Enrolment in early childhood education and care (ECEC) among children from the age of 3 to the start of primary education reached 90% on average across OECD countries in 2024, up from 86% in 2015, with much of that increase driven by rises in a relatively small number of countries.
The childcare gap between the end of paid parental leave and guaranteed access to ECEC averages around 2 years across OECD countries, although there is no gap in 13 out of 44 countries. In these countries, parental leave and ECEC entitlement are aligned or overlap, providing greater flexibility for families. Conversely, in some other countries the gap can be more than 5 years.
Participation in ECEC increases with age and tends to be higher in countries with stronger institutional support for participation, where there are shorter childcare gaps and earlier legal entitlement to ECEC. Across OECD countries, participation averaged 63% among 2-year-olds and 77% among 3-year-olds in 2024.
Education at a Glance 2026
All ECE programmes, in per cent
Note: The numbers in parentheses refer to the age when compulsory primary education starts.
1. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary education from age 4, and most attend from age 5.
2. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary education from age 5, and most do.
3. Year of reference differs from 2015.
For data, see Table B1.2. The data for this figure can be accessed via https://stat.link/1he0vc.
Context
Participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is a foundational element of social and economic policy, serving as a critical lever to enhance child development, foster school readiness and promote social equity. An expanding body of research is finding that high-quality early learning substantially improves cognitive and socio-emotional skills, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, while simultaneously facilitating labour-market participation among parents, especially women (Yoshikawa, Weiland and Brooks-Gunn, 2016[1]; Shuey and Kankaraš, 2018[2]; OECD, 2021[3]; Berger, Panico and Solaz, 2026[4]). Over the past decade, many OECD countries have seen a significant expansion in ECEC access, driven by a growing policy consensus that the foundational years are vital for educational attainment in the long term, well-being and lifetime earnings.
Despite this general upward trend, the landscape of ECEC provision for children under the age of 3 remains highly diverse, reflecting differences in institutional arrangements, governance models and policy priorities. Participation for the youngest cohorts is shaped by a complex interplay between formal educational programmes (ISCED 0) and other registered ECEC services that may focus more on care than formal educational content. National approaches can be distinguished by their governance structures, with countries adopting either integrated systems that provide a continuous framework from birth to the start of school, or split systems that separate early childhood development from pre-primary education. Cross-country differences in enrolment for those under age 3 are often shaped by children and family policies, as well as by service availability, affordability, and the strategic allocation of public funding, which frequently prioritizes the years immediately preceding primary education.
The “childcare gap” between the end of paid parental leave and the start of a legal entitlement to a publicly supported ECEC place serves as one primary institutional determinant of participation patterns (Eurydice, 2025[5]). The structural design of parental leave systems, including the duration of leave reserved specifically for mothers and for fathers, directly influences the timing of a child’s first entry into institutionalised care and the equitable distribution of caregiving responsibilities. In countries where leave policies and ECEC entitlements are not well-synchronised, families often face significant financial and logistical barriers to participation, potentially leading to lower enrolment or a reliance on informal or private care. Policy efforts to eliminate this gap through extended leave or earlier legal guarantees are increasingly viewed as essential for supporting work-life balance and ensuring continuous support for the child's development.
As children approach the typical starting age for primary education, enrolment patterns become more uniform across the OECD, although the nature of participation is increasingly shaped by compulsory schooling requirements. There is a notable trend towards lowering the starting age of compulsory education to include one or more pre-primary years, a reform designed to guarantee universal access and strengthen foundational learning before the start of formal primary school. This reflects a strategic commitment to reducing socio-economic inequalities and ensuring a smooth transition into the school system. Ultimately, although participation is becoming nearly universal for older children, the diversity of policy designs continues to influence the timing, intensity and equity of access to early childhood services across the OECD.
Other findings
Reforms lowering the compulsory starting age of pre-primary education, combined with other supporting policies, have contributed to efforts to expand ECEC participation starting from age 3 in countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic. However, OECD evidence suggests that these reforms alone did not necessarily lead to major increases in enrolment, as participation was already high in many countries before the reforms (OECD, 2025[6]).
Participation in ECEC among children under age 2 varies widely across countries, from less than 3% in Mexico and the United Kingdom to above 50% in Israel, Korea, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. These differences may reflect a range of factors, including family policies, the affordability and availability of ECEC services, and cultural preferences regarding the care of young children.
Waiting lists for ECEC remain common in several OECD countries even among children with legal entitlement. In 2024, 38% of ECEC leaders of pre-primary centres in Denmark reported that there were children waiting for a place in their centre, as did 22% of leaders in the Flemish Community of Belgium and 21% in Sweden. Shortages were particularly frequent for children under 3 in Germany and Israel, where 41% of leaders reported applicants remaining on waiting lists.
Note
This chapter only covers formal education and care. Informal care services (generally unregulated care arranged by the child’s parents either in the child’s home or elsewhere, provided by relatives, friends, neighbours, babysitters or nannies) are not covered (see Definitions section for more details). In some countries, children under the age of 3 are likely to be enrolled in other registered ECEC services which do not meet ISCED 2011 criteria. Although data coverage for these services has improved in recent years, enrolment rates for children under 3 should still be interpreted with some caution due to remaining differences in data availability and reporting practices across countries. Enrolment information for children aged 3 and over is generally more robust and comparable across countries.
Childcare gap and its institutional determinants
Access to affordable and high-quality childcare in the first years of a child’s life is closely linked to the level of development and diversity of early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems, parents’ labour-market participation and broader gender equality outcomes. Differences in how countries organise parental leave and ECEC systems can create a range of levels of support for families during this period.
The childcare gap indicator, developed by Eurydice, refers to the interval between the end of paid parental leave and the start of a guaranteed, publicly supported ECEC place (Eurydice, 2025[5]). The design of ECEC systems, parental leave provisions and labour-market conditions jointly determine the opportunities and constraints families face. Therefore, the size of childcare gap provides a useful indication of how institutional arrangements shape parental choices regarding both fertility and childcare arrangements in the earliest years (Hobson, 2011[7]; Daly and Uzunalioğlu, 2026[8]). Where gaps are large, parents – particularly those with fewer resources – have a limited choice of care options, often facing trade-offs between employment, income and childcare, which can reinforce existing inequalities.
