Memo regarding the announced closure of the University of Minnesota Child Development Center

The University of Minnesota must take immediate action to preserve the University of Minnesota Child Development Center (UMCDC). Since the announcement on January 22, 2018, of the center’s planned closure, concerned parents have been joined by signatories from across campus and the broader community, calling for a path to its preservation. Closing the UMCDC would not only end a model program with statewide and national impact on early childhood education, it would also demonstrate an alarming failure to grasp the UMCDC’s importance in allowing faculty, students, and staff with young children to pursue the University’s core mission of research and teaching. With each day that goes by without concerted effort to preserve UMCDC, the possibility of retaining this model program diminishes: UMCDC will unravel as high-quality staff leave the institution and cannot be replaced, current parents place their children on waiting lists elsewhere and leave when openings arise, and new families decline to enroll in a closing institution.

UMCDC provides among the highest-quality early learning experiences in the nation. It is not a mere childcare center. Rather, it implements research-based best practices to foster socio-emotional, physical, and cognitive development of infant, toddler, and preschool-aged children. This “whole-child” philosophy is remarkable in its coherence and application: in UMCDC’s most recent routine external review (July 2017, see external review report), the committee praised its “strong philosophical foundation ... clearly evident in the organization of classroom spaces/environments, the types of documentation of children’s growth and development that is provided in the corridors and classrooms, the concepts from developmental science that contribute to the approach to curriculum and planning, and in the types of teacher-child interactions occurring in the classrooms” (p. 9). Parents unaware of research on child development often are lured by centers that focus on academic achievement, leading to an “arms race” of academics that starts in preschool. However, research shows that socio-emotional development is a key driver of success in life (Galinsky, 2010), and goes hand-in-hand with school readiness (Escolano-Pérez, Herrero-Nivela, Blanco-Villaseñor, Anguera, 2017). UMCDC meets all six of the elements of highly effective early learning that are linked to long-term effects and high economic returns: (1) small classes and low child-to-staff ratios (infancy through preschool), (2) intensive focus on a spectrum of readiness skills within a whole-child developmental philosophy, (3) strong family–center partnering, (4) frequent monitoring and feedback, (5) teachers with BAs and/or compensation at levels comparable to K-12 teachers, and (6) a well-developed organizational support system (Gates Foundation, 2014; Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Reynolds et al., 2016; Zigler, Gilliam, & Jones, 2006).

UMCDC’s administration by the University, and not an external provider, is central to the quality of care that it provides. UMCDC’s self-operation allows it to adhere to the whole-child philosophy that the 2017 external review recognizes as a hallmark of high-quality early childhood education (p. 9), and that produces such crucial social and educational dividends for the University and the state of Minnesota. Moreover, self-operation—instead of adherence to broad-based corporate policies and practices—enables deep integration with the service, teaching, and research missions in affiliated departments and centers, and with University culture at large. This has distinct benefits for University faculty and students, UMCDC staff, and children enrolled in the program. As the external review points out, “UMN students enrolled in the early childhood teacher certification program ... experience first-hand how high quality programming involves much more than just providing ‘custodial’ care for enrolled children during an 8-10 hour/day experience, and that learning and development occur throughout the children’s time in the center” (p. 10). We can look to our peers for further evidence as to why administration by the University matters: after briefly contracting one early childhood education and care center to an external provider in 2011, Penn State re-evaluated management of the center due to concerns about the provider limiting faculty and student access for research and teaching, high staff turnover due to reduced salary and benefits by the partner (Bright Horizons), and a management fee that exceeded the historical subsidy provided by Penn State. This resulted in re-incorporation of the center into the University. Parents are aware of the high quality that University administration of UMCDC provides, and wait for years for their children to be admitted to the Center. If anything, efforts should be conducted to expand UMCDC to allow this exceptional program to serve more University families.

