ACTION ALERT- 2/18/26 Stop School Districts!
Feb 18, 2026
Here's a hill to die on....
The public school system is attempting to "eliminate duplicate regulations" allowing them to only have to comply with CDE (Colorado Department of Education) requirements. They are asking legislators to NOT require them to comply with CDEC requirements too. If this happens, they will not have to use the same ratios, staffing requirements, can "serve children chocolate milk", etc.
Here is the legislative draft: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2anMu8FhOjwqu2-uQvKe_BZvseYpFP7/view
We wrote to Rep. Phillips about the legislation. She sent it to the district lobbyists and their responses. Sorry for the formatting issues.
Hi Rep. Phillips,
Below you'll find our responses to the concerns posed by Early Childhood Education Association.
1) CDEC is accountable to the Federal government for providing oversight for CCCAP utilization. In claiming that the oversight is duplicative this is one very specific example of how that is incorrect. Does this bill mean that school districts are also then requesting to NOT receive CCCAP funding in their programs?
Response:
School districts are not asking to waive federal accountability but rather to consolidate the administrative burden. School-age programs are already subject to district-level financial audits and federal grant reporting requirements that provide the same level of fiscal oversight for CCCAP utilization. The bill seeks to remove the duplication of this oversight, not the oversight itself. We remain focused on providing high-quality programs for our families that align with the school day and that still allow Colorado families to use CCCAP as a resource.
2) CDEC works very hard to ensure that duplicative demands are removed from the process. They've modified rules to alleviate pressures on school district based programs so that they minimize any duplicative oversight. You can find those concessions starting on page 58 of the current CDEC rules. They've removed requirements for each individual program to enable them to generalize it to their school in its entirety or even to their district. They've created substitute concessions that are far more lax than those allowed by the rest of the industry. They've even removed fencing requirements that other programs would never get the same concession on.
Response:
While CDEC rules include some modifications, they still require school-age programs to navigate a separate set of regulatory standards that often conflict with K-12 operations. "Laxer" is a mischaracterization; school district policies and procedures are comprehensive. A single set of high standards is more efficient than two sets of differing "concessions" under two separate state agencies.
3) CDE does not, to our knowledge, conduct inspections of each preschool, child care and before and after program in the state of Colorado. CDEC does this each and every year. It can feel like a heavy burden but every other community based program in the state also bears the same burden. To relieve school districts of the industry specific inspection undermines child safety. If the inspections are not necessary to ensure safety of school district children then why are they necessary for any child care program?
Response:
It is incorrect to imply that child safety is undermined without CDEC inspections. School-age programs operate in school district buildings that are already subject to safety standards and local district security protocols, which mirror those of our out-of-school-time programs. The current internal inspection process of our licensed programs is more thorough than that of a licensing specialist upon their annual visit for 1-2 hours. Inspections and oversight of our programs are ongoing regardless of licensing. They'd continue as they are part of our district's quality of operations, and it is what our families, communities, and our board of education would expect.
4) Every school must undergo health and fire inspections from their local health and fire departments. CDE does not provide that service. It is not duplicative. Every community based program has to undergo the same. We understand, all the inspections feel like too much sometimes but they are what the government has deemed necessary to ensure safety of all children in licensed programs.
Response:
We agree these are essential. However, school buildings already undergo health and fire inspections at the district level. CDEC’s additional inspection layer for the same physical space is an additional cost and redundant. We are not seeking to eliminate these inspections, but to ensure they are conducted through the existing K-12 infrastructure.
5) The "conflicting restrictions" that are mentioned in your bill draft are referencing the fact that early childhood playground inspections are much more strict than those allowed by school districts.
- CDEC playground inspections are more strict because the safety of our children are much more likely to become injured in a playground that has laxer standards like school districts allow.
