, and pillows or removable covers, at least once a week or when soiled"

. Removing all covers, along with washing all the other soft materials, is going to make maintaining soft items in the classroom exponentially harder. Students will have less to play with. Even if those items were substituted for other items that aren't soft, it's still going to end up depriving them of new sensory experiences, comfort from a soft toy, and lots of imaginative play. Not to mention that even if centers are able to keep up with those cleaning requirements their materials would wear out FAR faster than the otherwise would. The cost in time and replacements would directly impact every classroom and lead to a worse overall experience for the kids.

Our school has a box turtle that has been with us for years, and the interaction children get with her is so important to their development of healthy respect and understanding of reptiles. While there is slight risk of salmonella, the benefits far outweigh the risks. If something must be proposed regulating the keeping of reptiles in child care centers, perhaps regulating the cleaning of hands after handling and being with the reptile.

While the new standards allow for the use of stock epinephrine, they miss an opportunity to allow for the use of Narcan (Naloxone) which is a lifesaving medication. Unfortunately, opiates are prevelent in many areas, and allowing this medication to be stocked in schools could be lifesaving in the unfortunate case of a child getting a controlled substances that's overdose could be reversed.

The way this regulation is worded implies that even for the smallest lapses in supervision, for instance a kid ducking behind a corner and then popping back out, would require a formal notice to both their guardians AND the superintendent. What an entirely unrealistic and frankly unenforceable requirement for early child hood education. There are simply always going to be times when this happens. A kid could be playing peek-a-boo with a teacher using a door and we'd have to inform the department of education??? Truly a ridiculous regulation that needs to be reworked completely.

The proposed regulation 8VAC20-781-70 C 4's language around reporting to school authorities when a child wanders away from a group is an unnecessary extra step for teachers who are busy with teaching. This is information that is best kept between caregivers such as parents and teachers, and the student involved. This change will not help anyone chase down a child playing hide-and-seek nor will it help us explain to the child why this is unsafe. Please reconsider this proposed legislation.

Many childcare sites do not have an AED easily accessible to them in the case of a child, parent, or teacher going into cardiac arrest. Adding a requirement for centers to have a working AED on site can be lifesaving.

There is not a childcare professional on this planet who would call the existing state ratios ideal. Alas we are bound by material limitations. To increase ratios is not only to run the risk of worsening care quality for the inheritors of the future, children—and this would be bad enough—but to guarantee worsened quality, less attentive and individualized care, and contribute ultimately to the slow death of this field altogether via higher workloads and stress rates atop an already absurd rate of turnover. If that is not indeed the Board’s aim, it would seem an explanation is in order.

Another question came to mind when reviewing some proposed changes: how many cumulative years of in-person early childhood care experience does the board have? How many of these years occurred in the 21st century?

I must reiterate the flagrant shortsightedness of this change will not reflect well on the ultimately replaceable Board.

The intention of 8VAC20-781-420 D is to be sure soft things are kept clean; I think adding that they shall be washable is useful, but having to wash everything each week will create a huge burden and ultimately likely decrease young children’s access to soft items in their environment.
Already tired teachers will reduce the stuffed animals, dress up clothes, and floor pillows that make classrooms cozy because weekly washing is not sustainable. In our program, we wash things like the covers for our Nugget couch cushions and futon covers monthly, which seems a lot more practical and much less likely to have unintended consequences. Imagine a child’s stuffed animal, how many washes do you think it could sustain. Required weekly washing will decrease the quality and the quantity of the materials available to children.  

As I read through the proposed standards, I can't help but see the changes that my coteachers and myself will need to make in order to meet them. 

The sight and sound and physical barrier proposed changes will create issues for infants, and continues challenges that happen with older children. In the nursery, we have a gate separating the sleeping space from the play space. Without the gate, a teacher will turn into a gatekeeper. This adds stress to the teachers and children and is not developmentally appropriate. 

It is developmentally appropriate to safely alter the environment in a way that takes away unsafe temptations. Easy examples are outlet covers on outlets and putting sharp objects out of reach. Putting a physicaly yet see through barrier between spaces is a no brainer. Yet the new language will require a teacher to sit with sleeping children and not be able to move out of that space to help awake children or meet the needs of the classroom. Teachers are needed to snuggle sad babies, create an engaging environment, and sing songs to help create a welcoming space. Fucntionally, the are needed to warm up bottles, change diapers, help with laundry, and so much more to keep our school functional. 

