This chapter provides an overview of the main findings from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) on settings for children under age 3, drawing on the evidence presented in Chapters 2-4 of this volume. The synthesis examines the implications of the fragmentation of early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems for children under age 3 for children’s ECEC experiences and highlights key insights at the country level.
Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three
Further Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Abstract
Over the last decades, OECD countries have expanded the provision of ECEC, particularly for the years before entry into primary education, but also for younger children. Despite declining demographic trends, the ECEC sector for children under age 3 has been growing in many OECD countries, reflecting the need to support parents’ participation in the labour market and interest from families for ECEC during children’s first years of life. This expansion has often relied on different types of provision, including private and home-based ones, while in some countries, the ECEC sector is historically split between ECEC for children under age 3 and pre-primary education that fall under the responsibility of different ministries. As a result, the ECEC sector as a whole is fragmented, more so than other levels of education, and within the ECEC sector, provision for the youngest children is particularly fragmented. This fragmentation can enable greater adaptability to parents’ and children’s needs and enhance access to ECEC. However, it can also translate into variation in the quality of ECEC across types of provision and settings. As the first three years of children’s lives are a sensitive period of rapid growth, ECEC for this age group needs to be adapted to the evolving needs of these children, but it should also be of high quality across different types of provision.
This report builds on data from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3 to examine how more uniform and better ECEC quality can be achieved in a context of expanding enrolment to a more diverse range of children. This chapter provides an overview of the main findings of the analysis unfolded in Chapters 2-4 on the implications of the fragmentation of ECEC systems for children under age 3 for children’s ECEC experiences and highlights country-specific insights. Chapter 5 of the report explores policies and mechanisms to reduce quality variation across ECEC settings and promote continuous quality improvement.
This section presents key features of the organisation of the ECEC systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong for settings for children under age 3, highlighting some dimensions of fragmentation and the possible implications on quality variation. While the group of systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong for children under age 3 is too small to draw general conclusions on the implications of some types of fragmentation on variation in the accessibility and quality of ECEC provision, some patterns emerge. The remainder of this chapter discusses these patterns.
Despite rising enrolment in ECEC for children under age 3, inequalities in participation persist
Participation of children under age 3 in ECEC has expanded in most OECD countries but substantial variations between countries and by age remain. While many countries have reached almost universal coverage of ECEC at age 3, younger children participate less in ECEC, with differences among systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong for settings for children under age 3. Differences in participation rates for children under age 2 partly reflect differences in parental leave systems and societal views about child rearing in the early ages. Beyond these, low enrolment rates of children under age 3 are driven by direct barriers related to the availability, accessibility and affordability of ECEC services and indirect barriers stemming from limited information, complex administrative procedures and low awareness of the benefits of ECEC. Unmet demand prevails in a majority of ECEC settings in the countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024. Barriers to ECEC participation disproportionately affect vulnerable families, and children under age 3 from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds tend to participate less in ECEC.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 captures various types and degrees of fragmentation of the ECEC sector for children under age 3
In many systems, the governance, funding and organisation of ECEC provision is fragmented along several dimensions, which can result in uneven quality and pose challenges for authorities in charge of the sector for steering the system towards greater quality and equity. These dimensions include split governance between pre-primary education and ECEC for children under age 3; the coexistence of settings specifically for children under age 3 (called “non-integrated”) alongside settings serving children of all ages (called “integrated”); provision in home-based and centre-based settings; and the combination of public and private ECEC provision, including not-for-profit and for-profit providers.
The diversity of settings and types of provision within the ECEC sector can support greater adaptability to families’ needs and facilitate the expansion of services to areas or children that may otherwise lack access. However, as noted above, such fragmentation is not without its challenges. While TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data do not capture parents’ views on the diversity and flexibility of provision, it provides insights into the links between fragmentation, accessibility and quality in ECEC systems, and how these dynamics can drive unequal opportunities for children.
Countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 represent several of the types of fragmentation that exist within many ECEC systems (Figure 1.1):
Systems with integrated and non-integrated settings. All systems except the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel have integrated settings. All settings are integrated in Norway.
Systems with home-based settings in addition to centre-based ones. This is the case in the two Canadian provinces, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Zealand**. Germany, Ireland and Norway also have home-based settings, but the home-based sector was excluded from data collection for TALIS Starting Strong 2024 (OECD, forthcoming[1]).
Systems with different mixes of public and private provision. The percentage of private settings is the lowest in Norway while, according to official sources, all settings are private with a combination of private not-for-profit and for-profit settings in Ireland, New Zealand** and Quebec (Canada).
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: The figure only covers data from TALIS Starting Strong 2024. Germany, Ireland and Norway have home-based settings, but these are not covered in TALIS Starting Strong 2024. In Ireland, New Zealand** and Quebec (Canada), according to official sources, all ECEC settings are privately managed; the results should, therefore, be interpreted with caution.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025[2]) and OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong Database 2024, Tables D.3.1 and C.2.1.
More vulnerable children tend to be concentrated in specific types of settings
More vulnerable children, such as those from socio-economically disadvantaged homes or with special education needs, tend to be concentrated in a limited number of settings and are more likely to attend specific types of provision in some systems (Table 1.1). While the share of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes in ECEC varies across the Flemish Community of Belgium and the two Canadian provinces, these children are concentrated in a limited subset of settings in all three systems. In addition, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland, a higher percentage of not-for-profit settings serve 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes while in Israel this is the case for public settings. While ECEC settings enrol relatively small shares of children with special education needs, possibly reflecting later formal diagnosis, these children also tend to be concentrated in some types of provision, including private not-for-profit settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland and New Zealand** and private for-profit settings in Israel. In contrast, no differences are observed in the enrolment of more vulnerable children in Germany, Norway and the two Canadian provinces between settings with different management and profit status.
Differences in the percentage of settings for children under age 3 with 10% or more children with special education needs or 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.
Notes: The table synthetises evidence from comparisons between the percentage of settings with 10% or more vulnerable children and settings with fewer such children by setting characteristics (see Chapter 2). It indicates the types of settings in which more vulnerable children are more commonly represented. Findings refer to differences between settings that are statistically significant. Private not-for-profit settings in New Zealand** have higher percentages of children with special education needs, as depicted in grey.
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, C.2.13, C.2.16, C.2.17, C.18, C.19 and C.2.20.
The divide between public versus private or private not-for-profit versus for-profit settings leads to differences in structural quality but less so in process quality
The divide between public versus private or private not-for-profit versus for-profit leads to differences in structural quality in most systems (Table 1.2). Private settings tend to be better resourced (e.g. Israel) in terms of material or human resources. A key question is whether differences in structural quality translate into or are accompanied by differences in staff practices with children, or process quality. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland, staff in private for-profit settings report greater use of some intentional practices to support children’s development. When differences in staff training, experience, beliefs and other structural quality conditions are accounted for, differences in practices between management are no longer visible, suggesting differences in practices used in these systems stem from differences in structural conditions or the characteristics of the children enrolled. In contrast, staff in public or private not-for profit settings in Germany and Israel make greater use of some practices to support children’s development while those in private not-for-profit settings in Ireland and Quebec (Canada) appear to rely less frequently on specific practices when staff and setting characteristics are considered. This indicates that factors specific to these types of settings may shape differences in practices across settings with varying management structures and profit status.
