complaint·June 29, 2023

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 four preschool children in the school-age classroom #10. Staff 4 disclosed that they were not sure why the four preschool children were brought over, but that they were only brought for lunch time and would go back to their preschool classroom for nap time. The face-to-name transition sheet for the school-age classroom has two preschool children signed in at 9:50 AM and two 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. The Director disclosed that the preschool children were placed in the school-age classroom because the school-age license states that it is for children 4.9 to 12 years old and those children are 4.9 years or older. The Director disclosed that the four children were taken out of the preschool classroom, because they received more preschool children, and would be out of ratio if they did not. Staff interviews revealed that commingling occurs on a daily basis. Of the 8 staff interviewed, five staff (Staff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) disclosed that school-age and preschool children are commingled for at least 45 minutes every day between 5:45 to 6:30 PM, as the children are released to their parents from the library. Based on LPA’s observations, interviews which were conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is 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. 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 visit s 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 projec ts 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. On 06/14/23, LPA inspected the school-age classroom and observed the classroom to be in ratio. LPA observed seven children being supervised by one teacher. LPA reviewed the staff files of the two school-age teachers (Staff 4 & Staff 7) and the teachers are qualified school-age teachers. The two teachers are not in the class at the same time. LPA received copies of the facility roster and there are a total of 23 school age children enrolled. However, when the school-age and the preschool children are commingled, one of the licenses can be out of ratio; LPA could not determine which license was out of ratio. Therefore, the allegation that “ Facility is operating out of ratio” is Unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are 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.