FYI - my younger son had a total of 10 teachers (when you count the team teachers in a classroom - eg one was his lead, but maybe there was one or two more) while at the NSF BH center. None of the teachers had children. My older son had a few more teachers (due to some classroom turnover), probably 12 or 13, and only one had a child (a newborn, she left the center shortly thereafter).

Not entirely sure what point the two previous posters are trying to get at - if it relates to NSF BH or daycares in general, or if they are thinking of someone specific, but I don't see the relevance to this disussion.

This is a very honest post. If I were looking at a daycare center for my child I would do exactly this. I also worked in a daycare center and was shocked at the behavior of some of the "teachers." They act totally differently when parents are not around. I didn't trust them at all and am so happy that I no longer work in the daycare industry.

Look carefully when you go to a center at the teachers they have employeed there. Think about if you saw them out at the mall with their own kids, would you have a favorable opinion? Now image they are yelling and smacking their kid? What would you think of them? Most of the women don't do a very good job with their own kids much less someone else's. In fact, go ahead and ask them what discipline they use for their own kids - do the "pop them" or "whip their butt". 9 times out of 10 they do. Do you really think that someone who can't manage their own child's behavior is really going to have the ability to do better with your kid. These women take the daycare job because they can get the job easily - often they will hire on the spot or close to it and the start work while waiting to have reference (if even done) checks and background checks (filling out the form is enough for them to start work). I worked in daycare before - on the of the fave places for the teachers to hurt a child was to pinch them under their arms - it was hard to tell they were doing it, and if it left a mark no one would ever know where it was from.

Just wanted to let you know that the child referenced above (the one pouring the milk, grabbed by the shoulders, verbally demeaned) was my son. I called and spoke with the licensing inspector, who confirmed it was my son, who told me he was publicly humiliated (he has a late september b-day, we're holding him back from Kindergarten and he's been having a hard time with that anyway, so this didn't help), that he was inconsolable, crying for several minutes and it took 2-3 staff to calm him down, and that other kids heard what the teacher had said and proceeded to talk about it in a way that may have felt like teasing to my son.

And if that weren't bad enough, no one told us about it. We didn't even get a note to say "Your son had a rough day today). I mean, knowing or not knowing about an inspection aside, we deserved to know immediately that he had a bad day. It took two weeks, and the publishing of this report, before we knew of this incident.

During those two weeks our son regressed, started wetting the bed again, talking in baby talk, crying a lot, qand telling us he was a baby and begging to be with the big kids, and we had no idea what was going on or why.

The center director (who has since been reassigned) left us a very vague voicemail on our home phone (who calls a working parents home phone during the day? You know to call our office numbers) saying that we might expect a call with licensinge, but telling us no information as to why. When we called her back in a panic, wondering if something was wrong, she told us everything was fine, she was just calling parents to let them know licensing people might get in touch.

Now, the new management team that has been sent in to the center to try to "fix" things has apologized to us, told us that the former director was wrong and should never have left us a message like that and should have explained the situation when she called. The teacher who humiliated our son has been fired. The teachers in our classroom are, actually, really great teachers that I do love and trust, but I'm just done with this center. We've sent them our notice that we're leaving. My son still isn't ready for Kindergarten, but as it just so happens, our church has started a new transitional-K class, and they had room for us.

I feel really bad for the teachers that are left that are good teachers - but I want the center to fail. They've had so many management problems, I don't honestly feel like they deserve to continue in business. It's a prime spot for a daycare. I feel like it's time to let a new company come in, and hopefully a new company will re-hire the awesome teachers taht are left. Hopefully it will be a more positive place for them (the teachers) as well as better run place for the kids.

This is really terrifying. I also didn't know that the background check only revealed if a person had convictions in the state in which the employer performed the check. Maybe I misunderstood, because this seems to defeat the purpose. If someone committed a crime in Virginia and then moved to Maryland and applied for a job in Maryland, the Maryland employer's background check wouldn't uncover anything about the crime in Virginia? That defeats the purpose, no? I hope I'm missing something....