Direction of statistically significant associations between indicators of structural and process quality in ECEC and types of ECEC settings for children under age 3
* 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: A circle indicates that one or more statistically significant differences exist between the indicated setting type and a reference category in relation to the quality indicators included in each area. The reference categories are as follows: privately managed settings (as the reference category) for publicly managed settings; private for-profit settings for private not-for-profit settings; centre-based settings for home-based settings; non-integrated settings for integrated settings. For each area, positive associations (i.e. greater use of practices in home-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium) are shown in the upper (dark blue) row and negative associations (i.e. lower use of practices in private not-for-profit settings) are shown in the bottom (light blue) row. The middle row (orange) indicates setting types for which both positive and negative associations are found within a quality area. The four quality areas draw on evidence from Chapters 3 and 4 and cover structural and process quality aspects. The area “Resources and workforce capacity” includes indicators on leaders’ reports about perceived shortages or inadequacy of material and human resources in their settings, staff experience and qualifications. The area “Staff working conditions” includes indicators on staff satisfaction with work, level of autonomy and terms of employment, and reported stress. The area “Staff professional beliefs” reflects the skills or traits staff value as developmental priorities for children. The area “Practices with children” is based on measures of staff practices supporting children’s early literacy, numeracy, social and emotional development, and child-centred planning as well as specific child-centred and responsive practices. For staff practices, «INT» in the table indicates that one or more statistically significant differences are observed between staff working in target groups with more than 60% of children under age 3 (reference category) to those working in groups with 60% or fewer children under age 3, instead of referring to non-integrated versus integrated settings.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, based on the syntheses of analyses presented in Chapters 3 and 4.
Overall, findings from TALIS Starting Strong suggest that management type and profit status might exacerbate inequalities between children: in some systems, vulnerable children are more likely to attend some types of provision while structural and, to some extent, process quality tend to be lower in the corresponding settings attended by these children. However, there are exceptions: some countries or subnational entities have managed to build on mixed-market ECEC provision with no clear sign of risks of negative implications for vulnerable children. In New Brunswick (Canada), Germany and Norway, more vulnerable children are equally represented in different types of settings, regardless of setting management and profit status. While structural quality may differ between public and private settings or between private for-profit and private not-for-profit settings in these systems, these variations do not translate into fewer resources in settings with higher shares of more vulnerable children. At the same time, as more children enter ECEC before the pre-primary level, differences in structural quality between public and private settings or between private for-profit and private not-for-profit settings may become detrimental to more vulnerable children if these children are concentrated in specific types of settings.
Children in home-based settings may experience different staff practices than those in centre-based settings
In most systems, staff in home-based settings value a broader range of skills to be developed in children, but 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 hours resulting from challenges in balancing care with other responsibilities and limited supporting staff, which is reflected in lower satisfaction with their terms of employment. On the other hand, staff in home-based settings report higher satisfaction with their salaries, work at the setting or autonomy to shape practice than staff in centre-based settings.
However, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), data suggest stronger practices in home-based settings, aligned with staff professional beliefs about children’s development. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in home-based settings also tend to be more experienced and train more in relevant areas for children’s development. When staff beliefs, education and experience, and setting characteristics (e.g. setting location and profit status) are accounted for, staff in home-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium still report a greater use of practices that facilitate literacy and numeracy development than staff in centre-based settings. These results point to the potential role of specific structural factors associated with home-based provision that might result in differences in practices.
The degree of integration of the ECEC system shapes the experiences of children under age 3 in ECEC settings
In systems with split governance (the Flemish Community of Belgium) or where settings are not integrated (Israel), staff in settings for children under age 3 generally have lower qualifications than staff in pre-primary education and hold different professional beliefs about developmental priorities for children. Staff who work with younger children tend to have narrower beliefs about the range of skills to develop in children, placing less emphasis on the development of foundational cognitive skills, including early learning of content areas and executive function. Differences in professional beliefs are potentially reflected in differences in practices used with children, as staff in settings for children under age 3 make less use of a range of numeracy development practices, although they more often use some practices to support early literacy development, such as reading books or singing songs with or to the children.
