DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 338 398 PS 019 985

AUTHOR Swick, Kevin J.TITLE A Proposal for Utilizing the USC Children's Center as

an On-Campus Child Care/Early Learning Center.INSTITUTION South Carolina Univ., Columbia. Coll. of

Education.PUB DATE Aug 91NOTE 79p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Budgets; *Child Development Centers; College

Planning; *Day Care Centers; Early ChildhoodEducation; *Employer Supported Day Care; *FacilityPlanning; Higher Education; *Organizational Change;State Universities

IDENTIFIERS *Campus Child Care; *Univeysity of South Carolina

ABSTRACTThis document explores the possible use of the

University of South Carolina at Columbia's (USC) Children's Center asa high quality child and family center laboratory that would servethe university. The existing USC child care center, which is operatedby the College of Education, will close at the end of the 1991-92academic year. Initial discussion of the status of child developmentand family support centers on U.S. university campuses is followed bya discussion of the status of such services in the USC system. Acomprehensive plan for using the USC Children's Center is presented.The plan outlines the mission, facilities, and funding of theproposed center, and the center's relationships with other campusservices. A key component of the plan is the placement of thecenter's proposed organizational structure within the centraladministration of the university, where it would be seen as auniversity-wide responsibility rather than a responsibility of theCollege of Education alone. A time line, budgets, and a letter from adelegation of parents to the provost of USC are appended. Contains 23references. (LB)

**************1 ***** **************A ******** ***************** ***********Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.* ********* ************ ***** ***

U DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION04fic 01 Edutatens1 Riseptctt end ornotcwornont

E DUC A TtONA RESOURCES iNFORMAT(ONCENTER (ERIC;

r m 0ocumahl has bear, ,eptoct,a re IsrefOlyed f rom 1 Re person or Of genaationa/4;0,1410mi; tt

)1, Mmo' ctwonies Nigv. Wen made Iv olvi orefel3f0OuCI011 guafily

Port0,1 0/ .4i* Cs' ,f-P.n.ons Stated on I n,s dot,mem do not twesuray ,epritie,1 dft.cal01 Rt ppaftron or pobcy

A Proposal For The Use OfThe USC Children's Center

As An On-Campus Child/CareEarty Learning Center

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Ictua__,ISAvick

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CF.NTER (ERIC)

College of EducationUNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29208

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

A Proposal For Utilizing The USCChildren's Center As AnOn-Campus Child CarelEarly Learning Center

Prepared For The Office of the Provost At TheUniversity of South Carolina

Prepared By Dr. Kevin J. Swick, Professor of Early ChildhoodEducation, USC - Columbia

a

1

a11(21911

RagaExecutive Summary

Intoduction1

Child Care And Related Child/Family Services On University Campuses 6The USC Chikkent Center And Related Campus Child Care ServicesAt USC-Columbla

14A Proposal For A 'University' Chikken's Center

30References

55

Appendx A (Time Line Fcr Implementation)59

Appendx B (Projected Minimal Budget)61.

Appendx C (1991-92 Center Budget)65

Appendx D (Parent Letter On Proposal)

4

I

69

A Prokaj For Li ttilirz4g The t_ SC *hildran'sAs Arii C)n-ampu.s hiId E-arkeJlEarily Learning -eIriltr:

Ari E x ec-utlikvke Sumary

..IP : I : A. I I ir I : 4 : 44 ;... I: * st:.

t..... q . it : Irv,. I' r :11 :,.. . :6 11 6,1 L lei t le .

1: ..k. 1 16 I II r as 1 I 41 'AL:: :

I tilis 1 LI 16 1 4 , 1 LI 1 111 i : . 1 1

if :-' letiP tre . PP1 14 r 1 e,ir 1 ,1 I :46,/: .. , rAne et !firms I

!, I 11 41L1 t ..". 11* .1:7. 1_. 1: : te. 11 S

11 I 156 : 11 10 : IUS!(II...

I :41_ 1,42:s1 I. r I

:6 LI 111

11 -

54 be. the e I . o : I 4 -

I : 441 I is ill, 1.:a. 1 I L 1

toe: 1.I 4 44 re, 5441 4) I be: S II Per 11t11_4

11 1 116

1

*

151441 1 LL.. 45 :61 :. I .:.4 _p A I : I LL1 1461111111

L1 p- r_ 4 I 6 1,42.:f 1 LI* I :6 41 1 IL:t. Is 1 It ", I 1.

Ili 15 4.. LI 1 1. A. 11 1 ICA 1 = :. 11 If 11 :-11 I. Lj

I e I I lee 111141 s. 51 We * 44 I le I el- 1

*6 : :: 1 I I L:1 e : 11,ft 4111 Os 1 Wir; t: 41

:1 10 41 0 : 01 911,4g I 16 66 tit, 1 116 : 1 :114 4

1 4 W: 0111 1 Op :.. 11 1 It 1 66 I 6 :Pre Of 1

0 L. 11 .4 I 6 If 1 16 4. WI:rt. I I tssle lit 5 441 - 'SI

1111..11-111 ::=6 I1 4 111 01 :jk :6 LI I S ..LIIIILP

tos e: : to : to 4e; : I : 445 4 olt :4 : v;

Several factors have combired to influence this rev direction: the

changing nature of student populations (vith more and more aiult female students

seeking post-secondary stuly); the changing nature of the family-vork placeinterface (more tvo-parent vorking families); the expense of replicating similar

services on campuses; and the desire of faculty to carry out more interdisciplinaryresearch and teaching activities. Since 1950 these influences have shaped the "nev

contexr for on-campus child/family services. For mcample, traditional university

laboratory schools are being phased out vhile nev and more diwrse "on-campus

children's centers" (that have blended missions) are emerging.

Like other social institutions, universities are gradually responding to thenev weds of families in the %Fork place. Beyond the emergence of on-campuschild care/early learning programs are several "family-centered" practices thataim to enrich the family-vork plea relutionship: flex-time, envrgency sick-leavebanks, supportive maternity/paternity leave policies, recreation and socialwtivities, family-input couixils, and many other nth practices. This recognitionof the natural linkage betveen "family needs" and "university acalemic research

needs" is transforming the ecology of child/family services and studies onuniversity minims throughout the nation_

Currently, the University (USC-Columbia) has tvo recognizedon-campus sources of child carelearly learning. One source is thecgaza jrgisig, a program that offers care to children of students (infantsthrough five years of age). It is celebrating its 25th yew of service. It is purely a"service program" and does not serve any academic needs on the campus. It

serves about 40 children ani meets the minimal standards for state licensing. It

operates under the direction of the Office of Student Affairs ani is located in a

.4 .r.4 ... :0. 1 . .t. 11 at': i ' 4 11 at; . .

4 1 ! --:* I 4 -07.

a / . I ,1 a /al a : 117;)re 1 :;*: I 1 .,71

14 . -tg il. 1-#4 IN I 11 -41 ;11 1 :I a:. 4, 4 4 I 110441

- - 41 Ili ',:34 . .s. 4 4 4; . a 1 4 SO ' 1 4 tA1 1 4 4 4 t e ' I 441 4

1 II Se: 11 .

1 Ittt A 0 1: 41 . 1 1 *AI .1

4 1 11 1 :

_ . I $ : a " 0 :

"al a .140 ;/ :

144 111. 100..t.t0OnEtTi : 'W4 .

: a a !..1 fe a . . : "41-7A-t; a i , ii11 till I -. fAll al --: L. - -

....f a 00 1 . II . . MS .: A.: -;.:4Tilsav4 a le a a a a la 1-41 -.Titill,

to Poi * 0 40 a I . 5 01 :, . .010 v.: :',/: a . t..0 ....,. t 9

. 10

; , f,. . -171:-, re; a : a 1,,

.. It1 a III t a .-: I a -t.11 : a la 14

If": i . :4 1 14 ', Mt 0 ,1 :1 --:..'. Mt A .,1 4 00 ' 140

1104 A is tat -a a a ; la : a a :

": .....: ' I I 1 .-'t o

I I :4 I I

-0-: * a . a

. I . . a :la / 'era a tt.aa nil .1 a i .11 a t I-: a : 14 44 : 4 it

I*1 a I I, "'" a a I I' 111' 1 10A I': Mal t.1 a ,.$ .t.: ijj.7 a II ..

a I 4 S4 :4 a 1 NN.f. '$,, I .'":14 .. a l'etal a i a a V: a a a f, : ks-*/ :et t

1 1 .-: 01 I alt, I': 1 1 k IrC :I a . .

/1 1 . .1 1"7- I 0 1 I

4 t7iT. 0

4', s .

. 1 1 : 4 . 4 . $ :11 :.71 1

- I II ' : a : .0 .iLZ-: ...

1 .

0 : 1 0 1 I . -r 0,40 a: I 1 .

1 tag .

-1r a 1

;` -- . .- . IP

. a ii -r L..

1 .d a .

0 4* : $ ^ 1114 A 1 a lil 4 1

model. Needed are increased financial support, continuing coordination, and

longq.ange planning related tio child/family needs (service aril zeademic) on th9

camps. Indeed, a Csn or drkL.ESMm_And Families should be the

long-range goal on the campus. Such a "Center" might serve a hist of

academic research ard family support reeds: child cue/early learning,

counseling, education, research, training, and other such needs.

A first-step toward achieving a truly quality environment for children

and families at USC-Columbia should be the transformation of the USC Children's

Center into an on-campus child care/early learning facility. The mission of this

Center should be a blended one that aims to provide children with a quality care

and learning program aul to provide the University vith a rich environment for

academic research and teaching. The operating structure should reside in the

University's authoritative system for wademic concerts, the Offices of the

President/Provost The management structure should include a Management

copgil that is representative of all University constituents and that functions as a

policy influencing body. The implementation structure could remain in a

College or designated program on the campus. The daily operating structure

exists nova in the Children's Center and simply reeds alequate funding in order to

function properly.

This on-campus child care/early center should serve primarily the

children of faculty, students and staff at USC. As allowed by funding and

related needs, the Center should strive to inchide community children_ Key

elements to be included in this nev structure: provide adequate funding

tv

through a "multiple funding source formula", hire a full-tune director, increase

rtaff salaries and benefits, aim to achieve teacher/child ratios reflective of those

desired in national accreditation, improve maintenance and facility renevalzrtivities, and achieve all needed program criteria for national accreditation.

A 3-5 year transition to the full implementation of theChildren's Center as an on-campus child care/early learning programis likely needed. The initial cost of this transition vill be betveen $80,000 and

$125,000. &singratsggAgatelpLeaplyjnairaktassient_sdicaji$50,000. Long-range costs can be estimate6 at (to attain full accreditation at the

national level): $225,000 - $280,000. likor fxtors in immediaW 1ong-tange

costs include: salary for a full-time director, reduction of the number of childrento a level of 88 (this vould provide a basis for national recognition), increased

salary and benefit package for staff, improvements in the fadlity, andmaintenarre of continuing program needs. While these costs may seem high,tmiversities across the nation are wing "multiple fluting" sources as a me= ofxhieving the reeded support for their program.

The transition plan includes five stages: adoptionkommitment to

the on-campus child care/early learning plan, formation of the mana,gement

courril, implementation of the approved final plan in Aqua of 1992, articulationof a long-range plan for the camps, aril adoptioniimplementation of a lorerange

plan for meeting child/family needs on the campus. While the existing piciare at

USC-Columbia is minimal the elenvnts for achieving high-quality care ardlearning for children is great. Nstith the thoughtful implenvntation of this plan afirst-step tovard having a cohesive and functional child/family support and study

strIrture can be taken.

hi i d 11 (71:1 o 11

The development of child care programs in the decade of the 90'sis viewed as a necessary ingredient for the development of healthy,contemporaryfamiliesand progressivew lace environmentsas we approaoh the reality of work force 2 # # # (Emotive

kA...1. I. 4t 11

Care. 1991)1`111,$)

The American vork force has indeed c ol dramatically over the past

40 years. It is clear that vith a continuing need for an expanded and better

educated vork force, the need for more training and research vill also incsease

in a dramatic mzmner. These needs are ':ertainly evident on the campus at the

University of South Carolira - Columbia ard on campuses throughout the nation.

Sue Shirah (1988, p. 135), in her report on the national situation:

Statistics from the Children's Defense Fund Rvon that there .wasan 83% in.:nue in the number of women moiled in collegesbetween 1920 and 1982, in a 249% inmease in womenstudents ages 25 - 29, and a 314 increase in women studentsages 30 - 34. Today, two out of thee college students over theage of 34 are women, many of whom continuously state thatfinding quality child care is a major problem.

In a complementary manner, the nem of the vorkplace is also

urdergoing major : The National League of Cities reports (1989, p. 12):

Today, working mothers are the norm, not the exception. infamilies of all types and all incomes. By 1990. an estimated 64%of all familia, containing 10.4million children under six willhave waking mothers.

