This chapter presents key features of early childhood education and care (ECEC) for children under age 3 using system-level information and data from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong). It discusses the policy context, governance, organisation and key features across countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3, highlighting the types and levels of fragmentation across systems and assessing whether fragmented ECEC systems risk generating inequalities.
Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three
Further Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Abstract
Enrolment in ECEC of children under age 3 has increased but varies among OECD countries, particularly for the youngest children. In systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3, more than 50% of children are enrolled at age 2, except in Ireland; data are missing for New Brunswick (Canada).
Inequalities in ECEC participation according to socio-economic background persist for children under age 3 and have been documented for most participating systems.
In all participating systems, a large majority of settings report that some children could not enrol in their ECEC setting due to a lack of places, particularly in urban areas. Compared to the pre-primary level, settings are more likely to indicate that children were not put on a waiting list in case of a lack of places, particularly in home-based and small settings, reflecting less transparent information on places for the youngest children.
Private expenditure plays a stronger role in funding ECEC provision for children under age 3 relative to pre-primary and higher levels of education in most OECD countries with available data. Among systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3, private expenditure accounts for more than 70% of total funding at ISCED 0 level in Israel but plays a more limited role (less than 20% of total funding) in Germany and Norway.
Participating systems differ in their organisation and governance. However, all systems have different types of ECEC settings or provision, leading to a fragmentation of the sector: integrated (covering children under age 3 and above) versus non-integrated (specific to children under age 3); private versus public; for-profit versus not-for profit; and centre-based versus home-based.
The level of integration of ECEC systems differs among participating systems. Norway is the most integrated system, with integrated governance and all settings serving all ages before entry into primary. The Flemish Community of Belgium has a split system with split governance and split settings for children under age 3 and pre-primary children. Other systems show different types of organisations between these two extremes.
Leaders of ECEC settings have major responsibilities for a large range of tasks in the under age 3 sector. In Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), they also have financial responsibilities, including setting staff salaries.
In all participating systems, children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are concentrated in some ECEC settings. This is particularly the case in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Quebec (Canada), where 20% or more of settings enrol more than twice the average percentage of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes enrolled. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, private ECEC settings are less likely than public ones to enrol large shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In Ireland, this is the case for private for-profit settings compared to not-for-profit ones.
Children with special education needs are also concentrated in some ECEC settings, particularly in Quebec (Canada). This is less the case in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada). However, in Ireland, private not-for-profit settings are more likely to enrol children with special education needs than private for-profit settings.
OECD countries have expanded the provision of ECEC for children under age 3 over the last decades through several approaches. Some countries have relied on various types of provision, such as private and home-based ones, together with private funding from families. Others have extended ECEC for older children to the youngest ones. Approaches have been guided by historical and cultural contexts as well as the amount of public funding allocated to the sector. As a result, the sector is fragmented in many countries, with a variety of types of provision and providers and possibly several ministries involved, which is generally much less the case for higher levels of education.
Countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3 differ by the contextual factors that shape their ECEC policies and the state of development of ECEC for children under age 3. While a limited number of systems have participated, these systems reflect the possible types of fragmentation of ECEC provision: by management (e.g. public, private not-for-profit, private for-profit) and types of services (e.g. home-based versus centre-based, integrated versus split by age). Comparing these systems sheds light on the different ways to expand the under age 3 sector and the possible implications of doing so.
This chapter builds on system-level data together with data collected in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 to investigate the policy context, governance and key features of ECEC provision for countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3. The chapter highlights key areas of fragmentation of ECEC provision whose consequences are analysed in the following chapters. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 offers unique comparative data on some key features of ECEC systems; however, it is important to note that this information may differ from descriptions provided by administrative data. This chapter addresses the following questions:
What are the recent trends in ECEC enrolment of children under age 3 and what gaps remain in children’s participation in ECEC? How has the investment in ECEC for children under age 3 evolved and what is the role of public versus private funding?
How are ECEC systems for children under age 3 organised, managed and governed in participating countries and subnational entities? What is the size of the private sector? To what extent are ECEC systems fragmented in several types of ECEC provision?
What is the level of unmet demand? Does it vary across types of ECEC provision? What are the characteristics of children in ECEC settings? Is the fragmentation of ECEC provision for children under age 3 likely to lead to inequalities in opportunities for vulnerable children?
Countries aim to expand the provision of ECEC services for the youngest children to support female (or parental) labour market participation and counter the declining trend in the working age population due to the ageing of the population. Increasing recognition of the role of ECEC to provide children with more equal opportunities from the first years of life combined with increasing cultural diversity among the population and children more particularly have also led governments to expand ECEC provision for children under age 3. Scaling up provision must go hand in hand with maintaining and improving quality if ECEC is to deliver its intended benefits for children. Higher quality ECEC can also strengthen families’ trust in ECEC, thereby encouraging more widespread participation.
Raising participation in ECEC while maintaining or increasing its quality requires sufficient public investment combined with mechanisms to steer the system towards equity and quality. The strong role of private expenditure in many ECEC systems reflects the need for families to contribute to the cost of provision, which creates inequalities in participation in ECEC: children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds who would benefit the most from ECEC are less likely to be enrolled (OECD, 2025[1]).
This section builds on system-level data to discuss trends in ECEC enrolment rates for children under age 3, differences in enrolment according to children’s socio-economic background, and patterns of total and public versus private investment in ECEC.
