Contents:
- Introduction
- Our Standards
- Timing of the first ever complaint in 13 years
- Centre’s own planned self review
- MOE visit
- Full list of why 24 items were classed “non-compliance” items.
- Positive outcomes in the end
- MOE approval of full license on 15 Nov 2021 for an increase in license number by 25% (i.e. from 40 to 50 children)
- A new Centre Manager
- A new Team Leader
- Two new staff recruited in 2021 to meet growing enrolments
- Full parent support about the 24 “non-compliance” issues
- Highest occupancy in the centre’s history throughout COVID
- Expansion of Under 2’s with a waiting list into 2022
- After a trail of complaints from centres in Tauranga, we understand the MOE licensing officer has been moved to a different division within the Ministry.
1. Introduction – Did the Ministry of Education’s approach to compliance go too far this time?
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has an enormous job of setting minimum quality standards, licensing, and auditing over 4600 ECE organisations in NZ. We have always supported spot-checks and random audits of ECE centres to ensure and even lift minimum standards, but recently we have had to reflect whether MOE had gone too far this time in choosing an “ambush” approach to check the compliances of an ECE centre. This article describes a recent experience within one of our own centres – Fern Garden Preschool in Tauranga, and the manner in which 24 issues were identified to provide “further evidence” for:
- 18 of which (75%) were already in practice within the centre as able to be located and evidenced by our new manager and new head teacher immediately after the visit,
- the remaining 6 (25%) needing additional evidence to be produced by our team who had been severely disrupted over the past several months due to:
- 2020 COVID lockdowns,
- centre building rennovation plans,
- first staffing restructure (COVID triggered) in 10 years, and
- change in centre management (one week prior).
Every centre has to meet over 300 compliance requirements every minute of every day they are open – and that’s just the MOE requirements. We accept this – we are very proud of our team at Fern Garden who have proven themselves (within and outside the ECE sector) to be among industry leaders at this for over 10 years, but we question the way in which this recent episode was approached by an MOE officer “M” in the middle of our restructure, centre management transition, COVID recovery transition, and renovation plans.
2. OUR STANDARDS
We regularly reflect on our quality standards and how they are set by our directors to be intentionally higher than MOE regulations whether it be:
- Investing in ample nature-themed indoor and outdoor spaces for children;
- Investing in over 90% qualified teachers (minimum in the funding band is 80%) and aiming for 100% qualified teachers in 2022;
- Investing in more teachers than required with our 1:3 / 1:4 ratios for babies vs 1:5 MOE regulations;
- Investing in more teachers than required with our 1:8 ratios for preschoolers vs. 1:10 MOE regulations;
- Investing in centre operations that have proven to be award winning;
- Investing in our very own invented parent portal called “Learning Roots and Shoots™”;
- Investing in excellence with over a dozen independently judged and audited national awards or accolades (nearly every year over the last decade).
3. TIMING OF THE FIRST and ONLY COMPLAINT IN THE 13 YEAR HISTORY OF THE CENTRE
The first and only complaint to the MOE about Fern Garden in 13 years was presented to our centre in September, immediately after the country emerged out of 2020 lockdowns, and immediately after a concurrent change in centre management. At the time we received this complaint, our new centre restructure to support our COVID recovery, including a new centre manager and new head teacher, had just started (their first week in the job).
Following the initial visit and swift resolution of the complaint, the MOE officer “M” then unexpectedly proceeded to walk throughout the entire centre requesting further information relating to the full ECE licensing criteria. Our new leadership team (still yet to be fully inducted within their first week) were understandably unable to provide instant responses about HR folders, archive locations of planning, reviews, excursions and documentation and other historical events. The owners (husband and wife team Nikeeta and Dr Darius Singh) were unable to attend the meeting in Tauranga as they are based in Auckland and were concurrently recovering two sister centres off the back of recent Auckland COVID lockdowns. However, the new centre manager and team leader were able to eventually respond to questions and provide requested information within a few days (most by the next day). Regardless, MOE officer “M” still kept the list of 24 issues that was requested on the day and MOE did not change their stance even though over 75% had been evidenced within one to five days. Even one year later (including several delays due to further COVID lockdowns) – that list still reported 24 “provide evidence” requests, as though they had still not been met, causing damaging negative perceptions. Note that our own Fern Garden community of teachers, parents and whanau transparently witnessed the scene of the day and saw the MOE “provide evidence” requests being addressed within the first week.