This is just unacceptable. I know how hard it is to find daycare and I feel for the parents, but this place needs to be shut down.

Usually the "good" teachers don't want to say anything because they are afraid of the offending providers. If the good teachers are afraid can you imagine what the children must be feeling?

Weren't there any "good" teachers in this place who saw this stuff going on and spoke up? I just don't get it.

God, I thought our old daycare was bad. This place sounds terrifying.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the allegations were re: "inappropriate activities for infants." ? what could that possibly be?

They had an infant in the pre-school classroom because they didn't have enough staff to watch both classrooms.

I wonder what the allegations were re: "inappropriate activities for infants." ? what could that possibly be?

Anonymous wrote:is this the same daycare that taped a child to the wall a few years ago?

Yes

Current Inspector: Sarah Marbert (703) 359-6712

Inspection Date: July 21, 2011

Complaint Related: Yes

Areas Reviewed:
22VAC15-30 STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING.
22VAC15-30 STAFFING AND SUPERVISION.
22VAC15-30 PROGRAMS.
Technical Assistance:
*All investigations on the posted dates were conducted jointly with local authorities. *Potential negative actions have been discussed with facility administration. These include but are not limited to civil penalty, Probationary status, mandatory training. *Communication between employees and Administration regarding possibly clocking in early to alleviate ratio issues. Adjusting hours to accommodate parents' drop off times. *Establishing an Administrative file in the Licensing office with Administrative personnel's background search documents. *Ratios advertised (Parent Handbook etc.) must be maintained, not following these ratios would be considered false and misleading advertising. *Recommendation of Licensing standards training for all staff, particularly those in administrative positions.
Comments:
7/12- Complaint investigation begun regarding allegations of forbidden actions and discipline not constructive in nature. 7/14 - Complaint investigation is on-going at this time. 7/19 - Complaint investigation continued today. Based upon multiple staff interviews and available documentation, the preponderance of evidence supports the allegations of forbidden actions. The Complaint is valid for a staff person roughly handling a child and discipline not constructive in nature. Additional violations cited were not part of the original complaint, but found during the course of the investigation. If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please contact me at: Sarah.Marbert@dss.virginia.gov or 703-359-6712.
Violations:
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-310-D-4
Complaint related: No
Description: 7/12/11- There shall always be present a staff person certified in Medication Administration Training (MAT) when a child with prescribed emergency medications is present. Evidence: Through multiple staff interviews it was determined that on 6/28, 6/30, 7/5, and 7/7 the School Age/Camp group took walking field trips to the pool. One child has an Epi-pen for an allergy. No staff present on the trip was certified in MAT training and therefore able to administer the medication if needed.
Action to be Taken: We will switch out a teacher that is MAT trained to attend any field trips.
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-430-A
Complaint related: No
Description: 7/19/11- When staff are supervising children, they shall always ensure their care, protection, and guidance. Evidence: Staff B did not allow a child to go to the bathroom during rest time, subsequently the child had an accident.
Action to be Taken: All staff will be retrained in proper policies and procedures. Children will always be allowed to go to the bathroom.
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-430-F
Complaint related: No
Description: 7/19/11-Children under 10 shall be in constant sight and sound supervision. Evidence: During nap time in Preschool I and Preschool II all children are not kept in constant sight and sound supervision. Cot placement does not allow for continual supervision. Some children's cots are placed under the overhanging table edge, or behind shelving units. Preschool II has multiple areas that are not visible even when staff are standing.
Action to be Taken: We will rearrange the cots and staff locations during nap time.
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-440-E-1
Complaint related: No
Description: 7/12/11-Ratios for classrooms are: for children birth to the age of 16 months; one staff member for every four children. Evidence: At LI arrival in the Infant room, there was one staff member actively supervising 5 children. A second staff person was in the kitchen area of the room, separated by a partition from the children.
Action to be Taken: Additional staff will be added to the Infant room suite area.
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-461-4
Complaint related: No
Description: 7/12/11 - During the day, infants shall be provided with: Comfort as needed. Evidence: Upon arrival in the Toddler II room, one child was observed for a minimum of 5 minutes crying without being provided any comfort. Staff remarked that the child was new to the room; however, the child had been there for 3 weeks. Staff did not address the child until the LI inquired about the child. The child is an infant (15 months old).
Action to be Taken: Staff will be retrained in the social and emotional needs of children, and how to meet these needs.
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-484-A
Complaint related: Yes
Description: Discipline shall be constructive in nature... intended to redirect children to appropriate behavior and resolve conflicts. Evidence: Staff A yelled at a child, grabbed the child by his shoulders and was verbally demeaning to the child. The child was never redirected to an appropriate behavior.
Action to be Taken: All staff will be provided retraining in positive guidance techniques. Training will be on-going. Staff will be retrained in the social and emotional needs of children, and how to meet these needs.
Standard #: 22VAC15-30-487-1
Complaint related: Yes
Description: The following actions are forbidden: *1. "Physical punishment, striking a child, roughly handling or shaking a child...." Evidence: Through multiple staff interviews it was determined that Staff A roughly handled a child. The child was pouring milk into the sink in the classroom, from a height about eye level or higher. Staff A yelled at the child to stop from across the room. The child did not stop. The staff person crossed the room, grabbed the child by the shoulders and forcibly moved the child from the sink area of the room, into Preschool I from Preschool II. Evidence: Through multiple staff interviews it was determined that Staff A roughly handled/shook a child on their cot by forcibly shaking the cot to wake the child up at the end of rest time. The cot was repeatedly lifted by Staff A's foot, while saying "Wake up, wake up!' *2. Verbal remarks which are demeaning to the child. Evidence: Staff A yelled at a child in Preschool II to stop pouring milk into the sink from across the room. When the child did not stop, the staff member told the child: "You need to do what I tell you to do. This is why you will be staying in Preschool while all of your friends are going to Kindergarten."
Action to be Taken: All staff will be provided retraining in positive guidance techniques. Training will be on-going. Staff will be retrained in the social and emotional needs of children, and how to meet these needs.