1

i IIR.l 1%-14 :48 11 1.:11

418Sp EMT 6(0 1:10 011042

viLL.-1111

1:cWirlditalgtona-D---"im 'paw .81122 moo, BuTipnIs smog lap isramun loN

monenvs an Aptus itr o juelinsuo3 lemma jo asn am pap:la:moat

sangutuoD u mo!sttedxs m uTpestg-dn peat IN tsndatez uo vacs

op !cowl° sEUR3 pptp autos vigt seta Batpatj 3tseq 4sql, lata sq Wpm pea

all uo Pes"041 (an PIM u0 Boni *Ks MMus) eaMtatuoD Pao=eta .ate3 pigia sndateo imnb Btadoiatsp .toj sztreppg sionisqns ou pimpuodat pug sHea)IgarzuoD alp gLigatsatelul .siquoseat atom UM saki j Aimpej

sqt est pinoA smarei ooz itelaupcoldde van panoj osie Ascii seA sag sql

jc ae 14qp2j are3 pjzp eisndate3-uot, ue em pinoA (gets pae jo) sagutsaj

SE WM MN ($8310A 21921. areD PIND0 PPM) eallg°200 IsAJ aqi

*1661 1:02 8861

analog SEOMMUI03 014 WIN 01 BMWS 4111Zeg peldtuoad pun peat jo iaetwpm mdun rqutnioD Dsn sql uo joss sem pptpet an paw .semdtueo

4M Jo Paw albTorn eql ate/PP2 MD mega 8= PM 8aFkals o sloterisMarPeAlrawan Lq esuodsat Itrceo.18 po pasa sql Itusum3op sew tDog

"(1 661 augnI0A gAintiguto tramasal PooqPIN) A11g3 '186I IS ifampA %Boma:a pmenzum) Asp am pprp maze; an IN peloAsp

atm spainoc puotssajoid Ittem o&j weidpoA i tt! vkaosd =MUTpae satuetp es taolj palms! 'Ka ate ssmasman pae salisuoD

'anto PITI3PuTion11t3UPP1! pm slam am Jo gsa pus =pow sMonomp

Jo %Si vodai auo 03 Buguomy .paiusamoop Almada:traaq argitildfts punt:giant) ppqo =wag Motu

:(Z1 sPP2 emus 51111

While both Committees that studied the "campus child care need" at USC -

Columbia vere reticent to propose an immediate plan of xtion for addressing the

issue, they vere in agreement that USC - Columbia vas indeed in need of "on-

campus child care". Further, they also reco i" the Med for sons means of

providing such care al a reasonable cost and yet ad a level of quality that would

mab the "care" a "mark of pride" for all renters of the University community

In effect, the tvo Committees' efforts "mirror" the findings of groupsnationvide. While everyone recognizes the "need", they are often frustrated in

their swath for solutiors; al least solutions that are reasonable and effective.

Lack of ftmds, a shortage of tiviined early childhood professionals, and many

other irritants are commonly cited by researchers as impediments to achieving

quality child care on the nation's campuses (Keyes, 1991).

Just as the need for "campus child care has been recognized a; vital to the

vell-being of university faculty, students, cod staff, so has Us need been

recognized for university sponsored research and teaching laboratories that focus

on child and family issues. The Volume 15, 1988 Issue of Instructional

Psychology reviews the many contributions of past and current =opus

child/family centers (including child develop:twat) and notes that a "23v ere of

possibilities exists with the emergence of especially desigred "children's centers"

on camptses throughout Us ration (a response to tls critical reed for quality

child care on ttese campuses). These possibilities include wross-disciplire studies

on childre41/families; tis piloting of "training programs" in counseling, early

childhood, =sing, and otter disciplines; ard a plethora of "quality of life"

studies in health, medicine, edtration, md allied professions ard disciplines.

While there are otter arenas for achieving some of these academic needs,

Tovnley & Routt (1988) note that university centers have uniqts advantages strh

as sometimes already having child development laboratories in place; easy xcess

to reeded research tools; a supportive clientele who usually support the acai.emic

mission of stch program; and a "climate" where quality settings for research and

Walling are valued.

As Keyes & Schwartz (1991) note, the concept of "campus centers for

children ant families" broalens the "reach" of v is possible in university

settings with regards to both research ard tetching. Indeed, at one point in its

history the USC - Columbia Camps (1975 - 1980) vas aneader in this regard

with the USC Children's Center serving a enational model" of a "Children's

Center For Research And Teaching'. StAth the erosion of financial support,

however, tie Center has barely survived in the 1980's. While wither of Um USC

-Columbia "Camps Child Care Committees" (1988-1991) addressed this need for

a high quality environment for research ard teaching as related to children and

families, faculty fortnns and efforts have; albeit in a disjointed manner. A

cursory look at the various "center? ard "projects* on children and families at

USC - Columbia ialicate the interest and capability exist for having a "Center For

Children kid Families" whare continuing research and teaching functions can be

actualized in a supportive and quality aren&

It is the dual emphases of 'service* and "academic pursuit? (as

they occur within university child and family centers) that this report

addresses. In particular, this report elplores the "possibilities" that exist on the

USC - Columbia Camps for the development and implementation of a

quality *Child And Family Center laboratory that would serve the entire

university. In this regard, the current picture of child development ard family

support centers on university campuses iationvide is reviewed. Further, the

existing status of such services on tka USC - Columbia Campus (and other system

campuses) is explicated with a special focus on the USC Children's Center. In

11

4

addition, a "vision" of vhat might eventually exist vith regards to having a

contigum, !meaningful and high-quality *Center For Children And Families* on

the USC - Columbia Campw is uplored. Finally, a very specific ard

comprehensive plan for utilizing the "USC Cbildren's Center* as a beginning

point for achieving an environment of high-quality care, research, ard teaching

for children ard families and the entire USC - Columbia community is presented.

d (61a,14.: n .c1 1Z e I aq t- d e.r v I () n

i Vt.-1;s i%hv *alniktiv,s

19.#- 4. : Or.. 1 .

t:ji ..14 t Ifs ...:f: Iv.

9

1 * ....: ve: I ro

': b4.:4.. I s. I :.

l' .... ed_ : 4 14 Ift :1 :4 :11./.11.:

tort.z.: I:t4,14 It , 0 I T. II 0 s : s... 4..

I I :, :1 Pa:. 1131 . I :-.1 a ' IIII L :1 1

II I I : ,. 1 ' II i I 1 si;/. t. )4.-1 :

1 : 141 : : 41 : 1N ID I :. . 0 0

e . 110 0 ..4 r._ #,. I : I ill:_att ts r v

I I *#4 II IA 1.. *". *". ': :4 I: I I N: V!: ' #1 Ise. I :1401

III -.'1 IL:

4 : _I b y . I

. ef 1 ":. 11:..: : 1

1 I ; If .1 sr..:

: I : 1 # 1 I : selil 0 ' I I t s $. t ji.! $

I I : 111 4 ' I :.1 I : : : 41 . 11:11: (III "Isla 16

I : eile:11-s : :.4.

1515, ..,'41 4 ::I I: :1 a ,.. : be.1 .1114) 4 :- : 111.4 .)15:. )i 11

1 1 i I i I I 111 11: 111 1 I :4 S IN I a 1111

I,t Is : by.111411 ..: 041 : 1 :41. Is.: :,..! 1 I :1 154 '1.:1 4 4 11 4 1 i by.11"

It 1 t I ..Z '.: al") _It.: 4,..117..pi " It 1 I t ' :4 11 :44:41 I .11 I I ...V

.a :1 :., 1 I: 1,4111111 ... ui , ; o. sit 1.... ,:: .., t .5) III 'n I ..

t # 1 s 16.1 .: #: brysylp...:. t . a j4I ty ss 8 "'. V . 0 I I:.

11,0 t ..1 a et . 14-!- , 1-1- + ,,i- : 41 0 -'IA-141- ' 1 4--: 14-1 t $1 $1 I . 1.:

bit f. 1 4 4 $ . 1 1 1 fr. I r * 1 1 1 1 , . ) t,.. :.:1:10

114 I: : :AI tr4 I 1 Is "it . : 411 : 1: -7. I :

In wing the restricted definition of "services, Shirah (1988, p. 135) found

that le tense o aff milegtv strd wthexitiavrovide swagA= or 'WY me

In citing Greene (1985) and Herr (1988), she notes that "stich Fograms may be

full-time or part-time, and usually are available to the children of faculty, staff,

ard students" (Shirt, 1988, p. 135).

Treitioially, campus child care programs have provided "cares in the

form of a safe, clean, art sustaining environment Fortunately, many of these

programs have evolved to provide Ivalth care, enrichment opportunities,

intervention services, and other ectivities. A recent but very small survey by

Svick (1991) found that all of the film centers studied met minimal state licensing

standards but only one of them met the national standards set by tbe National

Association for tha Education of Yoimg Children. While camps child care

program have achieved a sense of *minimal cares for very rung children, as

Bickimer (1991, p. 38) states: °Campus child care centers are not yet part

of the *varp and voor of university life. It is rare that such a

center figures prominently and positively in the minds of those

responsible for increasing enrollment, designing student services,

budgeting, and so on". He further describes the typical situation in most

campus child care program (p. 39):

A recent survey of largemetropolitan campuses revealed, for

example,ratherlacklusteraccommodations,meigerfurnitureand equipment, and clearly inadequate space provisions for

many urban campus child care centers.

In spite of these identity and facility issues, campus child care leaders ard

staff (as veil as parents and a fev faculty) halm pursued the development of more

l'qualitf features and "enriched" environments for these programs. Burton &

Boulton (1991) poirt to the standards for quality child care (NAEYC, 1985) and

the emergence of "early childhood education* as a legitimate quality of life issue

as tie key factors influencing this positive development. Per p %I, the recognition

by Svick (1988, p. 148) that Isolated, one-dimensional centers have no

'home vitbin the emerging structure of universities* is a key force in

this evolving process of integrating camps child care into tie total mission art

context of ecologically valid imiwrsities. Just as influential is the nev status given

the early years of development by the National Goals For Education Commission

(Svick, 1988).

Laboratory Programs _

From the outset "model early childhocd" schools established a distinct

mission that vas to guide their evolution for over a century William Hovard

Payne, President of Peabody Normal School, said of tha establishment of 1719

Rotbrop Saw/ (tle predecessor of all other model demonstration schools) in

1891 (The Past Is Prologue, 1971; p. 11):

k has not been my purpose to orgaMze an experimental schoolthat is a school in which pupils are taught by pupil teachers - butrather &school which is taught and governed by an accomplishedteacher, who is able to yoduce results worthy of imitation and

study.

Indeed, the presence of "Master Texhers" demonstrating and engaging students in

quality early childhood practices has been at the heart of the operation of model

laboratory schools siire their inception. Yet, over tiin3 and as a result of

changing philosophies a shift in the mission of tivse °schools* from being

"models* to simply being "laboratories" took place. Regardless, such schools

have alvays had a predominantly academic mission that focused onteaching through active involvement 8111 to a lesser degree research (White,

1972).

During their life-span (vhich nov extends to over a century), laboratory

schools have experienced several transformations: movement from being

"models" to being "laboratories", expansion from "one-dimension" to "laultiple

dimensions*, refinements in population served, alterations in operating structure,

integration into tiie surrounding community, changes in financial sponsorship,

clear refinement in mission, and a shift tovard becoming an integral part of the

research and development function of universities (Tovnley & Routt, 1988;

Squibb & Van, 1988; Keyes & Schvart 1991).

A fey examples help to highlight the substance of these changes as they

have evolved in several campus-based early childhood laboratory schools. 77e

gitithmpitlao4 originally a "model" school changed to become a °laboratory"

to then become a "demonstration" and finally to become a "blending" of these and

other functions diving its history (vhich ircluded name changes, closures, and

other tram). Other centers (as noted by Shirah,1988 and by Keyes &

Schvartz, 1991) have experienced similar transformations.

During the pat tventy years early childhood laboratory schools anti their

development or demise have generated several insights related to current and

future activity in this domain:

1) The traditional ow-dimensional laboratory school is rapidly becoming extizt

for wied reasons; lack of funding, lack of relevarre to current university

agendas, and lack of linkages* to the many Dev ecological dimensions of the

early childhood profession.

2) University Laboratory Programs that are responding to the inticale, multi-

disciplinary needs of university life (especially as related to mission) are

experiencing the trams of such chan,ge; particularly vith trying to articulate a

system that might accommodate nev campus needs.

3) The changing nature of acalemic fields such as family stulies, psychology

and early childhood education have provided laboratory schools vith "nev

challenges" regarding their functions.

4) The cost of operating "high quality" laboratory schools (along vith operating

other child and family services) is proving to be "beyond" the rrems of nzuly

universities vho nov have more complicated missions than they did thirty years

Ago.

It appears that the various functions of University-vide "laboratory"

schools (modeling, demonstrating, researching, teaching) vill confirms but in a

nev form; ore that is more in relationship to the ecology of modern,comprehensive universities.

