1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | Based on conflicting statements, LPA is unable to corroborate the allegation that staff discriminated against daycare child and child’s parents. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
Regarding the allegation, staff did not meet daycare child’s toileting needs, LPA observed on two separate dates, where classroom seven only had one teacher present and not a consistent second staff to assist with potty training. However, CCC uses lower ratio of 1:9 in the pre-primary classrooms. Additionally, five of five interviews corroborated that C1 had a medical condition where C1 needed additional time using the restroom. Record review confirmed that admission agreement states, children must be “fully potty trained” to progress to the primary classrooms. Based on conflicting statements, LPA is unable to corroborate the allegation that staff did not meet daycare child’s toileting needs.
Additionally, it was also alleged that the CCC staff did not provide a safe and comfortable environment and that staff violated daycare child’s personal rights. Specifically, C1 was forced to stay on their cot during nap even though C1 had an accident. Based on observations, interviews, and record review it was confirmed that, C1 was encouraged to use the restroom prior to nap but C1 would refuse. Twelve days out of fourteen days of attendance C1 would have an accident, wake up, and disrupt the class. Record review corroborated that once C1 was awake, staff attempted to redirect C1 by offering materials, such as coloring books, reading books, or toys. C1 would then yell, scream, cry, or throw items in the classroom, ultimately waking up other children. CCC has addressed behavioral concerns with parents. On two separate occasions, LPA observed C1 to engage in behaviors that were neither provoked or predictable, staff would then redirect child and attempt to de-escalate a behavior and C1 would then seek attention by either throwing items, or intentionally falling to the floor, crying, and screaming.
Based on conflicting statements, LPA is unable to corroborate the allegations staff did not provide a safe and comfortable environment and that staff violated daycare child’s personal rights. These allegations may have occurred; however, they are not supported, or proven by evidence. Therefore, the above allegations are unsubstantiated.
An exit interview was conducted, a copy of this report, 9099D & appeal rights, along with a Notice of Site Visit was handed to Director, Pennie Vatcher.
|