On average across OECD countries, the childcare gap is around 2 years, but this conceals substantial variation. In some systems, it extends to 5 years or even more. Countries with long gaps, including Australia, Iceland and Ireland, typically combine short parental leave periods with a relatively late start of legal entitlement to ECEC or compulsory education. Another group of countries have moderate gaps of between 2 and 4 years. In these systems, legal entitlement to ECEC typically begins earlier, often around 3 or 4 years old, but coverage remains incomplete, leaving a period during which formal care is not guaranteed. There are also countries with shorter gaps (around one year or less) which combine relatively longer statutory parental leave with earlier access to ECEC (Figure B1.2).
There are 13 countries with no childcare gap, with ECEC entitlement starting at or before the end of paid parental leave. These systems ensure continuity of care through extended parental leave, early entitlement or both. ECEC entitlements in these countries are generally introduced from a very early age, often before children reach 18 months. In Finland, Hungary and Korea, entitlement begins before parental leave ends, providing additional flexibility and allowing parents more choice about when to return to work (Figure B1.2).
Having no childcare gap is often associated with higher enrolment rates among children under the age of 3. For example, ECEC participation among 2-year-olds exceeds 90% in Korea, Norway and Sweden. In Korea, where entitlement to ECEC starts at birth and parental leave can be up to three years, there is also relatively high enrolment among children under 2 (56%). However, the relationship between childcare gaps and participation is not deterministic, as enrolment patterns are also shaped by parental preferences, labour-market dynamics, affordability and the availability of services. For example, the Netherlands has a childcare gap of over three years, but enrolment among children under the age of 2 has reached 69%, suggesting that strong demand for childcare and broad service provision can support high participation even in the absence of an early statutory entitlement (Table B1.1. and Figure B1.3.).
The existence of a childcare gap does not necessarily mean there is no childcare provision during this period. Childcare services may still be publicly subsidised, widely available or accessible through targeted support schemes, even if there is no universal legal entitlement. For example, some countries, such as New Zealand, provide universal public funding to support children's participation in early childhood education despite not meeting the definition of a universal legal entitlement used in this report. As a result, children and parents may still receive substantial support to access ECEC, and participation rates can remain high. The constraints families face during the childcare gap therefore depend not just on entitlement rules, but also on factors such as affordability, service availability, opening hours and eligibility conditions. As a result, parents may rely to varying degrees on formal childcare, informal care arrangements or private provision, with potentially different implications for labour-market participation and family well-being across countries.
The implications of the childcare gap extend beyond ECEC participation to broader economic and social outcomes. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), gaps in childcare policy constitute a significant structural barrier to employment, with disproportionate effects on mothers. Based on modelling assumptions about the effects of expanding childcare access and reducing barriers to participation, the ILO estimates that substantial employment gains could be generated, with around 84% of net new jobs accruing to women. Addressing gaps in childcare support is therefore an important lever for both increasing ECEC participation and advancing gender equality in the labour market (ILO, 2023[9]).
In years
Note: The childcare gap is defined as the interval between the end of paid statutory parental leave after a child’s birth and the point at which families qualify for a publicly supported place in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Legal entitlement to ECEC refers to a right established by law that obliges public authorities or institutions to provide a ECEC service to individuals who meet defined criteria. This right is enforceable, meaning eligible individuals can claim it and, if necessary, seek legal remedies if the obligation is not fulfilled.
1. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary school from age 5, and most do.
2. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary education from age 4, and most attend from age 5.
3. Age 5 refers to the age at which children have a legal entitlement to enrol in primary school, rather than a legal entitlement to ECEC.
4. Legal entitlement varies by state and local jurisdiction. Most states have a minimum entitlement age of 5, but it can range from 3 to 6 across all states and localities. The starting age for compulsory education also varies by subnational entity and ranges from 5 to 7. Primary education typically begins at 6.
5. Legal entitlement is provided only for pre-primary schools and special pre-primary schools.
6. Legal entitlement age ranges from 1 year to 1 year and 8 months depending on birth month.
For data, see Table B1.3. The data for this figure can be accessed via https://stat.link/1he0vc.
Parental leave systems
Across OECD countries, the duration and structure of paid parental leave vary considerably, reflecting different policy priorities in supporting families during early childhood. This diversity underscores the need for caution in cross-country comparisons, as care and family policies evolve within distinct national contexts and differ in duration, design, levels of compensation and take-up.
On average, paid maternity leave amounts to 18 weeks, with most OECD and partner countries clustering around this level. This leave is generally an individual entitlement for mothers, linked directly to pregnancy and childbirth and typically taken immediately before or after the birth. A few countries provide substantially longer periods, exceeding 55 weeks in Bulgaria and Greece.
There is much greater variation in the additional paid parental and home care leave available to mothers after maternity leave. Unlike maternity leave, these entitlements are intended for the longer-term care of the child and may be reserved for mothers, transferable between parents or shared within the family; leave reserved exclusively for fathers is excluded from this measure. Although these periods are paid, benefit levels and eligibility conditions may differ from those applying to maternity leave. The duration of additional leave ranges from no additional leave in some countries to over two years in Czechia, Finland, Hungary and the Slovak Republic (Table B1.3.).
Parental leave frameworks exhibit a marked gender imbalance, with most countries providing far more leave that is either reserved for mothers or shared within the family but predominantly used by mothers than that reserved for fathers. Paid parental and home care leave specifically reserved for fathers, as distinct from paternity leave taken around childbirth, remains limited, averaging 11 weeks across OECD countries, and several countries have none at all. Nevertheless, some countries offer fathers more substantial entitlements, including Japan, Korea and a number of European countries (Table B1.3.). These arrangements reflect broader efforts to promote a more equal sharing of childcare responsibilities and to support women’s labour-market participation. At the same time, countries increasingly differ not only in the amount of leave available to fathers, but also in how leave is structured, shared and sequenced between parents.