Children need opportunities to practice new skills with teacher support. At our school, older children's materials are in the hallway directly outside of the classroom. Older children are capable of walking to their own materials and walking back with their water or jacket without direct supervision. This helps teach responsibility and ownership over taking care of themselves. All while being close enough to talk to a teacher if they have a problem.

Children should be within sight or sound supervision at all time. Infants need more help than older children. Children do not need to be seen every second of their day. That sounds overwhelming. 

Not only do the children at Our Neighborhood love our two, very large and awkwardly sized sandboxes, but so does my own child. Our sandboxes have no bottom, and drain easily with no outside force, supporting them to be clean. The former language of "Sandboxes with bottoms which prevent drainage shall be covered when not in use." should be kept. rather than change it in such a way that sand play will be more inaccessible for children in any childcare setting

It is vital for all children to have access to a sandbox. Children love playing in the sand. ECE programs should have large sandboxes! The new language of 8VAC20-781-250 J will be problematic for big sand areas. We urge you to keep the old language.

The changes involving laudnering soft items sounds exhausting and problematic. Needing to wash everything weekly isn't fucntional. It will lead to a lot of soft materials being thrown out and the introduction of hard plastic materials. 

As it is, our school is constantly doing laundry. We have two sets of washers and dryers. Most days we wash 4 full loads of laundry. Washing all our stuffed animals, cloth dolls, dress up clothes, pillows and removable covers weekly will easily add 4 loads of laundry a week. As it stands, we are washing all of these materials regularly. Everything that is mouthed, or otherwise soiled is getting washed. 

Beyond that, it takes us hours to fold, sort, and put away all the laundry. Adding in every cloth item in the school will not work. If it does make it through the laudnry, it's unlikely it will make it back into the classroom in a timley manner. Untimately, many materials will be removed from the classroom. 

Children need soft places to relax, to feel safe, to safely throw, to safely jump, and so much more. They are necessary. Children will miss couches, and stuffed animals to cuddle. It will not add value.

It would make sense for couch cushions to be laundered when soiled, and monthly. Weekly is simply not fucntional

  There is progress in these standards and additional drafts are needed to have a supportive frame work for safe and high quality early child care environments. The draft link below is a helpful next step. It's important to keep up this work because additional drafts will result in a better document. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I1H7bxr9jtoljzkYXVYJRxp9gIY6mkHC1L58lrOud7Q/edit?tab=t.0

  As an educator it's important to me that children are able to freely move their bodies. To know that the adults that are advocating for them see them as competent so they can grow up feeling self confident. 

The new standards say that children must be in sight and sound supervision, without separation by a physical barrier. This language is unclear on what is considered a physical barrier- is an infant in a playpen not considered properly supervised? What about a crib? Or a baby gate? This change in language is impractical and centers will have to spend money to change their physical environments or place more staff in the classrooms. Our center uses baby gates to create separation between spaces while still allowing teachers to fully supervise children. If I am on one side of a gate, I can fully supervise children on the other side and quickly assist when needed. When a gate breaks, children do not stay in the classroom and run down the hall, so if we cannot have gates there would be a far higher number of supervision lapses due to children leaving the classroom. 

The new standards say that each of those supervision lapses would need to be reported to the Department. This will create a huge administrative burden on teachers, who will need to fill out more paperwork, as well as on Department employees, who will need to review said paperwork. If a child runs into the hallway as we’re getting ready to leave the room and I follow them a few seconds later, do I have to report it as a lapse in supervision? Clarity as to what specifically is considered a lapse in supervision would be helpful. I fully support reporting these lapses in supervision to parents, and I feel reporting each incident to the department is unnecessary and will have unintended consequences. 

If the stress and the pressure to avoid any types of supervision lapse becomes serious children will be impacted. Children who run away or hide will be expelled from early childhood programs because programs fear that their license will be threatened if they make these reports. Children feel the stress of their adults and children who are already struggling will be most impacted. There are staggering statistics about the long term downstream effects of expulsion from early childhood programs and this regulation could further marginalize children whose response to stress is to flee.

Additionally, the standards state that children under 10 must remain in sight and sound supervision at all times, unless they are in the bathroom, in which case they can be out of sight supervision for a few minutes. I would like to see this exception extended to preschool-age children who are briefly in a safe space, such as a hallway, where they remain in sound supervision. In our school, children’s cubbies are in the hallway, and it feels unnecessarily restrictive that eight- and nine-year-olds (who regularly go without sight or sound supervision both at home and at public school) are not trusted to step into the hallway for a minute or two to retrieve something from their cubby. It means each time they want to retrieve something, a teacher must stop what they are doing, and stand in the hallway to wait for the child.

