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 | According to CD, on the day of the incident, S1-S3 were on shift, and while staff were already indoor, they were unaware of C1 & C2’s absence from the class, until P1 & P2 noticed the children alone on the playground and brought the matter to staff’s attention.
The statements provided by S1-S3 were consistent with the details provided by CD. S1-S3 explained that prior to the incident, S1 was on the playground supervising the classroom, while S2-S3 had already transitioned indoor, and were unaware of outdoor activities. S1 was in a rush and running late because it was time to transition into the extended care program, staff did not follow routine procedure to conduct head count and/or roll call to ensure the number of children matched the roll call sheet. This resulted in C1 & C2 being left alone on the play yard for five minutes. At the time of the incident, AD was not in the vicinity of building #2, and did not witness the incident but was notified and had knowledge of the incident. P1-P2’s statements further corroborated the allegation when they conveyed that upon their arrivals to the playground, they noticed the children were on the playground by themselves, which prompted them to notify staff of the matter.
During the course of the investigation, video footage of the incident was received which showed staff transitioning indoor, and C1 & C2 were left unattended on the playground for at least five minutes until a parent observed the children by themselves at the side of a large wooden shed inside the yard. LPA inspected the playground of building #2 which revealed that the yard was fully enclosed by chain link fence that was at least five feet in height and contained a gate that locked from the outside. Based on observations, the fence appeared to be well maintained and a child could not fit through any section(s) of the fence. It is noted that the gate led to a parking lot which the children could have egressed/eloped out of, however; C1 & C2 did not go near the gate. After the incident, the facility management held a meeting with the staff to provide and review information related to supervision requirements, and reminded staff of the protocol to communicate with each other, to conduct head count of the children as staff transitioned the children; and for the last staff on the playground to do a sweep of the playground to ensure children are not left in the yard. The facility did not comply with the requirements of supervision of California Code of Regulations (CCR) 101229 which indicated that no child(ren) shall be left without the supervision of a teacher at any time and that supervision shall include visual observation.
Based on this investigation, there is enough preponderance of evidence to show there was an absence of supervision of C1 & C2, therefore the allegation is found to be substantiated. (Continue to LIC 9099-C) |