Enrolment in ECEC for children under age 3 has increased
Participation rates for children under age 3 in ECEC have expanded over the last decade in most OECD countries and subnational entities (Figure 2.1). In countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3, overall enrolment rose between 2013 and 2023, despite substantial variation in participation rates across systems. Enrolment rates in Norway were already high in 2013, exceeding 50%, while Israel has experienced a pronounced rise in participation over the past decade to almost 60% in 2023. By contrast, although enrolment has also expanded in Ireland, participation levels remain below the OECD average.
Percentage of children under age 3 enrolled in ECEC programmes classified as ISCED 0, 2013 and 2023, across OECD countries and subnational entities
1. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Türkiye; 2015 for Colombia and Hungary; 2017 for Ireland.
2. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2019 for Greece.
3. Data are estimates combining subnational sources on enrolment rates in ISCED 01 and ISCED 02 and might not be fully comparable with data for other countries.
Notes: This figure only covers programmes that are classified as ISCED 0 (it does not include other ECEC services that are not classified as ISCED).
Countries and subnational entities which include bars and markers in darker shading participated in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of enrolment rates of children under age 3 in ECEC in 2023.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, Table B1.2; https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/3og. Data for the Flemish Community of Belgium sourced from Flemish Government (n.d.[3]) Growing Up, https://www.opgroeien.be.
Average participation rates for children under age 3 mask large differences by age. In all OECD countries, among children under age 3, younger children participate less in ECEC (Figure 2.2). This is observed when services that qualify as educational programmes according to ISCED (ISCED 0) and those that do not are taken into account in countries where this information exists. Many countries have reached almost universal coverage of ECEC at age 3, and in some countries and subnational entities, including Germany, Israel, Norway, New Zealand and Quebec (Canada), participation rates for children at age 2 exceed 70%. Participation for children under age 2 can also hide gaps in participation by age, as enrolment rates for children under age 1 tend to be particularly low in most countries and subnational entities and vary depending on the duration of parental leave (OECD, 2020[4]). However, despite improvements in the measure of enrolment rates for children under age 3 in the last decade, data still focus on ISCED programmes only in some countries, which underestimates the full ECEC enrolment rate across OECD countries.
Enrolment rates of children in ECEC ISCED programmes and other ECEC services, 2023, across OECD countries and subnational entities
1. Year of reference differs from 2023: 2024 for the Flemish Community of Belgium and Quebec (Canada). Data for the Flemish Community of Belgium are estimates combining subnational sources on enrolment rates in ISCED 01 and ISCED 02 programmes. Data for Quebec come from the province. These data might not be fully comparable with data for other countries.
2. In other registered ECEC services, 2-year-olds includes children under the age of 2; 3-year-olds includes children aged 3-5.
3. Early childhood education includes only early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01) for ages 2 and below.
Notes: Some countries have other registered ECEC services that are considered to be an integral part of their ECEC provision but do not comply with all the ISCED 2011 level 0 criteria to qualify as educational programmes. Countries where such programmes do not exist are: Germany, Hungary, Israel, Korea, Lithuania and Mexico. Countries where such programmes exist but for which data are missing are: Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Data are missing for children age 3 only registered in other registered ECEC services in Luxembourg.
Countries and subnational entities which include bars and markers in darker shading participated in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of enrolment rates of children aged 2 in ECEC.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, Table B1.1; Data for the Flemish Community of Belgium and Quebec (Canada) sourced from OECD (2025[5]), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, Annex A; Flemish Government (n.d.[3]) Growing Up, https://www.opgroeien.be.
A wide range of factors contribute to the low ECEC enrolment rates of the youngest children. While some barriers are direct, relating to the availability, accessibility and affordability of ECEC services, others are indirect and hinder access to otherwise available services, making them less appealing or harder to navigate for families (OECD, 2025[1]). These stem from challenges such as limited access to information about available services and provisions, the complexity of administrative requirements, lack of awareness of ECEC benefits, or a low level of trust in the quality of services offered. Differences in participation rates for children under age 2 between countries partly reflect differences in parental leave systems and societal views regarding child rearing in the early years, which are both interlinked.
Legal entitlements underscore the importance placed on child development in the early years and can help address some of these barriers. Countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 vary in their approaches to legal entitlements (Table 2.1). In Germany and Norway, municipalities are responsible for guaranteeing access for eligible children; in Quebec (Canada), access to ECEC depends on availability (Eurydice, 2024[6]). The Flemish Community of Belgium offers legal entitlement from 2.5 years. In Ireland, access to the free and universal ECEC programmes starts at the age of 2 years 8 months (with no legal entitlement), which roughly corresponds to the beginning of pre‑primary. For children under this age, there are no legal entitlements to a place in ECEC in these two systems. The Flemish government funds places in ECEC settings but access depends on availability and priority rules. Israel also lacks an entitlement for children under age 3 but subsidises access to ECEC and bases admission on priority criteria. There is no legal entitlement for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada) or New Zealand.
In systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3
Source: OECD (2025[5]), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, Annex A.
Inequalities in ECEC participation for children under age 3 persist
While participation in ECEC has increased in the past decade, inequalities in participation remain. Children under age 3 from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds participate less in regulated centre-based and home-based ECEC in European OECD countries for which there are available data in the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (Figure 2.3). This is the case in Belgium (whole country), Germany and Ireland. The gap is not statistically significant in Norway. Inequalities in participation in ECEC services by children’s socio-economic background have also been noted in Canada, Israel and New Zealand (Bird et al., 2016[7]; Findlay, Wei and Arim, 2021[8]; Zontag et al., 2020[9]) .
