Cosmopolitan Kids Downtown Academy

Observation

110-300-0345(c) as multiple staff who were present, did not see the outdoor climber incident occurValid when the child fell on the steps and received a bump on the forehead. The teacher in charge of 7 children playing on the climber reported that she did not see the child fall, but heard a loud bong and then she went over to the child who had a knot forming on his forehead. The teacher in charge of the group reported that the child did not cry at the time or just recently after the fall. 4 other staff were cleaning up outside after graduation. It was reported that the by the staff in charge, that she was between the staff cleaning up tables and the climber where the children were playing. Mom reported from the window, she saw her son approaching the teachers being ignored to include the classroom teacher who was supervising the group of children. Dispute Description: Dispute Description: Non-Compliance 110-300-0345(5)(c) We respectfully submit this clarification in response to the licensing report referencing supervision concerns during an outdoor incident involving a child. At the time of the incident: • One lead teacher was assigned to directly supervise seven children on the climber, meeting the required ratio standards. • Additional staff were present in the playground area assisting with light post-event cleanup—specifically removing cups and floral decorations following a graduation activity. There were no tables present in the outdoor play area at that time. • The supervising teacher remained focused on the children under her care and responded as soon as she heard a loud sound. The child slipped while ascending the steps of the play structure and bumped his forehead. The supervising teacher heard the impact and immediately approached the child, who was not crying at the time. Upon lifting him, she observed swelling forming on his forehead and voiced this aloud. She then went to retrieve an ice pack, and another staff member stepped in to hold and comfort the child. • Water was offered to comfort the child. • The child's mother, who had been observing from the window, came out quickly and arrived before the ice pack was delivered. Upon seeing the gel-style pack, she expressed concern over potential oral contact and declined its use. • The lead teacher then immediately sourced real ice in a sealed Ziploc bag, per the parent’s request. • As Program Supervisor, I was present throughout the response and ensured the child’s care, coordinated staff support, and checked in with the parent directly. She stated she did not require further assistance and would take her child to the doctor. • An incident report and photo of the injury were provided to the parent that same day. This incident illustrates: • Timely and coordinated staff response. • Clear assignment of supervision roles with appropriate ratios. • Respectful, real-time collaboration with the parent. We acknowledge that while the moment of impact was not directly witnessed, active supervision was present, responsive, and rooted in safety. The supervising teacher was engaged and within proximity to the group, and additional staff were present and alert. We remain committed to continuous improvement through documentation, training, and safety audits that reflect our values of transparency and child-centered care. Response to Observation: 110-300-0465(3) We respectfully contest the observation, as our record retention practices are in full compliance with WAC 110-300-0465(3). When a child is withdrawn from our program, parental access to ProCare messaging is disabled to protect privacy and maintain system integrity. However, this does not mean the child’s records are deleted. All enrollment, attendance, and communication records are securely archived and maintained on-site or in our administrative office for the required twelve-month period—and beyond when applicable. In the case referenced, the parent’s access to messaging features was deauthorized following the child's disenrollment, as is standard protocol. The account was not deleted, and all associated documentation remains intact and accessible for review. We remain committed to transparent record-keeping and welcome the opportunity to clarify any procedures that may have been misunderstood. Dispute Description: Non-Compliance 110-300-0345(5)(c) We respectfully submit this clarification in response to the licensing report referencing supervision concerns during an outdoor incident involving a child. At the time of the incident: • One lead teacher was assigned to directly supervise seven children on the climber, meeting the required ratio standards. • Additional staff were present in the playground area assisting with light post-event cleanup—specifically removing cups and floral decorations following a graduation activity. There were no tables present in the outdoor play area at that time. • The supervising teacher remained focused on the children under her care and responded as soon as she heard a loud sound. The child slipped while ascending the steps of the play structure and bumped his forehead. The supervising teacher heard the impact and immediately approached the child, who was not crying at the time. Upon lifting him, she observed swelling forming on his forehead and voiced this aloud. She then went to retrieve an ice pack, and another staff member stepped in to hold and comfort the child. • Water was offered to comfort the child. • The child's mother, who had been observing from the window, came out quickly and arrived before the ice pack was delivered. Upon seeing the gel-style pack, she expressed concern over potential oral contact and declined its use. • The lead teacher then immediately sourced real ice in a sealed Ziploc bag, per the parent’s request. • As Program Supervisor, I was present throughout the response and ensured the child’s care, coordinated staff support, and checked in with the parent directly. She stated she did not require further assistance and would take her child to the doctor. • An incident report and photo of the injury were provided to the parent that same day. This incident illustrates: • Timely and coordinated staff response. • Clear assignment of supervision roles with appropriate ratios. • Respectful, real-time collaboration with the parent. We acknowledge that while the moment of impact was not directly witnessed, active supervision was present, responsive, and rooted in safety. The supervising teacher was engaged and within proximity to the group, and additional staff were present and alert. We remain committed to continuous improvement through documentation, training, and safety audits that reflect our values of transparency and child-centered care. Response to Observation: 110-300-0465(3) We respectfully contest the observation, as our record retention practices are in full compliance with WAC 110-300-0465(3). When a child is withdrawn from our program, parental access to ProCare messaging is disabled to protect privacy and maintain system integrity. However, this does not mean the child’s records are deleted. All enrollment, attendance, and communication records are securely archived and maintained on-site or in our administrative office for the required twelve-month period—and beyond when applicable. In the case referenced, the parent’s access to messaging features was deauthorized following the child's disenrollment, as is standard protocol. The account was not deleted, and all associated documentation remains intact and accessible for review. We remain committed to transparent record-keeping and welcome the opportunity to clarify any procedures that may have been misunderstood.