Comments:
07/12- Complaint investigation begun today regarding allegations of Licensing staff being denied access to staff records. 7/19/11 - The files originally requested were for a specific period of time (6-12 months previous). The files in question were provided by the center when specifically asked for by name. These files did not meet the originally requested criteria; therefore the complaint is not valid. The violation cited was not part of the original complaint but was found during the course of the investigation. Staff A disclosed information on their Sworn Disclosure Statement (SDS), regarding a conviction of 2nd degree assault in Maryland. The staff person listed the convictions as required by law, but the facility did not perform due diligence to ensure the eligibility of employment. The staff person was employed for 5 months, (Dates of Employment: 11/20/ 2009 - 03/23/2010) and was subsequently terminated for roughly handling a child in care, in addition to other issues.
Violations:
Standard #: 22VAC15-51-50-AC-2
Complaint related: No
Description: Staff A was allowed to continue employment with a potential Barrier Crime having been disclosed. Evidence: Staff A's Sworn Disclosure Statement (SDS) revealed a conviction of a second degree Assault charge in Maryland. Assault convictions are reason for denying employment in Virginia. Due to the fact that convictions in other states are not reflected on Virginia background searches, the center failed to perform due diligence in verifying that Staff A was actually eligible for employment. The facility administration had knowledge that the staff member potentially had a Barrier crime, and allowed the employee to continue working.
Action to be Taken: Any time something is disclosed on a Sworn Disclosure Statement, the center will contact DSS for further guidance on employment eligibility. Staff persons will not be allowed to work until the issue is resolved.