Share of disadvantaged (lowest income tertile) and advantaged (top income tertile) children aged 0-2 participating in ECEC in 2023, across European countries
Notes: Data for Germany are for 2022; data for Switzerland are for 2021. Socio-economic background is measured based on the equivalised disposable household income (see Annex B). Differences between advantaged and disadvantaged children are not significant in Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Sweden.
Countries and subnational entities which include bars and markers in darker shading participated in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3.
Countries are ranked in descending order of participation in regulated centre-based and home-based ECEC for disadvantaged children.
Source: Eurostat (2024[10]), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, https://doi.org/10.2907/EUSILC2004-2023.
Inequalities in ECEC participation are due to the fact that barriers to ECEC participation disproportionately affect vulnerable families and children. Lack of affordability prevents low-income families from enrolling their children, but these families are also more likely to live in areas without enough ECEC places to meet demand. Complex administrative requirements, lack of awareness of ECEC benefits, social norms and a low level of trust in ECEC services also discourage families, particularly those with low socio‑economic status, to enrol their children in ECEC.
Expenditure per child has increased but varies widely across OECD countries
Increasing participation while maintaining or raising quality requires adequate funding. Data on ECEC expenditure are scarce, especially for children under age 3. OECD data only cover the part of ECEC for children under age 3 classified as ISCED 0. As participation in ECEC for children under age 3 is lower than that for children age 3-5, total expenditure as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is also lower in almost all OECD countries with available data for this age group. Total ECEC spending (public and private) per child varies widely across OECD countries and those participating in TALIS Starting 2024 for settings for children under age 3, with available data ranging from USD 39 000 in Norway to USD 4 400 in Israel (adjusted for cost of living) (Figure 2.4), reflecting policy choices related to staff salaries, child-to-staff ratios, number of hours per child, etc. These features are closely related to the capacity to provide quality and inclusive ECEC.
For ISCED 01 programmes, in equivalent USD converted using purchasing power parities for GDP, 2022, across OECD countries
1. Total expenditure on educational institutions includes payments by households outside educational institutions.
Notes: Countries and subnational entities which include bars and markers in darker shading participated in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3. Data are missing for the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada), and New Zealand.
Countries are ranked in descending order of government expenditure per child.
Source: (OECD, 2025[2]), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, Table C2.1.
Between 2015 and 2021, expenditure per child increased in all countries with available data except Chile and Hungary (Figure 2.5). The increase in expenditure per child was driven by an increase in total expenditure that has more than compensated for the change in expenditure due to the change in the number of children enrolled. In Israel and Norway, the number of children enrolled stagnated, but total expenditure increased, leading to an increase in expenditure per child. In Germany, the number of enrolled children increased as did expenditure per child.
For ISCED 01 programmes, constant prices in equivalent USD converted using PPPs, 2015 and 2021, across OECD countries
Notes: Countries and subnational entities which include bars and markers in darker shading participated in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3.
PPP: purchasing power parity.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the average annual change in expenditure per child.
Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2024[11]), Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes.
Private expenditure plays a bigger role in funding ECEC for children under age 3 than in pre-primary and primary education
Private expenditure plays a stronger role in funding ECEC provision for children under age 3 relative to pre-primary and higher education levels in most OECD countries with available data. In Israel, private expenditure accounts for more than 70% of total funding on educational institutions at ISCED 01 level, whereas in Germany and Norway it plays a more limited role (less than 20% of total funding) (OECD, 2025[2]). This is also reflected in expenditure per child, with private expenditure accounting for a substantive share in some countries (see Figure 2.4). These data may, however, underestimate the contribution of private expenditure, as they do not include programmes outside the ISCED classification that can be less regulated and receive less funding from the government. Limited public investments in ECEC provision or insufficient support for parents to reduce ECEC costs enhance reliance on family contributions, which contributes to lower participation among more disadvantaged families. In Ireland, Israel and New Zealand, out-of-pocket costs for centre-based ECEC for young children were above the OECD average in 2023 (OECD, n.d.[12]).
Most OECD countries target public spending on family benefits and education towards middle and late childhood, with only a few, including Norway, maintaining balanced spending between the different stages of childhood (OECD, 2022[13]; 2025[1]). Cash benefits and tax breaks (including maternity and parental leave benefits) during the first years of a child’s life tend to constitute the largest amount of public spending on children under age 2 (OECD, 2022[13]). For countries participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for children under age 3 (data are not available at the subnational level), the level of expenditure per child (ISCED 01) is higher than for other levels of education in Germany and Norway. Conversely, in Israel, spending per child (ISCED 01) falls below that for other levels of education (OECD, 2025[2]).
How ECEC provision is organised and governed shapes children’s and parents’ experience with these services as well as their quality. Findings from research have put forward the importance of the degree of integration of the ECEC system and its connection with other social services or with schools for providing a continuum of services to children and families and best serving their needs. ECEC governance is split in some countries, with ECEC for children under age 3 generally under the Ministry of Families or Social Affairs and the Ministry of Education in charge of pre-primary education. While split governance can enable better support for the youngest children, it creates a transition for children and families within the ECEC sector and requires particular attention to co-ordination through curriculum frameworks and staff practices with children. Another important feature of ECEC, particularly for children under age 3, is that it can be provided in different types of settings, either centre- or home-based. This can have implications for the profiles of staff in the sector and the type of ECEC experiences for children and families.
In many countries, part of ECEC provision is privately managed, more than in other sectors. Competition in provision could foster quality and enable faster adaptation to demand. At the same time, private for-profit centres may prioritise profits over improving services and providing quality ECEC and may be less likely to enrol vulnerable children (OECD, 2025[1]). Evidence from several market‑based ECEC systems (e.g. Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) suggests that private provision with private funding has led to high costs for parents and possibly low quality, as funding has partly gone into excessive profits (Brogaard and Helby Petersen, 2022[14]).