The Emergence Of "Chiltdretes Center?

Several factors, many of vhich have tir origin in the 19717s, have

influenced the mission and structure of both "child care" earl "early childhood

10

it 1 1 1 :OM Ord : is * 4: *

* .11b1. M ke.141111 ft *e1 : 1 ve,illstet.... :41 is

, i t4_. :3:

I 55 as. *) / It ....: 515 5 -.5a) I I 1.1 1

. 11 I I ....fr 5 I i.: t ..a t . * ..tt ''.11 61 I vtl t ' 'I... ...

I t tt I 1 I ilkst .1 I t* tit I 16 Pa4.:J1. 11 / ..... _11

al - ass olIi Ii I 1 II -, te t 6. 't 5 . / 1115 I .. 01

I' II 5.5 1 941 III .... SI 10_0. a 151 is I s. al

Z. 4.., . : 1 Ingt:it 11 :45 t1 -4 111 I ... a

la .411 1 5 ' t 11:_5 I tvtl II 01 5 t II - It:

% t It I: I I wet 1 I II II '' I I I% I 6 I 1 I 1 I.11 .

aAtit......Ltia, 1 ,I a_ .4 Oka IV 11 .... SI 4_10..48 111 .4. V . . II 11,11.

9 -41 I ..,1 1) 'Lit ,:t. lei ' %.11.1 1 :411 .4, V 1 1111, 1

1 ' : Sof 141112:: it I **'.1 Jir_141.: : 4: 1 110:3' I A. :I it: ,

1 441 .1 : I440 $4611 '4 " frq.:

If111t11 1 11. t: 1) Je, 11%. . ,0 1.:144 #411 f `, : 11 ;11 11) 11.11110 It.:

Ils ' 1, :.11 1 .1 11 4 1 . 1/

141 #1 .1041 Val I a ' yea :0:41,:lip ;41 P:

tittlf

4

II : I :. Is Iv. :. N: * an: : If 1 "1: 8141 11 t 1 .111 I 44 I 1: W,. a : Ifs

If 4 :11 :*:1 ' f 4 : 1:: 41',11 te.octiq ..... : oilipoo ;IA. 111 1 Jr:1111.:

'ft 1 Is 1 1 :.:**1 11:.: II 11)10,1041.: 414 t:

I as $1 6515 5 $5'5 4s1 401 4 1

4. I tL1 1 11 , I - -1411 ra e.t I % 'IS 16

I I I 1 III 1111. '14 1111.

4 ' I S ' 11 'L. "1"4/ 1 11 -tt I

II it 1- 11111 / 1.11.41!;41 4111 t._ 11.. 104 1 S / sab SI I) / 121

' I . 1 "tit 6111.4t 1 :4116 IC I lit 111 II it

55 t 1

1 11 I SI 01 I 1.$.'

I s It' * 4- 4 1 111111 1.. 41 :4 ' I IV!

basic components of this concept include: providing quality and appropriate care

and early learning experiences for children; facilitating the comprehensive

child/tinily grovth needs (health, edtcation, social, emotional, and enrichment)

through appropriate support services; providing for training ard research

activities of multiple programs and nits; ard serving as a resource and

&gemination center for tlya university and the surrounding communities.

Indeed, many centers maintain a minimal presence of °communitychildren" in tbitir program to emure that the resource function is visible.

While fey Thildrent Cantu's" have attaimd this nev concepttmlorientation, it is irdeed guiding their development For example, nev campus

'Children's Centers* on the campuses of the University of SouthCarolina At Aibn and Coastal are designed within this °blended°framevork. A plethora of other such programs (Georgia State Univers4

University of Maim, Kent State University, Ohio State University - as examples)

are emergLig to provide a viable alternative to tta "split mentalitf of care versus

training and research.

WI= placed in the context of dvindling financial resources ard a n3v

focus on "ecologically sensitive learning arenas", the "Campus Centers For

Children' concept is sound. Tls natural integration of multiple human service

functions for children and families with Om varying needs of university

researders and tetchers may veil save resources and at the sam3 time strengthen

the total university ecology.

Other Child And Family Services

In many respects the issues that reach beyond (yet are clearly related to the

12

2 1

care of children) a familyt child care needs are the most critical. This is also

true in tte broader society Tine needs have teen noted in Us literature as

gfritOlmityitvws; they might better be labeled P:tmil)071;iirttSocistyLcizer.

Issues such as "time for being Yith one's children", "leave time", "flexible york

time*, "family-york planning", "parent education", and many other such themes

comprise this domain.

While these issues reach beyoixt the scope of this York, they must be

recognized as integral elements of a comprehensiw university plan for children

and families. Indeed, these "family issues" vill become more a part of

"university thinking" as the talent shortage of the 1990Ps becomes a harsh reality

(Simons, 1991).

Nationally, the ctirrent and emerging focus for meeting the early

childtood needs of families ard academic researchers is one of integrating the

service and acatemic components of campus child care pros= and

campts-based early childhood laboratories into Campus Caciers For

Chilli:To Am! Familiar. This emerging paradigm is evolving from the

research and conceptual "Pork of the "ecological-developmental" school of

thought that calls for the use of "service" arenas for multiple child, family, and

societal needs. In as sews, miversities haw all of the needed attributes for

designing and carrying out such a paradigm only the limits of creativity and

commitment can impede this movement tovard fully developed "Centers For

Children And Families".

'PC,

Not unlike many other campuses, the University of South Carolina at

Columbia is curreatly meeting the needs of families of very young children

through multiple means: formal child care wad early learning laboratory services;

informal referral services (often by vord of mouth); and possibly by informal

parent cooperative arrangements. This report focuses only on therecognized formal child care services currently in operation on theUSC - Columbia Campus: RE aikfreg Cal& sr` 770 Csnpusekddie The current status (as veil as any projected actions) of each of these

programs is revieved.

The USC Children's Center

The "Cbildren"s Center" vas established in the mid- l970's through a joint

effort of the College of General Studies (nov knovn as the College of Applied

Professional Stifles) and the College of Education and vith mem support of

the University. By 1980 the College of Edtration vas the primary sponsor of the

Center (the College of General Stutes no longer hzd a need for the Center). The

Center, since its inception, has served as a comprehensive child development and

family support program serving both "supporr ard "academic* needs on the

campus at USC - Columbia and for the community. The conception of the

"Center" as both a laboratory and demonstration school" for the entire

14

1

university and as a quality child development program that vas comprehensive in

every vay vas and is unique.

The 'Center "s" Child Care Program serves a vide range of university and

community needs, including all-day care and eady learning experiences for

yotmg children and by providing a laboratory for the entire university

The Child Care Program itself has housed betveen 94 and 103

children per year from 6 months - 6 years. Tralitionally, 55 of the children have

been funded through ths Federal Child Care Block Grant Fromm and the

remaining children supported by pieta tuition Tlit program has also benefited

from funding under the Federal Food Frog= and through th? support of the

College of Education Children Qf university &cult% staff, eal students comprise

from 50% to 60% of the Cerder's anwal enrollment, vith the remaining children

coming from a cross-section of the community Visiting researchers and scholars

have observed that the truly multicultzral makeup of the Center makes it an ideal

environment for research, especially pilot projects in the social sciences.

The progrean offered at the Center is full-day (7:45 A.M. - 5:15 P.M.) and

staffed by qualified personrel. It is licensed by the South Carolina Department of

Social Services and has consistently nwt tba Quality Assurance Standards of the

South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance Commission. It does not,

hovever, meet the National Standards of Accreditation. The Center 's

staff is comprised of a Director, Graduate Assistant/Assistant Director,

Administrative Assistant, Food Technician/Coordinator and 6 °teaching teams*.

Each "teaching team" (one team for wet classroom: Infants, Toddlers, 2s, 3s, 4s,

and 5s) is comprised of 3 members: Lead Teacher (Master Teachr II), Assistant

Teacher (Master Teacher I), and Graduate Assistant. Lead Teaclxrs are required

15

"

91.

.(L86I

*Ins lig satieH) Jame) ino ;mum =memo none-lupe/flume/Isd jo sTsdoluis r st uytonoj aj lamp am v2 sturaflold

TwA uonourtittoo ts! Btiprzt aatpea; azwas-aul Tettuoj par41 jo tad Istal

v2 parkwat 8.kgq siusPn4s 000'E Incqe sai 83PS Van S! ellatqlSe &Timms= V

liosaods Lratutid s, mop eV uottronp3 jo alettop eqt trwa =Pau aortronpe

pooqpi!qo dine Btr!tnein aoj 'pod Twoj aqt se peuoTt.,ianj seq awn eqt loops

Liow.toqvi sy vellrhapapi jo giatudopiep ;ems aqt u! easzping 1ioj ot

wool MA statueD ato stun atm nr munozeD toms it! saw Icsi sempaid

BuTanal Alm pan OM pm Anithaace jo orzegteD uonmsuomeappopts, n se wags pew setun mil 1861 Inuil '120412:6139 PootiMP

Agee jo Rey an tr! seonwad Lreidtuene jo etetue3 uo!vmsiotuep se pae

'Ll!sish!tai &mug Eqt Jo; Juaudolawap pue qateasel ic,t Llotruoqvi e se ea.tas

a; s! xx traaq seq uo!sstta mem sql jo lad btproilwoo pue dim uv

'etnITisal it n Pae fsamAlaS UUIH PEW RIM eallozeD qinoS tilteaH

plum jo Itteuniedec tni!loieD lams `gratuuedea tio!teonn eagoarD tanos

eqt Aq Amigat pesn s! JeluaD movemp3 pue aolopos teurppen

tusgemelof toPm133 le3Isdaid IttisziN golotiaisd se tionssgotttuedep Swim! smaate Apantutuo3 pue sndmte3 Trams qt!A sd!tisaomat

Teptjetraq Anent= u! woo! eumeq 'sag powd iatio moRtinpe

pae =won! wend sagtmoue =Bold am pixo ;map eta

et pm O Itagq tre3 Le

sum pue swept eqt tresolp ev stuemssy evsnpuo IttreivApte to jettuepe.tD

%epoxy wandoleAec pnw mat eaq o pannbea eav S.IR3128i 11124STSSV

R Pe Mal Alsisop io PootiPIND Li .1e3 u! 98280 Mieq3213 2 GM 01

1

II1 1. Professional education experierces for College of Education teacher education

pre-service students in practicum courses

I2. In-service training sessions for day care, infant care, and child development

Iteachers from all arms of South Carolina.

I3. Practcum experiences for nursing psychology music, art, medicine,

ediration, health, physical education, and many other university programs.

II

4. Service as a model demonstration center for public schools and agencies

throughout South Carolina, especially vith regards to implementation of state

111

programs.

IAn analysis of the Center's usage records over the past decade indicates that the

various training/education activities carried out at the Center remain very

Iconsistent from year-to-year and indeed have grovn since 1987.

IEarly Childhood Education has remained the heaviest user ofthe Center since its inception. The Center Director has always been eitler a

Ifaculty member in this program or a close affiliate of that fxulty The Early

Childhood Program (nor the College of Edwation) receiye awy special finarcial

Imod to operate th3 Center. The program has integrated all of its major

practica experiences related to preschool observation and teaching skills into the

ICenter's operations. Hovever, due to poor funding, the faculty do not point to

the Center as a "model" since it does not meet National . Standards of

IAccreditation. In support of the Center (and to make its usage of the hi

I17

IC't , .

91.

wag `urd tr! 'aiwq suontuessp g I ATavancogiclu 1suitdoild papunj Anetuapca

esn puaaia At.1(ard 12472ZIW7 447 -flialtrarel btrIVPS all pug kixteag

zwzotiv Piro Avalgaz an Wig! poavivito ditsj (7 ffoimPeft-Vgly atri&Trim! (sag= imam tp!A papunj 112) Specold tp.128s8.1 ipmas lap pa.tatias

Imo paw= srti lamaD an timprg 14 .slcaps JO tIII141OSUOD EITIVIMICS

81:11$ tpi t104.71003 tp IsqueD ecp w palopd Arm oge fr! 'pop luatudolaap

pootimo Lima ucsempa mad papaw ems g ' box/ pliatar vuTio.reD

toms ul sloops Iglu papal Bean c!! uortevaaugdur! Jon tunino!.= siclamoo

fla4 atuogloolps pooqpim Axes ue Surclotatep usz we BuTiopd u! latuaD

Exti patipAu! Irma (2uvelp uownpoz jo &WO .s'n PaPuntl AllusPazi 12) shativ

paw azuway oj avysiganw may-Augg ao MA main jo aroma lsou!

au ..teluaD acp v2 - Ind u! mai v2 - Ino pap= mei am; some luatudolaAap

pug tweasal papaw Imes faiclunza loj 'smai eitg Ised az &pima tiols!ti

slatueD RI jo Ind vagollug!s 12 ale luendoiatioa paw pawn

'Mtn RD lit sesiguej

pue wpm &Ina uo =Awl MitteaN2 14!untutuo3 pue uopmpa wend

plat Angumpe.4 set; Jam aD tomppe til ani wea Jemap an le sclogsvott

junin3p.InD Won tiBm .ifioj soup= uoiontwi Jo luacupedea mu an pug

MusD all lv =WI Lava Mild SP SaSnOti XM Alan us/P1RD 103 uOPPossV

tuamnos au .sau!alas pag (stagago.d uopmmictuep 'sdotmaoit 'Am=loj ialuaD etn asn &oil' iguotssajo4d iguo!Bat pug 'ems (Te3o1 'Swum

nod jo eilds ut api dginepeal 12 u! pEclowij ogle sett .4alueD. au,

.Bautopanj ;.temeD an =Rua ol sEaMOSBI

pootippqz Line mew pue Imaindtuoo 'swami imp ol &mini ammopans.md Aunjssemns pae 'mow =pin Hume% weptns g 'wow taninowno

ati!suattaidtuoa g parlowap anti 14p132,4 poot;pRD Alma an `(eicpsod Avienb

carried out at the Center since 1985. Various theses and undergraduate research

projects have also been conducted at the Center.

