Many families are calling for universal access to CPEs. They dream of enrolling in daycare which would turn out to be as simple as enrolling in the neighborhood school. However, it is not. The need remains dire. And, although the privileged ones who obtained a place are very satisfied with the services received, the fact remains that nearly half of the parents admit that admission proved to be very difficult.
Let’s not play the ostrich. With the lack of resources to which we are collectively exposed, “one child, one place” has as much chance of being realized in the short term as “one patient, one family doctor”.
Pragmatism is essential and prioritization is essential.
Until very recently, child care centers themselves established the criteria that guided their priorities. Following the recommendation of the Auditor General, the Ministère de la Famille announced last week its intention to take over the reins of this delicate exercise. The allocation of places will now be reviewed, corrected and, above all, centralized.
It’s a small revolution that is looming in daycares, and this has not failed to make all the players concerned react. Obviously, everyone applauds the government’s desire to establish access for vulnerable clienteles as the ultimate priority. It seems clear that a cleaning was needed, and this, in order to put an end to the use of certain dubious criteria.
After all, the social project that we gave ourselves with the creation of the CPEs rightly featured equal opportunities as a primary mission. It was high time to reconnect with this noble objective. However, many commentators have raised legitimate concerns about this significant change in ministerial direction.
From the outset, many expressed strong fears about the middle class. For the vast majority of Quebec families, a single salary is not enough. The current inflationary environment is not helping. As evidenced by the existence of the Ma place au travail group, access to the labor market remains a well-known concern. A fortiori, several predominantly female environments are going through a significant shortage. The question surrounding the admission of the children of nurses, teachers, social workers and psychologists therefore arises acutely. Will the new scorecard penalize these workers who, just a few months ago, were qualified as essential?
The abandonment of the criterion of geographical proximity has also brought to light various problems. On the one hand, this loss will undoubtedly harm the active mobility that we all wish to encourage. On the other hand, this rejection will also jeopardize the less quantifiable but very significant benefits that flow from giving priority to families in the neighborhood, in this case the lasting ties that are forged there and the easier transition to school. It takes a village, as they say.
Removing this key criterion will potentially lead to other, less foreseeable consequences. Indeed, the creation of places, brilliantly relieved of its bureaucratic heaviness by Minister Lacombe, will perhaps come up against new obstacles induced by this modification.
It is ultimately up to the municipalities to accommodate these places on their territory. However, in our cities where space is becoming increasingly scarce, the development of any new project, however laudable it may be, often comes up against a lack of social acceptability. The criterion of geographic proximity to child care centers was until now one of the few favorable arguments for cities trying to meet the current and future needs of their population. Their task is therefore more difficult. And waiting families will potentially have to arm themselves with even more patience…
In short, the relative importance that we give to all these criteria deserves to be weighed.