In contrast, staff working in integrated settings might not sufficiently adapt their practices to the needs of the youngest children. In integrated settings, staff commonly work with mixed age groups of children aged up to six years old or above. In most systems, staff in integrated and non-integrated settings hold similar qualifications; only in Germany do integrated settings report a higher share of staff with at least a bachelor’s degree. Staff in mixed age groups (e.g. in Germany and Ireland) tend to make less frequent use of a range of practices to facilitate children’s development, including some child‑centred, responsive practices adapted to children under age 3. This means that children under age 3 in integrated settings may experience practices that are less aligned with their developmental needs. Grouping the youngest children for activities within integrated settings (e.g. in Norway) can be a way to attract highly qualified staff while responding to the needs of the youngest children.
ECEC staff working with more vulnerable children experience more demanding working conditions, which may constrain their ability to adapt their practices to children’s needs
Staff working with more vulnerable children experience more demanding working conditions. Reported barriers to quality provision that relate to physical and material resources tend to be more common in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children (e.g. in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel). These settings experience more pronounced human resource constraints: they benefit from fewer experienced staff (Germany and Israel) and leaders more frequently report staff shortages as barriers to quality (Israel and New Brunswick [Canada]). In other systems, however, resources tend to be better aligned with the needs of settings and children served: in Ireland, the number of staff per child is higher in settings with higher shares of more vulnerable children while in Norway and Quebec (Canada), leaders in these settings less frequently report staff shortages as barriers to quality.
Resource constraints may underlie the higher levels of stress reported by staff in settings serving more vulnerable children, which may in turn shape staff intentions to leave their role. Addressing parents’ concerns, documenting children’s development and administrative work are more frequently reported as sources of stress for staff who work with more vulnerable children (e.g. the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick [Canada]). In some of these systems (Ireland and Israel), staff in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children are more likely to consider leaving their role for health- or family-related reasons.
In these contexts, children experiencing higher levels of vulnerability may receive less consistent support across some areas of development. In most ECEC systems, staff report working in broadly similar ways with children regardless of their background. Resource constraints observed in most systems may explain the lack of more systematic extra support for vulnerable children that staff working with these children bring through their practices. Only in a few countries and subnational entities do staff appear to make greater use of practices to facilitate children’s development when working with more vulnerable children – particularly children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In addition, once a range of staff and setting characteristics are accounted for, in some systems (Ireland, Israel and Quebec [Canada]), staff report less frequent use of certain practices when working with higher proportions of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Similarly, some practices are reported less frequently when staff work with more children with special education needs (New Zealand** and Quebec [Canada]).
This section summarises results from Chapters 2-4 from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3 for participating countries and subnational entities. It focuses on the implications of the fragmentation of ECEC systems for children’s ECEC experiences and risks of inequalities in children’s exposure to quality ECEC.
Flemish Community of Belgium
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, ECEC is split between pre-primary education and provision for children under age 3. The ECEC sector for children under age 3 is fragmented, with home-based and centre-based and public and private provision. A majority of children under age 2 are enrolled, but there is also unmet demand: almost 50% of leaders report there were children who wanted to enrol but could not due to a lack of places and were not put on a waiting list. Settings, on average, enrol a relatively large share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and these children are more likely to be enrolled in private not-for-profit ECEC settings. Compared to other systems in TALIS Starting Strong 2024, settings enrol a relatively low share of children with special education needs, and these children are more likely to be in private not-for-profit and home‑based settings. The fragmentation of the ECEC sector translates into differences in resources and experiences provided to children but enables some adaptation to children’s needs. More specifically:
Staff for children under age 3 have lower qualifications and less experience than staff in pre‑primary education. Staff in both parts of the sector hold different beliefs on what skills are important for children to develop: staff in pre-primary settings value a mix cognitive, social and emotional skills and learning attitudes while those in settings serving children under age 3 place less emphasis on early learning of content areas (and train less in this area), the ability to stay focused, autonomy and responsible decision making, although they value school preparedness. Staff practices also differ between the two sectors, with pre‑primary staff making greater use of a range of literacy and numeracy development practices.