The USC Children's Center is housed in a three level concrete block

building vhich vas originally gad of the Booker T. Washington public school on

Blossom Street (next to the Blossom Street Partmg Garage). The facility serves

as an office and classroom building and houses the child care program

administered by the Center. There is more than 11,000 square feet of floor space

in tbe building and 14, 670 square feet in the outdoor play exea. The play area is

=rounded by a chain link fence ard offers a variety of surfaces. It has recently

been renovated (at a cost of about S351000) and um serves both learning and

research purposes.

The lovest level of the building houses the infant program and

includes a total of 631 square feet of classroom floor space. This room is

comprised of a central play area surrourded by four crib rooms, an enclosed

observation booth, a storage room, a fully equipped kitchen, a laundry room, and

bathroom

T he first floor of the building houses the classrooms for the

older children. The toddler's classroom has a large central area (728

square feet), an aljoining area for small group or indivichialized testing, a

batIroom, an enclosed observation booth, and a storage area.

The main kitchen facility is located adjacent to the toddler classroom. It

is fully equipped and serves as the main area for the organization of food and

snacks for delivery to erh classroom (hmch is prepared by the university food

service).

19

2S

Two classrooms, each containing approximately 1,000 square feet of

floor space, for two and three year olds are divided by a large observation

booth and a folding partition. These classrooms have adjoining bathroom

facilities vith child-size fixtures.

Tvo additional classrooms, housing four and five year olds are also

divided by an observation booth and a folding peatition. These classrooms

contain approximately 1,100 and 1,300 square feet of floor space, respectively.

Th) environment of each classroom is equipped vith child-sized furniture

which can be arranged in a variety of configurations to accommodate individual,

small group and large group activities. Exh of the classrooms has ample storage

space and is supplied by water at a level accessible to young children. Each

classroom has tvo nits; thus facilitating quick exiting in case of emergencies.

The second floor of the building contains office specs (1,920 square

feet), five storage rooms for supplies, resource materials and equipment (823

square feet total), a conference room, a staff lounge, and restrooms. The offices

house the Center administrative staff, graduate assistants, University instructors

and faculty, and the teaching staff of the Child Care Program The tvo

classrooms are also used for staff meetings and parent meetings. There are tvo

storage rooms for equipment and supplies and xsparate resource rooms for

classroom materials ecod curriculum materials. The Early Childhood Education

student teaching and junior bloc programs also use tvo rooms for curriculum

materials.

At the present time, approximately 70 per cent of the existing floor space

is devoted to the Child Care Program. Approximately 15 per cent of the space is

used for university classes and occasional fzeulty and professional association

meetings.

During the past four years, Xi intensive maintenance plan has been

carried out including replacement of carpeting and tiling, painting, playground

renovation, replacement of furniture, and other needed repairs. Currently, the

roof needs replacing and there are, of course, continuing maintenanceneeds. The folding partitions that divide classrooms must also be replaced. The

exterior of the building is in bad need of painting. Some of the classrooms (those

used for practica courses) are in need of nev furniture and one of the classrooms

on the second floor needs nev tabl

The major impediment to the Center's quest for NationalAccreditation has been funding. Due to expenses (the Center typically over-

runs its budget by about 10 - 20 per cent), the Center has had to enroll more

children than is alloyed under National Standards. Also, due to limited funding

the Center has been unable to remain competithe vith regards to salaries.

Further, the bleak financial picture has eroded the Center's ability to plan for a

more secure and functiont future. Given this veak funding situation, the

College of Education determined (in January, 1991) that it could nolonger sponsor of the Center as a laboratory facility as of August,1992. The College hoped that yith this advanced notification, the University

vould have ample time to redirect the use of the fecility and progratn for

possibly meeting on-campus child care needs along vith possibly meeting

University-vide child and family academic study needs.

21

Campus Kiddie

In addition to the USC Children's Center, child care is also provided by

Campus Kiddie, In fact it is celebrating its 25th year of service during 1991. It

sem around 40 children (infants - 5-years of age). It is housed vithin a campw

dormitory stntture =I is staffed by a director, tvo full-time staff, five part-tinw

vorkers, ard tvo vork-study stlidents. This program has tvo "shifts* (7:00

A.M. - 6:00 P.M. art 4:30 PM. - 10:30 P.M.) and this accommodates the needs

of day ard evening Au:tents. Since the program serves primarily the children of

students it is edministered and furded through the Office of Students Services

in the Rwsell House.

Camps Kiddie is a single-purpose Center, desigred to provide safe care

for children of students on the USC-Columbia Camps. It does meet minimum

state licensing standards but is not equipped or staffed to serve university

laboratory reeds for research, developmant, and teaching. The fztility is

minimally equipped not unlike most campus child care centers throughout the

nation.

Other Campus Child Care Programs

A 1987 survey (Hares 84c. Svick) of colleges zmd universities in South

Carolina indicated that variety of_progams are sponsored at eleven institutions

in the state (the number is now up to 14). While these programs share the

common purpose of providing educational care for young children, they vary

videly in the emphasis placed on service to the institution as a training, service,

research, or "combination" centerifacility

Some examples of the different arrangements at institutions in South

Carolina help to highlight some of the uniqm features of these campus child care

program. A private South Carolina college operates a program for 36 children

vith the institution providing housing, maintenaire, and finaucial support

amotuiting to the differewe betveen the actual costs of the program and the

tuition payments. All of the children in this program participate on a fee-pay:ng

basis. Although timber echication is provided by the college, tbs child care

program does not serve as a laboratory nor participate in any of the teacher

education practica activities. It is a single-purpose center, serving the college

community and to some degree the surrounding neighborhood. A sulfa g ;i

institution, vlich serves 65 children (ages 2 - 5), provides full-day care. It also

is a fee-paying only arrangement vith the college protding the needed fimds to

=et expenses not covered by the fees.

More recently, Svick (1991) phone-intervieved three center directors of

state-supported institutions in South Carolina: USC-Spartanburg, USC-Aiken, and

the College of Charlwton. He found that all three institutions veremoving tovard a 'blended* program of providing services topreschool children and serving as a laboratory for training for their

sponsoring institutions. In all three cases, the child care programs served

primarily children of staff, students, aral faculty. They vere funded through

combinations of Wition, block grant monies, and university financial support

For exam: at USC-Spartanburg (they serve about 40 children, ages 3.-5) tta

funding comes from three sources: 30% tuition, 30% federal block grant, and

40% university funds. While funding is from the university in general, the

23

program is linked to the College of Education through a fazulty director

program &dance. This program is nationally accredited. A similar

arrangement exists at the College of Charleston. USC-Aiken is just begiming its

program and is moving in a similar direction.

AtimationaLliza, the direction in campus child care and early learning is

indeed moving tovard the concept of a "blended centers vivre both the !reds of

children and families are met and the academic teaching and research needs of the

institution are met For maniple, Nev York StAtet legislature has approved

ftmding for supporting the development of on-campus centers that attempt to

meet these dual needs of service and researchtteaching (Alger, 1991). Hovever,

these program yore justified as an "employee benefit" and not w institutional

early learning laboratories. And, the quality of the programs varies greatly. In

Ohio, the director of the Kent State University on-campus child care program

(phone interviev, April, 1991) indicated they had similar arrangements as the

programs at USC-Spartanburg and USC-Aiken but vere struggling to provide the

quality of care desired due to a lack of funds.

It appears that South Carolina's on-campus child care and early learning

status is very similar to that of the nation; moving tovard a "blended" model

vhere service and academic needs are interrelated. Like universities across the

nation, South Carolina's programs are struggling finairially and seem to be

confronting the natural- problems that come vith any transition and development

period. Very fev of the current programs (state or nation) appear to have the

context for promoting the best features of a "blended" program. Even fever

have yet to foster a truly top quality research

24

110.4-

Tovard A Broader Understanding Of Child/Family Supports

As universities experience the challenges of the next decade and beyond, it

is imperative that they envision nev approaches to meeting the needs of "families"

vithin their context as veil as visualize nev designs for marching time needs

for the benefit of the larger society While quality child care and early learning

ars priority concerns of many faculty, staff and students, other significant issues

need attention. All of these issue have a marked influence on thequality of vork that takes place vithin university environments. Evena ctrsory reviev of some of these issues and challenges is instructive vith regards

to their influence on the quality of life at the University of South Carolina

For eiample, maw young families need "flex-time, "emergezy leave",

and other modifications of "vork scisdules" in order to met the many demands

of family living in today's world. VA% both parents vorking, ami at the same

time confronting more complex roles as parents, their familyivork-plece

relationship is quite distirct from family sitations of forty years ago. This nev

"family-vork context* (Galinsky, 1987) requires "riev social systems* that

support a healthy response by parents to both york and family needs. These nevsystems need to incltde social, educational, organizational, and "support" servLes

that equip parent to articulate a positive direction for their families as veil as to

become productivs partners in the grovth of their communities, vhich certainlyincludes the vork-plece. All of these issues are a part of 'UniversityWork Life* aml provide universities vith multiple opportunities forexploring "nev structures* vithin their service, teaching, andresearch mission.

25

Aires ly, the Univertty of South Carolina has "informally and formallypiloted" a variety of child-family services and project, albeit in a ratherdisjointed manna'. For ample, the University currently (through the

Student Affairs Office and the College of Education) provides childcarelearly learning for about 110 children via the Childrent Centerand Campus Kiddie. Hovever, neither program is interrelated vith the otherard no overall structure exists for coordinating these services as veil as forimproving their fialing and quality Another example is that of ezzmuryzahew day4 days needed for unforeseen and tragic family situations. Recently, tinUniversity designed and implemented an 'emergency sick leave bank' vivrefaculty aral staff can donate existing sick leave to a bank for use by others vhoare in crises. Yet the policies on this "bank" appear very restrictive and unrelatedto some of the more common "crises" that families typically confront in today'svorld. Yet these are good examples of the potential that exists vithin theUniversity of South Carolina's environment for addressing vital child and familyissues. Ttere are similar ezamples of emerging "academic* thrusts that focus onthese needs and issues; both for University needs and for the broacter community.Usually these efforts (service and/or academic) exist in the form of projects,centers, and institutes that offer a specific service, training, research orcombimtion of these furrtions for childrenifamilies and/or the professionals vho

vork vith children and families. artivrklizth* atm *sersiar" =el eXieg1411/0.011 lfr&i art, ()Opr ale surww w "agar Wee& (Way Omit

gm* soi oar wins' kat) What is needed is a long-range vision andstructure for conceptualizing and planning for relating to existing and ercergingchild and family needs as interrelated vith the University's academic and socialecolou

26

La

ponos eq ppm am plIqo paseq-sruituez 'nu= nittuTs r aj aolotwed

e trans jo egos Tem am Lula suej Elmo pit jo sped.% te2!pau eto Apo

%Tawas In tweasat `eidumze log .stuauge irtuenuu! jo Isar.; o ,Aptnst,

sansst at; jo goad.% oveds sseippr /quo lou van germs Triguntraui

pa (eit!seqoz (emsaodsal tliktoiom satotuold 4Soio3a opepeze ue u7.111,1

81 e $83.111058.1 malt U ATTepadse fsettsst asap jo stuauale Stamm

queese.1 ssalge at =mom1 ettb!tm ecrt eiwq samsia&pri 4!Trtruta0 o

unarm egt uo =aux! evargin u! eAtmized pue 'peseq-queasei 'maps! vegt asuodseu woos auttba.! (api jo s.zeg 41ea all Stump Aveirtorged)

satss! AT:mom; jo 14praidtuo3 aqj samtmuituoo Stgpano.uns u! ..cy7ty

PSI Paiglel IP Pug SPIN 4P134111 elD MIA Pam eseq Jo am &Mauapt maw am 1/2 eptiA mpg ol anklet an Ian .spaau man%

