Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three

Participation in ECEC for children under age 3 has expanded in most OECD countries, although enrolment varies across countries and is lower than for older children. In many systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3, more than 50% of children are enrolled at age 2. However, children under the age of 3 from more vulnerable families tend to participate less in ECEC.

In Norway and two Canadian provinces (New Brunswick and Quebec), more vulnerable children, such as those from socio-economically disadvantaged homes or with special education needs, are equally represented across different types of settings, regardless of setting management, profit status, provision type or age group served. In other systems, vulnerable children are more likely to be enrolled in specific types of settings or provisions, typically public or private not-for-profit ones.

In several systems, children under age 3 can be grouped with older children in so-called “integrated settings”. Staff working primarily with children under age 3 tend to make greater use of specific practices to meet children’s needs relative to those working in more mixed age groups. Some systems, such as Norway, group younger children within the settings to combine the benefits of integration with more adaptive practices to facilitate the development of children under age 3.

In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, settings are specifically targeted at children under age 3. In these two systems, staff in settings for children under age 3 make a lower use of a range of numeracy development practices than those in pre-primary settings, although they make a greater use of some literacy development practices. Staff in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel also hold narrower beliefs about developmental priorities for children, which can make children’s transitions across ECEC stages more demanding.

Systems can include publicly and privately managed ECEC settings and, within private provision, not-for-profit and for-profit ones. Private settings tend to be better resourced than public ones (e.g. in Israel and Norway), both in terms of material or human resources, and offer better staff working conditions. In Ireland, where all settings are private, for-profit ones also offer better working conditions.

In most systems, staff practices with children are similar across settings, regardless of management and profit status. However, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland, staff in private for-profit settings report greater use of some practices. This difference disappears once staff and setting characteristics are taken into account, suggesting structural conditions explain the gap.

Staff in home-based settings often report valuing a broader range of skills and traits to be developed in children, and in some systems, such as the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), they make greater use of practices to support children’s development. However, they devote less time to interactions with children in some systems, as well as to documenting children’s development and engaging with parents.

This is likely due to heavier workloads and longer working hours, as a result of limited support staff. However, staff in home-based settings report higher satisfaction with their autonomy to shape practice or their salaries.

Staff working with more vulnerable children experience more demanding working conditions. Some systems, including Ireland, Norway and Quebec (Canada), have managed to better align resources with the needs of settings and children. This is reflected in higher numbers of staff per child, and fewer reported shortages as barriers to quality, in these systems.

Across most systems, staff report using broadly similar practices regardless of children’s backgrounds. Yet, in Germany, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway, staff who work in settings or groups with a higher share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes make greater use of practices to support children’s emotional development; in Israel they also use more numeracy development practices. This pattern suggests that within fragmented ECEC systems, it is possible to provide enhanced support to more vulnerable children.