Furthermore, no acknowledgement was taken by the MOE officer “M” of the challenging circumstances in which the centre was operating at the time such as :
- still inducting a new centre manager,
- still inducting a new head teacher,
- still settling staff from the first restructure (due to COVID) in 10 years,
- recovering out of COVID lockdowns, and
- major renovation plans to expand the building to meet the growing demand and waitlist for our under 2’s.
Requests were made to MOE officer “M” for a delayed repeat visit to allow for the necessary induction of the new leadership team (so that at least they could be familiar with the centre and show MOE all files and systems on the day of their visit). These requests were denied. Even in these circumstances, the majority of issues were minor and resolved within one to five days. But at what cost?
Any parent or teacher or other ECE professional reading the high level “provide evidence” requests from MOE, unchanged for one year, could be forgiven to thinking our centre still wasn’t safe, and that our team was not doing the job they do so well every day. Fortunately for the centre, because of our transparency and openness to all matters raised by the Ministry, our parents were extremely supportive and agreeable with our position that they could see for themselves each and every day – so much so, that enrolments grew by word of mouth to reach record high levels at Fern Garden, and continue to have a one year waiting list today. All despite the list of 24 requests that continued to be reported as needing to “provide evidence” by MOE throughout 2021.
How many other ECE centres are being subjected to this similar treatment of unfair and unreasonable conditions in which to present their centre? Interestingly, we understand from the wake of several ECE centres in Tauranga who made complaints about a similar experience by the same MOE official, that MOE officer “M” has since been relocated into a different “non customer facing” department within the Ministry.
Parents have been supportive and agreeable with our position that they can see for themselves each and every day – so much so that enrolments have grown by word of mouth and referrals to reach record high levels at Fern Garden and continue to have a waiting list until 2022…
We understand that following several complaints from other ECE centres in Tauranga, MOE officer “M” has since been relocated into another department within the Ministry
4. CENTRE’S OWN SELF-TRIGGERED, PLANNED REVIEW
The MOE visit in September 2020, happened when the centre had previously triggered its own planned review for a major expansion of the entire centre to keep up with its demand and waiting list.
- Phase one of this planned review was a significant redesign of the interior of the entire centre during 2017/2018, which ERO acknowledged and commended in their 2018 quality review. Extracts include:
- “A major upgrade to buildings and furniture in 2017 has significantly improved the learning environment in both age-group spaces.”
- “The centre is well resourced to enhance child-directed learning.”
- “Governance is effective. A clear vision and philosophy guide centre practice. This is supported by a robust policy framework, and effective organisational systems and processes. Internal evaluation at different levels of centre operation is evident and leads to ongoing development and improvement. A well-developed appraisal process supports teachers to critically reflect on and improve their practice.”
- Phase two of the planned review was a further expansion of the Under 2’s indoor and outdoor spaces, planned during 2020. However, due to COVID lockdown disruptions throughout 2020 and the concurrent change in centre management, this project could only resume back on track in September, which coincided with the above MOE visit.
5. MOE VISIT
The MOE has the right under the Education Act to visit any centre at any time and we have always welcomed this and proudly presented our centre systems, processes, policies, operations and track record as evidenced in the following previous visits and successful outcomes for Fern Garden Preschool:
- 2007 (MOE original centre license),
- 2011 (MOE license),
- 2015 (ERO) and
- 2018 (ERO).