RI Jo ipms puit uonuoidse nrg mu lumen= infitugnunaP32 GAIseq°3 v doleAep P11103 61112}mis POI Ms %VOW %RNA

iq mesa wan o eq mut Lpoq aelueo e tns .toj uopsgu etu

'1' III':

'cisiaefold

papuen paluepo a:was/op:up= tptts lap jo epttmtra pue Istuautiedep

Au= u! Arptuloja! Ieq 'Name gam klu8aan3 81 vetn seritaeze

Isttf se emeal4ptuej pae auwreu .rep!stioo) se3Timies voddns pue tr312893.1

azsid-poagpazej moos jo aBellop in awp Bum Anualin3

jo atuos :swam 'alb= ioj) specold spagi Arcumj rapids luffestaio3 kgatej

lawestatpupultqamesal) Burma! A1128/8.1,23 putp Vaasa! prim's=

tmeaq se VIS SiRldmiaf mem pumas Jo esu eql gamma uopspu

luta ammo pp:* r `3Nutpla aq mut seunueD u puss JO ucissIut

Antu4d (10 RPM Pa2Ein3TWe elq SaggreJ emenidal J83!A1es.

snow!' ail Aq eitrmatts eputold al mad moo pm sato; Stufhpn

emssod s! 'dame Iti2tut 2! se Aapos ul Ljuwi log nun stu

The Center For Family In Society, as it migit emerge, is a possibleunifying force that could serve to provide a structure by vhich the various"services" that influence families can be articulated. While the primarymission of such a Tenter' mint be academic, it could achieve thatmission through the use of several lefusied serw-ces such as healthcare,medical research, child carekarly learning (researchitrainingiservice),family counseling special family needs projects (for example, consider some ofthe ;cork currently being done in the College of Social Work), familyivork-placeresearch and support services (consider flex-time and family-leave as just tvoexamples that are currently being achieved, albeit informally in manydepartments), and a multitude of other such academic/service oriented "blended

Projects*.

The mission for such a center or body vould be to create a system byvhich faculty, staff and students could develop a cohesive andmeaningful arrangement for the full exploration and study of the"human needs* that are unique to today's families vhile at the same timemeeting soma of toe needs vithin the University setting and in related pilot.cf4ir in surrounding communities. The complexity of "childifamily" issues(particularly during the early years of life) require a societal response that isintense, research-based, and pervasive in its ultimate influence on the humancommunity Universities have the unique resources to address the research andteaching elements of these issues; especially vhen these resources are organizedwithin an "academic ecology" that promotes thorough, responsible, cohesive, ardmeaningful studies that not only address specific espects of the issues but relatethe "study" to a host of influential elements. For example, research that mominesonly the medical aspects of child abuse fails to gain the total sense of such apathology. In a similar manner, campus- 144'" child care should not be isolated

27

6Z

meds-api ssone seTpatej pae tratpm3 1.toddns pae Limns ol

sa= Tem airamas LtetrOpsTplagrt amstmardtao3 u jo laaudojeliep .ratTl.mj

Iloj pod 2traruleg z se impel nq uomosat se was lou plugs j monaappspa Tr! dills iocuta s eq Naos eupunioD - asn sada= uouunsis ittrauuei Aim puu um pq dniunb 411pi pou agsuega1lmo3

jo luaudoleaep idismaiD .sergA43e gals tuolj swam= vim &Rompue Tamar am tuoij porag mut. 4gaittnuo3 irapeoag pae 813 prcg3

se S83IA.I8S gals U10.1j1geueq pno& saffauej Atilwat.can `speau prig3 SISSED

fittISSalppe .toj =pup wsago3 e Jo troman 3 tnyki .panns pae (papoddns

`pa.roidxa Aungagteau ag u ratraogittra whreAFtri ato padag paeImp& mum; pug usipigp Jo spew ammo imuc fl su riOA 511 speea

&quasi Amp.= pm 'airtmas ti3ns utfly padopep Alaemaajja

aq smog pue =pm jo spEeu aro uo saw; *tap= tre EtageinzTge aoj

*sop tutratuls itsPoSta &fay AY-WV azt Jo Ffin

.passcupp2 striapajje eg =3 ware esall tr! spear

sAputu1t1o3 Maej aft pue 'papoddns eg u segguw pae tramp ol prima'sisarem trammel pue dliejotps !law ag tre3 spaaa Aptuej pue ppti3 Lvsastqan

3g3ads !paw Awl= aq u (samtuej tranyi anzoo An se Aumedse) spat

uutang maxi :same paapuT ea utillwed Aptuej pue ppti3 e gals Rump jo

sITAGal GQj AVErntamoo Ailejoti3S SASSATtifi an wzmA newton! Asap we`pew iiielenbepe tOR38,III3 .M813 V SIR "t WM SI WM &VOW &woke

lie trap* passarppe aq ;mut pa iew 8112 SIAM 8Sata 'Spa amp:wanBugiolatep pue to!sspn 34sHe8.run tre &mew 'SAVA AI LI! padotahtte

SRN se rims snaleP WA Pan SI laTliePtin LietIOPsquelT hulf

A t) ropps_a 1 Nol- A 1Ji i Vet hiI ki.refl 's :1 t I hk-

13o o_R-1- . a siliogito:m *o.1.1191

"

I I * 11

e *

I

: ;.I :

1*

I

:1

II* -0 ;41 0 I I 1 I 1 1111:

s' : 11 :4 . : I.411 " y t 11" I"

4.. er T 11111 14 14 : 5

1 1 Z. ; ; W. 11 V I I IL:,.:!.. 1 I : It 1 11

0- li,kIent:,, ' I,. : ,1 * e li ,... use: '

I /11 : 11 : t : 11 1.11::.1 0 : :1 0 II : 1

: 1 t01:..4 . I : W.11 :. 111 :, 4 : I, '

I III 11 : :.;.1 . It 1 '.1. 1 ill 1 110 1 1 1 :11

111, % 1 t : t'tI ' t- )iit t 11 ft.

: o t t 0: :11 I

le I 't II : t II

: : 1: L.

I 1"..:414._;:s. 1; 1 I.

I I W ' 111

et Or, $011 s,

1 1 05 111 I

t sor. 1 I I 1.11.:

I to :Jo 1 I

it:

1 : o: , * o.: of IL* : 611 i 1 1Art WI..t f,

1 1: e- 11 :

I s , 1 ' 111.. It

."' : 0 pi 111/ I o

v .10:v4 i a 4 e. so,.

' ? *, $ v, P .

.1 1 :,.-: I" 1 *$1*$14 ..1 "%: or: 01: It I I ' 1

* il t ' 4. .

1 1 e1 1 . 11

1 . 5 't 1 s r 4 0. ..... . 1

1 11 tr., 4 I le, :is

4 0 . ' I .0c 1 : . ..11 0 ,

and families, it vould seem that a unique opportunity for national attention eat

contribution exists vithin the Center's activities. Given these critical needs the

mission of the Center is designed to evolvs tovard meeting an expanded agenda

of research and teaching that can influence state and national needs.

Mission

The mission of the proposed "University Children's Center" should be a

"blended" one that focuses on pivrt74rmavr4 teeth* deveopzen4 rzf115717G9 W sed to ete lawledip-AsEr oa chilcfren a d Indite rhile ptwithile

pe, entwityment rhildnrtn j Avnths - 5 yRvr) and Ihdr familiesgru4 ste; studear, communi07) Lte -Coltmkcia Campos. This

mission is very much in line vith tIN direction of the "Center" as it has emerged

over the past 15 years. It is also a mission that is adaptable to the eventual

emergence of a broader Child ift AD* Calle' that vill hopefully becoMe areality on the camps in the future. This mission is reflective of the restructuring

of child and family academic and support systems currently taking place on

various campuses ?round the nation as is reflected in previous sections of thisreport.

In support of this mission, this "Center For Children" must maintain the

highest quality care and learning environment for the children, families, faculty,

students, researchers, and staff that become engaged in the program. While fiscal

realities may dictate a gradual transition to a comprehensive University program

for children and families) it is imperative that the long-range plancontain a substantive commitment from the administration to reachbeyond even national accreditation. With the vealth of academic and staff

resources at USC - Columbia this support is indeed possible. Within the current

31

limited financial structure tremendous azhievements have been attained: 2500

early childhood teachers have received partial training over the past 10 years;

ow 40 professional seminars and vorkshops haVe served various agencies and

groups in the community; a plethora of pilot research projects ad about 15

larger studies have been conducted at the Center Mth the cultural diversii,y,

socioeconomic Mb; and high parental and fxulty interest that exists, the

proposed mission becomes nyore of a launching I for endless attainments in

futire years.

Operating Structure

The major varlaassar in the current operating structure are Use

lid& zed iStilifil;20 OM COMO AVID sliala-sponsolviip (College of

Edtration). Structurally, treitional laboratory centers (such as the "Children's

Center") are suffering from an erosion of financial support and from the

emergence of other such facilities vithin their larger community ecologies. Ifith

liinited faculty resources and dvindling financial infrastnrtures these one-

dimensional programs are typically unable to carry out their traditional roles of

research, demonstration, and teaching This is also true of other centers on

campuses around Om nation such as developmental nursing projects, motor

development centers, health sites, Apt many other such centers and institutes. DIoften these centers are isolated from the UniversiVs broader academic ecology

wilticome easy grey for budipt cuts. Further, vith such limited operational

support ai visibility they are less poverful in carrying out their missions.

The operating foundation of the proposed "Center" must be located in

the central administration of the University of South Carolina. While

the continuing management and daily operations vill be carried out vithin a

32

specified structure, Me accouptabiliOr for ackierigr Oa mission in aquatiOr nittwar must mania nig the ilizinvisiOrk thief arsdainicAdam In effect, the Tenter" znust be vieved and supported as the

University's learning arena for children and families (6 veeks - 5 years) and all

of the programs and departments that vish to participate in the many zetivities

that are a part of the programs at the Center. %%out such a operating

fotmdation the mission of the Tenter* is unattainable.

While there are variots possibilities, the proposed operating structure

includes the folloving University operational authority (Board of

Trustees/President/Provost), Management Board (Provost/Faculty Policy

Council/DeanICenter Director), Implementation Strtzture (Dean/Faculty/Center

Director), and Daily Operating Strtzture (Director/Staff/Parents/Children). See

Figure 1 for visual description of operating structure.

The operational authority of all University "Centers* exist vith the

University's Board of Trustees and designated officials (President & Provost).

The proposed "Children's Center* vould operate under this authoritative

strtcture and thus abide by all University regulations.

The management structure suggested for this "Center" is one that is

centered in the Office of the Provost Assisting the Provost in carrying out this

management process should be a ManagemenLemet that is comprised of

representatives of the folloving College of Education Dean's Office, University

Stzdent Affairs Office, Center Director, University Faculty/Staff, Center Parents,

Center Staff, and a Community Representative. This Council vould meet at least

tvice a year to establish and reviev the policies that guide the Center's

functioning. This structure vould assure that the Provost has input from Tenter

f ost.d )t-r a 6 PI

(441,isii I ktfvol.1

S 11 m

Operational Authority

*Board of Trustees*PresideatiProvost

Management Structure

*Provost/FacultyCouncil*Deanor Designate

*CenterDirector

Implementation Strategy

*Deanor Designate*Faculty

CeaterDirector

Daily Operating Structure

*CenterDirector*Staff

*Parents

"")

Constituents" in the decision making process.

The implementation structure recommended for this *Center" is that

of the College of Education or another College so delegated. The Dean of the

College should function .% the "monitor" of the on-going functioning of the

Center, vbile the budget and program elements are integrated into the College's

existing structure. In a sense, this structure currently exists and vorks fine; the

only impediment is the lack of connector to the University's larger program and

financial system. A College could contimie to serve as the "grantees and

"operator" of the program. Mt an "active" Management Coutril in existence,

the needed University involvement is attainable. There is a cautionary note,

hovever, the College should not be left to sustain the Center inisolation from the Inger University environment. Rather, the Collegeshould serve as the condrilby vbich the program is continuously reneved and

improved vith linkages to the total University ecology. In particular, gm.

financial foundatio.n of Um "Center" must bg vieved as a UniversiV-vjde

responsibility and not as a College 9f Education Usk. This same mentality mtst

permeate program, research, development, azd teaching fumtions carried out at

the "Center".

Tha daily operating structure recommerded is one that capitalizes on

the strengths and needs of the "Center's" existing structue. A filli-tims

Director of the Center is a mtst. Attempts to "blend" the time-assignments of

faculty (part-tims teaching and part-time directing) have proved mmter-

productive and ineffective. The intensity and complexities of directing a Center

vith the mission of the "Children's Center" requires that a full-time person be

in this assigned role. This persont job responsibilities should include: &ding

the direction of the Center (as established by the ManagenzaLcourca)

34

monitoring the daily operation of the Child CarelEarly Learning Program,working directly with an Assistant Director ResearchlTraining staff, and parents

in carrying out the functions of the Center, coordinating all liaison and advisory

input related to the Center, guiding and promoting the many uses of the Center,

and maintaining a high-quality program. The Director should serve as theultimate authority for the care and operation of the Center.