I encourage you to keep the old language regarding supervision.

I want to advocate against increasing teacher:child ratios on behalf of both teacher and child wellness. There is already a shortage of people willing to work in childcare, given most centers staff to maximum ratios and pay minimum wages. More children per teacher will lead to increased teacher burnout and worsen the shortage. It will decrease the quality of care children receive, and lead to more accidents and injuries. 

The Office of Regulatory Management claims that this change in the standards will net centers $35,902.40 in additional revenue. However, centers have already been able to opt into these increased ratios, and fewer than 10% of centers have done so. The economic benefit is blatantly misleading. 

Imagine being alone, caring for 5 babies, 6 toddlers, or 8 two-year-olds. Imagine being alone with 16 two-year-olds during nap time when suddenly, 9 of them wake up at the same time and refuse to stay on their mats (because yes, that happens). I have to believe that these standards are being proposed by people who have never worked in childcare, or they would know how absurd and ridiculous this idea is. Children feel the stress of their adults, and if childcare workers are more stressed and burned out due to higher ratios, it will lead to less emotionally healthy children since they will feed off of that stress.

You can read more about this on ONCDC’s Substack here.

The new proposed standards include language stating that all cloth items must be washed weekly or when soiled. Having clean materials available is important! However this language will lead to unintended consequences. Cleaning all cloth items weekly is unreasonable. Not all centers have on-site laundry facilities, and even for those that do, this would create an unmanageable amount of laundry each week. This will lead to materials not being available to children, either because they cannot get washed in a timely manner, or more likely, because centers will choose to get rid of materials like baby dolls and dress up clothes due to the burden of washing them weekly. This standard will lead to centers having less variety in the materials offered to children, and will lead to more sterile centers. Unrestricted play and access to a wide variety of materials is so important for children’s development. Dramatic play in particular helps children take on new perspectives, develop empathy, and process their world. Losing access to the materials that allow them to engage in this type of play will have lasting impacts.

Reading through the changes made to existing licensing standards, it is disappointing to see the VA DOE growing more rigid in their regulations. I can understand the impulse to tighten the reigns when you fear for the safety of young children, but acting out of fear does not serve our children. As a passionate Early Childhood Educator, I know that my number one job is to keep the children in my care safe: physically and emotionally. But keeping them safe and wrapping them in bubble wrap are two very different things. When we lead with fear, we undermine the inherent competence of our children, we communicate to them that they cannot be trusted, that they are vessels for our superior knowledge. Ultimately, we stifle their growth. The children in my care are curious, empathetic, vibrant, growing humans and these proposed standards will diminish that. Will make them smaller. 

In 8VAC20-781-260 F. you have added a clause that reads, "without separation by a physical barrier" to the language around sight and sound supervision. If I am already expected to be able to keep each of my students in sight and sound supervision, adding more restrictive language to the standard reinforces the idea that my students up until the age of 10, cannot be trusted to keep themselves safe and return to me without me hovering right behind them. What is the purpose of this clause? What kind of environment do you imagine I am teaching in? What kind of environment will you regulate me into teaching in with this language? Children need their adults to trust that they can go out to explore, in that trust they see themselves as the competent, capable humans they are, it expands their capacity to learn and build greater self confidence. I would prefer to see a loosening of the language around sight and sound supervision, a regulation that differentiates between an infant and an eight year old. But in lieu of language that allows my students the small freedoms we know they can handle, I would petition that you strike the new language from 8VAC20-781-260 F.

The addition of standard 8VAC20-721-420 D, regarding the laundering of soft materials provided by the center, will create an undue burden on facilities. Keeping the soft materials clean that are used in our centers is obviously important. Requiring everyone to launder their: stuffed animals, cloth dolls, dress up clothes, floor pillows and removable covers once a week will have the unintended impact of removing the majority of those materials from our classrooms. The center I work at has two sets of washing machines and dryers and we are already doing multiple loads of laundry every day. It is unrealistic that we could continue to provide our children with the myriad soft spaces, cozy corners, dress up clothes, baby dolls, cushions for fort building, scarves and fabrics for exploring self expression, soft materials used for self regulation, etc. that we currently provide. Imagine for a minute how devastated our children would be to come back to school and see these materials greatly diminished. In 8VAC20-721-420 B you require that we provide "an adequate supply" of various materials, but this subsequent requirement makes that incredibly unrealistic. What is a classroom without children exploring perspective taking with a diverse closet of dress up clothes? What is Early Childhood without the construction of soft forts? My students experience so much joy, explore and do so much learning, through the use of soft materials and this standard will take that from them. I would urge you to remove this language.

