# Kindergarden Accessibility Inquiry



## clanofwolves (Jun 5, 2017)

Hello,

My wife is set to move into a classroom next year in an existing school building to teach Kindergarten. Though every Kindergarten classroom has windows and an direct access/egress door, this particular room has neither. There is a door (other than the hall entry one) that leads into another classroom that has an egress door. However, there is another classroom with these very features that has a temporary central partition and is currently used for mid-level offices of specialists that do not have kids in their room(s). My wife would love to have them (force them) to switch that up and have a classroom with windows and a door and have the specialist use the door and windowless room. I agree with her hope.

So, I have found some information in the Building Code about Kindergarten classrooms, but I need some expertise in this area.

Thanks in advance!!


----------



## tmurray (Jun 5, 2017)

Building codes rarely require direct egress to the exterior for each room regardless of occupancy. In all likelihood, these doors are for convenience.


----------



## clanofwolves (Jun 5, 2017)

I thought as much; it was the lack of windows I find much more problematic...but I don't know.


----------



## cda (Jun 5, 2017)

Interesting no door to either the outside or corridor.

Not sure she would be able to force use of a certain room.

You can contact the building Offical and fire prevention to see if they are aware of this condition.

And find out why it is allowed??

How many children normally in a K - Class??

Cannot talk for NC.

You might also contact the state ed people to see if they allow a doorless room?


----------



## cda (Jun 5, 2017)

Not sure windows are required, they use to be.


----------



## north star (Jun 5, 2017)

*@ ~ @ ~ @*

clanofwolves,

How many Kindergarten students will be in this
particular room that your wife is scheduled to
move in to ?

*~ @ ~ @ ~*


----------



## steveray (Jun 6, 2017)

Sprinklered building?


----------



## clanofwolves (Jun 6, 2017)

north star said:


> *@ ~ @ ~ @*
> 
> clanofwolves,
> 
> ...


They're never sure until the first day, but I think it runs around 18.


----------



## clanofwolves (Jun 6, 2017)

steveray said:


> Sprinklered building?



Not to my knowledge, at least not the room she's in now (fourth grade).


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 6, 2017)

Check with your state Ed Code as to light and air requirement for school classrooms.


----------



## clanofwolves (Jun 6, 2017)

A few more facts I have discovered:

Built in 1983
One level
Non-sprinklered
All other Kindergarten rooms have lots of windows and a door leading to the outside from the classroom.
The Principal is new and doesn't want to move older staff members from designed classroom space.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 6, 2017)

Again, check with your state Ed code for schools.
Does the building have a central hallway? If no sprinklers it must be 1 hr rated with 30 minute doors and closers.
Is the kinder air conditioned? Does building have a fire alarm system?


----------



## north star (Jun 6, 2017)

*@ ~ @*

clanofwolves,

As I see it, if the "non-window - non-egress door" from your wife's
[ proposed ] classroom gets identified & attentioned by, saaaaay
the Fire Code Official and \ or the Building Official, this type of
attention might just have serious repercussions to your wife's
long term employment.

In my [ VERY limited ] knowledge of this issue, I would discuss
it with the wife first, then the Fire Code Official \ Building Official
for their input......As a "fall back" position, your wife may want to
update her resume and start looking, ...just in case !

*@ ~ @*


----------



## clanofwolves (Jun 6, 2017)

Why would bringing a Code violation that could potentially put kids at risk be a possible employment ending activity? It seems to me thanks should be in order as safety is improved and liability to the school system is reduced. 

Confused.....


----------



## north star (Jun 6, 2017)

*% ~ %*



> " *Why would bringing a Code violation that could potentially put kids*
> *at risk be a possible employment ending activity? "*


Because it would bring to light a serious hazard that the
school administration has let go for some time, which means,
someone could be terminated and [ possibly ] bring in the
media for their feeding frenzy.  

*% ~ %*


----------



## cda (Jun 6, 2017)

clanofwolves said:


> Why would bringing a Code violation that could potentially put kids at risk be a possible employment ending activity? It seems to me thanks should be in order as safety is improved and liability to the school system is reduced.
> 
> Confused.....




Not sure how long your wife has been a teacher

But a lot of principals I deal with,

Their school is their KINGDOM


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 6, 2017)

Dare they terminate her and I hear big EEOC claim (smiling)


----------



## tmurray (Jun 7, 2017)

clanofwolves said:


> Why would bringing a Code violation that could potentially put kids at risk be a possible employment ending activity? It seems to me thanks should be in order as safety is improved and liability to the school system is reduced.
> 
> Confused.....