These aspects of governance, funding and organisation mean that the ECEC sector can be fragmented along several dimensions. While different ECEC options can provide families with flexibility and opportunities to find a solution adapted to their needs, the fragmentation of the sector can lead to differences in quality and difficulties for authorities to steer the overall sector towards quality and equity. The allocation of responsibilities within the sector is a key driver of quality. Research increasingly highlights the importance of leadership in ECEC, particularly in a context of fragmented governance and organisation (Douglass, 2019[15]). Leaders’ level and scope of autonomy over the key dimensions of management shape the organisation and operation of settings. At the same time, the range of tasks leaders are expected to fulfil influences the kind of competencies and working conditions required.
This section discusses how ECEC systems are governed and organised in countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024, highlighting the various types of fragmentation of the sector and how they vary across countries. The section mainly builds on data from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 that gathers information about how ECEC settings are funded and managed, and how ECEC leadership responsibilities are distributed across governance domains within ECEC settings. These data come from leaders’ reports about setting characteristics and may differ from descriptions provided by administrative data at a national, regional or local level of government.
Participating countries and subnational entities differ in the degree of integration of their ECEC systems
Several countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3 have an integrated governance, in the sense that the whole ECEC sector is under the responsibility of the same ministry (Table 2.2). In such systems, there are generally settings called “integrated”, that serve children of all ages before the age of entry into primary education, and therefore children under and over the age of 3. This is the case for all settings in Norway and most in Germany, Ireland and New Zealand. In the two Canadian provinces, settings are integrated, as they can serve children of all ages before entry in primary education, but there are also pre-primary settings exclusively for older children (not covered in TALIS Starting Strong 2024). Governance is integrated in New Brunswick (Canada), with the whole ECEC sector under the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, but split in Quebec (Canada), as pre-primary settings exclusively for older children are under a different ministry than the rest of the ECEC sector.
In contrast, the governance of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium is split between the Flemish Ministry of Welfare and Poverty Reduction, Culture and Equal Opportunities overseeing ECEC for children under age 3 and pre-primary settings that fall under the authority of the Ministry of Education and generally starts at age 2.5. Israel has been transitioning from split to integrated governance: previously, the Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Affairs oversaw ECEC for children under age 3, whereas currently the Ministry of Education is responsible for ECEC for children age 0-6 (OECD, 2020[4]; 2025[5]). However, there are no integrated settings in Israel: childcare centres and home-based family childcare continue to target children under age 3.
In ECEC systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: Settings not included: pre-primary education settings (Kleuteronderwijs) in the Flemish Community of Belgium and sessional pre-school services in Ireland since they are more related to “pre-school” services.
1. Kōhanga Reo (language nests) are licensed providers of Māori language immersion early learning services with a wider focus on whānau (family) development.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, Annex A.
In this report, settings are classified as integrated or non-integrated depending on the age mix of the children enrolled
As most participating systems have integrated governance and include integrated settings that formally serve children from a broad age range (see Table 2.2), most settings in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for children under age 3 serve children of different ages (Figure 2.6). This is, however, not the case in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, where settings target children under age 3, reflecting the split nature of the system or the lack of integrated settings.
In systems with integrated settings (all systems except Israel and the Flemish Community of Belgium), the age mix of children in settings differs between systems due to differences in the prevalence of integrated settings and in enrolment rates by age. Relatively few ECEC settings enrol more than 60% of children under age 3. The low shares of settings enrolling a majority of children under age 3 partly reflect the lower participation levels in ECEC of children under age 3 relative to those of pre-primary age who are, therefore, more naturally over-represented in ECEC settings. Settings in Norway and Quebec (Canada) have a higher proportion of children under age 3 than those in other systems with integrated settings, including Germany and New Zealand**, where a more sizeable share of settings for children under age 3 include a mix of children of different ages. In Norway and Quebec (Canada), this is linked to the high enrolment rates at age 2.
Some leaders in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3 report that their settings do not receive any children under age 3. This is the case for more than 15% of leaders in Ireland and both Canadian provinces. In countries and subnational entities with integrated settings serving all ages, the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 sampling strategy randomly split these settings into the pre-primary or under age 3 parts of the ECEC sector. Some of these settings may have had no children under age 3 at the time of the survey. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, where settings specifically target children under age 3, settings for which leaders report no children under age 3 are rare but do exist. These can be very small settings (e.g. home-based ones) with children at age 3 at the time of the response to the survey or can reflect inaccuracy in the reported age. Likewise, some older children may stay in under age 3 settings before they can be enrolled in pre-primary settings. Together with possible inaccuracies in the reported age, this explains why some leaders report having children age 3 and above in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data on children’s age mix in settings highlight the complexity of the organisation of the sector. In addition, the survey does not collect data on whether the setting is formally integrated (defined as receiving children both under age 3 and older). In analyses presented in this report, in systems with integrated settings (all systems except the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel), settings enrolling more than 60% of children under age 3 are considered as non-integrated and targeting children under age 3. Settings with less than 60% of children under age 3 are considered as integrated. While this classification does not fully align with the types of settings that formally exist in countries and subnational entities, it captures the reality of children’s age mix in settings. According to this definition, all settings are integrated in Norway, while this is the case for around 90% of settings in Germany, Ireland and New Zealand**, and around 80% of settings in the two Canadian provinces.