The Assistant Director's role should be to coordinate and guide the

research and teaching activities carried outat tie Center. This should include the

management of an "advisory team" representative of University units who desire

to be involved in the Center's research/development/teaching activities. It would

also include the active pirsuit of appropriate research and development grants,

involvement of community and state constituents in affropriate activities at theCenter, and in related support roles. Tvo administrativesupport/management personnel are critical to the Center's operation: the

Administrative Azistsfft and the Footrffetheiciso CoOrdthitOr Bothsupport staff should ba under tte supervision of the Director. Detailed job

descriptiols already exist for these role-persons.

It is recommended that each Teaching Team (one for each classroom)

include a Lead Teacher (Master Teacher II), Assistant Teacher (MasterTeacher I), and a Graduate Assistant. This staffing pattern currently exists

and is functionally effective when salaries and support corclitions (for example,

the teachulchild ratios are alequate to national standards) are of high qualityLead Teachers should serve as the on-site managers anti leaders of de teachingteam. Assistant Teachers provide key implementation roles in carrying out thefunctions of the program Graduate Assistants should serve as part-time butintegral support personnel in the program implementation process.

35

A parent/staff/faculty management council should assist theDirector in the implementation of the Center's child carelearly learning program.This Council should be comprised of parent representatives, staff representatives,and a cross-section of University factdty vho utilize the Center. Thsy should bainvolved in all aspects of alviting the director on implementation issues andshould function both as a planning and feedback group. It is suggested that thisCouncil be comprised of no more tlum 8 members, meet four times a year, and beguided by the Center Director.

Clientele

The primary clientele of the Center's Child Care/Early Learning Programshould be children of families vho are directly employed by or involved inurdergradtate/graduate stmly at the University. Th3 age groups served shouldrat* from 6 months - 5 years. Parents vhase children are ready forKindergarten should be encouraged to make the transition to public school vith=options being made for authentic hardship cases. When ant vhere it isfaasible, a 'core number of 'community" families should be invited toparticipate in the Center's program. The actual number of communityparticipants may vary from year-to-year but the concept of communityinvolvement should be nurtured; especially vith regards to maintining theCenter's cultral diversity and to serving special needs children vhen feasible. Asuggested ratio is: 85% USC families and 15% Community families.

The recommended maximum enrollment for the Center is dab=This fig= vas arrived at by folloving the "Standards of Excellence* set by theNational Association for the Education of Young Childrent National

1

I.

1

Accreditation Guidelines. Duo to &Amid considerations ittfr enrediznant

Apra mar km to be Amyl in omr a throe jwar oriod. Theenrollment figures recommended for each age group are as follovs:

Infants - 8

Toddlers a 10

WO - 12

Tvoti Three's - 18

Three's/Fowl. t - 20

Four's/ Fivet a 20

Tvo "clientele admissions lists* should be used in screeningapplications for emissions to the Center 's program: a federal block grant list

and a tuition list. The ratio recommended is 54 block grani and 34 tuition

cluldren. Again, given the current ratio (54 block grant ani 34 tuition) the

recommended ratio may need to be phased in over a thikee-five year period. The

goal is to serve as many University families from all backgrounds asis feasible vithin the operating limitations of the Center. A long-range

goal of the University should be to better coordinate the fanilies served by the

Children's Center and Camps Kiddie; such coordination might better serve

everyone in need. The standard rule for "emissions" (given that applicants meet

the criteria identified by the Center's admission policies) should be one of first-

apply, first-admitted. A numerical ordering of applicants per date of application

is the fairest vay of handling emissiors. Hovever, a careful screening should

occur regarding the applicant's ability to meet admission criteria This process

vould apply to each vaitin,g list. A community vaiting list vould be

37

4`1

maintaired and used to support enrollment of a certain number of such families

each year in the program as is feasible. This reopninemded admissions process is

used currently with the exception tlat more community families ars currently

enrolled than would be served in the future., this process should be phased in so

that no current family at the Center is disrupted. asiferLsuirmamillgi

J. it: IN .7\

raft It is also recommended that admissions attempt to achieve a balance of

students, faculty, and staff as the Center 's cultical diversity is vital to its many

functions.

Program Details

It has taken our society many years to realize t4at "child care" is much

more than minimal care. Indeed, current researchers have promoted the need for

providing yourkg children with both high quality care and a rich learning

environment. To succeed, a thiversity "Childrent Center" must provide the

highest quality early childhood learning invironment possible. Provisions for

having such an environment for children and families exist within the University's

resources. Wbsn deployed properly can actually serve as an attraction to new

feculty, students, and staff. A major goal of the *Center" must be to

attain national accreditation by noting the criteria set forth in the

Accreditation Cliteria and "madams of do National Academy of

Early Child ltood Iftgrains. Doe criteria set forth the guidelines for having

a quality program in all areas: program philosophy, staff, health/safety, nutrition,

physical environment, curriculum, parent involvement, administration, and

continuing evaluation. These guidelines establish the foundation for having the

best care and the richest learning ecology possible for young children and their

families. While the existing "Center* meets many of these criteria,their are particular criteria that it does not meet due to existingfinancial limitations. A brief reviev of the major criteria required for

national accreditation and an assessment on vhich criteria are currently met is

instrirtive. Further, this brief narrative on desired program specifics relative to

national zecreditation can serve as a guide for whieviag all of the criteria over a

three-five year transition/planning period.

Engraill_Thilanft The current program philosophy of the

"Children's Center" is one that focuses on nurturing children and families in a

positive miner; utilizing research findings to establish a high quality

environment for care and early learning. A strong belief in multicultural

learning positive guidance, parental involvement, staff development, use of

developmentally appropriate curriculum, and continuing support of children's

healthy development permeates all of the decisiors made at the "Center".

Functioning as a laboratory, the "Center" also places high priority on the

leaning, teaching, and research/development aspects Lt child care and early

learning. This philosophy has continually received "high marks" for the

"Center" from outside evaluators (annual state reviev process and tvo *external"

study teams over the past decade) and more than meets the criteria set forth

for national accreditation.

Stet The strength of any high quality early childhood program is the

staff. The status of current staff vith regards to criteria set forth for national

accreditation is very positive. For exunple, national criteria require that the

director of child care/early learning programs have at least an undergraduate

degree/certification in early childhood education. They also strongly suggest that

such a person have training and successful experience in directing child care

39

programs. The various center directors over the past decade have exceeded tlis

criteri& A similar situation exists vith most of the centert le a! teachers ard

assistant teachers. Furthr, the "Center? staff development programs and

continuing involvament in professional leadership roles place it in a position to

far exceed national criteria for ecereditation. The "Center? salary stnEture also

exceeds national guidelines; hovever, the curent salaries are pitiftl in

comparison to vhat professionals of equal training and experience riceive in the

large domain of public schools. Where the 'Center" is weak in term of

national guidelines is the staffichild ratio. TIN: risting program meets

the ratios set for infants, toddlers, and tvo-year olds. It does not meet the ratio

st for 3, 4, and 5 year olds. The proposed program set forth in this document

includes a system for meeting all of the staff/child ratios set by the national

recreditation guidelines. Clearly, the existing problem is one of finances. It is

more expensive to have fever clildren in each classroom. Again, it ,, v. take a

three-five year transitionpriod toichieve this criteria of staff/child ratios.

Finally, staff benefits and position security need to be strengthened.

While this vas partially achiewd in 1990-91 vith the University's official

recognition of staff as "classified personnel", there still remains the need for

"continuing contracts*, annual leave, and related bandits. Quality staff can only

be attracted to the "Center*, vhen the benefits package is similar to that of otter

Univerxity staff and faculty National Accreditation Standards call for full

benefits and job security for all ftill-and-part-time perm*,

HealthiSafew A primary concern of any program for children and

families must be heal.th and safety The "Center" has alvays received 0.1 marks

for providing a healthy environment. All state and national criteria regarding

health requirements (vhich include immtmization, annual health assessments,

daily cleaning of the facility, and related activities) are met by the existingprogram. Similarly, the children's safety is alvays of primay concern to staff;regular rsvievs of conditions for safety and continuing staff reminders onchildrent safety are carried out at the center. The "Cents?' exceeds thenational criteria for safety and health.

Haiti= A quality program for young children and families attends to

the nutrition and eating habits of children and families. National guidelines

require that programs meet all Federa: Food Program Requirements. Theexisting program at the Thildren's Center" meets and exceeds theserequirements. Nutritiots limches and morning and afternoon supplements are

served daily to the children. The food is prepared according to tie "FederalFood Program Guidelines* and the center received very positive feedback from

the Federal Food Program after its recent visit ani assessment In addition, staffat the center attempt to create a *family environment" in the serving of the food.

Parents have taken an active role in improving the "Center r food and nutrition

program and regular staff development information on nutrition and food service

are carried out during staff meetings and staff development sessioix.

Physical Environment; National accreditation criteria require that the

physical environment be designed aml arranged to meet the needs of very yowlschildren. Furnitire, materials, equipment, and space arrangements must berelated to the age-group being served. Each classroom at the "Children's Center"

is designed and maintenanced to serve the developmental needs of the groupinvolved. For example, the infant room contains the needed cribs (and cribspace), cravling area, play materials, safety items, ard related developmental

supports for healthy grovth in infants This is true of all of the classrooms at the"Center". The Tenter* exceeds the national criteria for having a

41

I 1 ' 1 t arts*: 11 t 1 t r ro t .14,1 t.. I .111 491e t i t I :...-3 :./._!1 . k:141 I 4 is' I : t ft : a .. I z.e I: . e . ett v.,.. Vie

1* a : . I be i Z v.. 7..N. :..N1 a a :I a 14 1:r, I : 1 .} 11 4 :.. I Z., I 1 : 11: I

s: .: e, ail -:. e r, ' s ti.) _if, * :4) ' el 41 1 II: I4 1:4:1 420', tk_ W.) / t /4111: : est: I -.... . 0*

1,1 1,... 1.: : 4 : : f : le,s II. I .101 W. .: 4.: : I I 4 it :

Z.S.-4 : a : iiir, i t. Milo. 1.1 :-.1 IP . vi.1 4 t iOr lot 1 s 1 t I t..1 'Jr.: II a I

rive '.141:110: 41 I r,

? #1 1 # # I . # 04 , s : I : I 14 i I : I I .1. 1 I1 ' 1 Is II : 4 i 1 :: 1 : 1 4 4 1 t Z . at e Z Aa.: 4 10 :4!:

::1-: .141 4 I 1 t 4 :to 4 44.: 4 t : 1 :et'k-F.1-=. r : 11 t-

I if! / r I

le t e . 06 st ' * s:Z..1 t :

fv,i a a if i 111 sit :41 t f Zot mt.: II1 : " 4 I 14 11 'III : it 4 4 !fir. 44

s' 1: :.a: :ea 1011.: a i 41.4, 4: 4,114414 .11:41:s 114 1 : 1 111 I

sw I

4444 lit Ivel 1 Rept* In. .111 $1" 10+:141 11:14

14 11 to S Ir I. 11 I I P I 5.1 Vt% 14 1 11 1

114," :er I

: " :tr. A B .11 1 41 I

4 : vt:

I 1 : d ft 1 " f jf o 11: Z

III II aiø 1: : f; f if f

.ik Nro 1 a :11 '1* , fr.. . I., ,:a a a: :at: a Was r1eo :.5 0. a a a :

0, I ' :111: 11 * l :41L, of. a a: :la :1

II I. fa. a a :A i f a a : a: a`, a a i: 'o

a oi 990, 11,1L:1( I's a a: a k, 1", g '#0 0,.t:_il k : : 1. I: 'ot.Z.1 k. If :r 0: ', II ::t_ o II II III tor, a 0

f , "Lc k o ft a , : 9 199, , 1 e. a : o la V:

a a a *1:), '. 1 a 0".09at / :,i r. r U 1 t : AY e I et' * rr r

12 11,. I II a 01 ea ay.,. ',aa we** z... a: i a I :,a a a elftzli_-

:a ... a a :to fes. '. a ' a loa ', ell De, VA. V. , ti by I 0, e,

,s: 1

f 1:.

al.

1.; 11 a :

tf:' :

a * :4 t il : , ii,... ._ ic....-0,...,

N . a * a e a .. a *

: ff : f 1_. :,. VI *

a lot: .

' : e 0 a

a 11" ,

: :4',. , I.0 II" ....N.1

: , a o 6.. a z 1 bit. to

ilf: A a - a : : a t ....