The final regulation that I want to address in this comment is 8VAC20-781-610 L. The previous language said, "No child shall be allowed to eat or drink while walking around." Now the language reads, "Children shall remain seated while eating or drinking and shall not eat while riding in vehicles." This language change might seem innocuous, but I invite you to join me on the playground with my students. Our students, like most young children, play hard. When we are outside they are moving. Playing tag, working on building and sand moving projects, dancing and leaping and climbing. They need regular opportunities to re-hydrate. This language would require them to sit down for even the shortest water break. What do you think will happen? Teachers on the playground will be required to start policing our students to ensure they sit while they drink their water. After enough redirections, what I can only imagine will happen is that my students will pause to drink water less frequently. Frustrated by their teachers inane instruction to sit for the four seconds it will take them to drink water, they will simply stop to drink less. The language of the previous regulation is adequate to avoid unsafe eating and drinking situations. I beg you to strike this new language. It serves no one and will harm the children in my care. 

I believe that the VA DOE and the majority of Early Childhood Educators want to keep our children safe while providing stimulating, engaging, delightful, fulfilling environments in which children are trusted, loved and learning all the time. I really believe that some of the edits to the Standards for Licensed Child Day Centers currently proposed will diminish the environments we are able to provide for our children and undermine their own inherent competence. Please consider the voices of Educators who are in the classroom every day. We are the ones who will be on the front lines of these changes. And we can see what they spell for the quality of ECE we will be able to provide. I would love to hear from y'all. 

We appreciate the work that has been done to bring the Standards along.  The following suggestions remain.

781-30

G. Center shall implement policies for the possession and administration of undesignated or stock epinephrine.

Neither the DOE or Centers are not ready to implement the stock epi pen law.  We are child care providers not medical professionals.  Without the assistance and guidance of both the Departments of Education and of Health, it is unfair to simply add this section into the Standards now saying Centers go forth and implement policies to comply with the stock epi pen law (22.1-289-059).  Centers need DOE (and DOH) clarification, guidance and mechanisms in place for implementation (a standing health department order for approximately 3 weight based stock epi pens per Center, a payment mechanism addressing the cost of the epi pens and training, guidance regarding the logistics of things unique to Childcare i.e., whether the pens must go on field trips so we actually need a duplicate epi pens). 

This also contradicts other sections of the Standards -- 781-530 - the Center may possess and administer prescription medication "only to the child identified on the prescription label in accordance with the prescriber's instructions..."    and with all the appropriate paperwork.  We cannot do this with stock epi pens.

781-50

B. 8.    Previous child day care and schools attended by the child, as well as any child day care or school concurrently attended by the child.

We are trying to streamline the enrollment process and paperwork burden on families and staff (i.e., the removal of the address requirement for emergency contacts).  The addition of a requirement for parents to disclose “previous child care centers attended” as well as those "concurrently attended" seems like an unnecessary piece of information and potential privacy issue.  Centers may choose to ask, but the state should not require this information be disclosed.  If the parents skip this line on the enrollment application, Centers are left to track down the information or face a violation.  Again,  a waste of Leadership staff's time to what end?  This seems more like a "gotcha" for violations rather than an attempt to gather information actually needed to care for a given child.    

781-80

D. 1.    T.B. assessments.…shall have been completed within 90 calendar days prior to coming in contact with children at the center.

Allow TB tests to be valid for a previous 180 day (6 month) prior window.  Anything that can be done to streamline the hiring process and/or lessen the barriers ($$ of assessment) should be considered.  Item 2.A. states “…any staff member who develops symptoms compatible with Tuberculosis disease, regardless of the date of the last TB screening or assessment, shall immediately obtain and submit a new Tuberculosis screening.  (Therefore, a safeguard is already in place).  Allows for greater portability of teachers within the industry.  

781-130

B.8.     (ii) How the center will ensure that each group of children receives care by consistent staff or team of staff members.

Replace the word “ensure” with “will strive” or “will attempt”.  With teacher turnover and teacher callouts, we do our best to keep consistent staffing but flexibility is needed.