Home-based settings for children under age 3 appear to provide supportive environments to children, particularly compared to large centre-based settings. While there is broad agreement among staff regarding the importance of self-care and physical skills for children’s development, staff in home-based settings are more inclined to value such skills than those in centre-based settings. Staff in home-based settings also tend to more strongly consider a range of social and emotional skills, including the ability to communicate with others, emotional regulation and open-mindedness. They are also more experienced and receive more training on supporting child development in comparison to staff in centre-based settings. Aligned with their different professional beliefs, staff in home-based settings report a greater use of practices that facilitate children’s development. On the other hand, staff in home-based settings devote less time to documenting children’s development and engaging with parents, potentially reflecting the absence of support staff that would enable them to more easily perform such tasks.
Staff report a lower use of practices in several areas of children’s development when they work with a higher share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group. When staff beliefs, education and experience are considered, these differences largely disappear. However, staff are more likely to adapt activities in response to children’s natural rhythms (e.g. hunger, fatigue) daily when they work with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Reported barriers related to physical and material resources tend to be more common in settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and staff in these settings report higher levels of stress due to addressing parents’ concerns.
Germany
In Germany, the ECEC sector is under one ministry, although states have their own ministry responsible for most aspects of ECEC (e.g. curricula, funding). There are integrated settings for all ages of ECEC in addition to specific settings for children under age 3. ECEC is provided in public and private settings. Home-based settings in Germany are not covered by TALIS Starting Strong 2024. Enrolment rates for children under age 3 are lower than in most other countries participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3, although participation rates for children at age 2 exceed 70%. In Germany, settings for children under age 3 include moderate shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and with special education needs. These children are more likely to be in integrated settings. There are signals that providing high-quality ECEC adapted to the youngest children might be more challenging in integrated settings. However, staff working with more vulnerable children adapt their practices to these children. More specifically:
Integrated settings have a higher share of highly qualified staff than non-integrated settings but also report greater staffing, physical and material constraints. Barriers to quality due to staff shortages are pronounced in Germany while staff absences and shortages of competences to work with vulnerable children are particularly acute in integrated, larger settings. Integrated settings also report lower numbers of staff per child and higher staff training needs for supporting vulnerable children. Consistent with these patterns, staff reports of stress due to multitasking and administrative tasks are higher in integrated settings. Noise and infrastructure challenges are also more frequent in these settings. Children under age 3 in integrated settings may experience fewer adaptive, child-centred practices than those in non‑integrated settings. Within integrated settings, children are generally not grouped by age. Despite an overall lower use of literacy practices compared to other countries and subnational entities, staff working with a majority of children under age 3 (which is more often the case in non‑integrated settings), make greater use of literacy development practices than other staff. For instance, they are more likely to read books to children daily and to encourage pre-verbal children to point to pictures when looking at a book daily than those working in mixed age groups. By contrast, staff working with mixed age groups report greater use of numeracy-related practices, potentially reflecting the presence of older children and the stronger emphasis they place on developing a broader set of skills in children, including school preparedness.
Staff in public and private settings for children under age 3 report similar practices with children. Yet once staff and setting characteristics are accounted for, setting management and profit status is associated with a differential use of practices. Staff in public and private not-for-profit settings appear to make greater use of practices to support children’s literacy development and child-centred planning and staff in private non-profit settings also use more emotional development practices than staff in private for‑profit settings.
Staff working with more vulnerable children in settings for children under age 3 hold different beliefs about developmental priorities for children. Staff in settings who serve more children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes support developing school preparedness and citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures more while those in settings with more children with special education needs tend to value more highly the development of school preparedness, executive functions and a range of social and emotional skills (engaging with others, emotional regulation, citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures, and creativity). Staff who work in groups with a higher share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes make greater use of emotional and numeracy development practices. Yet when staff beliefs, education and experience, and other setting characteristics are accounted for, staff use of practices appears to be unrelated to children’s vulnerabilities.
