Individual 65000's submission
CAN-ASC-2.9 – Accessible Childcare Centres
Feedback items
Item id
1774473230946_708
Heading id
s0
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The language used throughout this section is deficit-based, focusing on “impairment,” “functional limitation,” and barriers arising from disability.
From our perspective, this framing does not fully reflect current best practices in inclusive and neurodiversity-affirming language, particularly in early childhood contexts. Increasingly, organizations, educators, and families are shifting toward strengths-based approaches that recognize neurological and developmental differences as part of human diversity, rather than solely as impairments.
What should we change it to?
We recommend maintaining alignment with the Accessible Canada Act definition of disability, while supplementing it with strengths-based, inclusive language that reflects evolving best practices.
Suggested addition:
“While disability is defined in accordance with the Accessible Canada Act, Accessibility Standards Canada recognizes that children and individuals may also identify using strengths-based language, including neurodiversity and other affirming terms. This includes children with visible and invisible disabilities, whose needs may not be immediately apparent but are equally important to recognize and support. Accessibility efforts should respect and reflect diverse ways of understanding and describing human differences.”
Why should we change it?
Language shapes how standards are interpreted and applied. In early childhood settings, deficit-based language can reinforce stigma. A simple addition allows the standard to stay legally aligned while reflecting current, inclusive practice and how families actually talk about and to their children.
Heading text
1. Accessibility Standards Canada: About us
Heading number portion
1.
Item id
1774473273214_620
Heading id
s6.1
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The section outlines where and how the standard applies, but it reads as fairly rigid. It does not acknowledge that childcare settings vary significantly (e.g., size, location, type of operator), which can impact how requirements are realistically implemented.
What should we change it to?
You could add language such as:
“This standard is intended to be applied across a range of childcare settings, and implementation should consider differences in scale, location, and available resources while maintaining the intent of accessibility.”
Why should we change it?
Without this, there’s a risk of inconsistent or impractical application, especially in smaller or rural settings. Acknowledging variability upfront supports better adoption while still keeping the accessibility goals intact.
Heading text
6.1 Importance of accessibility in childcare centres
Heading number portion
6.1
Item id
1774473314539_628
Heading id
s6.2
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The section highlights design strategies like reducing overstimulation and providing sensory spaces, but it focuses on the physical environment. It does not acknowledge that group size and staffing ratios are also a key part of accessible design in practice.
What should we change it to?
Add a short statement recognizing the role of group size and staffing. For example:
“Accessible design in childcare centres should also consider group size and staffing ratios, as these directly impact a child’s ability to regulate, participate, and receive appropriate support, particularly for children with invisible disabilities such as sensory sensitivities, communication differences, or attention-related needs.”
One policy idea would be to assign weighted ratios based on the needs of children within the group and their support needs.
Why should we change it?
Even with strong physical design, large group sizes can make environments overwhelming and inaccessible for many children. In practice, staffing and ratios are just as important as space design in reducing overstimulation and supporting participation. Without acknowledging this, the section feels incomplete.
Heading text
6.2 Overview of accessible design in childcare centres
Heading number portion
6.2
Item id
1774473355630_882
Heading id
s7.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
Technical such as dimensions or application of the standard
What should we change?
The section references “relevant authorities having jurisdiction” without clearly defining who that includes or how consistency will be ensured across jurisdictions.
What should we change it to?
Define who the authorities are and also set out expectations of equitable access across the country. I.e.:
“For the purposes of this standard, ‘authorities having jurisdiction’ should be clearly defined and applied consistently across provinces and territories.”
And/or:
“Implementation should aim for consistent expectations across jurisdictions to support equitable access to accessible childcare in Canada.”
Why should we change it?
As written, this leaves too much room for variation. If different jurisdictions interpret or apply the standard differently, accessibility will not be consistent across the country. That creates inequity for families depending on where they live, which runs counter to the intent of a national standard.
Heading text
7.3 Applications
Heading number portion
7.3
Item id
1774473398637_239
Heading id
s7.4
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The section outlines implementation expectations but does not address workforce capacity, particularly in rural and remote areas. There is no mention of how centres will access trained staff or whether training supports will be available for existing employees.
What should we change it to?
Add a short statement such as:
“Implementation should consider workforce capacity, including access to trained staff in rural and remote areas. Consideration should be given to training and other supports to enable consistent application of this standard.”
Why should we change it?
Without addressing staffing and training, implementation will vary significantly by location. Centres in urban areas may be able to meet expectations, while rural and remote centres may not. That creates inequitable access to accessible childcare based on geography, which undermines the intent of the standard.
Heading text
7.4 Limits
Heading number portion
7.4
Item id
1774473438405_995
Heading id
15.3
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
The section focuses on reducing noise levels and improving acoustics, but it treats this primarily as a comfort issue rather than an accessibility requirement tied to participation and regulation.
What should we change it to?
Add a short clarification such as:
“Acoustic design should support children’s ability to regulate, communicate, and participate in programming, particularly for those who are sensitive to noise or auditory input.”
Why should we change it?
For many neurodiverse children, noise is not just uncomfortable, it's a barrier to participation. Framing acoustics as an accessibility requirement, not just a design feature, helps ensure it is prioritized appropriately in implementation.
Heading text
15.3 Acoustic design
Heading number portion
15.3
Item id
1774473619389_491
Heading id
s0
What kind of suggestion are you making?
General comments on the overall standard or a section such as things that are missing
What should we change?
This is feedback on the overall standard - there was nowhere to add it at the end.
The standard focuses on physical and environmental design but does not clearly address how individual needs will be consistently understood and supported across staff, settings, and transitions. There is also limited reference to staff training in neurodiversity and how that training connects to day-to-day implementation.
What should we change it to?
Add language such as:
“Implementation of this standard should include staff training on a range of neurodiverse profiles and support needs, as well as tools to document and communicate individual accessibility requirements.”
In addition, consideration should be given to structured tools that support consistency across staff. Horizon Education Foundation is developing a Canada Student Support Plan (CSSP) prototype document embedded in its National Education Framework initiative, which outlines key information such as student strengths, communication preferences, sensory sensitivities, triggers and effective supports.
“The use of individualized child profiles (e.g., a ‘child passport’) can support continuity across staff, reduce reliance on informal knowledge, and improve consistency in how accessibility supports are applied.”
In practice, accessibility often breaks down due to inconsistency. Families are required to repeatedly explain their child’s needs, and supports vary depending on staffing.
Standardizing both training and how information is captured and shared improves consistency, reduces gaps in care, and leads to better outcomes for children.
Tools like the Student Passport provide a practical way to operationalize accessibility beyond the physical environment and ensure that supports are actually implemented day to day.
Why should we change it?
Accessibility in practice depends not only on physical design, but on how consistently individual needs are understood and supported across staff, settings, and daily interactions. Without clear expectations for training and information-sharing, implementation becomes inconsistent and dependent on individual staff knowledge or experience.
This is particularly important for children with invisible disabilities, whose needs may not be immediately apparent but can significantly impact their ability to participate, regulate, and communicate within childcare environments. Without structured approaches, these needs are more likely to be overlooked or inconsistently supported.
Currently, families often carry the burden of repeatedly explaining their child’s needs, and supports can vary depending on staffing, transitions, or setting. This creates gaps in care and undermines the intent of accessibility.
By embedding requirements for staff training and standardized tools to document and communicate individual needs, the standard can move beyond physical accessibility and ensure that supports are applied consistently in practice. This leads to more equitable, predictable, and effective outcomes for all children.
Heading text
1. Accessibility Standards Canada: About us
Heading number portion
1.
Submission ID
65000
Submitted by