In fact, we have always welcomed audits and inspections over the last 10 years across our three centres and seen this as an opportunity for an extra set of professional eyes to upgrade and improve our policies, procedures and practices. This has fed into our continuous improvement philosophy and made us and our teams who and what we are today for our communities and tamariki.
When combined across our three centres, we have seen over a dozen ERO visits or MOE licence visits over the last 10 years. That means the directors, Nikeeta Singh and Dr Darius Singh, have personally met and engaged with MOE for a license visit / financial audit or ERO for a centre-wide audit every 10 months over the last decade (i.e. rotating on average across all centres, not every 10 months at each centre!). They had never encountered an approach by a MOE or ERO officer as Fern Garden had encountered with Officer “M” in September 2020.
In this particular instance, the directors were dealing with COVID lockdown and restarting issues for their Auckland communities and were not available for the first time to meet with MOE in Tauranga, leaving their new leadership team exposed and vulnerable, despite their written request to MOE officer “M” for additional time to settle and induct them properly.
The full centre license review by MOE officer “M” went ahead regardless, and “non-compliance” items are listed below, alongside subsequent evidence provided within 1-5 days.
For the next 12 months, MOE did not remove ANY item from the list that were resolved within one day or one week of their visit (given our new leadership team needed the necessary time to locate and provide all the required evidence) and so MOE continued to publish the full list of 24 headlines, as though the centre was still non-complying to these. This could not be further from the truth as repeatedly evidenced and approved by MOE since.
Even though items were evidenced immediately after the visit by our new manager and new team leader team, MOE had not removed any items from their list for an entire year
6. FULL LIST OF 24 ITEMS TO “PROVIDE MORE EVIDENCE” ABOUT
Out of the 24 items raised by MOE in the table below:
- 18 of the items (75%) were evidenced within a few days and well before official notification was received about the “requests for evidence” at the time of the visit,
- the remaining 6 items required additional evidence for areas which take time to show, such as ongoing PLD and mentoring of our team which had been severely disrupted over the past 12 months due to COVID and a change in centre manager,
- a major item was the basis of granting an extensions in early and mid 2021, due to COVID delays in the construction sector (i.e. backlogged supply of materials, labour and consents). This was the final phase of a significant long term self-review for our Under 2’s renovation project.
License Criteria
45 PF12
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that parts of the building or buildings used by children have: *lighting (natural or artificial) that is appropriate to the activities offered or purpose of each room; *ventilation (natural or mechanical) that allows fresh air to circulate (particularly in sanitary and sleep areas); *a safe and effective means of maintaining a room temperature of no lower than 16°C; and *acoustic absorption materials if necessary to reduce noise levels that may negatively affect children’s learning or wellbeing.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Natural lighting: Curtains and blinds “opened wider” to allow more natural lighting.
- Ventilation: a fully operating ceiling extraction fan in the bathroom had a missing plastic cover which was found later that day.
- Temperature check: existing infra-red thermometers (with proof of purchase) and historical records in each room were already in place and the documentation simply needed to be presented on the spot which the new manager and team could not locate until later that day.
License Criteria
46 HS1
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that premises, furniture, furnishings, fittings, equipment, and materials are kept safe, hygienic, and maintained in good condition.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Storage bags were blocking inside the shower area and so were simply moved.
License Criteria
46 HS7
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence of a written emergency plan and supplies to ensure the care and safety of children and adults at the service. The plan must include evacuation procedures for the service’s premises, which apply in a variety of emergency situations and which are consistent with the Fire Evacuation Scheme for the building.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- More food packets and water bottles were added to stock up the Civil Defense Kit .
- Centre reviews already implement an annual review of the communication plan for families and support services. The 2020 review had been disrupted due to COVID lockdown but MOE officer “M” did not factor this.
License Criteria
46 HS9
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that a procedure for monitoring children’s sleep is displayed and implemented and a record of children’s sleep times is kept. Specifically, provide evidence of a review that has been undertaken to improve engagement and practice with sleep monitoring requirements.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing procedure provided and displayed better.