Across OECD countries, parental leave systems are increasingly being designed to balance gender equality objectives, parental choice and incentives for fathers’ participation, while also supporting mothers’ return to employment and reducing the risk of prolonged labour-market interruptions following childbirth. However, the organisation and practical use of leave vary considerably. In Finland, a large share of parental leave is not earmarked for either parent and can be flexibly shared between mothers and fathers, with each parent entitled to 160 parental allowance days, of which up to 63 days may be transferred to the other parent. The Finnish model also allows both parents to take some of the leave simultaneously and measures entitlements in benefit days rather than weeks, illustrating the complexity of capturing such systems in international indicators (Government of Finland, 2026[10]). In Germany, parents are jointly entitled to 14 months of parental allowance, with each parent required to take at least two months and generally able to claim up to 12 months. The remaining months can be allocated flexibly between parents, although the simultaneous receipt of basic parental allowance is generally limited, illustrating how leave systems may combine incentives for fathers’ participation with restrictions on concurrent leave-taking. In Spain, maternity and paternity leave are designed to be fully equivalent, individual and non-transferable entitlements with identical duration and payment conditions. However, although fathers’ take-up has become nearly universal following the 2021 reform equalising leave at 16 weeks, much of their leave continues to be taken simultaneously with mothers’ leave, limiting the extent to which it extends the overall duration of parental care (Farré et al., 2024[11]; Recio Alcaide, Castellanos Serrano and Andrés Jiménes, 2024[12]). In contrast, in Chile, mothers may transfer part of their parental postnatal leave entitlement to fathers from the seventh week onward, thereby introducing a more selective mechanism for sharing leave within the household. These examples highlight the diversity of approaches used to encourage fathers’ participation in caregiving and to facilitate mothers’ re-entry into the labour market, while also underscoring the importance of considering the timing, transferability and sequencing of leave when interpreting cross-country indicators of parental leave duration and use.
The availability of leave entitlements does not necessarily translate into equal take-up across parents. The use of parental leave is strongly influenced by compensation levels and broader structural factors, including labour-market conditions, cultural norms and socio-economic background, which shape families’ decisions. Evidence from European countries shows that women remain the main users of parental leave, while lower participation by men continues to reinforce gender inequalities in care, employment and earnings (Lammi-Taskula et al., 2026[13]). In practice, workplace culture and job insecurity can also discourage take-up among women. For example, in Korea, some women do not fully use their parental leave entitlements due to concerns about job security and low wage replacement rates (Kim, Hwang and Kim, 2021[14]; Lee, 2023[15]).
Disparities in access and use also affect immigrant and minority parents. Studies from Belgium and the Nordic countries show that immigrant parents often have lower uptake of parental leave and related family support policies than native-born parents. In Belgium, first-generation migrant mothers, particularly those of Moroccan and Turkish origin, are less likely to use parental leave, partly due to having more precarious employment and difficulties meeting employment-based eligibility criteria (Kil, Wood and Neels, 2017[16]). In Sweden, immigrant fathers’ use of parental leave also tends to be lower among recently arrived migrants and those with weaker labour-market attachment (Tervola, Duvander and Mussino, 2017[17]). Language barriers, limited awareness of entitlements and administrative complexity may further hinder access and take-up among immigrant and minority families.
The availability and generosity of parental leave may also vary within countries, depending on subnational policies and employer practices. For instance, although the United States does not have nationally mandated paid parental leave, several states, including California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington and the District of Columbia, have introduced state-level paid leave schemes. Nevertheless, access remains limited: in 2021, only 23% of US workers had access to paid family leave, primarily through employer-sponsored benefits, while 89% had access to unpaid leave (OECD, 2022[18]). In other contexts, employers may supplement statutory provisions. For example, in Brazilian law generally provides 120 days of maternity leave and 5 days of paternity leave. However, in the public sector and in some private companies that participate in specific programmes, the maternity leave may be extended to 180 days.
Starting age and coverage of legal entitlement to ECEC
Legal entitlement to an ECEC place has become increasingly common over the past decade. Such entitlement typically obliges public authorities to guarantee access to ECEC services for children within a defined age range, upon parental request (Eurydice, 2025[5]). The starting age of universal legal entitlement varies considerably across countries, ranging from at or near birth in countries including Brazil, Hungary, Korea and Mexico to the age of 5, as in Chile, Colombia and the Republic of Türkiye. In some countries, entitlement starts before a child’s first birthday, including Denmark (6 months), Finland (9 months) and Slovenia (11 months), reflecting more integrated early childhood systems. In Latvia, all children from the age of 18 months until the start of primary education are legally entitled to a place in a preschool institution. Municipalities are responsible for ensuring access and, where a municipal place is unavailable, local governments must cover the costs of attendance in a private preschool provider for eligible children (Table B1.3.).
Between 2015 and 2024, there has been a clear trend towards earlier entitlement among several countries. Reforms have focused on lowering the starting age of entitlement or expanding access through targeted measures, including fee reductions or different eligibility criteria for specific groups. One notable example is Hungary, where the starting age of entitlement shifted from age 3 to birth. In addition, some countries introduced legal entitlement for the first time over this period, including Czechia and Poland for 3-year-olds, Lithuania for 4-year-olds, the Slovak Republic – initially for 4-year-olds from 2024-25, extending to 3-year-olds from 2025-26 (Eurydice Unit Slovakia, 2023[19]) – and Türkiye for 5-year-olds (Table B1.3.).
Universal or targeted legal entitlements may be supported by a variety of policy instruments, including measures to improve affordability, increase the intensity of provision, and expand service availability. Many systems combine legal entitlement with income-based fee structures, especially before the start of compulsory education. For instance, Denmark, Finland and Slovenia provide early access, starting before age 1, through full-time services with fees adjusted according to household income. Other countries combine free provision with fee-based extensions. Sweden offers all children aged 3 and over 15 hours of free ECEC per week, alongside additional fee-based services (Serapioni, 2025[20]). In Portugal, ECEC is free for 25 hours per week for 3-6 year-olds, with additional hours subject to income-based fees, while younger children face a combination of flat-rate and income-related charges. Poland provides a similar entitlement of 25 free hours per week from the age of 3, although implementation remains uneven, particularly for younger children (Serapioni, 2025[20]). In practice, the availability of places and the capacity of local services may influence access as much as formal entitlement provisions (Box B1.2).
Reductions in fees, expansion of available places, investment in childcare centres and the extension of opening hours can also play an important role in improving access and supporting enrolment, particularly for younger children. In Chile, access to public ECEC is mainly organised through targeted policies rather than a fully universal entitlement. Public ECEC provision through JUNJI (Junta Nacional de Jardines Infantiles) and Fundación Integra is available free of charge from 85 days of age, with access guaranteed for children belonging to the 60% most socioeconomically vulnerable population. In addition, Article 203 of the Chilean Labour Code establishes the right of working mothers employed in companies with 20 or more female workers to access childcare services for their children under two years of age. This constitutes a non-waivable and enforceable right supervised by the Dirección del Trabajo (Ministry of Education of Chile, 2026[21]; The Chilean Labour Directorate, 2026[22]). New Zealand operates a co-funded early childhood education (ECE) system in which costs are shared between the government and parents. The system is largely based on a demand-driven, supply-side funding model, with most public funding delivered directly to providers through enrolment-based subsidies and grants. This includes universal activity-based measures such as the ECE Subsidy and the 20 Hours ECE scheme, alongside needs-based support for disadvantaged or isolated communities through Equity funding, and individualised assistance for families through childcare subsidies and FamilyBoost rebates (Ministry of Education of New Zealand, 2026[23]). In Ireland, access to free and universal ECEC programmes begins at age 2 years and 8 months; however, participation is not supported by a legal entitlement (Department of Children, 2019[24]). Lithuania and Luxembourg both provide 20 hours of free ECEC per week. In Lithuania, the entitlement begins at age 3, while in Luxembourg it is available for children aged 1 to 4 (Serapioni, 2025[20]).
