|
September 16, 2026 Jessica Sylvester, Authorized Agent Bright Beginnings Academy 9249 Osborn Ave NW South Haven, MN 55382 License Number: 1111720 (Child Care Center) Report Number: 202605926 Dear Jessica Sylvester: On August 6, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) received your request for reconsideration regarding Citations 1 and 3 in the Correction Order issued to you on July 17, 2026. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1: The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the Germany classroom group, combined with all the preschool and school age groups in the Sweden classroom in the morning, was over ratio with 26 to 28 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:26 am to 8:37 am on July 7, 2026. An additional staff person was required. - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the Germany classroom group, combined with other preschool and school age groups in the Sweden classroom in the morning, was over ratio with 21 to 26 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:48 am to 9:00 am on July 7, 2026. An additional staff person was required. - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the Sweden classroom was over ratio with 11 children and 1 staff person from approximately 9:13 am to 10:22 am on July 8, 2026. An additional staff person was required. - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the Madagascar classroom group, combined with all the preschool and school age groups in the Sweden classroom in the morning, was over ratio with 28 to 29 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:26 am to 8:35 am on July 9, 2026. An additional staff person was required. (Sweden (Kindergarten) classroom: Preschool/SA classroom) - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the China classroom was over ratio with 9 to 10 children and 1 staff person from approximately 7:46 am to 7:55 am on July 7, 2026. An additional staff person was required. - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the China classroom was over ratio with 15 to 18 children and 2 staff persons from 8:14 am to 9:01 am on July 7, 2026. An additional staff person was required. (China classroom: Toddler classroom) - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the Norway classroom was over ratio with 9 to 12 children and 1 staff person from approximately 8:13 am to 8:28 am on July 9, 2026. A second staff person was required. (Norway classroom: Toddler classroom) - It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that the Finland classroom was over ratio with 9 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:32 am to 8:42 am on July 7, 2026. A third staff person was required. (Finland classroom: Infant classroom) Your Request for Reconsideration. 1. The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. It was determined that the Germany classroom group, combined with all the preschool and school age groups in the Sweden classroom, was over ratio with 26 to 28 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:26 a.m. to 8:37 a.m. on July 7, 2026. You stated, “The attached Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records show Marlen, Meg, Ari, and Koyel were present during the cited timeframe. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation.” 2. The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. It was determined that the Germany classroom group, combined with other preschool and school age groups in the Sweden classroom, was over ratio with 21 to 26 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:48 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on July 7, 2026. You stated, “The attached Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records show Marlen, Meg, Ari, and Koyel were present during the cited timeframe. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation.” 3. The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. It was determined that the China classroom was over ratio with 9 to 10 children and 1 staff person from approximately 7:46 a.m. to 7:55 a.m. on July 7, 2026. The attached Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records show Rachel, Cailey, and Ashley were present during the cited timeframe. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation. 4. The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. It was determined that the China classroom was over ratio with 15 to 18 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:14 a.m. to 9:01 a.m. on July 7, 2026. The attached Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records show Rachel, Courtney, and Sahara were present during the cited timeframe. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation. 5. The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. It was determined that the Madagascar classroom group, combined with all the preschool and school age groups in the Sweden classroom, was over ratio with 28 to 29 children and 2 staff persons from approximately 8:26 a.m. to 8:35 a.m. on July 9, 2026. The attached Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records do not support this finding. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation. 6. The required staff-to-child ratios were not maintained. It was determined that the Norway classroom was over ratio with 9 to 12 children and 1 staff person from approximately 8:13 a.m. to 8:28 a.m. on July 9, 2026. The attached Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records show Cailey, Jade, Chelsea, and Rachel were present during the cited timeframe. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation. Applicable Law. Staff-to-child ratios and maximum group size. Except as provided in subpart 2, the minimally acceptable staff-to-child ratios and the maximum group size within each age category are:
Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 1 Reconsideration Determination. It was determined through conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site that staff to child ratios were not maintained eight times between July 7, 2026, to July 9, 2026. The eight times when staff to child ratio were not maintained occurred in the China, Germany, Finland, Madagascar, Norway, and Sweden class rooms. On request for consideration, you referenced your “Daily Staffing Plan, Staff Check-In Report, Podium messages, and time records” to refute six violations of when staff to child ratios were not maintained in the China, Germany, Madagascar, Sweden and Norway class rooms. However, conversations with staff persons and documentation reviewed on site support that staff to child ratios were not maintained eight times between July 7, 2026, to July 9, 2026, in the China, Germany, Finland, Madagascar, Norway, and Sweden class rooms. Citation 1 is affirmed because staff to child ratios were not maintained seven times in the China, Germany, Finland, Madagascar, Norway, and Sweden class rooms. In addition, you did not dispute when staff to child to ratio was not maintained in the Finland class room from approximately 8:32 am to 8:42 am on July 7, 2026. A third staff person was required. Citation 1 is affirmed because staff to child ratio was not maintained in the Finland class room. Citation 3: There was not a written individual child care program plan on file for 2 of 2 (C1 and C2) children with special needs that specifies methods of implementation. - The health care summary for C1 documented a diagnosed special need. There was no documentation on site that the program had developed an ICCPP for this child's special need. (C1) - The health care summary for C2 documented a diagnosed special need. There was no documentation on site that the program had developed an ICCPP for this child's special need. (C2) Your Request for Reconsideration. You did not request reconsideration for not having an ICCPP on file for C1. Regarding C2, you stated, “C2 had not been enrolled for 30 days at the time of the licensing visit. The ICCPP was completed within the required timeframe. The ICCPP was maintained by the center at the time of the licensing visit but was not requested during the inspection. Supporting documentation is attached. We respectfully request reconsideration of this citation.” Applicable Law. Individual child care program plan. When a license holder admits a child with special needs, the license holder must ensure that an individual child care program plan is developed to meet the child's individual needs. The individual child care program plan must be in writing and specify methods of implementation and be reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3. Reconsideration Determination. The Licensor noted that there was not a written individual child care program plan on file for C1. C1’s health care summary documented a diagnosed special need. There was no documentation on site that the program had developed an ICCPP for C1’s special need. You did not dispute or present any additional information regarding not having an ICCPP C1. Citation 3 is affirmed because there was not a written ICCPP on file for C1. On the day of the site visit, the Licensor also noted that there was not a written ICCPP on file for C2. C2’s health care summary documented a diagnosed special need. When a license holder admits a child with special needs, the license holder must ensure that an individual child care program plan is developed to meet the child's individual needs. The individual child care program plan must be in writing and specify methods of implementation and be reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. Furthermore, neither the director nor president of your program stated that you had an ICCPP for C2 on file during the exit interview on July 16, 2026. You did not have a written ICCPP on file for C2 on the day of the site visit; therefore, Citation 3 is affirmed. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 1 and 3 are affirmed. This is a final agency decision. Previously Ordered Corrective Action. In the original Correction Order, you were ordered to correct the violation(s) cited, and submit documentation of such action to your licensor. A request for reconsideration does not stay any provisions or requirements of the correction order. Minnesota Statutes, 142B.16, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). If you have not done so already, please immediately comply with the previously ordered corrective actions for all uncontested and affirmed violations. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your licensor to ensure the safety and well-being of the children you serve. Sincerely,
Hlee Vang, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