- Review to sign off on sleep checks and practice reinforced immediately.
License Criteria
46 HS10
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that furniture or items intended for children to sleep on (such as cots, beds, stretchers, or mattresses) are arranged and spaced when in use so that: • adults have clear access to at least one side (meaning the length, not the width); • the area surrounding each child allows sufficient air movement to minimise the risk of spreading illness; and • children able to sit or stand can do so safely as they wake.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- All cots and stretchers already met space requirements.
- Within the week, the new centre manager decided to remove the only double cot and replace it with a single level cot.
License Criteria
46 HS22
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence children are supervised while eating. Provide records of the outcome of the review process including a reviewed supervision plan which clearly indicates how staff will supervise children while eating.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- With three teachers sitting and supervising the eating area, they stood up from the low level children’s chair to stretch their legs (but were not allowed to do so under the regulations). Not all three can be standing up to clear tables etc, so review also ensures that one teacher will always be SEATED with the children while supervising eating times.
- Review records provided and accepted by MOE.
- Review included changes to the daily duties/role descriptions and supervision plan and review of supervision policy and food safety and hygiene.
License Criteria
46 HS28
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that medicine (prescription and non-prescription) is not given to a child unless it is given: *by a doctor or ambulance personnel in an emergency; or *by the parent of the child; or *with the written authority (appropriate to the category of medicine) of a parent. Related to clause 46 (1)(b) of standard. To provide a procedure for administering medication to children that ensures the health and safety of children is given by proper care, and that medication is not administered inappropriately by services.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing Medicines policy and MOE approved enrolment form provided.
- The wording of the “Auckland” Ministry contact was a violation of the regulations for a centre in Tauranga. The wording was immediately changed to the “Rotorua” Ministry contact in the policy to become compliant.
- Added the word “Bonjela” to match centre policy for administered medicines, with the centre enrolment form list of administered medicines to become compliant.
License Criteria
46 HS29
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that adults who administer medicine to children (other than their own) are provided with information and/or training relevant to the task.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Our centre ensures by policy and practice of 100% staff being first aid certified. This existing evidence was provided.
- Existing staff training program for administering medicines and records provided.
License Criteria
46 HS31
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence of a written child protection policy that meets the requirements of the Children Act 2014.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing Child Protection Policy provided.
- Flowchart of actions was a violation of the regulations because it failed to include the local MOE contact details. This was rectified immediately.
- Indicators to identify abuse and neglect were in a separate document. This was non-compliant as per requirements by MOE, and was therefore immediately copied and pasted into the policy document to become compliant.
License Criteria
47 GMA1
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence the following are prominently displayed at the service for parents and visitors: *the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008, and the Licensing Criteria for Early Childhood Education and Care Centres 2008; *the full names and qualifications of each person counting towards regulated qualification requirements; *the service’s current licence certificate; and *a procedure people should follow if they wish to complain about non-compliance with the Regulations or criteria.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Regulations displayed more prominently.
- License displayed more prominently.
- Staff details enlarged on noticeboard area.
- Wording of MOE contact details changed from “Auckland office” to “Rotorua office” to become compliant.
- Parent feedback policy reviewed.
License Criteria
47 GMA7A
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that all children’s workers who have access to children are safety checked in accordance with the Vulnerable Children Act 2014. Safety checks must be undertaken and the results obtained before the worker has access to children. The results of the safety checks must be recorded and the record kept as long as the person is employed at the service. Every children’s worker must be safety checked every three years.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- New centre manager had not yet been inducted and therefore could not immediately locate hard copies of HR files in the filing cabinet on the day. These were instead archived in the new online digital HR file system.
- Police vetting for all staff provided.
- Safety checks for all staff provided.
