“It is almost impossible to get a spot when you need it”: Understanding parental knowledge and experiences of Canada’s new child care policy promoting access to quality early childhood education and care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting in 2021/2022, Canada implemented a new early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy, the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC). CWELCC aims to reduce the cost of child care to an average of $10CA/day. However, prior implementation of similar policies resulted in differential outcomes in terms of benefits received. The current mixed methods study examined 1341 parents’ knowledge and experiences with CWELCC. A total of 72.18 % of parents had heard about CWELCC, with the majority reporting information regarding reduction in cost. Benefits parents reported were largely around cost (41.98 %), while challenges were largely around access to full-time care (41.76 %). The most reported concerns were access and affordability. Concerns regarding affordability were related to increased anxiety ( b = 0.40, SE = 0.13), whereas concerns about access and inclusion were related to depression ( b = 0.35, SE = 0.16). Binary logistic regressions found differential knowledge and experiences with CWELCC based on family characteristics. For example, older parents and parents with higher income were less likely to have heard about CWELCC ( OR = 1.07–1.19, 95 % CI [1.04–1.09, 1.10–1.30]). Employed parents were more likely to experience various benefits ( OR = 1.69–2.14, 95 % CI [1.21–1.59, 2.39–2.75]). Differences were also found on knowledge, benefits, challenges, and concerns based on province, population density, and children’s characteristics. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".