complaint·October 28, 2021

CD claimed she was misinformed of the teacher-child ratio and was unaware that a fully qualified Teacher and an Aide without ECE units could not supervise up to 18 children. Once CD became aware of the direct impact that staff qualifications had on teacher-child ratio requirements, CD took appropriate steps to correct the ratios and conveyed the information to staff by holding a staff meeting on 09/30/21. Multiple statements provided by adults or staff either reported they witnessed unqualified staff left alone with children, and/or on average, each class maintained 18 children in care with a fully qualified Teacher and one Aide without ECE units. Two adult interviews corroborated the allegation reporting that early on July 2021, A1 witnessed S4 was left alone in the Discovery Preschool (DP) class to supervise 20 children and on another occasion, A1 saw two Teachers caring for 30 children in the Preschool classroom. A2 also reported witnessing one fully qualified Teacher providing care to 32 children in the Preschool class. During LPA’s visit via video conference on 09/29/21 starting at 10:14am, LPA observed the facility operating out of ratio with one fully qualified teacher and S5 caring for 18 children in the Preschool class. On 10/13/21, LPA reviewed three staff (CD, S4 & S5) records which revealed that S4 and S5 did not meet the Teacher Aide qualifications of Title 22 regulations, 101216.2 which impacted Teacher-Child ratio of Title 22 regulations, 101216.3(b)(1). Based on this investigation, there is a preponderance of the evidence to support the allegation that staff did not maintain appropriate staffing ratios, and therefore, the allegation is substantiated. The California Code of Regulation 101216.3(b)(1) of the Title 22, Division 12, Chapter 1, Article 6, are being cited on LIC 9099D. This report was discussed and reviewed with CD and an Exit interview was conducted with CD. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days. Appeal Rights were provided. CD claimed she never saw the children’s sleeping equipment spaced less than three feet apart and there was enough space for staff to walk in between without any issues. According to CD, the facility arranged the napping equipment in accordance with California Code of Regulation (CCR), 101239.1. Statements provided by A1, A2 and S3 reported the children’s napping equipment would be covered with a sheet and each child was provided with a blanket, but the napping equipment was separated only several inches and up to twelve inches apart from each other. Statements provided by parents noted due to the COVID pandemic, they had not entered the facility and they could not provide information pertaining to the allegation, while other statements provided by staff (S1-S2 & S4-S6) did not report concerns or violation(s) of CCR, 101239.1. Based on this investigation, there’s not a preponderance of evidence to support the allegation and therefore; the allegation is unsubstantiated. This report was discussed and reviewed with CD and an Exit interview was conducted with CD. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days. There were no title 22 deficiencies cited during this visit.