License Criteria
47 GMA8
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence of an annual plan guides the service’s operation. An annual plan identifying ‘who’, ‘what’, and ‘when’ in relation to key tasks undertaken each year.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- The column labelled “WHO” was updated by including the (new) centre manager’s name. The new centre manager’s name (who joined the centre 5 days ago) was added to the annual plan to become compliant.
- This was deemed and listed in the 24 items by MOE officer “M” as a violation and breach of regulations.
License Criteria
47 GMA10
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that enrolment records are maintained for each child attending. Records are kept for at least 7 years.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Enrolments at the centre were reviewed. Some past enrolment forms were missing the previous centre manager’s signature on the last page.
- The new centre manager rectified this after reviewing the past forms and discussing with MOE.
License Criteria
45 PF2
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence the design and layout of the premises support effective adult supervision so that children’s access to the licensed space (indoor and outdoor) is not unnecessarily limited.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing supervision plan provided.
- The previous two MOE license reviews did not report non-compliance about this, but MOE officer “M” did.
License Criteria
46 HS12
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that equipment, premises and facilities are checked on every day of operation for hazards to children. Accident/incident records are analysed to identify hazards and appropriate action is taken. Hazards to the safety of children are eliminated, isolated or minimised.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing daily safety checks provided.
- Additional words such as “Vandalism”, “Puddles of water” were added in order to satisfy MOE officer “M” for compliance.
- Existing analysis of accident/incident records provided.
- Existing regular management reports to directors provided.
- Existing Health and Safety “iceburg model” and framework provided.
- Existing annual centre-wide “Centre Risks Management System” spreadsheet that highlights all risks and mitigation plans, for parents to review and feedback on, was provided.
License Criteria
46 HS27
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that all practicable steps are taken to get immediate medical assistance for a child who is seriously injured or becomes seriously ill, and to notify a parent of what has happened.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing signed incident/illness reports provided. Some incident forms were missing parent signatures that must be signed on the day.
- Policy was missing the words “When to notify MOE” of an accident/incident. This was added immediately in order to satisfy MOE officer “M” for compliance.
- Policy wording was deemed non-compliant by MOE officer “M”, because ONE word was required to be changed from “Incident” to “Event”. This was fixed immediately in order to become compliant.
- This “breach of regulation”, or “violation in licensing criteria” remained as “not met” on the published MOE list for one year
License Criteria
47 GMA11
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that attendance record is maintained that shows the times and dates of every child’s attendance at the service. Records are kept for at least 7 years. Specifically Funding Handbook (6-3), Marked by staff daily (or for each session if more than one session a day).
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing Student Management Software System (Discover) reports provided.
- New centre manager had not yet been fully inducted, nor yet trained with a login on the Discover software system and so could not show MOE officer “M” at the time of the visit.
License Criteria
46 HS17
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence whenever children leave the premises on an excursion: assessment and management of risk is undertaken, and adult:child ratios are determined accordingly. Ratios are not less than the required adult:child ratio; the first aid requirements in criterion HS25 are met in relation to those children and any children remaining at the premises; parents have given prior written approval to their child’s participation and of the proposed ratio for: *regular excursions at the time of enrolment; and *special excursions prior to the excursion taking place; and *there are communication systems in place so that people know where the children are, and adults can communicate with others as necessary. *When children leave the premises on a regular or special excursion, the excursion must be approved by the Person Responsible.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Excursion form was deemed a violation and non-compliant by MOE officer “M” because it stated the wording of “Signed by Manager”, instead of “Signed by Person responsible”. This was changed immediately in order to become compliant.
- Excursions Policy was deemed non-compliant by MOE officer “M”, due to the incorrect wording of “planned and spontaneous excursions” rather than the required wording of “regular and special excursions”. This was fixed immediately in order to become compliant.
- Existing excursions folder and previous records of excursions provided.
- Previous excursion RAMS, parent approvals and ratios provided.