UMCDC’s impact is much more far-reaching as a signal of climate. The abrupt news of UMCDC’s planned closure sends a strong negative signal about workplace climate and commitment to diversity at the University of Minnesota. The University faces national and international competition in recruiting and retaining faculty, staff, and graduate students. We have heard from departments and colleges across the University, including the College of Science and Engineering, Carlson School of Management, and School of Public Health, about the importance of the UMCDC for recruitment and retention, particularly of female faculty and dual-career couples. Indeed, the director of the Relocation Assistance Program has emphasized that she regularly receives questions about on-campus child care. Our survey of peer institutions reveals that, despite being one of the largest universities in the U.S., the University of Minnesota currently lags far behind its Big 10 peers, as well as other universities of comparable status, in terms of the number of children served by its early childhood education and care centers. While UMCDC currently enrolls 140 children, peer institutions such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State enroll between 430 and 550 children in University-managed early childhood education and care. The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has brought up the crucial importance of expanding high-quality, on-campus childcare repeatedly for over a decade. In 2012, this committee explicitly recommended “extending the services available through the UMN Child Development Center.” In this sense, closure of the UMCDC would have a broad negative impact on faculty, staff, and students who are parents, with disproportionate effect on female colleagues, who, research has shown, shoulder more childcare responsibilities (e.g., Baxter, Hewitt, & Haynes, 2008), even if theirs is the primary career in the family (Bartley, Blanton, & Gillard, 2005: Bittman, England, Folbre, Sayer, & Matheson, 2003). This is deeply concerning to many of us—parents and non-parents alike—particularly given the University’s purported commitment to equity and diversity (as outlined, e.g., in the Campus Climate Initiative). The Center serves families from diverse backgrounds, including parents of color, parents who are first-generation immigrants, and LGBTQ parents. It should also be noted that while the Center can only accommodate 140 children at a time, it in fact serves approximately 180 children per year. This, however, still obscures its broader impact, as it has cared for thousands of children over its 45 years. In addition, for the sizable University population who may be planning to begin families in the future, UMCDC’s presence provides the comforting potential of readily available, high-quality childcare, the morale benefit of which cannot be easily calculated.

The decision-making process did not consult stakeholders nor fully evaluate the value and cost of UMCDC. The announced closure came as a surprise to parents, the UMCDC director and staff, as well as to faculty at the Institute of Child Development. Despite its impact on units across the University and the community, a holistic evaluation of UMCDC was not conducted. The most recent assessment of UMCDC occurred during the July 2017 CEHD external review. This review not only underscores UMCDC’s high quality, but also points to opportunities for synergy between the Shirley Moore Laboratory School (SMLS) and UMCDC that would further enhance the University’s impact in the area of early childhood education: “It is the committee’s perspective that the University of Minnesota, the CEHD, and the ICD will all benefit from a model in which the SMLS, CDC and CEED programs are seamlessly integrated into the teaching, research and outreach activities emerging from the CEHD” (p. 15). Overall, we question whether more could have been done to simultaneously advance the goals of SMLS and CEHD, while preserving the important resource of UMCDC. Moreover, our investigation of financial data leaves us with questions about how UMCDC was presented in the memo to Regents on January 19. Namely, the memo lists an O&M outlay of $203,000 in addition to cost pools; however, this number does not reflect the 10% “tax” that UMCDC passes back to CEHD, which essentially offsets O&M funding. UMCDC has far-reaching impact on the University community, and therefore the process should have involved stakeholders in a transparent manner and engaged the possibility of moving UMCDC to a different administrative unit.

Immediate action to preserve UMCDC is critical.

Given the weight of these compelling concerns, and the alarm voiced over the past two weeks at all levels of the University community regarding UMCDC’s planned closure, we urge you to immediately halt the planned closure of UMCDC and commit the University to the Center’s preservation. Normal operations at UMCDC cannot proceed without a commitment by the University to retain staff and solve the facility issue. Time is of the essence; we all know that the stated 18-month window for closure will do little to prevent this valued institution from quickly collapsing.

We also call for the creation of a task force composed of representatives of key stakeholders (ICD, SMLS, UMCDC, UMCDC parents, Facilities Management, etc.), as well as non-affiliated individuals with expertise in early childhood development. Current plans for the RFP advisory group could be repurposed for the task force. Given that several specific colleges have pointed to the importance of UMCDC for faculty recruiting, their involvement on the task force should be considered as well.

This task force should be charged with the following:

• Preserving the current UMCDC in its present location and resuming normal operations;
• Ensuring continuity of care, including proactive measures to retain UMCDC’s valuable teaching staff and administration;
• Devising a facilities plan that can achieve the goals of ICD expansion and UMCDC preservation;
• Finding a new administrative home for UMCDC within the University;
• Prioritizing a plan for expanding access to high-quality early childhood education and care on campus.

Referenced Materials & Additional Information Pertaining to UMCDC

• External Review of the Child Care Services, Research & Training Capacity within the University of Minnesota’s College of Education and Human Development Report (with corrections)
• External Review of CEHD and Child Care Services, Research, & Training Capacity Charge
• Who to contact personally to help preserve UMCDC
• Letter for UMCDC preservation (please sign)