Overall, when both the governance and the age coverage of ECEC settings are taken into account, systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for children under age 3 vary in their degrees of integration. At the two extremes, the Flemish Community of Belgium’s ECEC system is split while the Norwegian one is integrated. Systems in Germany and Ireland are also highly integrated while those in the two Canadian provinces are in an intermediary position. Israel’s system is moving towards integration but remains relatively split at this point.
Average percentage of ECEC settings for children under age 3 by percentage of children under age 3, based on leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of ECEC settings with 60% or more of children under age 3.
Source OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.2.1.
ECEC is generally provided in a mix of home-based and centre-based settings
Centre-based settings refer to organised ECEC delivered in facilities designed for group-based care, including creches, kindergartens, preschools, etc. Home-based settings typically involve a single staff member providing care in their own home to a small group of children. Countries differ in their reliance on home- versus centre-based settings. In TALIS Starting Strong 2024, more than 50% of settings are home‑based in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Quebec (Canada) (Figure 2.7). As home-based settings generally have smaller sizes than centre-based ones (see section below), a majority of children are however enrolled in centre-based settings in these three systems. In New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**, home-based settings represent a minority of settings. There is substantial variation in the organisation, regulation and delivery of home-based provision of ECEC (Box 2.1). The home-based sector was excluded from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 in Germany, Ireland and Norway (OECD, forthcoming[16]). Most settings are centre-based in Norway while Germany includes a higher share of home-based settings. In Ireland, most of the home-based settings are not yet regulated and, therefore, out of the scope of the survey.
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, home-based early childhood education and care (ECEC) is usually provided by a single person and typically takes places in this person’s own home, although it can also be offered in another location (e.g. school building). Home-based provision is generally intended for an average of four children, with a maximum of eight at the time of the data collection. In some cases, two staff may care for the children. When two staff care for more than eight children in a home-based setting, they are considered as “co-operating childcare professionals” and fall within the category of centre-based ECEC. If the staff in a home-based setting is not self-employed, the person is affiliated with a service or provider that manages multiple home-based settings. These services employ staff who act as leaders of several affiliated home-based settings. While these leaders are responsible for overseeing these settings, they typically do not work directly in the individual settings themselves.
In New Brunswick, home-based ECEC is provided through licensed “Early Learning and Child Care homes”, which are operated by a single individual within their own residence. These programmes are designed to offer care to a smaller number of children in a home environment, without requiring a dedicated or separate facility space. Under the Early Childhood Services Act and associated regulations, home-based services may serve specific group sizes at any one time, including up to three infants, five preschool children, nine school-age children or a mixed age group of up to six children with defined limits on infants and school-age composition. While operators are not required to hold an Early Childhood Education Certificate or diploma, those without recognised training must complete a 90-hour Introduction to Early Childhood Education course following licensing. Licensed home-based services may also choose to become designated, a voluntary status that commits the operator to providing more accessible, inclusive and higher quality services for children age 5 and under, including adherence to a provincially set maximum daily parent fee. Non-designated homes remain licensed but are not eligible for government funding tied to reduced parent fees under the Canada-New Brunswick Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement.
In New Zealand, a licensed home-based service comprises a network of homes which provide education and care. Educators can care for up to four children at a time, including up to two children under age 2. Educators are supervised by a certificated teacher. This person (also known as a co‑ordinator or visiting teacher) provides pedagogical support and has primary responsibility for overseeing children’s education and care, comfort, and health and safety.
Percentage of centre-based and home-based settings for children under age 3 in TALIS Starting Strong 2024, based on leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: All settings were required to be officially registered ECEC settings to be included in the sample (see Annex A for more sampling information).
The type of ECEC setting was identified based on the sampling frame and weighted according to data collected from respondents. Home-based data were not included in the sampling frame for Germany, Ireland or Norway. For more information, see Annex A.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of home-based ECEC settings.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), TALIS Starting Strong Database 2024, Table D.3.1.
The size of ECEC settings varies widely within systems
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), the average size of centre-based settings is less than 50 children, with many small settings (Figure 2.8 and Table C.2.2). Settings are the largest in Quebec (Canada), while there is large variation in the size of centre-based settings in Ireland. Not surprisingly, home-based settings are smaller than centre-based ones (Table C.2.2). Home-based settings serve on average five children in Israel and six in the two Canadian provinces, with little variation within these systems. Home‑based settings are of similar size in the Flemish Community of Belgium, but there are leaders who manage multiple home-based settings covering much larger numbers of children, as reflected in the top tertile value (see Box 2.1).
Number of children in settings for children under age 3, by tertile of setting size, based on leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in ascending order of the mean size of centre-based ECEC settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.2.2.
At least half of settings are privately managed
ECEC settings for children under age 3 in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 combine public and private provision. While Norway has a balanced share of publicly managed and privately managed settings, private provision is prevalent in all other countries and subnational entities (Figure 2.9). Privately managed for‑profit settings play a leading role in ensuring provision in Ireland, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**. Germany and Norway show similar public-private distributions in provision for children under age 3 and at the pre-primary level, reflecting their integrated systems. In contrast, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and particularly Israel, the public-private mix differs across ECEC levels, with private settings being more prevalent in ECEC for children under age 3.
Percentage of publicly and privately managed, for-profit and not-for-profit ECEC settings, based on leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: In Ireland, Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand**, according to official sources, all ECEC settings are privately managed; the results should, therefore, be interpreted with caution.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of publicly managed ECEC settings.
Source: OECD (2025[5]),TALIS Starting Strong Database 2024, Tables D.3.2 and D.3.3.