781-140

B.        The ongoing training shall not include the training required by 8VAC-781-130 B or C. (“C” is First Aid/CPR)

One of the most important certification training staff members receive is First Aid and CPR.

Its importance is devalued when staff does not receive credit hours for this training.  We contend that First Aid and CPR training should count towards staff annual training hour requirement.

781-270

B.        Child to staff Ratios

Consider update to four year old ratio, which currently is same as the preschool or 3 year old ratio.  Four year olds are one year from kindergarten where classroom size is public school setting is often 1:30.  Even in child care setting, ratio increases to 1:18 when a child turns 5.  Suggest a return to the 1:12 for four year olds.

781-400      Accident Reporting

B. 7.    Future action to prevent reoccurrence.

Add:  Future action to prevent reoccurrence, add "if applicable" because not every incident has a future action.  Children get bumped or fall even when well-supervised and properly instructed.  For example, when a toddler trips over his own feet while walking across the classroom and gets a bump.  We are left to write future actions like "remind toddler to be careful when learning to walk."  When a child is playing on the playground and falls down skinning his knee, we are again left to get creative with a "future action."  Completely agree with the report of the incident but the requirement of a future action in all cases fails to recognize the nature of childhood and wastes teacher and leadership staff's time.          

781-610

J.         Tables and high chair trays shall be cleaned and sanitized before and after each use for feeding.

Change to:  Tables and high chair trays shall be cleaned and sanitized before each use for feeding and cleaned after each use for feeding.   (Omitting the requirement to sanitize after use because you are going to sanitize AGAIN before the next use anyway.)

Current Regulations

Current regulations require strict supervision of children under 10 using actual sight and sound supervision.

8VAC20-780-340. Supervision of children.

F. Children under 10 years of age always shall be within actual sight and sound supervision of staff, except that staff need only be able to hear a child who is using the restroom provided that:

1. There is a system to assure that individuals who are not staff members or persons allowed to pick up a child in care do not enter the restroom area while in use by children; and

2. Staff check on a child who has not returned from the restroom after five minutes. Depending on the location and layout of the restroom, staff may need to provide intermittent sight supervision of the children in the restroom area during this five-minute period to assure the safety of children and to provide assistance to children as needed.

New Proposed Regulation

8VAC20-781-260 Supervision of children

F. For children under 10 years of age, the licensee shall ensure sight and sound supervision by staff who are always physically present without separation by a physical barrier, except that staff need only be able to hear a child who is using the restroom provided that:

Our Proposal

1. For children under preschool age, the licensee shall ensure sight and sound supervision by staff who are always physically present, except when a child is in the restroom.

2. For preschool children and older, the licensee shall ensure sight and sound supervision by staff who are always physically present, except for short periods staff need only be able to hear a child who is in a safe location (such as a child who is using the restroom or retrieving a backpack from the hall) provided that:

   1. Video equipment, intercom systems, or other technological devices shall not substitute for staff being able to directly see or hear children.

   2. There is a system to assure that individuals who are not staff members or persons allowed to pick up a child in care are not present in the area with the children;

   3. Staff check on a child who has not returned within five minutes. 

3. School age children shall be within sight and sound supervision of staff except when the following requirements are met:

   1. Staff are nearby so they can provide immediate intervention if needed;

   2. There is a system to ensure that staff know where each child is and what they are doing;

   3. There is a system to ensure that individuals who are not staff members or persons allowed to pick up children in care are not present in the areas where children are not under sight supervision; and

   4. Staff provide sight and sound supervision of the children at variable and unpredictable intervals not to exceed 15 minutes.

Why?

Teachers regularly use the separation of a physical barrier while supervising children by sight and sound. Imagine a high quality early childhood classroom, got a picture? Do you imagine a child pulling on a teacher’s leg and trying to get in the trash can as the teacher is changing a diaper. If not, probably because there is a gate separating the changing space from the play space and still designed in a way that the teacher changing a diaper can see and hear the other children. Do you imagine children banging on the cribs of other children while they are sleeping? If not, that’s because there is probably a gate designed to protect the sleep of children while teachers are still able to see and hear other children. Teachers are regularly supervising by sight and sound and physically present while separated by a physical barrier.

