Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three

Executive Summary

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) for children under age 3 has expanded across OECD countries, driven by the need to support parents’ labour market participation and growing recognition of its role in early development. This expansion has relied on different forms of provision, including private and home-based ones, and split systems where different ministries are responsible for under-3 and pre-primary settings. As a result, the ECEC sector for children under age 3 is often fragmented. This fragmentation can support responsiveness to demand and enhance access to services, but may also lead to variations in quality.

This report draws on data from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) for settings for children under age 3 to explore how countries can deliver more uniform and higher-quality ECEC amid rising enrolment. Participating countries and subnational entities reflect a range of fragmentation patterns that exist in many ECEC systems, including the coexistence of services that cater exclusively to children under age 3 and those that serve mixed age groups, the presence of both home-based and centre-based provision and varying mixes of public and private providers. Drawing on responses from the ECEC workforce, the report provides insights into the quality, accessibility and fragmentation of ECEC systems.

Access to ECEC for children under age 3 is growing, although inequalities in participation remain

• 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.

Integration across age groups brings trade-offs for young children

• 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.

Mixed market provision leads to differences in resources for staff and children

• 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.

Home-based settings may provide different experiences for children and involve more demanding working conditions

• 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.

Some systems achieve stronger support to more vulnerable children within fragmented early education and care provision

• 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.