Among systems with home-based settings, the type of management and profit status differ. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, home-based settings can be publicly managed or privately managed not-for-profit and less frequently privately managed for-profit (Table C.2.3). In Israel, all home-based settings are privately managed for-profit while all publicly and privately managed not-for-profit settings are centre-based. Likewise, in the two Canadian provinces, all home-based settings are privately managed for-profit.
Whether publicly or privately managed, ECEC settings for children under age 3 receive funding from public and private sources, through a combination of direct payments from the government, fees or charges paid by parents, and payments by employers of parents (Table D.3.4 in OECD (2025[5])). In line with system-level data, a majority of settings in most participating countries and subnational entities receive both government funding and funding from fees or charges paid by parents (or private funding), except in Israel, where government funding is less prevalent. Almost all privately managed for-profit settings in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada) and around half of those in Israel receive direct funding from the government.
Home-based and centre-based settings rely on a similar mix of funding sources in most participating countries and subnational entities, although TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data do not capture the size of the contribution of each type of funding (Table C.2.4). In Israel, only a minority of centre-based settings (19%) receive direct payments from the government, unlike home-based settings (62%). Centre-based settings tend to rely more on other non-governmental funding (e.g. funding from donations, fundraising), although this only concerns 6% of centre-based settings.
Leaders are responsible for a broad range of tasks in the under age 3 sector
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks leaders who has “significant responsibility” for a range of tasks among leaders themselves, other members of staff and other institutions (e.g. governing boards; local, regional or national/federal authorities). Responsibilities are often shared between stakeholders. However, these data can be combined into the most typical response or a combination of responses to indicate whether a variety of tasks are generally the responsibility of mostly leaders only; mostly leaders with other stakeholders, including staff; or mostly ECEC staff or other institutions (Table 2.3). In all participating countries and subnational entities, leaders have responsibility for a broad range of tasks. They are responsible for deciding on budget allocation within the setting and human resources tasks, generally alone and sometimes with other stakeholders, except in New Zealand**, where budget responsibilities lie with other entities. They have great responsibilities in interacting with families, either alone or with ECEC staff. They also have pedagogical responsibilities, generally together with ECEC staff, except in the Flemish Community of Belgium, where decisions on materials/toys to use and activities for children are mostly the responsibility of staff only (and in Quebec [Canada] as well for the choice of activities).
Systems differ in the allocation of responsibilities for setting ECEC staff salaries. This is generally the responsibility of leaders in Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), as well as in New Zealand**, but shared with other entities (e.g. ECEC setting governing board or local/regional/national authority). In other systems, leaders generally do not have responsibility for setting staff salaries. These are countries and subnational entities where public provision is the most prevalent.
Overall, the combination of the fragmentation of the ECEC sector between types of provision and the leading responsibilities of leaders mean that there can potentially be great variation in the quality of the ECEC provided within systems. Mechanisms that can steer systems towards high-quality standards, as discussed in Chapter 4, are, therefore, important. This report systematically investigates variations in drivers of quality and equity in ECEC for children under age 3 linked to the fragmentation of the system by using the key contextual and demographic characteristics defined in Box 2.2
Leader reports of stakeholders that most commonly have “significant responsibility” for the following tasks
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: Leader reports of the stakeholders with “significant authority” (the one who plays an active role in decision making) are not mutually exclusive. Information summarised in the table reflects the most typical response or combination or responses within system from among four response options: leaders; other members of staff; ECEC setting governing board; local/regional/national authority. People or groups are labelled as “mostly responsible” when they are identified by the highest percentage of leaders as responsible for a given task among the four possible response options. In addition, where another person or group is reported as responsible by the second-highest percentage of leaders, and this percentage is within 90% of the percentage given for the most frequently reported response option, they are also included in the table. Darker colours indicate where leaders have responsibilities and lighter ones where responsibilities are mainly with ECEC staff or other entities.
D, WB & L: Development, well-being and learning. ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.7.5.
This report analyses the fragmentation of early childhood education and care (ECEC) for children under age 3 along three dimensions:
1). Type of management and profit status of the ECEC setting
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 defines the type of management and profit status as follows:
Publicly managed: ECEC settings that are managed by a public education authority, government agency or municipality.
Privately managed: ECEC settings that are managed by a non-governmental organisation, e.g. a church/synagogue/mosque, trade union, business, other private institution or person.
Not-for-profit: ECEC setting does not aim to make a profit, or all profits are reinvested into the ECEC setting.
For-profit: ECEC setting aims to make more money than its costs (a profit).
The report considers two types of fragmentation: 1) publicly managed versus privately managed; and 2) privately managed not-for-profit versus privately managed for-profit.
In Ireland, Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand**, according to official sources, all ECEC settings are privately managed. In these systems, the first type of fragmentation is, therefore, not considered.
2). Age covered by ECEC settings
In systems where settings covering both children under age 3 and age 3 and above exist according to responsible authorities (all systems except the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel), the following definition is adopted:
Non-integrated settings: ECEC settings where more than 60% of children enrolled are under age 3.
Integrated settings: ECEC settings where 60% or fewer of children enrolled are under age 3.
For these systems, the report compares non-integrated settings with integrated ones.
3). Type of ECEC setting
ECEC settings included in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 comprise all officially registered programmes under the jurisdiction of a relevant authority. Two main types are distinguished:
Home-based settings typically involve a single staff member providing care in their own home to a small group of children.
Centre-based settings refer to organised ECEC delivered in facilities designed for group‑based care, such as early learning centres, creches, kindergartens, preschools or schools.
For systems with home-based settings included in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 (the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and the two Canadian provinces), the report compares centre-based settings with home‑based ones.
