Clear guidance on public school closures and camps has been issued in the state of Connecticut, leaving little room for interpretation, both at the onset and nearing the closure of the shutdown. Guidance for early childhood programs has been vague relative to public school guidance, which has created immense challenges for Connecticut preschool and childcare providers. 

The state and local health officials should serve as a support for our programs in our decision making but instead led to more significant conflicts with families who attempted to pin us against the decisions of the officials in deciding to close. Many centers already had positive COVID-19 exposure in their building before symptoms appeared, and the number of cases and death would have inevitably ensued had programs not made the independent decisions to close in mid to late March. Centers that remained open for essential workers were not provided with proper PPE, although they serve children of healthcare employees who are exposed to COVID-19 daily on the front lines. Family Providers were strongly encouraged to remain open both for regularly enrolled children and children of healthcare workers and first responders without protection/PPE. As Family Providers provide care in their own home, these decisions showed little regard not only for the health and safety of childcare owners, but the spouses and children in their household. 

In seeking guidance from the Office of Early Childhood regarding closures, Early Childhood Centers and Family Providers were advised to contact local health. Local health departments, in turn, upheld the Governor's position and OEC guidance that centers were not mandated to close. No one wanted to take the lead in making a decision. No one wanted to take responsibility. The CDC states that decisions for childcare closures should be made in conjunction with state and local education and health officials. They say on their website, "Child care programs are not expected to make decisions about closures on their own." However, across the state, we've been forced to make these decisions independently. Providers were left scrambling for answers and calling other local providers to try to make a unanimous decision and the safest decision for families and staff. This lack of leadership on several fronts felt like a "washing of the hands" to providers who are boots on the ground. Public schools were guided with clear answers and dates. In ordinary times, the OEC provides extensive and elaborate guidance on a myriad of regulations. Yet, when we need regulations and guidance most, suddenly "they can't make that decision" and "it's up to us." While it's understood these are unprecedented times, and everyone is trying the best, this is a prime example when state leadership in all departments and support is most needed for our programs. 

The disconnect between the concern of the risks for children and staff in public school settings versus childcare settings is alarming. If increasing cleaning and disinfecting while wearing a cloth mask, which is the guidance of the CDC and Office of Early Childhood (OEC), could prevent the spread of the virus, the schools could've remained open and enhance cleaning procedures. Due to the level of contagiousness of this virus, we know it is unsafe for schools to stay open despite improved cleaning because, as noted by the Commissioner of the Department of Education, Miguel Cardona, "social distancing in these circumstances is not possible." Thus, schools are closed for the remainder of this school year. Additionally, camps have been advised not to open until June 29, who serve the same school-age population.

Then, in an early childhood setting with even younger children, making it even more challenging to socially distance, why is it acceptable to remain open throughout the entire pandemic and put those children, families and staff at risk? With confirmed Kawasaki Disease cases in children in our state, these issues are even more concerning. Why is the state willing to put children under the age of 5 at risk but not their K-12 counterparts? Surely a twelve-year-old middle school student or fifteen-year-old high school student cognitively has the ability to understand the concept of social distancing, unlike a six-month-old or two-year-old child. How can a teacher socially distance while holding a three-month-old baby, feeding them and rocking them to sleep while the infant breaths in close proximity to their face? Furthermore, in an early childhood setting, we are wiping noses, changing diapers, coughed on, spit up on, sneezed on, urinated on, vomited on, and even defecated on at times. The potential for transmission of infection through bodily fluids is far greater than in public school settings. Why is the state willing to put childcare teachers' health and lives at risk so essential workers can work, but not willing to put public school teachers' at risk so essential workers can work? Both settings serve as childcare so parents can work during the day, but early childhood settings carry much higher risks of the spread of infection. Although it's stated that childcare workers are indispensable, the fact that our state is willing to put them in extremely high-risk situations with no personal protective equipment, but unwilling to do the same with public school teachers, demonstrates otherwise. The decisions that have been made by the state have created mixed and inconsistent messaging and a lack of value for the already undervalued early childhood professionals, whose benefits and pay are significantly less than public school teachers and barely enough to live on. Directors have discussed this issue with OEC leadership and have yet to understand the justification for these decisions.

The purpose of this petition is not to complain and critique. In unprecedented times, we believe in good faith; everyone is working very hard, doing their best and learning as we go. Our purpose is to reflect on these issues and to learn from them, and to plead for clear, definitive guidance in the process of reopening our childcare facilities to ensure and prevent the same mistakes from happening again. As we near the reopening of our state, we urge Governor Lamont and the Office of Early Childhood to consider giving clear and definitive guidance on when it is deemed safe for early childhood programs to reopen, even if it is regionally. Camps have been given a definitive date – June 29. Public schools have been provided definite dates – formerly May 20, and now the end of the school year. Yet early childhood programs have been left to fend for ourselves to this very day. 

Hair salons were ordered to close. Tattoo parlors were ordered to close. Restaurants were ordered to close their dining rooms. Gyms and community centers were ordered to close. Parks were ordered to close. Stores were ordered to close. Schools were ordered to close. And all of these businesses were given precise dates as to when these closures would go into effect. Yet, preschools and early learning centers - one of the highest risk environments for disease transmission - were never mandated to close and encouraged to remain open, with no PPE or protection for staff aside from "enhanced disinfecting" and "social distancing" which is impossible with this age group. 