Starting age of compulsory education
Lowering the starting age of compulsory education to include some pre-primary education has become an increasingly common policy lever to boost enrolment in ECEC, particularly among targeted groups. Over the past decade, several countries have introduced or expanded compulsory pre-primary education as part of wider efforts to increase participation. However, evidence from recent reforms suggests that the effects of these policies cannot be assessed solely through short-term changes in enrolment or public expenditure. In many countries, participation rates in early childhood education were already high and the infrastructure largely in place prior to the reforms. Lowering the compulsory starting age has thus served to consolidate existing participation patterns, strengthen legal guarantees and improve equity and inclusiveness, particularly for disadvantaged groups (OECD, 2025[6]).
Reforms introduced since 2015 illustrate this trend. Compulsory pre-primary education has been introduced or extended to 3-year-olds in France (2019) and Hungary (2015); 4-year-olds in Costa Rica (2018), Greece (2020) and Romania (2023) (with Bulgaria lowering the age from 5 to 4 in 2023); and 5-year-olds in Belgium (2020), Czechia (2017) and the Slovak Republic (2021). In other countries, such as Finland (2015), Lithuania (2016) and Sweden (2018), compulsory participation has been introduced for 6-year-olds. These changes reflect a gradual shift towards earlier universal participation in structured early education. As a result, pre-primary education is now compulsory for at least one year in 26 OECD and partner countries. In 13 countries, it begins one year before entry into primary education, while in others it starts earlier (Table B1.3.)
An interactive online platform is available to provide complementary contextual information on early childhood education and care (ECEC) programmes. It gives information on the different types of programmes, their duration and starting ages as well as information regarding their governance, curriculum frameworks and monitoring methods.
The platform can be accessed via the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Systems Dashboard.
Enrolment of children under 3
Participation in ECEC before the age of 3 is closely linked to wider social policies, including parental leave, income support, childcare subsidies and the timing of access to ECEC services, all of which vary considerably across OECD countries, as discussed above. Cross-country comparisons should be interpreted with caution, as higher enrolment is not always an explicit policy goal and may also reflect differences in family preferences, labour-market conditions and care arrangements (UNESCO, 2026[25]).
Provision of ECEC for the youngest children can be a complex mix of educational programmes classified as ISCED programmes and other registered services that remain outside ISCED classification. In several countries, the main form of provision for this age group are other registered ECEC services, which do not fully meet ISCED 2011 criteria (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015[26]) (Box B1.1). For example, in France and the Netherlands, children under 3 are primarily enrolled in such services, with participation rates for children under 2 reaching 47% in France and 69% in the Netherlands, and 66% and 88% for 2-year-olds (Table B1.1.). In contrast, countries such as Israel, Korea and Luxembourg achieve high participation mainly through early childhood educational development (ISCED 01) programmes. Enrolment rates in these services are 51% of those under 2 and 75% of 2-year-olds in Israel, 56% and 97% in Korea, and 61% and 81% in Luxembourg (Table B1.1.).
Average ECEC enrolment rates among 2-year-olds reached 63% across OECD countries in 2024, but variation remains wide. Participation is near universal in Iceland (94%), Korea (97%), Norway (95%) and Sweden (93%), supported by integrated systems and early entitlement to ECEC. In contrast, enrolment remains very low in Mexico at 9%, illustrating substantial cross-country differences in participation in formal early childhood education and care (Figure B1.3).
In many countries, participation is highly age sensitive, increasing sharply as children reach their second birthday. For instance, in Latvia, enrolment rises from 12% of children under 2 to 86% of 2-year-olds, with similar patterns also found in Iceland, Lithuania and Sweden (Figure B1.3).
In per cent
Note: Some countries have other registered ECEC services which form part of their overall provision but do not meet all the ISCED 2011 Level 0 criteria to be classified as educational programmes. Panel A shows the countries that either report enrolment data for these other services or where such services do not exist. Panel B shows countries where these services exist, but they only have enrolment data for ISCED 0 programmes.
1. There are no ECEC services that fall outside ISCED classification.
2. Non-ISCED programme(s) operate(s) in drop-in basis, so the registration and attendance are not regular.
3. Year of reference differs from 2024.
4. Year of reference differs from 2015.
5. Early childhood education excludes early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01) being offered in the Flemish Community.
For data, see Table B1.1. The data for this figure can be accessed via https://stat.link/1he0vc.
Trends in enrolment of children under 3
Participation in ECEC for children under 2 has expanded in several countries over the past decade, although increases remain uneven. Israel recorded one of the most significant increases, with enrolment in early childhood educational development programmes more than doubling from 22% in 2015 to 51% in 2024 (Table B1.1.). This expansion has been supported by increased public investment and efforts to widen access to subsidised childcare services as part of broader labour-market and family policies (OECD, 2023[27]). Since 2015, Korea and the Netherlands have also experienced substantial increases in participation among children under age 2, rising by 23 percentage points to 56% in ISCED 01 services in Korea and by 25 percentage points to 69% in other registered ECEC services in the Netherlands (Table B1.1.). In Korea, this increase is closely linked to long-standing policies to expand ECEC provision, including the introduction of free childcare in 2012, tax incentives to reduce the financial burden of raising children and continued efforts to build a comprehensive and integrated ECEC system (Dougherty and C. Morabito, 2023[28]). Recent reforms have also focused on improving access through better co-ordination of supply and demand and system integration (OECD, 2025[29]). By contrast, among countries with complete enrolment data, Bulgaria, Germany and Mexico recorded only modest increases of a few percentage points over the past decade (Table B1.1.).