10:

ft

I * saZ,Z t ' CI 44 44 44a l':47:4

;. 1 i t a pi. i : 9 II 4,t, K:i: i :t. '

1 1 11 : I 14.p:11 , I la at A a : A A : a a L11:. 0 .... . t:..."1:_ a :III

: 1 1.A2::1 .1 aft A f silt a 1 : : 11 .., P, :.1 :/.. 1' 11 :. Z A. s 1:

1: - o a .. ' ulpi :..a o1400 1 A I :: 14 'Zoll .. 1 : 4 : * II :LI a

ft I 1 a 1: I :.:: a '1.11::,/ 1 . $ 11 a a \ fie's:: *1444.4.

I a a a,: : $ : , ,,, , pp.. sill i.,. 91 I w....$ zr.1 ' :41 01 : I :

' s o - ,.. a : a a : a 1 1 1 i t 11 a I 0 : a to :

':. ... 1: : ra 1 As tr, , , 11 .

: . II :, a a , I 11 I i - 1 . : II Z . a

leadership. The current arrangement of having an early childhood faculty

member serve Art-iims (in edition to teaching and resezath duties) is

ineffective and a major flay in the current alministrative system. This position

should be a non-feculty, full-time classified position that is acco um, IL-1 by a

salary that is competitive in the early childhood education administration field.

The maintenance of the involvement of early childhood fazulty should be attended

to through an appointment of a &nay arimr

Evaluation: The *Centers has historically adhered to a philosophy of

continuing evaluation amt assessment for all program and staffing elements. This

philosophy and action should be continued in the nevly formed program.

Evaluation is at the heart of quality programs; it shoild include parental input,

regular (annual) staff evaluation, internal and external program evaluation, and a

self-study process (vhich is built into state and national accreditation). In

addition, tte "Center's" University Management C9umzjl should carry out

continuing evaluation of the Center's progress tovard achieving theimplementation and refinement of this plan.

Funding

This proposal for a USC Campus Child Care And Early Learning

Center at the USC Children's Center calls for a comprehensive funding

structure Yithin the University's managament system. The use of a "multiple

sources" funding structure should not only provide a means for supporting a

quality on-campus child care and early learning program, but also ensure that tlys

program is visited .4 thus supported as a truly "Universitr endeavor. In

effect, the major change recommended in the Center's financialstructure is the involvement of the University in the funding of the

44

111 ,froi411

f

1I. tjt

11 1

WAI4k1

:' : f u t:

/

I 1t,

It" I Z A r 10, ft. 4:

11). 1 WA : : 11 4 : : f t

;JAI 1 ff : f 1 *4;111

11 1 11. .41r /1 /Pk 4r /.1 A:i 11'

i 1) qt. st I 4 .11

111 M111 0 t s 1 Ye* 11,-: 4 9 it 1 11 1 C:1 eel 1, t.r.11_

111n :I tri 111 1 : 1: 1s:101 1 ' : 11 : A. , 't:..11: I

1. 44 :.I 4 II .1 t 4 11 I tit, I I...t=

s II 1 ' t.4.... 1 i 1

' 11 :4 4 0 4 I) 1:,.1:1 I : I1.:4 f+ 1 8 : / I It:. I I.: I i PC,.

"111011 t I :0'. I 1 :ty. i I I 0 1 t r q B :.1 : f f s . 4:. II I 1 .10'...1_ :00 ._ A , ,1:.111_:. .: WI : , : 9 : , ' :141 I :pp s s

I .11 1::r1: I :A ii Ite, .4: ii I 11 1.: a : :.I I : #4: it

1 1...ten 1 1 f 1 il:* I : :1 : : 1 ..1 :t I. A

It 1 ; f 1$. I W. : 11.1 * "

Pra-»ost-ki S'asin,jy I (5)( r2 '16 4.t: r 13414.(../J

!4_ I )

i 11_110 : I

.1 S 1I6 I

These °cost figures" vere arrived at using the current (1991-92 budget) vith

refinements taking place in allovances for inflation, small salary increments, the

cost for a full-time director, and allovances for normal supply/equipment needs.

What follovs is a project cost-share by all of the parties involved. The cost-

share is on an enrollment of 92 children (56 block grant & 36

tuition), vhich vould come close to meeting national standards. Given this

context the cost-share projected would be as follovs:

SHILSFC Block Grant - $206,000

DSS Food Program - $ 30,000

Ttition - $122,000

DSS Fee Program - $ 6,000

University - S 141,000

Total op $505,000

Several observations are in order regarding the cost and cost-share

presented in the above analysis. The "University Slim" might ix furthert, 1;tli t fl, V It 0, fir,

. 0 ;::.

nriusferAftindsnammpriatiaxim Further, other "units" might make a

"training and research" contribution thus reducing the cost-share of the

"University*. There are, of course, many other strategies for making this cost-

share vorkable. Although very =desirable, other mars of bringing costs in

line vith available flats might include a more gradull reduction of children to be

served (thus delimiting the immediate loss of tuition) or increased tuition costs.

A more desirable means of dealing vith the cost-factor vould be to establish

a University "account" for the Center vithin its administrative system. It is also

46

helpful to recopize that most "campus-child care programs" are funded betveen

thirty and fifty percent by the hostrUniversity. This proposal calls for aUniversity-share of about thirty percent. Similar cost-sharearrangements are currently being used at USC-Spartanburg and USC-Aiken.

Given the current dismal fiscal picture, other financial adjustmentscould be made to shape a budget that is manageable for the initialyear of "University-Wide Sponsorship": reduce the supply/equipment budget,

limit the "Assistant Director" graduate assistantship to 15 or 20 hours per veek,

and other even less desirable options. Mg criticalFoist is Art °costes canbe managed law that a long-term UniversiOr commthrest exists toestablish a quality citild care/early learn i g plograra oda maps.

An 'ideal budget!' that should serve as thR foundation of such a long

range plan is briefly smamarized as follovs:

Category Cost

Personnel

Fringe Benefits

Supplies/Equipment

Indirect Cost

Total

$495,000

$ 99,000

$ 90,000

$ 13, 000

$691, 000

47

5 7

Tbs "increased costs" reflected in this ideal buiget include salary increases that

vould enable the "Center" to attract tut retain certified early childhood teachers,

increased fringe-benefit costs, inflation costs, increases in supply/equipment costs,

a full-time assistant director, and a fourth-time faculty advisor. Vsith such a

budget in place, the "Center" vould be in a position to exceed national

accreditation standards.

A plausible "cost-share" structure for meeting the expenses involved in this

"ideal budget is described as follovs:

SHHSFC Block Grant ii $240,000

DSS F)od Program se $ 37,000

Tuition $130,000

University - $290,000

Total - $691,000

While the 'ideal budget" costs appear quite high, the use of a "multiple

cost-share" system could prove effective in managing this budget Further, this

budget might serve as "goal" for the Center to achieve vitbin its nev structure of

being an "on-campus" child care/early learning center. Through the lealership of

an active "center management council"; funding for an ideal center should

prove more viable than currently exists.

48

Campus-Vide Planning For Quality Child Care/Early Learning

Ths past five years (1986-1991) have been marked by a concern for the

initiation and implementation of "campus-vide* child care and early learning. At

least tvo University-appointed committees have studied the problem; inc,Itzling

the coixtucting of a survey to probe the need for such care, and the conducting of

various exploratory meetings vith interested groups on campus. In addition,

several "informal* groups have met in forums to discuss and advocate for the

development of a high quality on,campus child care program for the children of

faculty, staff, and students. Dtring this same period of time, the College of

Education struggled to continue financing its laboratory school (The USC

Children's Center). After exploring various financing strategies the College

determined it could not flat the "Centers at the needed level for achieving

National Accreditation. Hovever, in serving as it laboratory on the USC campus

for over 15 years, the program bas served about 60 children of faculty, students

and staff per year. Thus, the closing of the *Centers vould indeed have a serious

iznpact on the *writing mironment" of many families at the University While

another source of child care exists on the campus (Campus Kiddie), it barely

meets minimal state standar& and only has the capacity to serve 40 children per

year, most of vbich are children of students. In effect, the University te tunny

fa:es a situation (should the Children's Center close) vivre its child care support

structure may become even more critical than currently exists. Indeed, theneed exists for campus-vide planning for the development of high-quality child care and early learning that can serve the children andfamilies of faculty, staff, and students in an effective manner.

This propoml to initiate a quality on-campus child carelearlylearning program at the *Children's Center* offers a first-step in this

49

process of shaping a long-range effort to meet the "child care" needs on the USC

campus. Several significant issues can and do need addressing vithin the context

of Rich a long raw effort atinzthriation and nifinement of the various.

child Imre SerfiCeS and activides that cuffently exist on amptilsarticulation of a comprehezza* plan for achieving National'Accreditation for all add carWearly learizi47 sanYces offered oncrows, demlopment of a Weide lnulfride cost-slow" womb 0Anstling on-canym child care, develoinnent f child and familyressarch and teaching dements rig& the Venter", and relatedastme aidd s. While such planning has taken place in the past, it has been

sporadic and has never been a center-piece of program, service, or

research/teaching concerns on the campus. Both existing child careiwly learning

programs have been viewed as 'fringe" services vithin the University Both have

smuggled fmancially and one has baiely met minimal standards. Until the child

care and early learning needs of children of fzx ulty, staff, and students are vieved

as "priority" service and academic concerns this sporadic and limited approach

vill prevail.

A Strategy/Stages Design For Implementation

The transformation of the "USC Children's Center" into a high-quality on-

campus child care/early learning program that meets a blended focus on "service"

and "mademic researchitezehing" is very viable given tte historical context and

current etstence of the basic foundation available at the "Center". For example,

a sound and appropriate physical facility (designed tor children yet in need of

renovation) exists and the key program elements either exist or are easilyarticulated, Further, a plethora of University expertise and talent is available

(and often used in the existing program) to create an indeed exemplary program.

50

fu

Yet, the single-sponsorship (College of Education) and "perceived isolation" of

the "Center" limits its potential for achieving the quality level desired among all

concerned.

An implementation strategy for the proposed plan should take on a

structure that addresses: adoption and commitment to the plan by the University

authorities; formation and activation of a Mansgemant Comril(1991-92) to

refine, shape, and put into place the key elements for implementation of the plan;

implementation of this Council's Year O. Flay (1.0924J) articulation of a

long-raw campus-vide consolidation and refinement of all child care/early

learning services (inclusive of child and family services and academic programs;

1992-93); submission/adoption of this Lang Raw Child & FiiziiyFiaizto

the University President and Provost; and implementation of this plan vith a

continuing asessment ind self-study component integrated into the on-going

structure.

Stage One - Adoption/Commitment To Plan: The initial step in the

transformation of the "Children's Centel*" tovard becoming a high-quality on-

campis child care/early learning program is the adoption of the plan by the

University and evidence of a correspording commitment to its implementation in

the 1992-93 academic year. This adoption/commitment process needs to occur

vithin the "authority system" of the University; the Offices of the Provost and the

President (vith approvals as required by the Board of Tnistees). The supportive

vork already completed on the need for such action by Faculty Senate committees

and related faculty stAuly groups should suffice to varrant such action; swing

badly needed momy that vould be required for high-paid consultant studies.

Indeed if father study is needed, the talent and expertise exists vithin the

University system (note the child care achievements at USC-Spartanburg and

51

c

USC-Aiken). Regardless, a visible and substantive commitment to the

plan's mission and needed supports by the University is a prerevisit2

to any further implementation steps. The itivation of this step is planted

via the submission of this proposal (as requested) to the Office of The Provost.

Stage Tvo - PormationlActivation Of Management Council:Upon the adoption of this prop:nal the University Provost should appoint

artivate a Mame:me& Coma For On-Campus ChM Care The

immediate goal of this Council should be to study, refine, and further develop this

proposal for finalization for use in initiating this transformation plan in the fall of

1992. This Council should be comprised of representatives of: Dean's

Office - College of Llucation, University Student Affairs Office, Office of the

Provost, University Faculty/Staff, University Students, Center Director, Center

Staff/Parenti, and the larger Midlands Community The "Council" should present

a viable "transition plan" (particularly with regards to financial limitations) for

initiating the transformation process tovard on-campus child care and early

learning at the Children's Center to the Provost for final gproval. It vould be

desirable that this plan be submitted to the Provost no later than January of 1992.

Stage Three - Implementation Of Approved Plan (1992-93):Mth a specific plan approved by the appropriate University authoriti, steps

should be taken (it is recommended this process be initiated in February 1992) to

initiate the transition at the 'Children's Center". It is recommended that in a

coll ,oratiw and concerted effort the Management Council and the Center

Director (with guidance from all appropriate persons) carry out theneeded changes for preparing the "Center" for operating in the Fall of 1992 as a

on-campus child care/early learning program. The key elements that vill likely

need attention in this process: selection of a full-time director, articulation of the

52

f; 2

specifics of the various grants/fundingiprogram elements that are essential the the

Tenter 's" operations, orientation of the program's new direction ard structure

for all concerns, organization and implementation of a clear University fiscal and

administrative structure, and related preparations for implementing the

*transition plan* at the "Center". Given that a great deal of advanced thinking

=I planning has already taken place and that the University continues to nurture

this process in the Fall of 1991, ths implementation stage should take shape with

a minimal disruption of the Center 's existing operations.

