PCP
1. A place count is not a timetable
Capacity describes simultaneous attendance, not free weekdays or suitable morning starts. Several families may need the same day while another is less popular. Allocation must explain that difference.
Vaud’s July 2026 frameworks concern minimum standards and clarity, not funding every desired place. Operations, staff and actual opening remain separate questions.
2. Travel belongs to reconciliation
Travel and connections lie between work and collection. Closing when employment ends does not permit timely arrival. The problem is spatial as well as temporal.
A site near home differs from one near work, especially with two employment locations. School continuity and the accompanying parent matter. Planning needs daily-life areas rather than one location model.
3. A week of staggered working hours
Take a teaching example without financial amounts: one parent starts early on three days, the other finishes late on two. A place only on the same two days need not cover the week. Exact days and handovers determine the outcome.
Weekly changing shifts create another problem. Booking five days defensively may be unaffordable; waiting for the rota may lose the place. Coordination, not volume alone, is then the constraint.
This is not an observed family. It shows why days cannot be added as interchangeable units.
5. The child’s rhythm sets a limit
Care is not storage for parental time. Children need continuity, rest, relationships and predictable transitions. Frequent changes of place and adults can complicate daily life.
The PCP joins access and quality. Unusual hours require resources and suitable organisation, not unlimited child days or exhausting staff shifts.
6. Teams also have working calendars
Another opening hour needs qualified presence, supervision and cover. It may require a new shift. Premises, cleaning and coordination must follow.
The PCP supports paid preparation, exchange and training alongside direct contact. Stable teams create known contacts. Cheap fees based on insecure jobs undermine continuity and shift costs to professionals.
7. Fees do not explain every choice
Contributions vary with resources and days. Additional earnings need comparison with care, travel and other support changes. This is an explicit simulation, not a universal formula.
The PCP supports progressive fees and sufficient public funding. A low price creates no suitably timed place; an unaffordable existing place remains inaccessible. Both require complementary instruments.
8. Holidays do not suspend needs
School changes the calendar: shorter days and holidays replace preschool days. Parents do not automatically become more available. Continuity links preschool, extracurricular care and holidays.
Occasional provision can help without constant setting changes. Enrolment and closure dates need early notice. New residents and shift workers particularly need accessible contacts.
9. Additional needs are not an anomaly
A child may need adapted support or gradual transition. Access cannot depend on staff absorbing the task without resources. The PCP supports identified funding and cooperation with professionals and families.
Child needs, organisation and skills should be distinguished. Refusal for lack of support does not prove collective care inherently unsuitable; it may reveal a resource gap.
10. Fund fixed costs and availability
Wages and premises remain through some absences. Pure payment per day consumed can destabilise providers. Multi-year agreements enable staff and capacity planning with a clear mission and accounts.
The PCP favours stability over the cheapest day. Authorities can fund small but essential offers: particular hours, adapted places and territorial continuity. Their social purpose must remain visible.
11. Make waiting intelligible
Access, priorities and updates should be known. One family can have several requests for different days. Counting each as a child overstates need; counting only successful enrolments hides refusal and withdrawal.
The PCP supports intelligible categories for creating appropriate places. Individual circumstances remain private; waiting should not become competition between personal stories.
12. Do not impose one family model
Some parents want more employment, others a different sharing arrangement. Policy does not decide for them. Shortage, cost and unpredictable hours should not decide alone.
Quality care also benefits children independently of parental employment. The PCP defends its educational and social purpose without excluding different family situations.
13. Answer the entire week
Cantons and municipalities have different systems; employers, families and providers distinct duties. The PCP proposes connecting calendars rather than announcing place totals alone.
Assessment follows days, hours, fees, teams, waiting and transitions. Success is sustainable organisation for children, families and professionals. Public service makes choices possible beyond the dictates of shortage.
14. Long opening is not universal access
Evening care can support particular jobs without being the best response to every work arrangement. One-off emergencies, regular activity and avoidable employer changes differ. Funding should meet need and encourage sustainable hours.
Teams and families belong in the discussion. Meals, rest, travel and returning home remain necessary. Planned extension creates security; improvised prolongation may shift difficulty to children and staff.
The PCP supports needs-based options with identified resources and assessment. Quality is neither the latest closing nor lowest price, but a week in which education, work and family coexist.