Participation levels among 2-year-olds are generally higher and have increased more consistently across most countries. Israel, Japan and Lithuania recorded the largest increases, each rising by at least 30 percentage points. In Finland, the rise in enrolment from 53% in 2015 to 77% in 2024 reflects sustained investment in ECEC and the provision of subsidised services, with public funding playing a central role in improving accessibility and supporting participation (Table B1.1.). In Ireland, the increase from 15% to 39% is closely linked to policy reforms aimed at improving affordability and access (Table B1.1.). The introduction and then expansion of the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme, and the implementation of the National Childcare Scheme in 2019, which provides income-related and universal subsidies for children from 6 months old, have significantly reduced costs for families and encouraged participation (OECD, 2025[30]).
Lithuania also recorded substantial growth in enrolment among 2-year-olds, with participation rising from 57% to 87% over the period. This increase is associated with policies ensuring affordability and access, including the provision of free ECEC hours for young children and strong public financing mechanisms designed to reduce barriers for families (Eurydice, 2024[31]). Such approaches, combining universal access with financial support, have been found to be effective at expanding participation (OECD, 2025[6]). In Poland, participation increased from 16% to 36%, driven in part by the expansion of services outside formal ISCED programmes (Table B1.1.). Recent years have seen a steady increase in the number of childcare institutions and municipalities offering services, supported by public funding from both national and European sources. Policies aimed at improving geographical coverage, particularly in rural areas, and expanding affordable childcare places have contributed to rising participation among young children (Eurydice, 2024[32]).
Waiting lists for early childhood education and care (ECEC) services remain common in many OECD countries, highlighting how statutory entitlements do not always translate into immediate access, as capacity constraints may lag behind the pace of policy expansion. Even in systems with high overall enrolment, bottlenecks due to local or system-wide shortages can delay children’s entry into early learning.
In 2024, a notable share of ECEC leaders in pre-primary centres reported that there were children who were still awaiting a place in their centre, particularly in Denmark (38%), the Flemish Community of Belgium (22%) and Sweden (21%). Note that these percentages refer to the share of centres reporting waiting lists rather than the share of children waiting for a place. Furthermore, some children may already be enrolled in another ECEC setting. In Denmark, where all children are guaranteed access to an age-appropriate ECEC provision from 26 weeks of age until school entry, municipalities allocate places according to waiting-list rules (The Ministry of Education of Denmark, 2026[33]). Similarly, in Sweden, reports of waiting lists may partly reflect situations in which families do not obtain a place in their preferred centre, rather than an inability to access ECEC altogether. In both Denmark and Sweden, leaders frequently report that children are eventually enrolled after an initial wait, suggesting temporary capacity pressures or constraints in accessing preferred settings rather than persistent shortages of provision. Conversely, in countries such as Japan and Spain, a notable proportion of centre leaders report that demand is not formally registered at the centre level. This may reflect the organisation of admission systems, as placement allocation and demand management are often handled by municipalities or educational authorities rather than by individual centres. Consequently, centre leaders may have limited visibility of overall demand, even where formal application, allocation and monitoring procedures are in place. Meanwhile, fewer delays are reported in Colombia, Israel and Türkiye, where waiting list pressures appear more limited (Figure B1.4, Panel A).
Capacity constraints are more pronounced for children under the age of 3. In Germany and Israel, 41% of leaders in centres for these children reported that applicants remained on waiting lists at the time of the survey, underscoring persistent shortages for this age group (Figure B1.4, Panel B).
Potential reasons behind unmet demand in ECEC centres
Unmet demand reflects a combination of inter-related factors. First, rising maternal employment and improved affordability can drive demand faster than supply can adjust. Second, supply-side constraints, particularly workforce shortages linked to recruitment challenges and low wages, may limit expansion. Third, system design influences how effectively supply responds to demand: more market-oriented systems, such as Ireland, may face co-ordination challenges because provision is delivered by a large number of independent providers, making it harder to ensure that capacity expands where it is most needed. Finally, demographic pressures also play a role. In Israel, high fertility rates are sustaining a strong demand for childcare places, particularly for younger children, increasing pressure on available capacity (Blank and Silverman, 2023[34]; Tercatin, 2026[35]). Overall, unmet demand reflects not only insufficient provision but also the interaction between policy design, labour-market dynamics and demographic trends.
Percentage of ECEC centres whose leaders report the following applied in the 12 months prior to the survey
1. Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
2. Municipalities have a statutory obligation to provide an ECEC place within 4 months of application (or within 2 weeks in urgent cases, such as parental employment). Families anticipate this and apply in advance for a place. Families may also be queuing for a transfer to another ECEC setting. In neither case does this reflect unmet demand as such.
Source: (OECD, 2025[36]), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, TALIS, https://doi.org/10.1787/20af08c0-en.
Recent policy responses to unmet demand in ECEC centres
Countries have adopted a range of strategies to expand capacity and reduce waiting lists. In Germany, recent reforms have focused on expanding provision through sustained public investment and improved staffing conditions, with further measures reinforced in 2025 to support regional authorities (KMK, 2022[37]). In Ireland, the Core Funding model introduced in 2022 provides stable public funding to providers in exchange for commitments to expand capacity and improve accessibility, aiming to gradually increase provision while maintaining affordability (Government of Ireland, 2022[38]).
Addressing unmet demand is essential if ECEC systems are to provide universal and equitable access while supporting labour-market participation. Insufficient capacity may leave parents, particularly mothers, reliant on informal care, needing to reduce their working hours or stop working altogether, reinforcing gender inequalities. Persistent shortages can also affect quality if rapid expansion leads to higher child-to-staff ratios or increased reliance on less qualified personnel. Aligning supply with legal entitlements is therefore critical to ensuring that all children benefit from early education.
Enrolment of children from the age of 3 to the start of compulsory primary education
Participation in ECEC increases markedly as children approach primary school age, with near-universal enrolment typically reached by ages 4 or 5. On average, enrolment among 3-year-olds stands at 77% across OECD countries, although participation is already universal in France and Israel (100%) and nearly so in Belgium (98%), Hungary (99%) and the United Kingdom (98%) (Table B1.2.). Participation remains much lower at this age in countries such as Costa Rica (7%), Saudi Arabia (5%) and Türkiye (15%). However, enrolment rises sharply as children approach primary education, reaching 100% by age 4 in Costa Rica and 87% by age 5 in Türkiye, reflecting the expansion of provision focused on the years immediately preceding primary education (Table B1.2.). In some cases, participation may be underestimated due to missing data on other registered services, which may account for additional enrolment in countries such as Costa Rica, Greece, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland (Table B1.2.).