Children do need supervision at school but they do not need policing. If you have children, you know that by age three most children can perform small tasks out of sight. You no longer need to follow preschoolers the way you did your crawling and toddling little ones. This separation is actually an essential part of learning and growing. Children in our public schools, their homes, and any other context are not required to be under constant sight and sound supervision of an adult. We can trust early childhood educators to make value based decisions to allow children’s growing independence in a safe environment. 

When the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is visiting for accreditation their expectations allow preschoolers to be in sound only supervision for up to five minutes provided the other safety measures are in place. This would allow preschoolers to perform tasks such as getting a book from a classroom across the hall or retrieving a special item from a hallway backpack.  This flexibility to allow children over three into sound only supervision for short periods would make a difference for children and for their adults. It is safe for teachers to scaffold preschooler’s growth and learning in the protected context of our early childhood environments. 

Children in our public schools use hallway bathrooms, go to the nurses office, or go to take things to other classroom and yet when they are in licensed summer camps they must be supervised with the same intensity as a toddler until age ten. The purpose of these regulations is safety, we can loosen these requirements and still provide safe environments, it is happening in every other environment children are in. 

Supervising children is essential and how we regulate programs that has a dramatic impact on how children are supported. The language around supervision is extremely restrictive and prevents teachers from scaffolding children’s learning to handle tasks out of direct sight supervision. Please change 8VAC20-781-260 to allow children preschool aged and above reasonable freedom of movement at school and remove the absurd addition preventing reasonable use of gates that do not impede sight and sound supervision.

We recommend Virginia adopt this language, which is close to what is recommended by NAEYC (https://www.naeyc.org/.../supervision_in_naeyc_accredited...): “(1) For preschool children staff must supervise by sight and sound most of the time. Supervision by sound alone is also permissible for short intervals, under five minutes, as long as staff check on children who are out of sight and children are always in a safe area” (any details needed on what a safe area is could be below). “(2) For school-age children doing tasks in a safe environment, they may be out of sight and sound supervision for up to ten minutes provided staff are nearby so they can provide immediate intervention if needed” (any other details could be added). This language would allow educators to scaffold the learning of young children so they can build competency in a safe environment. For preschoolers this is a school readiness skill. For school age children my proposed language would be consistent with how they are treated in other settings, in which they can go to the nurse’s office or a hallway bathroom.

The language in 781-260 is rediculously restrictive. Safety doesn't need to be compromised to have reasonable expectations for teachers and children.

As a parent and a university educator, I am writing to strongly advocate for updating the supervision requirements to reflect actual child development research. The current requirement to supervise school-aged children (up to age 10) with the same "constant sight and sound" intensity as infants is not only illogical, it is actively counterproductive to their growth.

To build competency, children require what educators call "scaffolding"—the ability to practice independence in a safe, controlled environment. Policing a 9-year-old’s every movement prevents them from developing the self-efficacy and sense of purpose they need for school readiness. We should not allow fear to override good judgment and learning.

I recommend Virginia adopt the following language, which aligns with NAEYC recommendations and balances safety with developmental needs:

"(1) For preschool children, staff must supervise by sight and sound most of the time. Supervision by sound alone is also permissible for short intervals, under five minutes, as long as staff check on children who are out of sight and children are always in a safe area. (2) For school-age children doing tasks in a safe environment, they may be out of sight and sound supervision for up to ten minutes provided staff are nearby so they can provide immediate intervention if needed."

This change would bring childcare settings in line with other environments, such as elementary schools, where children are trusted to walk to a nurse's office or restroom. Please allow our providers the flexibility to teach responsibility.

Re: 8VAC20-781-490 Diapering and toileting

I respectfully request that the new childcare regulations expressly prohibit the practice of mandatory “potty training” in children under age 4 years. This practice currently is very widespread, unfortunately. As a parent, I searched high and low for a place that would allow child-led toilet learning, which typically unfolds during the third year of life, and I found exactly two options in Charlottesville. The vast majority of centers/providers move children to the “3yo room” on their third birthday, and they are expected to toilet independently by that age.

This is a wildly inappropriate expectation and requirement, and it leads to significant stress on families. More importantly, it leads to undo stress on the child to acquire a skill before they are fully ready. As a family practice dietitian, I see the fallout frequently: Children who are “potty trained” before they are fully ready—so often because their parents had no choice to do so due to childcare requirements—often end up chronically constipated due to withholding. Then as 5, 6, 7 year olds, they start having bowel and bladder accidents, often requiring extensive use of laxatives to solve a problem that could have been avoided by giving them more time to toilet when they were ready.