In addition, while not considered as a key dimension of fragmentation, where relevant, the report compares ECEC settings by their size. Setting size captures the position of an ECEC setting within the national distribution of size based on the total number of children enrolled in the setting. Results are presented by tertiles, with the bottom one (smallest settings) used as the reference category.
Finally, to analyse equity in ECEC, the report investigates whether key features of ECEC systems and staff’s practices vary with the characteristics of the children in the ECEC setting or the target group. This report mainly considers two dimensions of diversity:
1. Children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes: Children whose households lack basic resources or conditions necessary for well-being, such as adequate housing, nutrition or access to healthcare.
2. Children with special education needs: Children with formally identified learning needs arising from mental, physical or emotional conditions requiring additional support.
This report compares ECEC settings or target groups with 10% or less of children with one of these characteristics to those where this is the case for more than 10% of children.
The fragmentation of the ECEC sector can provide flexibility to families and help adapt to children’s needs, but it can also contribute to gaps in participation in ECEC, for instance if some segments of the market do not serve remote or disadvantaged geographic areas. At the same time, demographic developments together with rising ECEC enrolment rates for children under age 3 translate into a growing diversity of children participating in ECEC. Families and children of different socio‑economic backgrounds are increasingly present in ECEC settings. Another important dimension of diversity relates to special education needs, for which staff report a high level of professional development needs (OECD, 2025[5]). As the diversity of children under age 3 enrolled in ECEC is growing, a key question is whether the fragmentation of ECEC provision translates into vulnerable children being more likely to be enrolled in some types of ECEC provision. Privately managed ECEC provision, particularly for-profit ones, can involve high fees for parents and generate inequalities in access. In addition to the public-private divide, research suggests large variation of quality within home-based provision (Cadima et al., 2020[17]).
This section discusses inequalities in the scope and types of ECEC places available to children under age 3. It starts by discussing the scope of unmet demand for places in settings for children under age 3 and how it varies between geographical area and type of setting. The section then discusses the prevalence of children from diverse backgrounds and with diverse needs in ECEC settings for children under age 3 as well as whether the various types of ECEC provision are equally likely to enrol children with diverse characteristics.
Unmet demand prevails in a majority of ECEC settings
In all participating countries and subnational entities, a large majority of settings report that some children could not enrol in their ECEC settings due to a lack of places (Table C.2.5). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland and Israel, unmet demand concerns higher percentages of settings serving children under age 3 than at pre-primary level. More than 50% of leaders in Ireland, Norway and the two Canadian provinces report that children were placed on a waiting list and are still waiting for a place. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, almost 50% of leaders report there were children who wanted to enrol but could not because of a lack of places and were not put on a waiting list. In Israel, this is case in more than 20% of settings. In contrast, at pre-primary level, only low percentages of settings indicate that children were not put on a waiting list in the event of a lack of places. This finding reflects better and more transparent information on places in the pre-primary sector compared to the under age 3 one.
In some systems, settings in urban areas are more likely to report unmet demand than those in rural ones
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data cannot capture whether vulnerable children are equally likely to be accepted in a setting. However, the data allow looking at whether settings in different geographic areas or with different characteristics are equally likely to report unmet demand, which can help approximate inequalities in access to ECEC for children under age 3. In Germany and Norway, leaders in urban areas are more likely to note children who were placed on a waiting list and are still waiting for a place (Table C.2.5).Going in the same direction, in Ireland and Norway, leaders in urban areas are less likely to indicate that all demands were met. These findings suggest that insufficient supply disproportionately affects densely populated areas.
Placing children on a waiting list is less common in home-based and small settings
Among centre-based settings in Ireland and Norway, larger settings are more likely to indicate that children could not be enrolled and were placed on a waiting list, which could either indicate greater unmet demand in dense areas or better processes and capacity to manage unmet demand in large settings compared to smaller ones (Table C.2.6). In line with this second possible explanation, in Israel, smaller and home-based settings are more likely to indicate unmet demand with children not placed on a waiting list (Table C.2.7).
In Germany and Norway, privately managed settings are more likely than public ones to indicate that children were placed on a waiting list and are still waiting for a place (see Table D.3.20 in OECD (2025[5])). In other systems, no difference appears in public versus private provision concerning practices linked to unmet demand.
In all systems, children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are concentrated in some ECEC settings
As ECEC for children under age 3 is fragmented, a key question is whether children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are concentrated in some settings. To approximate the concentration of these children in some settings, Figure 2.10 presents the percentage of ECEC settings in each country and subnational entity where there is more than twice the average percentage of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes enrolled in ECEC settings. The Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Israel and New Zealand** have similar average percentages of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes in settings, but these children are more concentrated in some settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium than in Ireland, Israel and New Zealand**. Germany, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway have intermediate levels of diversity of children in ECEC settings and intermediate concentration of these children in some settings. In Quebec (Canada), the average percentage of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in settings is low, but the concentration is high, with 20% of settings with more than twice the average percentage of these children.
Average percentage of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in settings for children under age 3 and percentage of settings with more than twice the average percentage
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.2.8.
