Cold Weather policy

[cfred]

I think you might be stuck with the school pick up. It's for the very reasons you have concerns that I just don't take school age kids any more.

When I worked in daycare, the cold weather policy (according to Day Nurseries Act) was that kids were kept inside in any weather that dips below -10 degrees (including wind chill). Personally, with little ones, I find that even too cold. I won't take kids out to play if it goes below -5 degrees and I'm very honest about that at intake interview. Especially if the children are very young, it's just miserable for them as they aren't as mobile as an older child. Not being able to move around well in their snowsuits definitely hampers their ability to generate body heat, so they get pretty cold pretty fast. Sooooo not worth it!

For hot weather, I just use my best judgement. If you open the door and are hit with a 'wall' of heat that sucks the breath out of you, don't go out. We'll go out in hotter than 32 degrees depending on what our activity is. If we're playing in the sprinkler that day, in my experience, it's been fine. For regular play with no heat relief, it's pretty miserable.

[Sandbox Sally]

I agree with the high temps thing - it's easier to put on hats, sunscreen, stay in shaded areas and use water play to stay cool than it is for the kids to stay warm in the cold weather, even if they're bundled.

[Inspired by Reggio]

...When I worked in daycare, the cold weather policy (according to Day Nurseries Act) was that kids were kept inside in any weather that dips below -10 degrees (including wind chill). ....

I too use to struggle with stuff like this ~ assuming that DNA required something because the 'centre I worked at did such and such' ... so I bought a copy of the DNA as a new grad and memorized the thing

After reading it ~ which is likely reading a foreign language ~ I quickly realized it was often CENTRE POLICY bosses were telling us was a DNA requirement ... but the reality is there are major differences between the two obviously cause individual centres can choose to make any policy they want as long as it adheres to DNA requirements which is why centres can be so 'different' even though they all governed by the same DNA ... reality is often bosses would tell staff or parents for that matter it was a DNA requirement verses a centre policy because the staff/parents would than assume it cannot be changed and stop 'complaining' about the policy so much ... but in fact there was room for improvement or change to the policy the boss just did not WANT to change it

So in this case -10 is not a DNA requirement ~ that would have been the 'centre policy' where you worked and many do have that same policy across regions because they network just like we do so are sharing ideas and therefore have similar policy about somethings but the DNA actually only stipulates the following ...

(d) each child over thirty months of age that is in attendance for six hours or more in a day plays outdoors for at least two hours each day, weather permitting, unless a physician or parent of the child advises otherwise in writing. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 262, s. 53 (4); O. Reg. 50/91, s. 1.

And if you actually read the 'online version' under the program section back in 2007 when they did some tweaking due to public pressure about things like outside time and NAPPING they have even repealed section C) which use to require children under 30 months of age to spend UP TO two hours a day they basically no longer require you to even try to get that age group outside .... and do not get me started on what they did to trying caregivers hands behind their backs with regards to quiet time

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/reg...0262_e.htm#BK0