This toilet-by-three rule is, as far as I can tell, completely arbitrary. It creates lasting problems for families and young children, up to and including medical problems that require long term intervention to fix. Please disallow this practice and let kids stay in diapers until they show readiness.

I am a parent of children 7 and 4 who have attended Our Neighborhood Child Development Center since they were 10 months and 6 weeks of age, respectively. My 7-year-old attended Our Neighborhood in lieu of kindergarten and returns to the school for a month over summer now that she has transitioned to public school. Prior to becoming a parent, I was a Certified CLASS® Observer at the Infant, Toddler, and Pre-K levels. I worked as an expert in the Classroom Assessment Scoring System® for 10 years and have watched and scored hundreds of hours of footage of child care settings of all styles and levels of quality from around the country. I chose Our Neighborhood because I saw that the quality of care they were offering was something truly special. These educators are well represented in these public comments, and that is appropriate, as they are leaders in this field. Their comments should be given considerable weight, and I am mostly here to underscore the points they have already made.

It is the stated goal of these regulations to ensure "that activities, services, and facilities of centers are conducive to the well-being of children." Some of the proposed regulations either directly threaten children's well-being (e.g., increasing teacher ratios, allowing children under 2 to be placed in front of screens, monitoring school-aged children with the intensity of infants) or indirectly threaten children's well-being by increasing the reporting burden and stress on educators and centers that is making high-quality care more and more difficult (and expensive) to provide (and procure). Please lean on bodies like NAEYC, the science of child development, and the voices of educators as you determine what would be conducive to the well-being of children.

Regulatory Requirements for Staff Training

1. Orientation Training - Varies based on program,regulations require approximately twenty items are covered, must be completed by all staff within seven days of starting work 8VAC20-781-130 B

2. Preservice Training - 10 hour training online only, completed by every early childhood educator within 90 days 8VAC20-781-140 A

3. Daily Health Observation Training - 2 hour training typically online only, updated every three years, one trained staff member on the premises is required to have the daily health training 8VAC20-781-160

4. Medication Administration Training - Typically 8-16 hours online and practice, updated every three years, a trained staff member must always be immediately accessible to children with emergency medications 8VAC20-781-170

5. 16 hours of Annual Training - varies based on program 8VAC20-781-140

6. ADDITIONAL requirement that 3 hours of the 16 hours annual training are the VDOE online health and safety training update 8VAC20-781-140

7. First Aid and CPR Training - 2-8 hours training typically online or lecture and practice required, updated every two years, a trained staff member in each group of children, 8VAC20-781-150

8. Driver Training - varies based on program required prior to transporting children 8VAC20-781-180

Are these requirements reflective of an actual health or safety concern?

Yes. Early childhood educators absolutely need training to keep children in their care healthy and safe.

What is the appropriate regulation to address the safety concern?

What training is needed is a complex question to answer however we do know what is effective training and what is ineffective. We absolutely need regulation here but what is required and how it is implemented has a significant impact on the cost, accessibility, and quality of the training.

1. Orientation training requirements are needed, without critical information about the children in their care and the safety procedures directly after hire teachers cannot keep children safe. Program developed training tend to be more relevant, more applicable, and more likely to contain practice, mentorship, and support which lead to high quality training. There is an opportunity for improvement here however. Currently orientation training is required within seven days and this is very difficult especially for part time and substitute teachers.

   • Our proposed language is simple and clear, providing flexibility and safety.
     The center shall provide orientation training to all staff who will work with children. The orientation training shall be completed by staff before working alone with a child. The orientation training shall include all the following topics if relevant to the staff member’s job responsibilities:

     1. Content of and expected compliance with these regulations

     2. All applicable program philosophies, policies, and procedures

     3. Recognizing child abuse and neglect and the legal requirements for reporting suspected child abuse and neglect as required by § 63.2-1509 of the Code of Virginia;

     4. Introduction and orientation to each child assigned to staff, including health issues and accommodations

   • If the department wanted to support uniformity and access they could create an online portion of number 1. Content of and expected compliance with these regulations.

2. Preservice orientation is not needed and is a waste of time. We all know that the further a training creation occurs from the user the worse the training is. Online training of this nature is ineffective and this training in particular is actively harmful. There is an effort to rework the training but that is not what is needed. If some sort of uniformity is needed it should focus on content of and expected compliance with these regulations and can meet the federal requirements without anything more. 