The reality is that many schools are forced to do more with less, like everywhere else. Some choose to do some underhanded things related to occupant safety in this regards. As CDA said, may times, older principles see their school as their kingdom and buck any fire or building official who attempts to make them do anything. Newer principles are showing a more collaborative approach where they bring everyone to the table to make sure they have the safest environment for their students and staff. 

Ultimately your wife would likely be protected by whistle blower laws either at the state or federal level, but most people who end up in this scenario have trouble finding employment after the fact, and while a settlement may put her in a financial position to not have to work, I would certainly hope it is her preference to work because she loves what she does and it is very important to society.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm going to make a lazy comment and not look into my code book but it seems to me if sprinkled it's probably going to be allowed if the kiddies can get to an exit hallway. If not sprinkled, door directly from the class rooms will cancell the sprinkler requirement, but not knowing the complete picture can't advise. 

But then there's the Ghost Ship code!


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 7, 2017)

Pci, prior comment indicates no sprinklers. The kiddies are not bats and need a certain level of natural light as do all of us.


----------



## clanofwolves (Jun 7, 2017)

tmurray said:


> The reality is that many schools are forced to do more with less, like everywhere else. Some choose to do some underhanded things related to occupant safety in this regards. As CDA said, may times, older principles see their school as their kingdom and buck any fire or building official who attempts to make them do anything. Newer principles are showing a more collaborative approach where they bring everyone to the table to make sure they have the safest environment for their students and staff.
> 
> Ultimately your wife would likely be protected by whistle blower laws either at the state or federal level, but most people who end up in this scenario have trouble finding employment after the fact, and while a settlement may put her in a financial position to not have to work, I would certainly hope it is her preference to work because she loves what she does and it is very important to society.



Yes, I completely see this side of things too.....The Principal is fairly young and has been at the school three years (same as my wife). It is a sticky situation that we have. I'm getting a ruling from the NC Department of Insurance at the State Fire Marshall's Office; so then I'll have something from the top dogs; what do we do with that? IDK.

Seems we'll be in a catch 22 as we might know that the room doesn't meet egress and/or other Codes for K-1 Educational spaces, but if we rock the boat it could mean issues for my wife. Conversely, if we don't, and something negative (hopefully not tragic) happens that could have been avoided if the kids weren't in that kind of space; then aren't we liable? or at least guilty of not telling the people in charge that there is an issue?


----------



## cda (Jun 7, 2017)

clanofwolves said:


> Yes, I completely see this side of things too.....The Principal is fairly young and has been at the school three years (same as my wife). It is a sticky situation that we have. I'm getting a ruling from the NC Department of Insurance at the State Fire Marshall's Office; so then I'll have something from the top dogs; what do we do with that? IDK.
> 
> Seems we'll be in a catch 22 as we might know that the room doesn't meet egress and/or other Codes for K-1 Educational spaces, but if we rock the boat it could mean issues for my wife. Conversely, if we don't, and something negative (hopefully not tragic) happens that could have been avoided if the kids weren't in that kind of space; then aren't we liable? or at least guilty of not telling the people in charge that there is an issue?




If the state fire marshal says it is wrong 

They or the local jurisdiction should walk in there and say "this room can be used for other purposes,,, BUT not as a classroom""


----------



## tmurray (Jun 8, 2017)

clanofwolves said:


> Yes, I completely see this side of things too.....The Principal is fairly young and has been at the school three years (same as my wife). It is a sticky situation that we have. I'm getting a ruling from the NC Department of Insurance at the State Fire Marshall's Office; so then I'll have something from the top dogs; what do we do with that? IDK.
> 
> Seems we'll be in a catch 22 as we might know that the room doesn't meet egress and/or other Codes for K-1 Educational spaces, but if we rock the boat it could mean issues for my wife. Conversely, if we don't, and something negative (hopefully not tragic) happens that could have been avoided if the kids weren't in that kind of space; then aren't we liable? or at least guilty of not telling the people in charge that there is an issue?



The important thing for your wife, if this is an issue is to bring it forward to the fire marshal or building official. That is all she is required to do from a legal standpoint. Now, from the office politics standpoint, she is going to want to bring this forward to the principal in a very positive manner. She has to appear to be positive in that this is simply a problem that needs fixed. No one is to blame. Basically, addressing the problem not the people can help eliminate some of the defensiveness of the other person.

In my book it's a lot easier to find another job than to live with yourself after someone's kid dies and you could have prevented it.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 8, 2017)

Points "well" noted TM


----------