We need help and support from the state level to provide policies and guidance on issues such as:

1. A clear recommendation of a date it is deemed safe for early childhood programs to reopen for all children, including non-essential workers, even if this decision is advised by region. Please don't hide behind the statement of "they were never mandated to close." It's not helpful to us.
2. A clear stance, guidance, and recommendation from the state level for closures should a child, staff member, or family member be diagnosed with COVID-19, although we will contact local health on a case by case basis (i.e., Should the classroom temporarily close and all children/staff in that classroom quarantine for two weeks? Should the center close for two weeks?) This will provide support and justification for our decisions to temporarily re-close, as families will be understandably frustrated since they've already missed several weeks of work. 
3. Guidance and sample policies relative to COVID-19 regarding liabilities, such as children attending and staff working "at their own risk" without holding centers liable should an individual become infected with COVID-19 and/or pass away.
4. Guidance and sample policies relative to COVID-19 and teachers in high-risk categories (due to age, health conditions, or high-risk family members) and verification required to remain on unemployment.
5. A stance, guidance, or sample policy on tuition and reliable funding in place should another outbreak occur. If a classroom or center closes temporarily due to a positive case, should parents be reimbursed/partially? Should full or partial tuition still be charged? Families will be frustrated having to find and pay for back-up childcare, thus paying double, after already missing so much of work during the pandemic. Many families are struggling financially, and many programs are struggling financially and need reliable cash flow as well. How will the OEC fund/assist in bailing out programs in this predicament?
6. Clear justification why it is acceptable for childcare programs to be open though social distancing is not possible and why schools remain closed. Clear rationale why we are willing to put early childhood educators and their families, and young children and their families, at risk, but not public school teachers and students. Enhanced cleaning and cloth masks do not stop the spread of the virus; otherwise, public schools should be open with enhanced cleaning and cloth masks for students and staff.
7. Personal protective equipment supplied by the state which protect early childhood professionals, who are at high risk and in close contact with young children who are unable to social distance, including N-95 masks, as well as training on how to properly wear equipment. 
8. The same safety measures put into place for early learning centers as public schools. For example, if teachers and students in public schools are required to be tested for COVID-19 in order to attend school, this same regulation should be implemented in early childhood settings. 
9. A system to track child and employee positive COVID-19 cases in Early Childhood programs throughout the state, updated in real time, that center administration and consultants may access. This will allow for transparency with both staff and families, and assist ECE administrators to assess current data by region and make program decisions accordingly. 

In conjunction with our reopening, our teachers must be protected. Many of our veteran teachers are over the age of sixty; some have underlying health conditions, and some live with family in high-risk categories. Family Providers are caring for children in their own homes, exposing their own family members, many of whom are high-risk. Second to hospital employees and first responders, early childhood educators are next in line to being unable to socially distance and potential exposure to COVID-19. Young children are known to be carriers of the illness without showing any symptoms and are continually putting items or their hands in their mouths and nose despite frequent hand washing efforts. They also need to be touched and held, unlike school-age children.

Because of these risks, we request that early childhood programs are provided with proper PPE to protect their health and safety, including N-95 masks. CDC cannot recommend early childhood teachers to wear N-95 masks since they are currently available only to hospitals. At the state level, the Governor has the ability to obtain this equipment for us. As the pandemic continues to slow and hospitalizations decrease, we are hopeful this equipment will become available. Teachers have also requested gloves, goggles, foot covers, and scrubs, along with N-95 masks, primarily to protect vulnerable staff. 

As cloth and disposable masks do not protect the individual wearing them, such masks do not protect our staff who are putting their health and lives on the line. It's not worth the risk. Young children under two years are unable to wear masks, and thus teachers are not protected from the particles released from these children. Two-year-olds are still too young to wear masks, despite CDC guidance, and constantly pull them off. Preschoolers (ages 3-5) wearing masks is very challenging as they are constantly pulling them, tugging at them and falling off their face. Children also cannot wear masks during meal and snack time and nap time. Thus, teachers are still potentially being exposed, especially as children tend to be carriers but asymptomatic. Please, value the health and lives of early childhood providers as much as public school teachers and healthcare providers, and provide this equipment to protect them. If early childhood staff is not equipped with proper protective equipment, who will take responsibility if they or their family contract the illness and pass away due to the proximity in a childcare setting?

Governor Lamont held a press conference on May 6 and announced that it was too great a risk for children to go back to school. This was followed by comments from OEC Commissioner Beth Bye, who was careful to consistently use the words "child care" for early childhood programs. In these carefully worded statements, we hear a return to the historical divide between schools and their teachers/educators/professionals, and those in private early childhood centers who are described as "carers" rather than "educators." We have been assured that as we professionalized, this divide was disappearing. It has been said by the NAEYC and others that our role in the pandemic will shift the way that our profession is perceived by government officials and by the public. Through this pandemic, it appears that our roles and our professionalism are daily diminished. We are portrayed as something less than educators, and it is shameful, especially by those who know us and the extraordinarily complex field of educating young children. 

Somehow our schools and programs are not "too risky" for children and their teachers during a pandemic. How can we expect the respect that is our due in the face of open, undisguised disregard? This needs to be addressed, or this perception will continue, and we will have stood by in acquiescence.

We appreciate the hard work the Governor is doing and the clear, logical communications to the public. The Office of Early Childhood has done an exemplary job in providing reasonable exemptions, communicating several guidelines with programs, pulling together Project 26 so quickly, providing prompt communication to programs while receiving a myriad of inquiries, and being available for remote webinars and Zoom meetings. However, the aforementioned items are essential to address for the health and lives of our indispensable early childhood educators, for programs to be supported, and for a successful reopening. Please consider these requests of utmost importance and priority.