Facilities are designed or adapted to ensure active participation by every child in the service and promote flexible use and interaction between indoor and outdoor space at all times. Regulatory view Authority’s At first tier review the regulatory authority noted: Practices referred to by the approved provider are those recorded by the officer in the Assessment Evidence Summary and are consistent with practices that Meet the Standard. The evidence supplied by the approved provider does not demonstrate how all outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings, furniture, equipment, facilities and resources provide a stimulating learning and care environment for children or how the learning environment is enhanced by safe, clean and well maintained premises and furniture. Similarly, evidence was not provided to show how the flexible use and interaction between indoor and outdoor space is promoted at all times. The regulatory authority concluded that while the service demonstrated practice that is Meeting the National Quality Standard, there was insufficient evidence in the documents presented for the review to support an overall higher rating for Standard 3.1. view Applicant’s Draft Report and First Tier Review The approved provider submitted that the service is Exceeding the standard based on the following examples, practice and evidence: All outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings and resources were built to stimulate learning and a caring environment for the children. The Regulatory Assessment Evidence Summary states: Authority’s the learning environment for the ‘enhance children’. and experiences are placed thoughtfully in both the indoor ‘Activities and outdoor environments with consideration given to space and resources needed’ of resources are available to children with open shelving and ‘Lots bathroom facilities easily accessed by children in both the indoor and outdoor environments.’ of free play children can access both the indoor ‘During morning block and outdoor environments.’ The approved provider submitted the following as supporting evidence:
Facilities are designed or adapted to ensure active participation by every child in the service and promote flexible use and interaction between indoor and outdoor space at all times. Regulatory Authority’s view At first tier review the regulatory authority noted: Practices referred to by the approved provider are those recorded by the officer in the Assessment Evidence Summary and are consistent with practices that Meet the Standard. The evidence supplied by the approved provider does not demonstrate how all outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings, furniture, equipment, facilities and resources provide a stimulating learning and care environment for children or how the learning environment is enhanced by safe, clean and well maintained premises and furniture. Similarly, evidence was not provided to show how the flexible use and interaction between indoor and outdoor space is promoted at all times. The regulatory authority concluded that while the service demonstrated practice that is Meeting the National Quality Standard, there was insufficient evidence in the documents presented for the review to support an overall higher rating for Standard 3.1. Applicant’s view Draft Report and First Tier Review The approved provider submitted that the service is Exceeding the standard based on the following examples, practice and evidence: All outdoor and indoor spaces, buildings and resources were built to stimulate learning and a caring environment for the children. The Regulatory Authority’s Assessment Evidence Summary states: ‘enhance the learning environment for the children’. ‘Activities and experiences are placed thoughtfully in both the indoor and outdoor environments with consideration given to space and resources needed’ ‘Lots of resources are available to children with open shelving and bathroom facilities easily accessed by children in both the indoor and outdoor environments.’ ‘During morning block of free play children can access both the indoor and outdoor environments.’ The approved provider submitted the following as supporting evidence:
STR0022_Decision_notice_de-identified.docx