3. Daily Health Observation training is also not needed and a waste of time. Yes, educators need knowledge about health but that is largely provided by first aid and CPR training. I have not found any evidence that any other state has a requirement for this type of training, there is no evidence that two hours of online only training is providing any meaningful impact, and teachers are spending thousands of hours a year doing this with little or no benefit. This section should be stricken from the standards.

4. Medication Administration training is very much needed and unfortunately a very low quality training. Prior to administering medication some type of training is absolutely needed and this training does at least have a practice component but the regulations should be opened up so that high quality training of various kinds could be piloted and tried. There is basically one provider of this training and it misses an opportunity to teach in meaningful ways. We would like to see this regulation stay as written but additional vendors be found to improve the training quality. Additionally emergency medications are covered in First Aid and CPR allowing that training to be sufficient for emergency medications could make a significant difference in the burden of medication administration. Emergency medications are the most important and the most unlikely to be used. It is difficult for educators to hold that though CPR and First Aid training covers emergency medication it is not sufficient for educators.

5. 16 Hours of Annual Training is a useful requirement. It encourages ongoing learning and ensures that educators are not isolated and stagnant in their classrooms. Quality of training offered can vary significantly from program to program but there are many high quality free options available to educators and this standard prior to the edits below was very effective at supporting educators.

6. 3 Hour Health and Safety Update is a terrible addition. This is be justified as lessening the burden of the 16 hour requirement but it doesn’t the exact opposite for high quality programs. Many high quality programs have professional development days that provide all of their 16 required hours adding this requirement increases their burden and the highest quality training is that that is closest to the source. This training is likely to be poor quality and irrelevant to many educators. We would like to see this clause stricken from the regulations. It can be allowed for those who use the training and not required for those who do not. 

7. First Aid and CPR Training is typically very high quality, includes a practice component, and requires regular updates. We would like to see this requirement retained as written.

8. Driver Training is not relevant to our program but is conducted by the program and thus likely to be most relevant and effective. We don’t have specific experience but it seems reasonable that this content should be reviewed annually.

What are the possible unintended consequences of the training requirements?

There are so many requirements that there is significant overlap which could be good if it were reinforcing critical information but unfortunately much of the time the courses actually conflict rather that reinforce one another. Especially DHO, MAT, CPR/First Aid, and Preservice Orientation. Training overload leads to diminished effectiveness and we would be much more effective if we narrowed the requirements and created consistency across the trainings. Training requirements consume significant staff time and cognitive capacity. When that time is directed toward low-impact or redundant trainings, it necessarily displaces higher quality opportunities. Early childhood programs already face severe staffing shortages. The cumulative burden of can act as a barrier to entry and retention.

These training regulations have an inequitable impact on high-quality programs. Programs that already invest in robust onboarding, embedded coaching, professional development days, and practice-based learning are often penalized by rigid training mandates that require staff to complete additional, lower-quality, centralized online trainings. Requirements such as the proposed 3-hour VDOE online health and safety update, do not reduce the overall training burden, limit program flexibility, displace higher-quality, locally relevant professional learning. As a result, the strongest programs face the greatest compliance burden, while weaker programs may meet requirements without improving practice.

These regulations focus on inputs rather than outcomes. The VDOE office of child care quality has significant efforts to observe, give feedback, rate, and coach programs. This framework is working against those efforts.

Please consider:

• Rewriting the orientation training as describe above and to be completed before working alone with children in 8VAC20-781-130 B

• Removal of 8VAC20-781-140 A preservice training - if this is not possible due to federal requirements, updating the preservice training to be created in the commonweath (not by PA) and focused only on licensing standards that teachers are expected to know and comply with. 

• Removal of 8VAC20-781-160 Daily Health Observation Training

• And Removal of the new clause requiring the VDOE 3 hour health and safety training in 8VAC20-781-140

One of the things that I find concerning is who is not commenting here. VDOE employees are not given space to give feedback and I know many licnesing administrators and inspectors would have useful insight. The culture of VDOE doesn't allow for that candid feedback.

I would be especially interested in what the office of child care quality would say if it were safe for them to speak up.

Also many non-profits and people who have grant funding cannot post on these forums because it could be misunderstood as political. There are whole organizations then left out of this commenting system.

One thing I was considering is the impact of more and more VDOE online (often required) training pushing educators out of local training options provided by ReadyKids, VAAEYC, ChildCareAware and the like. I doubt anyone from any of those organizations are going to speak to that if that is a concern.