Once children reach the age of 5, the transition to primary education starts to become a key differentiating factor in enrolment rates. Although on average most children of this age in OECD countries are in pre-primary education (86%), a large share will have already entered primary school in Australia (75%), Ireland (96%), New Zealand (87%) and the United Kingdom (97%). Differences in national education structures and the typical starting age of primary education thus influence the type of provision children attend before the age of 6, which is the average age when children start primary school across OECD countries (Table B1.2.).
By the age of 6, a strong divide emerges between the OECD countries where children remain in early childhood education and those where they have already transitioned to primary education. On average, 26% of this age group are still enrolled in ECE, while 71% are in primary education. In Finland (96%), Latvia (95%), Poland (99%) and Sweden (98%), the vast majority of 6-year-olds remain in ECE. In contrast, in countries like India, Ireland, Japan, Korea and Peru, all children have already transitioned to primary education by this age (Table B1.2.).
The starting age of compulsory education is another critical determinant of enrolment patterns. Among children aged between 3 and the starting age for compulsory primary education, enrolment rates reach 96% or higher in most countries that have introduced compulsory pre-primary education, including Belgium, France, Hungary, Israel, Latvia and Luxembourg. An earlier start for primary education is also associated with high ECEC participation: enrolment among 3-4 year-olds reaches 95% in Ireland and 99% in the United Kingdom. In contrast, where there is no compulsory participation in any educational level at age 5, enrolment tends to remain lower, suggesting that institutional frameworks, rather than parental preferences alone, play a central role in achieving near-universal participation (Figure B1.1 and Table B1.3).
Trends in enrolment of children from the age of 3 to the start of compulsory primary education
Between 2015 and 2024, a clear association emerged between the lowering of compulsory starting ages and substantial growth in enrolment rates across the OECD. On average, participation for children from age 3 to the start of primary education rose from 86% to 90% over this period (Table B1.2.). The most pronounced increases occurred in countries implementing major policy reforms. For instance, Costa Rica saw its enrolment rate for this group rise from 51% to 72% after lowering the compulsory starting age to 4. Similarly, Brazil, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic recorded increases of at least 10 percentage points as they progressively integrated pre-primary education into compulsory frameworks (Table B1.2. and Figure B1.1). The effects of these reforms extend beyond short-term enrolment increases and may also reflect wider efforts to strengthen inclusiveness and formalise participation in ECEC systems (OECD, 2025[6]). Overall, these developments point to a broader shift across the OECD towards earlier institutional engagement in education, with the aim of ensuring that more children benefit from structured learning environments during their formative years.
In addition to changes in compulsory frameworks, targeted policy interventions have also contributed to increased participation. In Croatia, enrolment among this age group rose from 70% to 88%, supported by efforts to expand kindergarten infrastructure, improve access in rural and under-served areas, and strengthen staffing capacity (Eurydice Unit Croatia, 2022[39]). In Türkiye, participation increased from 38% to 51%, reflecting sustained government investment in pre-primary education, including the construction of new kindergartens and measures to improve access in disadvantaged regions (OECD, 2020[40]). Luxembourg also recorded a 10 percentage-point increase, reaching 96%, driven in part by the expansion of the Chèque-service accueil system, which combines childcare subsidies with free ECEC hours to reduce financial barriers for families (OECD, 2019[41]).
The Sustainable Development Goal 4 Indicators (SDG 4) monitoring framework also places strong emphasis on children's participation in education before entry into primary school. SDG indicator 4.2.4 measures the net enrolment rate in early childhood education programmes, reflecting the extent to which children of the official age group have access to early learning opportunities that support their development and future educational success. Complementing this measure, SDG indicator 4.2.2 focuses specifically on participation in organised learning one year before the official primary entry age, providing a globally comparable measure of children's readiness for formal schooling. Readers interested in exploring these indicators further can consult the OECD SDG 4 Dashboard, which provides interactive access to SDG indicators and country results.
Childcare gap: The period between the end of paid parental leave and the age at which children become legally entitled to access ECEC services.
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) refers to services and programmes supporting the education, development, well-being and care of young children before entry into primary education, including both educational programmes classified as ISCED level 0 and other regulated childcare arrangements outside the formal education system.
Early childhood education (ECE) refers specifically to the educational component of ECEC, corresponding to programmes classified as ISCED level 0. These programmes provide holistic learning opportunities to support children’s cognitive, physical, social and emotional development through organised and intentional educational activities.
ECE services: Institutionalised ECEC arrangements, including centre-based, community-based and recognised home-based settings, operating within a national regulatory framework. For international reporting, these services must provide intentional educational activities for at least two hours per day and 100 days per year.
ISCED 01 refers to early childhood educational development services covering programmes designed primarily for children aged 0 to 2. These programmes provide intentional educational content aimed at supporting early developmental milestones through organised learning activities in institutional or recognised home-based settings. ISCED 02 refers to pre-primary education programmes generally designed for children from age 3 until the start of primary education. These programmes focus on socialisation, early learning and school readiness through structured and guided educational activities.
Legal entitlement to ECEC: Legal entitlement to ECEC refers to a right established by law that obliges public authorities or institutions to provide a ECEC service to individuals who meet defined criteria. This right is enforceable, meaning eligible individuals can claim it and, if necessary, seek legal remedies if the obligation is not fulfilled.
Maternity leave (or pregnancy leave): Maternity leave refers to employment-protected leave for employed women around the time of childbirth (and, in some countries, adoption).
Paid parental and home care leave reserved for fathers refers to weeks of employment-protected leave that can be used only by the father or other parent.
Paid parental and home care leave available to mothers includes all weeks of employment-protected leave for parents, often supplementary to maternity and paternity leave and typically following maternity leave, as well as leave that allows a parent to remain at home to care for a child, provided these weeks are either reserved for the mother or can be shared within the family, and excluding any weeks reserved exclusively for the father.
Paternity leave refers to employment-protected leave available to fathers around the time of childbirth. It is generally shorter than maternity leave and often paid at or close to full wage replacement.
Unmet demand: A situation in which demand for ECEC services exceeds the available supply of places, limiting families’ ability to access their preferred ECEC arrangements.
