Mi Escuelita Child Care
Data last updated · May 2026
Quality Indicators
See Methodology →- Overall QualityCombines daily care quality (interactions, learning, environment) with structural features like staff-to-child ratios and teacher qualifications.3 / 5
- Process QualityThe quality of daily care — caregiver-child interactions, learning activities, and the emotional climate. Drawn from the state QRIS rating, accreditations, and Head Start CLASS observations.3 / 5
- Structural QualityMeasurable features like staff-to-child ratios, group sizes, license status, and teacher qualifications. Provider-level data when available; otherwise the state regulatory baseline.5 / 5
Why this rating
This daycare earned 3 out of 5 stars overall. Process quality reflects a Quality First rating of Level 2 (out of 5). Structural quality reflects a license in good standing. The structural rating also includes Arizona's licensing baseline — what every licensed daycare in the state must meet. Arizona caps infant ratios at 1:5, toddler ratios at 1:6, and preschool ratios at 1:15. Lead teachers must hold a High School Diploma. Teachers must complete 18 hours of annual training.
Quality Recognitions & Accreditations
- State Quality Rating
- Quality First Level 2 (Max 5) Learn more →
- Accreditations
- National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)Not Accredited
- National Accreditation Commission (NAC)Not Accredited
- National Early Childhood Program Accreditation (NECPA)Not Accredited
- National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC)Not Accredited
Facility Info
- Facility type
- Child Care Center
- Age groups served
- Infants, Toddlers, Preschool
- Licensed capacity
- 55
- Teacher-child ratios & group sizesState Minimum Displayed
Age Max ratio Max group Infants 1:5 Not Regulated Toddlers 1:6 Not Regulated Preschool 1:15 Not Regulated
Teacher Credentials
- Lead teacher credentialState Minimum Displayed
- High School Diploma
Inspection History
Across 3 inspections since 2023, the issues cited most often were Licensing & Administrative Compliance (2) and Staff-to-Child Ratios & Group Size (1). None of the 3 findings were critical.
See All 3 Inspection Visits
May 14, 20251 Finding1 Important
- The Following Deficiencies Were Observed at the Time of the Annual Compliance Inspection Conducted on 05.14.25, Subject…Compliance (Annual)
The following deficiencies were observed at the time of the annual compliance inspection conducted on 05.14.25, subject to changes pending programmatic review. Four fingerprint clearance cards reviewed were verified as valid through the DPS website. Please submit the Plan of Correction via the portal within 10 days of receipt of this Statement of Deficiencies. The following was discussed, but not limited to: *Background checks must be documented on all Staff files. (Previously cited)
May 20, 20241 Finding1 Important
- The Following Deficiencies Were Observed at the Time of the Compliance Inspection Conducted on 5/20/2024 and Are…Compliance (Annual)
The following deficiencies were observed at the time of the Compliance inspection conducted on 5/20/2024 and are subject to changes pending programmatic review. Please submit the Written Documentation of Corrections within 10 days of receipt of this Statement of Deficiencies. 4 of 4 Fingerprint clearance cards reviewed were valid via a DPS website search. The Empower Survey was completed online at the time of the inspection. Compliance Officer #1: Archana Navin Compliance Officer #2
Oct 4, 20231 Finding1 Important
- There Were No Deficiencies Observed at the Time of the Complaint #63604 Investigation Conducted on 10/4/2023, Subject…Complaint
There were no deficiencies observed at the time of the Complaint #63604 investigation conducted on 10/4/2023, subject to change pending programmatic review. A voice mail message was left for the Complainant on 10/4/2023. The Complainant did not return the call. A full inspection was not conducted. The following room ratios were observed: Infant's: 1:4 Two's: 1:7 3's/4's: 2:12 Three staff members were interviewed during this investigation. The following documentation was reviewe