Inspector’s narrative
What the inspector wrote
LPA Almanza Interviewed 4 parents. Parent 1 disclosed that when their preschool child is picked up at 6:30, the child is in the library, there is no age separation, and their preschool child is commingled with older school age children. Parent 2 disclosed that in the morning facility staff mix age groups because they would be out of ratios if they separated them. Parent 3 and Parent 7 did not knowledge comingling of children. LPA Almanza interviewed staff and Staff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 corroborated during interviews that the school-age children are placed in the library along preschool children from 5:45 PM to 6:30 PM which is parent pick up time. The Director was interviewed and confirmed this practice.
Staff 1, 2, 4, and 6 are reporting that during Nap Time they may supervise more than 12 children, not all children are sleeping, and if they are in their cots quietly, they do not call for assistance; sleeping ratios are 1 to 24 napping children (Technical Violation Issued).
On 06/14/23 at 7:33 AM, LPA Almanza arrived at the Tutor Time Learning Center combination center to conduct an unannounced investigation visit. From the parking lot, LPA observed through the glass doors and windows preschool children walking in the lobby. When LPA entered the facility at 7:36 AM, LPA observed Staff 5 and 3 infants sitting in the infant “Buggy”. At 7:39 AM, LPA entered the preschool classroom #3 and observed Staff 6, Assistant Director with 6 preschool children. Staff 6 stated that staff was checking the children in because they had just come from the office. From 7:07 AM to 7:21 AM, 5 preschool children and 1 school-age child arrived and were in the front lobby with 3 toddlers that arrived between 6:37 AM and 7:24 AM. From 7:07 AM until 7:33 AM, there were 5 preschool children, 1 school-age child, and 3 infants commingling in the front lobby.
On 06/14/23 at 8:02 AM, LPA Almanza observed Staff 7 take 2 school-age children out of preschool classroom #3 and take the children to the school-age classroom #10. According to the Face to Name sign in sheet from the preschool classroom, school-age Child 7 Arrived at 7:21 AM and school-age Child 8 arrived at 7:50 AM. Staff 7 disclosed that when school-age children arrive before staff, they are taken to the preschool classroom until a school-age Staff arrives.
On 06/14/23 at 10:18 AM, LPA observed 4 preschool children in the school-age classroom #10.
Page 2 of 3
Staff 4 disclosed that was not sure why the 4 preschool children were brought over but they were only there for lunch time and would go back to their preschool classroom for nap time. The Face to Name sing in sheet for the school-age classroom has 2 preschool children signed in at 9:50 AM and 2 more preschool children signed in at 10:09 AM. LPA notified the Director and at 10:44 AM the Assistant Director removed the preschool children from the school-age classroom.
On 06/15/23 at 9:02 AM, while conducting an unannounced investigation visit, LPA observed Staff 8 with 13 preschool children in classroom #3. At 9:24 AM, LPA observed Staff 8 with 16 preschool children in classroom #3. At 9:30 AM, Staff 1 went to classroom #3, putting the classroom back into ratio.
On 06/15/23 at 9:19 AM, LPA observed Staff 1 and Staff 2 with 26 preschool children in the playground located behind classrooms #6 and #7. At 9:20 AM, another preschool child arrived at the playground. At 9:30 AM, Staff 9 and Staff 10 arrived putting the playground back into ratio.
On 06/15/23 from 8:53 AM to 9:43 AM, the Director was in the Infant classrooms (FAC # 197411212) providing coverage to maintain ratios in the infant program and could not assist in maintaining the preschool license in ratio.
After considering available information, interviews, and observations, the facts revealed that the facility is commingling day-care children and the facility is operating out of ratio; Therefore, 2 type B violations are being issued.
Based on LPA's observation and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 & Chapter 1, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Cheryl Gartsman.
Page 3 of 3
Parent stated that they have not observed more than 14 children in the school-age classroom. The five children interviewed denied ever being yelled at by staff.
Staff interviewed denied exceeding the school-age ratio of one staff to fourteen children and denied yelling at children. Staff 2 disclosed that Staff 3 (S3) is loud but does not yell in a mean way or speak down at anyone. Staff 4 disclosed that S3 is very energetic and speaks in a very bright, full tone, has a high energetic voice, and is very happy. Staff 5 disclosed that S3 speaks in a loud tone and is very enthusiastic about what they are saying, but is not mean and does not yell. Staff 6 disclosed that a lot of people may mistake S3’s loud voice for yelling; S3 is very vocal, very passionate about their job; and sometimes their voice is loud, and it may echo in the school.
On 05/31/23, 06/06/23, 06/14/23 and 06/15/23, LPA Almanza conducted
unannounced site visits to the center. On 05/31/23, LPA was greeted by S3 at the front door with a loud, excited, and very energetic voice. During each of the four visits, LPA observed that S3 projects their voice when speaking to staff, children, and LPA; but LPA did not witness S3 yell at children or speak in a mean or hurtful way.
Based upon interviews conducted and LPA’s observations, the allegation that “Staff yells at day-care children” has been determined to be Unsubstantiated. S3 speaks in a loud voice, but there is no intent to demean, demoralize, humiliate, intimidate, ridicule, threaten, or abuse children in care.
Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Cheryl Gartsman.
Page 2 of 2