Enrolment rates
Net enrolment rates are calculated by dividing the number of children of a particular age / age group enrolled in ECEC by the size of the population of that age / age group. While enrolment and population figures refer to the same period in most cases, mismatches may occur due to data availability and different sources used in some countries. Therefore, population data are adjusted when calculating enrolment rates by age so that if the cumulative enrolment data across all ISCED levels exceed the population data for a particular age, the population data for that age are adjusted to match the total enrolment for the corresponding age.
Enrolment rates from age 3 to the start of compulsory primary education are calculated based on the methodology described above. The indicator begins at age 3 for all countries, but the upper age limit varies depending on the starting age of compulsory primary education in each country. For example, as compulsory primary education starts at age 6 in Australia, the indicator measures the net enrolment rate of children aged 3 to 5 (inclusive).
Childcare gap
The childcare gap is calculated as the period between the end of paid parental leave and the start of a legal entitlement to ECEC or compulsory education. Parental leave is first converted from weeks into years by summing maternity leave, home care leave for mothers and leave for fathers, and dividing the total by 52. Where parental leave overlaps with the start of legal entitlement, this overlap is deducted to avoid double counting.
For countries with a universal legal entitlement to ECEC, the childcare gap is calculated as the difference between the starting age of that entitlement and the end of paid parental leave. If parental leave extends beyond the entitlement start age, the childcare gap is set to zero.
For countries without a universal entitlement, or where entitlement is not applicable or missing, the childcare gap is calculated as the time between the end of paid parental leave and the start of compulsory education, whether at pre-primary or primary level.
Data refer to the reference year 2024 (school year 2023/24) and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2026. For more information, see Education at a Glance 2026 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/dcf64a14-en).
The UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) provided some data for Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand.
Data on parental leave indicators are from the OECD Family database (OECD, 2025[42]).
Data on unmet demand in early childhood education and care centres are from TALIS 2024 (OECD, 2025[36]).
References
[4] Berger, L., L. Panico and A. Solaz (2026), “Can early universal preschool reduce socioeconomic inequalities in child development? The role of duration and intensity of preschool attendance in the French birth cohort, Elfe”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 76, pp. 272-286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2026.03.010.
[34] Blank, C. and S. Silverman (2023), “Free early childhood education: Challenges and policy alternatives”, Early Childhood Research Series, No. 11, Taub Center, https://www.taubcenter.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ECEC-Position-Paper-ENG-2023.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[8] Daly, M. and M. Uzunalioğlu (2026), “The childcare gap in Europe: Probing policy constructions of work-life balance and parental agency”, Journal of Family Studies, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2026.2626691.
[24] Department of Children, D. (2019), Early Childhood Care and Education Programme (ECCE), https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-children-disability-and-equality/publications/early-childhood-care-and-education-programme-ecce/ (accessed on 29 May 2026).
[28] Dougherty, S. and C. Morabito (2023), OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 2023 Issue 2, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/79ab69f5-en (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[5] Eurydice (2025), Data and Visuals: Gap between childcare leave and place guarantee in ECEC, European Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/data-and-visuals/early-childhood-education-and-care (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[31] Eurydice (2024), Early childhood education and care in Lithuania: Access, European Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/lithuania/access (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[32] Eurydice (2024), Early childhood education and care in Poland: Access, European Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/poland/access (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[39] Eurydice Unit Croatia (2022), Croatia: Comprehensive steps to improve early childhood education and care (ECEC), European Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/croatia-comprehensive-steps-improve-early-childhood-education-and-care-ecec (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[19] Eurydice Unit Slovakia (2023), Slovakia: Introduction of a legal entitlement to pre-primary education, European Commission, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/slovakia-introduction-legal-entitlement-pre-primary-education (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[11] Farré, L. et al. (2024), “¿Qué sabemos sobre el uso de los permisos de paternidad en España?”, EsadeEcPol Brief, No. 46, Center for Economic Policy, https://www.esade.edu/ecpol/es/publicaciones/que-sabemos-sobre-el-uso-de-los-permisos-de-paternidad-en-espana/ (accessed on 19 May 2026).
[10] Government of Finland (2026), Family benefits, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, https://stm.fi/en/income-security/financial-assistance-families (accessed on 19 May 2026).
[38] Government of Ireland (2022), Minister O’Gorman launches ‘Together for Better’ new funding model for Early Learning and Care and School Age Childcare as Core Funding contracts begin for 4,000 services, Department of Children, Disability and Equality, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-children-disability-and-equality/press-releases/minister-ogorman-launches-together-for-better-new-funding-model-for-early-learning-and-care-and-school-age-childcare-as-core-funding-contracts-begin-for-4000-services/ (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[7] Hobson, B. (2011), “The agency gap in work-life balance: Applying Sen’s capabilities framework within European contexts”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, Vol. 18/2, pp. 147-167, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxr012.
[9] ILO (2023), “The benefits of investing in transformative childcare policy packages towards gender equality and social justice”, ILO Brief, International Labour Organization, Geneva, https://doi.org/10.54394/LCOE5158.
[16] Kil, T., J. Wood and K. Neels (2017), “Parental leave uptake among migrant and native mothers in Belgium”, N-IUSSP, https://www.niussp.org/fertility-and-reproduction/parental-leave-uptake-among-migrant-and-native-mothers-in-belgium/ (accessed on 13 May 2026).
[14] Kim, E., W. Hwang and M. Kim (2021), “Determinants of perceived accessibility of maternity leave and childcare leave in South Korea”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18/19, p. 10286, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910286.
[37] KMK (2022), Excerpt - Early Childhood Education and Care, Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education, Science and Cultural Affairs, https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Eurydice/EN/early_childhood_education_and_care.pdf.
[13] Lammi-Taskula, J. et al. (2026), Mapping the Unknown: Research Gaps in Parenting Leave Inequality Research in Europe, COST Action Parental Leave Policies and Social Sustainability (Sustainability@Leave), https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8kbsz_v1 (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[15] Lee, Y. (2023), “Norms about childcare, working hours, and fathers’ uptake of parental leave in South Korea”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 26/4, pp. 466-491, https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2031889.
[21] Ministry of Education of Chile (2026), Early Childhood Education Admission Regulations.
[23] Ministry of Education of New Zealand (2026), Early Childhood Education Funding Review Ministerial Advisory Group: Report on Discovery Phase engagement September 2025 – January 2026, https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/strategies-policies-and-programmes/early-learning/ministerial-advisory-group-early-childhood-education-funding-system-review/early-childhood-education-funding-system-review-engagement (accessed on 28 May 2026).
[6] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[42] OECD (2025), Indicator PF2.1. Parental leave systems, OECD Family Database, https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[36] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/20af08c0-en.