License Criteria
43 C2
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide documented evidence that the service curriculum is informed by assessment, planning, and evaluation (documented and undocumented) that demonstrates an understanding of children’s learning, their interests, whānau, and life contexts.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing regular programme planning meeting minutes provided (showing disruptions due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
- Existing regular staff meeting minutes provided (showing disruptions due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
- Existing parent portal invented by directors – “Roots and Shoots” learning stories provided. New centre manager had not yet been inducted nor had accessed the software system.
- Existing internal and external evaluations provided (including spontaneous, planned, long term reviews).
License Criteria
43 C3
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence of how adults providing education and care engage in meaningful, positive interactions to enhance children’s learning and nurture reciprocal relationships. Specifically, documentation to support changed practice of how adults respond and support children settling.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 week, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Due to COVID lockdowns and significant disruptions throughout 2020, including departure of our previous manager, and a new manager and new head teacher joining the centre, a fresh restart of the centre for late 2020 was triggered by the directors.
- Existing Transitions Policy provided for new children and existing children within the centre.
- Existing parent aspirations folder provided (showing gaps due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
- Existing programme planning provided (showing gaps due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
- Existing “Settling policy” reviewed. Introduced a “settling teacher” and new child checklist, to further support children settling into the centre.
License Criteria
43 C4
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that the practices of adults providing education and care demonstrate an understanding of children’s learning and development, and knowledge of relevant theories and practice in early childhood education.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 week, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing professional development history and knowledge of theories provided (as already shown on the website too).
- Existing planning documentation from observations provided (showing gaps due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
- Existing learning stories with key extensions of learning and next steps provided (showing gaps and disruptions due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
License Criteria
45 PF13
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that outdoor activity space is: *connected to the indoor activity space and can be easily and safely accessed by children. Specifically, provide evidence of how children access for under two’s from outside to inside easily.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence of the centre’s long term review since 2017 was provided by the new centre manager within 1 week, but due to COVID lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 that continued to delay construction and consents, this was listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing planned review triggered by the directors was provided, for a significant renovation and expansion during 2017/2018 for the whole centre (phase 1) and during 2020 for the U2’s indoor/outdoor spaces (phase 2).
- Disruptions due to COVID lockdown in 2020 delayed architectural plans, resource and building consents.
- An extension was sought from MOE in February 2021, due to COVID delays in construction, material supplies and availability.
- New timeline of construction works scheduled to be completed by 30 June 2021 – extension granted by MOE on this basis.
- Further COVID lockdown disruptions in 2021 delayed construction until October when the building works was completed, thereby completing both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the long term review that was triggered in 2017.
License Criteria
47 GMA6
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that an ongoing process of self-review helps the service maintain and improve the quality of its education and care.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- Existing continuous improvement philosophy but listed as “require evidence” for one year..
- Existing Annual Plan, but listed as “require evidence” for one year.(with the updated “WHO” column).
- Existing Strategic Plan provided, but listed as “require evidence” for one year..
- Existing self reviews provided which included parent and community feedback (showing gaps and disruptions due to COVID lockdowns in 2020).
- New centre manager has triggered actions to build capability in this area via professional development focused on Internal Evaluation (in progress), which is a year long internal research and evaluation into our local curriculum.
License Criteria
47 GMA7
Evidence sought by MOE
To provide evidence that suitable human resource management practices are implemented.
Evidence obtained by centre
The following evidence was provided by the new centre manager within 1 day, accepted by MOE officer “M”, but remained listed as “require evidence” for one year.
- New centre manager had understandably not yet been trained to locate HR files in the up-to-date online filing system, and instead presented only what was stored in the outdated hard copy filing cabinet in the office on the day.
- Existing HR Policies but listed as “require evidence” for one year..
- All existing 20 forms that are given to new employees prior to commencing work, was provided to MOE.
- Existing induction process provided.
- Existing annual appraisals provided (with the exception of 2020 due to COVID disruptions).
- Existing recruitment processes provided.
- Existing Children Act 2014 checks provided (i.e. interview, identification, CV/resume, referee checks, teacher registration check, police vet, risk assessment).