Stage Four - Articulation Of Long-Range Flan: Once the "Center"

is in the process of moving toward full implementation of the plan to ftinction as

an on-campus child care program, the Management Council(vith input

from all appropriate parties) should begin development of a Lozw-Rawa

Flap For Coanithstiog Caspir-Ofda Child Cansononly Senecas.

This plan should include: identification of all existing child care/early learning

services on tha campus, articulation of a process for effective coordination of

these services (including consolidationlimproved delivery of quality services), and

preparation of a plan for carrying out more effective and higher qual,ity services

in this regard.

innt7t Art Joi .21t4

Stage Five - Adoption/Implementation Of Long-Range Flan:

The final step in this design for achieving comprehensive and high-quality

child/family services on the USC - Columbia campus is the adoption and

implementation of a long-range plan to achieve a coordinated and meaningful

system for sustaining on-going delivery of services. This might include the key

elements for shaping a truly high-quality Canter For atildreatFartaiesthat

encompasses service, teaching, and research components. It might include a

53

"vision" of a nev facility and system that alloys for comprehensive integration of

these elements (vithin an interdisciplinary program design). Regardless of the

final elements of this plan, it should serve to guide the University direction

tovard achieving an effective, economical, and high-quality arrangement for not

only meeting the child/family weds articulated but also provide the structure for

promoting and conducting high-quality teaching and research activities in this

academic domain.

While tkie existing child care/early learning picture at USC - Columbia is

minimal vith regards to any coherent structure or system, the elements for

whieving meaning and quality do exist. It is true that these elements currently

exist in pieces (spread here and there in various programs and departments) and

often ftmction sporadically (dependthg upon funding). Yet, vith some thoughtful

planning and minimal funding, a truly coordinated antl meaningful arrangement

can be Miculated. Vsith leadership at the "Authority" level vithin the University,

a more coherent and quality system of child/family service and study can be

accomplished.

54

References

Alger, Harriet. (1991). One State's response to the growing need forcampus child care: A New York partnership involving State Government,Colleges, Universities, and Unions, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6( I ), 69-80.

Bauch, Jerold. (1988). Demonstration school, child care center or both?100 years of experience at Peabody College, Journal of InstructionalPsychology, l5(4), 138-141.

Bickimer, David. (1991), Leadership and the campus child care setting:Theory Into practice, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6( I ), 37-42.

Burton, Christine & Boulton, Pamla. (1991). Campus child care: Toward anexpanded professional identity, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(1),29-36.

Galinsky, Ellen. (1987). The Six Stages of Parenthood. Reading, MkAddison-Wesley.

Greene, Edward. (1985, September 25). Colleges hard pressed to meetdemands for child care; funds called inadequate., Me Chronicle of HigherEducation, 371219-225,

Hanes, Michael & Swick, Kevin. (1987, April), A Report Of The Self StudyOf Booker T Washington Children's Center. Columbia, SC: University ofSouth Carolina (College of Education).

Herr, J. & Zimmerman, K. (1989). Results of the 1989 national campuschild care study. Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout.

Keyes, Carol. (1991). Campus children's centers: Two decades of ferment,Early Childhood Research Ouarterly, 6(1), 3-10.

Keyes, Carol & Schwartz, Sydney. (1991). Campus child care centers:Introduction, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(1), 1-3.

National Association For The Education of Young Children. (1985). NationalAcademy of Accreditation For Early Childhood Programs. Washington, D.C.:National Association For The Education of Young Children.

National League of Cities. (1989). Our Future And Our Only Hope: A SurveyOf City Halls Regarding Children And Families. Washington, D.C.: NationalLeague of Cities.

Shirah, Sue. (1988). Campus child care: Meeting unique needs., Jotrnal of/nstructlonal Psychology, /5(4), 135-137.

Simons, Kathy. (1991). Beyond campus cnild care: Supporting universityfamilies, Early alkilwoo 'Research Quarterly, 6(1), 57-68.

South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance Commission. (1990). ChildDevelopment Quality Assurance Standards. Columbia, SC: State of SouthCarollna (SCHHFFC).

Squibb, Betsy & Winey, Katherine. (1988). Practicing together. Faculty andstudent relationships In campus-based early education facilities., Journalof InstructIonal Psycnology, 15(4)1 161-170.

Swick, Kevin. (1988). The renewal of the Children's Center at theUniversity of South Carolina, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 15(4),142-148.

Swick, Kevin. (1991, April). Telephone Survey of Five Campus Child CareCenter Directors. Columbia, South Carolina: USC Children's Center.

The Center For Family In Society. (1,991). Academic Resources Reated ToThe Discipline Of Family Science At The University of South Carolina.Colurntla, SC: University of South Carolina .

Townley, Kim & Routt, Mary Lou. (1988). The need for qualitative researnin campus child development laboratories., Journal of/nstructlonalPsycnology, I5(4), 156-161.

6 ;

USC Child Care Task Force. (1990). Task Force Report On Campus ChildCare Needs.

USC Task For On Child Care. (1991). Report On Campus Child Care.

White, James. (1972). Student teaching changes at Peabody College.,Peabooy Views Me Ceilrent Scene, 4(4), 1-2.

67

APPE

7INE PCM

NDW

MPLE bENTA111 ON

Task Date Completed

1.0. University Adoption Of Proposal

2.0. Appointment/Activation Of Planning Team

3.0. Proposal Finalized For Provost/President

4.0. Management Council Activated

5.0. Fau, 92 Plan Finalized/Presented

6.0. Nev System/Structure Organized

7.0. Nev Director Hired For Transition Work

8.0. Nev Center Structure/System Implemented

9.0. Long-Range Planning Begins

10 0. Long Range Plan Presented

September/October, 91

October, 91

December, 91

January, 92

March, 92

May, 92

June, 92

August, 92

September, 92

December, 92

;-4g

SW M

I NM

IIIIIII

MS M

O M

N N

M IM

OO

MB

OR

MN

INS

MIS

MIN

EM

I NM

MIN

NM

14in itni a 1 (4)p e e-t*

Es t:bni.a.t es

9r2 913

Category Amount

1.0. HHSFC Funding Total*Block Grant (120,657 x $1.71)*Health Assessm9nts (25 x $35)Fee Program (1990-91 Base)

2.0. Tuition Funding Total*Infants/Toddlers (6 x 325 x 12)*Ts (8 x 310 x 12)*3,4,5s (30 x 280 x 12)

3.0. USDA/DSS Food Program Funding

4.0. University FULIdillg Share

207,726200,851

,S756,000

155,84023,40028,760103,680

37,000

50,000

Estimated Total 450 610

Category Cost

1.0. Salaries 301,600

2.0. Fringe Benefits 70,511

3.0. Contractual Services For Health Assessmsnts ,875

4.0. Supplies 68,292

I *Food 42,000*Office ,600

I *Xerox*Work-Study

1,7003,500

*Van Gas/Maintenance 1,800

I * Ed motion Supplies 6,000*Insurance ,700*Petty Cash ,500

I *Postage/Telephone/Misc 4,000*Reserve Fund For Deficit 8,492

I5.0. htirect Cost On Grant

Estimated Total

9,291

450,569

72

USC Children's CenterPersonnel Schedule

EXHIBIT 3(8-17-92 - 8-16-93)

Postion Total Salary SSBG Tution Unvers4

Dired or 22,000 22,000GA Anis. Dir. 6,000 6,000Adroit*. Assistant 18,500 10,800 7,700Fd. Technician Cord. 15,010 7,800 6,700I djescher-Infents 19,000 11,400 7,600Ld. Teacher-Toddlers 19,000 11,400 7,6001.d. Teacher- Zs 19,000 11,400 7,600Ld. Tuella- 3t 19,000 11,400 7,600L. d. Teecher-4t 19,000 11,400 7,600Ld. Teacher- vs 19,000 11,400 7,600Anti. Teecher-Intents 14,500 8,400 6,100Assis. Teacher-Toddlers 14,500 8,400 6,100Assis. Teacher- 2`s 14,500 8,400 6,100As*. Teecher- 3's 14,500 8,400 6,100Mai& Teacher-4's 14,500 8,400 6,100Anis. Teacher-5's 14,560 8,400 6,100GA's For etch room(6 x 5,600) 33,600 20,160 13,440Subsblutes 6,000 4,000 2,000

Totals 301,600 161,560 118,040 22,000

APPREDOK ©

@NOILDIMIKM ©{11MOM PEllC301B@EU G3C)M 11 9 9

USC CHILDREN'S CENTER 1991-92 BUDGET ESTIMATES

REVENUE ESTIMATES

1.0. HHSFC Funding Total $208.601

11 BlockGranX120,65741 71) $201.7261.2. Health Assessment Funds (25 x $35 each) $ .8751.3. Fee Progam Funds (estimated based on 1990-91 income) $ 6.000

2.0. Tuition Funding Total (based on 12% tuition increase) $152,700

2.1. Infants/Todd1ers/2's(14x$300x12) $50,4002.2.3's,4's,5's(27x275x12) 3102,300

3.0. USDAMS Food Progam Supplement Funds (based on 1990) $30,300

4.0. College of Education Training Fund Investment (1990 funding) .$30.000

5.0. COVITE/ECE Fund 113 Time Faculty Directcr Position $21,000

Estimated TotalRevenue $442L301

USC CHILDREN'S CENTER ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: 1991-92

1.0. Salaies $306.700

2.0. Fringe krafits $ 62,680

3.0. Contactual (Health Assess.) $ ,875

4.0. Supplles $ 61,566

4.1. Food $ 40,0004.2. Office $ 1,0004.3. Xerox $ 1,6004.4. Work-Studies (3) $ 2,5004.5. Van Gas/Maintenance4.6. Education4.7. Insurance4.8. Petty Cash

5.0. Indirect Costs

$ two$ 13,671$ ,600$ $00

$ 10,480

Estimated Total Budget $442.3131

USC CHILDREN'S CENTER SALARY ESTIMATES: 1991-92

Position Position Salary Toted Co him Salm

C enter Resesth Rolm :gat cetor(1/3 time) $28,000 $28,000

Laboratory School Ful-Time Director $30,000 $30,000

Administrative Assisted $17,000 $17,000Food TechnicieniCoordinator $16,000 $16,000

Lead Teachers (WartiToddlem) $18,700 $37,400Lead Teachen (2,3,4,5) $18,500 $88,000

Assistett Teaches (lnliToddiessi2t) $14,500 $43,500Assistant Tett hen (3,415t) $13,000 $39,000

Graduate Assist** (6 x5300) $ 5,300 $31,600

Substitute Mechem $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Totals 1313.700

Cr)

En me am En INN NE as as me on En am amp am on Ns an Ns MN

Booker T. Washington Children's CenterParent-Teacher Organization

c/o 1513 Pinemont Drive; Columbia, SC 29206August 18, 1991

Dr. George ReevesProvostUniversity of South CarolinaColumbia, SC 29208

Dear Dr. Reeves:

As you may be aware, a delegation of parents met with Dr. Smith in May to discuss our concerns about thefuture of the Booker T. Washington Center. In particular, we were interested in conveying to him our beliefthat the Center represented both a valuable asset to the University and a means for the University to fulfillits obligation to the community at large by providing an example of childcare at its best.

We understand that you have met with Dr. Kevin Swick to discuss the current situation. Dr. Swick has toldus that you are interested in creating a committee to guide the ongoing development of the Center. Wesupport your efforts and would like to assist in any way we can. We hope you will involve as many parentsas possible in work of the committee and will be happy to provide you with a list of parents who would beinterested in contributing, and their backgrounds, if it would be helpful.

Many of us have given the future of the Center a great deal of thought over the past year, working with Dr.Swick and each other to refine our ideas about what is working well and what needs imprmwent. Dr.Swick's report makes it clear that the Center needs a full-time, professional director. Eight parents reviewedthe report, and they were unanimous in the opinion that in addition to having a full-time director, the Centershould be guided by a group functioning as a board of directors. This would provide University-wideinvolvement in the governance of the Center, and it would provide constituents of the facilityboth enrolledfamilies and faculty/students from various departments of the University who use the Center for teachingand research purposeswith a forum for discussing ideas and proposing changes.

A representative group of parents has requested the opportunity to meet with you on September 6 to discussour concerns and to urge you to provide families and faculty at the Center with some assurance that it willremain open beyond spring of 1992. If you have any questions or would like information prior to that time,please feel free to call me at home (782-2027) or work (779-8601.)

Thank you for your interest in the Center and your willingness to make time for us at a very busy time ofyear.

cc: K. Swick

Very truly yours.

Patricia L. Jerrnan,President

7 :!

This publication was printed at a cost of $32:22 for 12 copies, or $2.96 per copy.