Kiddie Academy of Seattle at Queen Anne

Training requirements

WAC 110-300-0106(12) · Serious

110-300-0106(12)- Several teachers according to the Merit page have an expired or incomplete Food Handler card.

Prohibited behavior and discipline, and physical separation of children

WAC 110-300-0331(1) · Serious

Teacher Hanan was observed engaging in an inappropriate interaction by attempting to force a child to eat, despite the child stating that he did not want to eat. Dispute Description: Summary and Context The cited incident occurred during lunchtime with a teacher (former employee, H.B.) and a child who had just returned from a doctor’s appointment. The child appeared tired, stressed, and hungry, and the teacher was encouraging the child to eat. The interaction was not disciplinary in nature. Rather, it was part of teacher’s effort to help calm down the child and meet basic needs after a difficult morning. At no point was the child forced to eat anything harmful, punished with food, or subjected to hostile or abusive treatment. As confirmed in the video, the teacher remained engaged, attentive, and calm before, during, and after mealtime. The child’s safety and well-being were not at risk. Given this context, we respectfully submit that the cited incident does not meet the criteria or intent of the WAC sections referenced in the report. 1. Citation under WAC 110-300-0331(l): “Forcing a child to ingest something as punishment” We respectfully dispute this citation. The cited WAC section is designed to prohibit punitive, abusive, or intentionally harmful disciplinary practices. It specifically refers to actions such as: “Forcing a child to ingest something as punishment such as hot sauce or soap.” These examples clarify the intent of the rule i.e. to prevent punishment through the forced ingestion of unpleasant or harmful substances. In this incident, the teacher was not disciplining the child. The teacher was encouraging normal eating behavior in response to the child’s hunger and emotional state. The child was never forced to ingest anything as a form of punishment or harm. Therefore, the conduct described does not meet the definition or intent of WAC 110-300-0331(l). 2. Citation under WAC 110-300-0325(1)(h): “Being responsive and listening to children’s requests and questions” We respectfully dispute the note suggesting that the teacher was not responsive. The teacher’s actions were, in fact, responsive to the child’s needs. The child had just come back from a doctor’s appointment and was showing signs of fatigue and distress. The teacher recognized these cues and sought to comfort and support the child by encouraging food intake, which was a direct, caring response to the child’s state. Reviewing the full context (including before and after mealtime) clearly shows that the teacher was attentive, calm, and engaged, demonstrating an understanding of the child’s needs and emotions consistent with the expectations of WAC 110-300-0325(1)(h). 3. Citation under WAC 110-300-0475(3): “Failure to report an incident” We also respectfully dispute the citation under WAC 110-300-0475(3). This WAC requires reporting of specific incidents that put children at risk, including emergency responses, neglect, physical abuse, or inappropriate sexual touching. None of these criteria apply to this situation. The interaction in question did not involve harm, neglect, or abuse, and therefore does not meet the definition of a reportable incident under WAC 110-300-0475(3) or RCW 26.44.020. To ensure our interpretation was correct, we reviewed the DCYF FAQs on reportable incidents, all of which confirm that this type of event is not reportable. There is no reporting form or process applicable to a situation of this kind, reaffirming that this incident does not fall under mandatory reporting requirements. It is also important to note that the Director also chose to inform the licensor after a staff member expressed concern about the interaction, doing so out of transparency and an abundance of caution. While the Director did not believe the incident rose to a reportable level under WAC, she wanted to keep the department informed. No further action or reporting form was requested by the licensor. Conclusion In summary: The teacher’s actions were not punitive or abusive. The teacher was responsive to the child’s needs and emotional state. The incident does not meet the definitions of reportable events under WAC or RCW. Accordingly, we respectfully request that all three citations be reviewed and removed from the inspection record, as the incident does not constitute a violation of any of the referenced WAC provisions. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. We are happy to provide additional documentation or evidence if needed. I am available to discuss these with you at your convenience. Summary and Context The cited incident occurred during lunchtime with a teacher (former employee, H.B.) and a child who had just returned from a doctor’s appointment. The child appeared tired, stressed, and hungry, and the teacher was encouraging the child to eat. The interaction was not disciplinary in nature. Rather, it was part of teacher’s effort to help calm down the child and meet basic needs after a difficult morning. At no point was the child forced to eat anything harmful, punished with food, or subjected to hostile or abusive treatment. As confirmed in the video, the teacher remained engaged, attentive, and calm before, during, and after mealtime. The child’s safety and well-being were not at risk. Given this context, we respectfully submit that the cited incident does not meet the criteria or intent of the WAC sections referenced in the report. 1. Citation under WAC 110-300-0331(l): “Forcing a child to ingest something as punishment” We respectfully dispute this citation. The cited WAC section is designed to prohibit punitive, abusive, or intentionally harmful disciplinary practices. It specifically refers to actions such as: “Forcing a child to ingest something as punishment such as hot sauce or soap.” These examples clarify the intent of the rule i.e. to prevent punishment through the forced ingestion of unpleasant or harmful substances. In this incident, the teacher was not disciplining the child. The teacher was encouraging normal eating behavior in response to the child’s hunger and emotional state. The child was never forced to ingest anything as a form of punishment or harm. Therefore, the conduct described does not meet the definition or intent of WAC 110-300-0331(l). 2. Citation under WAC 110-300-0325(1)(h): “Being responsive and listening to children’s requests and questions” We respectfully dispute the note suggesting that the teacher was not responsive. The teacher’s actions were, in fact, responsive to the child’s needs. The child had just come back from a doctor’s appointment and was showing signs of fatigue and distress. The teacher recognized these cues and sought to comfort and support the child by encouraging food intake, which was a direct, caring response to the child’s state. Reviewing the full context (including before and after mealtime) clearly shows that the teacher was attentive, calm, and engaged, demonstrating an understanding of the child’s needs and emotions consistent with the expectations of WAC 110-300-0325(1)(h). 3. Citation under WAC 110-300-0475(3): “Failure to report an incident” We also respectfully dispute the citation under WAC 110-300-0475(3). This WAC requires reporting of specific incidents that put children at risk, including emergency responses, neglect, physical abuse, or inappropriate sexual touching. None of these criteria apply to this situation. The interaction in question did not involve harm, neglect, or abuse, and therefore does not meet the definition of a reportable incident under WAC 110-300-0475(3) or RCW 26.44.020. To ensure our interpretation was correct, we reviewed the DCYF FAQs on reportable incidents, all of which confirm that this type of event is not reportable. There is no reporting form or process applicable to a situation of this kind, reaffirming that this incident does not fall under mandatory reporting requirements. It is also important to note that the Director also chose to inform the licensor after a staff member expressed concern about the interaction, doing so out of transparency and an abundance of caution. While the Director did not believe the incident rose to a reportable level under WAC, she wanted to keep the department informed. No further action or reporting form was requested by the licensor. Conclusion In summary: The teacher’s actions were not punitive or abusive. The teacher was responsive to the child’s needs and emotional state. The incident does not meet the definitions of reportable events under WAC or RCW. Accordingly, we respectfully request that all three citations be reviewed and removed from the inspection record, as the incident does not constitute a violation of any of the referenced WAC provisions. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. We are happy to provide additional documentation or evidence if needed. I am available to discuss these with you at your convenience.

Food allergies and special dietary needs

WAC 110-300-0186(4) · Serious

WAC

Food allergies and special dietary needs

WAC 110-300-0186(4) · Serious

is valid. Staff failed to review the child's ICP prior to serving food to the child. The child's individual care plan had inconsistent information regarding the child's food sensitivity.

Infant safe sleep practices

WAC 110-300-0291(1)(h) · Immediate

The licensor observed a sleep sack draped over the crib rail of a crib that was occupied by an infant. Technical assistance was given to the teachers in the classroom and the director.