[30] OECD (2025), Starting Strong VIII Country Notes: Ireland, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/01/reducing-inequalities-by-investing-in-early-childhood-education-and-care_a0fd3f31/Ireland-country-note25Feb.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[29] OECD (2025), Starting Strong VIII Country Notes: Korea, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/01/reducing-inequalities-by-investing-in-early-childhood-education-and-care_a0fd3f31/Korea-country-note-25Feb.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[27] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Israel 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/901365a6-en.
[18] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eeb7cbe9-en (accessed on 8 May 2024).
[3] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
[40] OECD (2020), “Education policy outlook in Turkey”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7c69f4c-en.
[41] OECD (2019), Luxembourg – Starting Strong VI Country Note, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/edu/ecec/migrate/starting-strong-vi/StartingStrongVI-CountryNote-Luxembourg.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[26] OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.
[12] Recio Alcaide, A., C. Castellanos Serrano and J. Andrés Jiménes (2024), “¿Cómo incide el nuevo diseño de los permisos de nacimiento en la corresponsabilidad? Un análisis con registros administrativos de la Seguridad Social de 2016 a 2023”, Papeles de Trabajo, No. 4/2024, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Madrid, https://cpage.mpr.gob.es/producto/como-incide-el-nuevo-diseno-de-los-permisos-de-nacimiento-en-la-corresponsabilidad/ (accessed on 19 May 2026).
[20] Serapioni, M. (2025), Childcare Gap in the European Union: A 2025 Overview, COFACE, https://coface-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Observatory_childcaregap_website.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[2] Shuey, E. and M. Kankaraš (2018), “The power and promise of early learning”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9b2e53f-en.
[35] Tercatin, R. (2026), Jerusalem daycare deaths put spotlight on longstanding gaps in Haredi early childhood care, The Times of Israel, https://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-daycare-deaths-put-spotlight-on-longstanding-gaps-in-haredi-early-childhood-care/ (accessed on 10 May 2026).
[17] Tervola, J., A. Duvander and E. Mussino (2017), “Promoting parental leave for immigrant fathers—What role does policy play?”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, Vol. 24/3, pp. 269-297, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxx006.
[22] The Chilean Labour Directorate (2026), Right to a Nursery, https://www.dt.gob.cl/portal/1626/w3-article-59956.html (accessed on 28 May 2026).
[33] The Ministry of Education of Denmark (2026), Admission to daycare, https://uvm.dk/dagtilbud/plads-i-dagtilbud/optagelse-i-dagtilbud (accessed on 26 June 2026).
[25] UNESCO (2026), Global Education Monitoring Report 2026: Access and Equity, Countdown to 2030, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, https://doi.org/10.54676/JLKL3223.
[1] Yoshikawa, H., C. Weiland and J. Brooks-Gunn (2016), “When does preschool matter?”, The Future of Children, Vol. 26/2, pp. 21-35, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1118535.pdf.
The data for the figures and tables in this chapter can be downloaded via https://stat.link/1he0vc.
To access further data and/or other education indicators, please visit the OECD Data Explorer: http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s.
Data cut-off for the print publication 17 June 2026. Please note that the Data Explorer contains the most recent data.
Public and private institutions
Note: Early childhood education (ECE) = ISCED 0, other registered ECEC services = ECEC services outside the scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED criteria. To be classified in ISCED 0, ECEC services should: 1) have adequate intentional educational properties; 2) be institutionalised (usually school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group of children); 3) have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational activities and a duration of at least 100 days a year; 4) have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national authorities (e.g. curriculum); and 5) have trained or accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for educators).
1. For other registered ECEC services, 2-year-olds includes children under the age of 2.
2. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for Canada.
3. Early childhood educational development (ISCED 01) for children under 2 represents all enrolment in early childhood education (ISCED 0).
4. Year of reference differs from 2015: 2017 for Ireland; 2019 for Thailand; and 2020 for the United Kingdom.
The data for this Table can be accessed via https://stat.link/1he0vc.
Public and private institutions
Note: Early childhood education (ECE) = ISCED 0, other registered ECEC services = ECEC services outside the scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED criteria. To be classified in ISCED 0, ECEC services should: 1) have adequate intentional educational properties; 2) be institutionalised (usually school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group of children); 3) have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational activities and a duration of at least 100 days a year; 4) have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national authorities (e.g. curriculum); and 5) have trained or accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for educators).
1. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary education from age 5, and most do.
2. In other registered ECEC services, 3-year-olds also includes 4- and 5-year-olds.
3. Early childhood education excludes early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01).
4. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary education from age 4, and most attend from age 5.
5. Year of reference differs from 2015: 2016 for Indonesia; 2018 for South Africa; and 2020 for India.
6. Year of reference differs from 2024: 2023 for South Africa.
The data for this Table can be accessed via https://stat.link/1he0vc.
Note: Maternity leave (or pregnancy leave) refers to employment-protected leave for employed women around the time of childbirth (and, in some countries, adoption). Parental and home care leave available to mothers includes all weeks of employment-protected leave for parents, often supplementary to maternity and paternity leave and typically following maternity leave, as well as leave that allows a parent to remain at home to care for a child, provided these weeks are either reserved for the mother or can be shared within the family, and excluding any weeks reserved exclusively for the father. Paid parental and home care leave reserved for fathers refers to weeks of employment-protected leave that can be used only by the father or other parent. Legal entitlement to ECEC refers to a right established by law that obliges public authorities or institutions to provide a ECEC service to individuals who meet defined criteria. This right is enforceable, meaning eligible individuals can claim it and, if necessary, seek legal remedies if the obligation is not fulfilled.
1. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary school from age 5, and most do.
2. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend primary education from age 4, and most attend from age 5.
3. Age 5 refers to the age at which children have a legal entitlement to enrol in primary school, rather than a legal entitlement to ECEC.
4. Legal entitlement age ranges from 1 year to 1 year and 8 months depending on birth month.
5. Legal entitlement is provided only for pre-primary schools and special pre-primary schools.
6. Legal entitlement varies by state and local jurisdiction. Most states have a minimum entitlement age of 5, but it can range from 3 to 6 across all states and localities. The starting age for compulsory education also varies by subnational entity and ranges from 5 to 7. Primary education typically begins at 6.
Source: Data for the duration of parental leave is derived from the OECD Family Database. (OECD, 2025[42]).
The data for this Table can be accessed via https://stat.link/1he0vc.