In some, but not all, systems, private or private for-profit ECEC settings are less likely to enrol large shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes
Children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are concentrated in some settings, but also in some types or location of ECEC settings (Table 2.4). In several systems, there are public versus private or private not-for profit versus for-profit divides. In Israel, a higher percentage of public settings serve 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes than private settings do. In Ireland, where the sector is divided between private not-for-profit and for-profit provision, a higher percentage of not-for-profit settings serve 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In Ireland, there are more settings with 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in cities than in small towns and rural areas. This difference is more pronounced than at the pre-primary level, which might reflect a lack of options to enrol children under age 3 in disadvantaged remote areas (Table C.2.9). Similarly in the Flemish Community of Belgium, a higher percentage of not-for-profit settings serve 10% or more of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes, although the share of for-profit private settings is small (Table C.2.10). In contrast, in Germany, Norway and the two Canadian provinces, ECEC provision is also split between public and private settings and profit status, but no differences are observed between these types of provision in the enrolment of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
Differences in the percentage of settings for children under age 3 with 10% or more of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes by setting characteristics
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.2.9, C.2.10, C.2.11, C.2.12 and C.2.13.
In Israel, where half of settings are home-based, these settings are also more likely than centre‑based settings to enrol 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In the same vein, small settings are also more likely to enrol a higher share of children from disadvantaged homes. However, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and the two Canadian provinces, home-based settings are also widespread, but no differences appear in the enrolment of these children between these two types of provision. In Germany, large settings are more likely to enrol a higher share of children from disadvantaged homes, which might relate to the prevalence of large settings in densely disadvantaged areas. In Germany, integrated settings are also more likely to enrol a higher share of children from disadvantaged homes.
Another potential source of inequality can emerge when settings with specific characteristics are more likely to be found in some geographical areas. For instance, in Israel, settings are more likely to be publicly managed in rural areas, indicating some interactions between setting location and the type of management (Table C.2.14). Likewise, in Quebec (Canada), settings in rural areas are more likely to be home-based, reflecting the potential of this type of provision to serve children and families in sparsely populated areas (Table C.2.15).
ECEC settings enrol small percentages of children with special education needs, but these children tend to be concentrated in some settings
In all participating systems, settings enrol on average less than 10% of children with special education needs, which can partly be explained by the fact that these needs are less likely to be formally identified at this age (Figure 2.11). Yet the percentages of children with formally identified special education needs as reported by leaders reach 8% or more in Ireland, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand** (Table C.2.8).
Countries and subnational entities differ in the extent to which some ECEC settings tend to serve higher percentages of children with special education needs (Figure 2.11). While the average percentage of these children in ECEC settings differs between the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), in all these systems, around 15% of settings have a high concentration of children with special education needs (more than twice the average percentage). In Quebec (Canada), the concentration is higher, with 21% of settings with more than twice the average percentage of these children. The concentration is lower in Norway and New Zealand** , where this is the case in slightly more than 5% of ECEC settings.
Average percentage of children with special education needs in settings for children under age 3 and percentage of settings with more than twice the average percentage
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.2.8.
In Ireland and Quebec (Canada), ECEC settings in urban areas are more likely than settings in rural areas to enrol high shares of children with special education needs (Table 2.5). In these two systems, there are also differences depending on the type of management. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland and New Zealand**, private not-for-profit settings are more likely than private for-profit ones to enrol a high share of children with special education needs. In contrast, the reverse holds in Israel, with private for‑profit settings being more likely to enrol a higher share of children with special education needs. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, centre-based settings are less likely than home-based ones to enrol a high percentage of these children. Similarly, large settings are less likely than smaller ones to enrol a high share of children with special education needs in Ireland and New Zealand**, which can perhaps be explained by families’ preferences for smaller settings for these children. In Germany, integrated settings are more likely to enrol a high share of these children, which might be explained by the fact that these settings enrol older children who are more likely to have been formally diagnosed.
Differences in the percentage of settings for children under age 3 with 10% or more of children with special education needs by setting characteristics
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.2.16, C.2.17, C.2.18, C.2.19 and C.2.20.
References
[7] Bird, A. et al. (2016), “Policy translation for early childhood education and care: the Growing Up in New Zealand approach”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 2016 10:1, Vol. 10/1, pp. 5-, https://doi.org/10.1186/S40723-016-0021-7.
[14] Brogaard, L. and O. Helby Petersen (2022), “Privatization of public services: A systematic review of quality differences between public and private daycare providers”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 45/10, pp. 794-806, https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1909619.
[17] Cadima, J. et al. (2020), “Literature review on early childhood education and care for children under the age of 3”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 243, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9cef727-en.
[15] Douglass, A. (2019), “Leadership for quality early childhood education and care”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 211, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e563bae-en.
[10] Eurostat (2024), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, https://doi.org/10.2907/EUSILC2004-2023.
[6] Eurydice (2024), “Germany: Early childhood education and care – Access”, web page, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/germany/access (accessed on 12 January 2026).
[8] Findlay, L., L. Wei and R. Arim (2021), Patterns of Participation in Early Learning and Child Care Among Families with Potential Socioeconomic Disadvantages in Canada, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202100800002-eng.
[3] Flemish Government (n.d.), Growing Up, https://www.opgroeien.be (accessed on 11 May 2026).
[2] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[1] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[5] 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.
[11] OECD (2024), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, https://doi.org/, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en.
[13] OECD (2022), “PF1.6: Public spending by age of children – Definitions and methodology”, OECD Family Database, https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_6_Public_spending_by_age_of_children.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2024).
[4] OECD (2020), Quality Early Childhood Education and Care for Children Under Age 3: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/99f8bc95-en.
[12] OECD (n.d.), “Net childcare costs”, web page, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/net-childcare-costs.html (accessed on 8 January 2026).
[16] OECD (forthcoming), Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 Technical Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
[9] Zontag, N. et al. (2020), “Early Childhood Education in Israel and Academic Achievement”, Taub Center Early Childhood Research Series Research Paper 4.