In the last few weeks we have encountered several questions and remarks concerning the fee increase associated with the elimination of the student rate for daycare. We hope that these answers will shed more light on the intricate circumstances associated with the increase and its consequences on student families, ECEP's budgetary problem, and the stand that the university seems to be taking in this campaign.

---

Q: Responding on behalf of the Chancellor to letters from concerned students,1) VC-SA Harry Le Grande mentions that “while the decision [to increase daycare rates for students] was an extremely difficult one for us to make, it really did come down to keeping a childcare center open or changing the way we do business.” Is it true?

A: This is untrue. Those were not the only two options. First of all, ECEP/RSSP has put itself in $400,000 worth of debt over the course of several years. This is not something that happened overnight, even though the California budget crisis adds an extra level of financial pressure. Another option was to incur a little more debt and spend a year collaborating with parents to generate new funds. Right now parents are asked to contribute time to help supervise the children, but their skills in writing grant proposals are untapped. Graduate students in particular could solicit new donations to the program or write proposals for additional funding to cover the cost the administrators of the program are now passing on to students. There is another important point to be made here. An issue as central as this one to equity as well as recruitment and retention, should have been decided at the highest possible level of administrations: it is impossible for the university to celebrate equity and inclusion, and congratulate themselves for a standard exceeding daycare program, but at the same time deprive students from affordable daycare. Furthermore, the use of the word “business” in this form is particularly shameful: we acknowledge that any organization should strive for financial soundness, yet providing childcare to student families is not about business, it is a service. This is especially true at a leading public university such as Berkeley.

It should be noted that ECEP/RSSP only recently opened a brand new daycare center on Haste Street—a multi-million dollar project (funded by private donor money) that put them in the hole. Is this the center they'd close down? Because the irony of it is, their brand new, state-of-the-art celebrated eco-friendly center serves very few students. If they closed the doors of that center, it would be mostly UC faculty who would have to go find other daycare options. Unlike students, faculty have the flexibility and incomes to make this a possibility.

Q: VC-SA Le Grande further states that he wishes to “clarify that this increase will impact only a small number (currently twelve) of student parents in a program that serves 121.” Is this what it's all about?

A: While the university is emphasizing that there are “only twelve”, the truth is that twenty five unsubsidized student families will be asked to pay this outrageous rate beginning Fall '08. The officials like to count only twelve because this is the number of continuing student families who do not qualify for the state subsidy, and those for whom the difference between the current and new fees is not so large as to force them out of the program. It is presumed that newly entering families have already agreed to pay the new fees, and therefore should not be regarded “problematic”. However this ignores the fact that those student families who are neither so poor as to qualify for the subsidy, or so financially comfortable that the 60% increase would not force them out of the program, are likely to not bother applying.

We think differently. We think that the “only twelve” argument is an intentional (and shameful) attempt to isolate and marginalize a fundamental and moral problem: ECEP/RSSP (with the endorsement of the university) choose to kick out student families whose income is too high to qualify for subsidy but too low to possibly afford the cost of childcare under the new fee structure. Can you imagine the university using the same logic for other issues of equity and inclusion? For instance, imagine that similar reasoning would lead the university to decide not to build a wheelchair ramp since only 12 students are known to use a wheelchair this year. What would happen then? Equity is not about meeting the needs of the majority, it's about fairness for all. Even if only one family was affected and forced to leave their university, degree, and future behind, that should be enough for Chancellor Birgenau to take action.

Moreover, restricting the discussion to the “core” of continuing families and consequently excluding other families—either subsidized or unsubsidized—is misleading and shortsighted. Many of today's unsubsidized families were once subsidized, and were just fortunate enough to get better paying jobs and advance in their employment situation. Arguing that the increase is a matter between ECEP and its unsubsidized student families solely is unfair and misinforming toward other (present and prospective) families.

Q: It was noted that affected families are those who “exceeded the income threshold for the state subsidy.” If this is true, then shouldn't these families be able to afford childcare rates that are the same as those charged to university faculty and staff?

A: We first have to say that this statement sounds rather hostile and accusatory (and “tone” means a lot in writing of stand papers, as it is in academic writing!). Unsubsidized families have “exceeded the income threshold” because we are students who work for the university as GSIs and GSRs; because our non-student spouses are entitled to develop their own professional life and not to put it on hold until we obtain our degree; because we (sometimes) rightfully earn grant money due to our financial situation (or academic excellence). It is due to these reasons that we do not feel guilty for crossing threshold as unreasonably low as this for families living in the Bay Area ($3,769/month for a family of 3, $4,188/month for a family of 4). With student family housing rents starting at $1,360/month, it is remarkable how so many of us already manage to raise a family and attend school, teach, and conduct research! Second, the interesting fact that is not acknowledged is that even if you make just $100 over the “income threshold” your cost for childcare will jump to the same rates that Professors and well paid administrators are asked to pay.

Q: It was mentioned to me by VC-SA Le Grande and others that “when we notified them [unsubsidized families] of the increase, they were also given an application for scholarship funding” and that they “do hope to be able to offset some the increased cost with these funds.” Do these families have a reason to worry, then?

A: We believe we have many reasons to worry. First, as far as we know only a handful of families received the letters announcing the increase, and the scholarship application form with it; other families—subsidized and unsubsidized and alike—were assumed “not to be affected” and were left oblivious to this opportunity. Second, as there are admittedly insufficient funds to support all unsubsidized student families—not even the “core twelve”—scholarship money is to be awarded by lottery! We think it is implausible to bet your academic future on chances, let alone can we approve of a solution as arbitrary and discriminative as this. We are willing to (and sometimes do) take certain risks when we make various choices during this tight and uncertain period of life; but we are not gambling, and we have to stay realistic. This preposterous solution is analogous to sealing a concrete dam with a tube of super-glue.

Q: I was assured that the Interim Associate VC for RSSP and the Director of ECEP “have been meeting with many of these parents individually and in group meetings to discuss the situation and hope to come up with reasonable solutions for the parents currently in the program.” It seems like it's already been taken care of, isn't it?

A: No, it isn't. Indeed some of us met with Laura Keeley-Seldana (Director of ECEP) in person, and our representatives had one meeting with Peter Heonig (Interim Associate VC-RSSP), and they both seemed concerned about our situation but could not offer concrete solutions. To the best of our understanding, they are managers faced with a severe budgetary problem and whose highest and foremost duty is to increase their revenues in the following fiscal year. While they are indeed empathic and constructive towards finding better solutions, at the moment they are as clueless as the rest of us in this difficult situation.