7. OUTCOMES AND KEY NEXT STEPS…
Every centre has to meet over 300 compliance requirements every minute of every day they are open – and that’s just the MoE and ERO requirements. We accept this – we are very proud of our team at Fern Garden who have been among industry leaders at this for over 10 years – we are incredibly grateful for our new manager’s professionalism and expertise in steering a steady pathway through this, but we question the way in which this episode was approached by MOE officer “M” in the middle of our critical restructure, centre management transition, COVID recovery transition, and renovation plans.
In the case of MOE’s visit late last year (2020), fixing licensing breaches such as changing a single word in several of our policies have been welcomed and immediately implemented. Documented evidence of policies, procedures and practices that have always existed, but could not be presented on the day by our new centre manager (who was still yet to be fully inducted into the centre), has been communicated to MOE. Where applicable, we have welcomed the upgrades.
This experience highlights the challenges faced by many childcare centres throughout the country. The Ministry has the role to ensure licensed services meet their standards and offer a safe and welcoming environment to children. But we wonder about their approach taken here. Regrettably, this experience is not unique and we fear the next occurrence of this approach by MOE to any other ECE centre in our sector.
No appreciation was taken by MOE officer “M” of the challenging circumstances in which the centre was operating. Requests for a delayed visit to allow for the necessary induction of the new leadership team (so that at least they could show MOE all files and systems on the day of their visit), were denied. Even in those circumstances, the majority of issues were minor and resolved within one to five days. But at what cost?
Any parent or teacher reading the high level “breaches” of the Ministry’s concerns could be forgiven to thinking our centre wasn’t safe and wasn’t welcoming. And that our team were not doing the job they do so well every day. Fortunately for us, because of our transparency and openness to all matters raised by the Ministry, our parents have been extremely supportive and agreeable with our position that they can see for themselves each and every day – so much so that enrolments have grown by word of mouth and referrals to reach record high levels at Fern Garden and continue to have a waiting list today. All despite the list of 24 requests that continued to be reported as “needing to provide evidence” by MOE for an entire year.
Given the details of this particular case, the title of this article is an appropriate and open reflection of whether the MOE had gone too far this time in requesting information from a centre and then instantly declaring 24 non-compliance items not able to be answered on the spot by a new manager and new head teacher on the day.
We are pleased that the majority of requests were able to be evidenced prior to receiving official notification of the list of 24 issues, and we are grateful for MOE’s extension based around Phase 2 of our planned construction project that was delayed due to COVID and has now been completed.
We are also grateful for the new MOE licensing team to have stepped in an approved a full license on 15 November 2021 with an increase in the number licensed from 40 to 50 children.
We believe that no centre should have to go through this experience, and we are immensely proud of our multi-award winning Fern Garden team as they continue to stand taller and stronger today with the following positive outcomes for our community:
- MOE approval of full license on 15 November 2021 for an increase in license number by 25% (i.e. from 40 to 50 children)
- A new Centre Manager
- A new Team Leader
- Two new staff recruited in 2021 to meet growing enrolments
- Full parent support about the 24 “non-compliance” issues
- Highest occupancy in the centre’s history throughout COVID
- Expansion of Under 2’s with a waiting list into 2022
- After a trail of complaints from centres in Tauranga, we understand the MOE licensing officer has been moved to a different division within the Ministry.
Centre directors, Nikeeta Singh and Dr Darius Singh are qualified educators and continue the vision and legacy of both their parents and grandparents who have dedicated their lives to education as qualified teachers. This experience is too important to remain silent about, brush aside or be forgotten, and so they are available at any time:
- to discuss anything in-person,
- to clarify any matters of fact,
- to share their “upgraded” and “approved wording” policies with any centre,
- to support another ECE centre owner/manager/team who may be going through a similar experience,
- or to further discuss any other matters described above.
Please email directly at nikeeta.singh@gmail.com or call mobile 021 0477 276.