Response:
- School-age children are using the same playgrounds during the school day that they use before/after school programs. It is inconsistent to claim a playground is safe at 2:00 PM under National Consumer Playground Safety Standards and District standards, but unsafe at 3:30 PM under CDEC standards.
- If their staff background checks are duplicative then they should change statute to remove that requirement. The department is best equipped to discuss what those differences are. Again, though I need to emphasize that if they accept CCCAP funding, CDEC is limited in what they can and cannot require.
Response:
-
- School districts already require comprehensive background checks and fingerprinting for all employees. Maintaining two separate background check requirements for the same employees is a burden that does not increase safety. It delays access to our programs, directly impacting families.
- Immunization records are all tracked in the same system (ciis). Unsure how that applies additional requirements for school districts.
Response:
-
- Correct, CIIS holds immunization information and is tracked and verified at the district level by our Health Services team, which is comprised of registered nurses, and is again checked by licensing specialists upon their request. This is duplicative and unnecessary.
- Staff-to-child ratio requirements differ during the day because in part, there are a ton more adults around in the event of an emergency. Before and after school that is no longer the case.
-
Response:
- In a school setting, emergency protocols are building-wide. School-age programs have access to school security, administrators, and facilities staff that community-based programs may not, justifying a more streamlined ratio that reflects the school environment. School-age ratios shall remain the same, with no intent or request to modify them.
- Chocolate milk? This requires them no longer being inspected by CDEC? Honestly, this sounds like an excellent rule to have the task force in SB26-020 resolve for everyone!
-
Response:
- Agreed, this was included in the rule several years ago, even though many submitted feedback indicating they used the National School Lunch and Snack Programs, which directly affected them and reduced milk consumption.
- Stating that CDEC's requirements restrict capacity shows that school districts will expand their capacity as far as they can if allowed to do so. Without licensing oversight that holds them to industry specific early childhood levels of care, they will run above that. This will create safety concerns and
-
Response:
- Our goal is to align program capacity with the existing, proven safety standards of the school day. For example, a computer lab may be equipped with 28 stations and safely accommodate 28 students during the day under district and fire codes, yet CDEC licensing capacity caps that same room at 26. Requiring a separate waiver process to bridge this minor gap is unnecessary, creates redundant administrative work, and ignores the fact that the space has already been deemed safe for more students by local authorities.
- Keep in mind that if this bill is passed. School districts self monitor abuse/neglect concerns. They do not report to the counties in most cases. Colorado cannot allow that to happen with children ages 0-5.
-
Response:
- This is a significant misrepresentation. All school district employees are mandatory reporters under Colorado law. We require annual training on this topic for each school district employee. Any concerns regarding abuse or neglect are reported to the appropriate county human services departments, just as they are in any other setting. There is no "self-monitoring" that bypasses legal reporting requirements.
- If school districts are not willing to undergo the same requirements as community based programs then they have the choice to not offer those programs.
-
Response:
- Suggesting that school districts should 'opt out' of providing care ignores the essential role we play in community infrastructure. School districts serve the vast majority of Colorado’s students during out-of-school hours and operate as professional entities that already meet or exceed rigorous safety and operational standards. Forcing staff to repeat training already mastered through district protocols is redundant and illogical. Maintaining two conflicting sets of requirements and the administrative burden that follows diverts critical time and funding away from students without offering any measurable increase in child safety. Our objective is to leverage existing school infrastructure to provide efficient, high-quality programming that remains accessible to families.
This bill hasn't dropped yet but is likely to do so SOON. Please take these action steps:
1) Email jacque.phillips.house@coleg.gov and tell her respectfully what this bills impact would be on your program. USE YOUR OWN WORDS!!
2) Email YOUR LEGISLATORS and tell them the same! FIND YOUR LEGISLATOR
3) SB26-020 estalishes a task force that could alleviate many of these concerns. Let THAT process play out.
4) Shoot me an email and let me know you did any of the above. We want to track engagement where we can! dawn@coloradoecea.org
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY!!
Responses