Ireland
Most ECEC settings in Ireland are under the same ministry and settings for children under age 3 are integrated. Enrolment rates of children under age 3 are relatively low, which translates into these children being in mixed age groups, although primary education typically starts at the age of 5. The average percentage of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes and with special education needs enrolled in ECEC settings is relatively high due to targeted funding and policies towards these children. The sector is fully private, with not-for-profit and for‑profit settings. Vulnerable children are more likely to be in not-for-profit centres. A minority of regulated settings are home-based and were excluded from TALIS Starting Strong 2024. More specifically:
Gaps in resources between for-profit and not-for-profit centres are observed, with for-profit centres being better resourced in some respects. Some infrastructure and material challenges are more frequent in not-for-profit settings although not-for-profit settings are more likely to report adequate ventilation. Employment conditions differ between the two sectors: fixed-term or temporary employment is more common in not-for-profit settings while self-employment is more common in for‑profit settings where staff report higher satisfaction with their salary. However, for-profit centres employ a higher share of less experienced staff, whereas not-for-profit centres have a higher share of assistants. Barries to quality related to shortages of staff with competences to support children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are more pronounced in private for-profit settings; the number of staff per child is also lower in these types of settings.
The fragmentation of the sector between for-profit and not-for-profit settings is likely to lead to differences in children’s experiences. A range of foundational cognitive skills (e.g. early learning of content areas) are more highly valued by staff in private for-profit settings. Staff in for-profit settings report higher use of literacy development practices.
There are indications that staff face challenges in allocating sufficient time to vulnerable children and adapting practices to those children’s needs. In settings serving more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, staff more frequently report excessive workload related to documenting children’s development, pointing to additional administrative demands. In these settings, staff also devote a lower share of their time to contact with children. Addressing parents’ or guardians’ concerns is more often reported as a source of stress in settings serving higher shares of children with special education needs. While child-staff ratios tend to be more favourable in settings serving more vulnerable children, these findings suggest that such targeted resources may not be sufficient to address the higher demands associated with supporting these children. Staff working with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes tend to respond less to non-verbal invitations to play when staff and setting characteristics are considered, with little evidence of other differential use of practices in relation to children’s socio-economic background.
Israel
Israel has advanced the integration of the ECEC sector by placing all settings under the same ministry. However, children under age 3 are in settings specific to this age group. ECEC provision is also split between home-based and centre-based settings and private versus public settings. A large share of children at age 2 are enrolled in ECEC and settings enrol relatively high shares of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes. These children are more likely to be in public and home-based settings. Settings enrol a relatively low share of children with special education needs, and these children are more likely to be in private for-profit settings. More specifically:
Reflecting the historical split of the system, staff are less qualified in settings for children under age 3 than in pre-primary settings. Beliefs and practices also differ in the two parts of the sector. Staff in pre-primary settings value more the development of children’s early cognitive skills and executive functions. Yet staff in settings for children under age 3 are more likely to read books daily and ask questions when reading books to children than staff in pre-primary settings, although they rely less on practices to support numeracy development.
Shortages of space, play and learning materials are more frequent in home-based settings. While staff report higher satisfaction with their salary than those in centre-based settings, they are less satisfied with their terms of employment. Staff in centre-based settings report more stress related to multitasking. Although staff in home-based settings report higher qualifications and value a broader range of skills to be developed in children than staff in centre-based settings, they employ practices in similar ways as centre-based staff.
Children may experience ECEC of varying quality depending on the setting they are enrolled in and the type of vulnerability they experience. Public settings that enrol higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes face greater staffing and material constraints and their staff have narrower views on children’s developmental priorities. While more staff in settings with more socio-economically disadvantaged children report participating in recent professional development in supporting children’s social and emotional development, these children might receive less direct attention from staff and less exposure to staff practices that facilitate children’s development. In contrast, children with special education needs are more often in private for-profit settings where there tend to be more staff and staff are more experienced. Staff working with more children with special education needs place greater importance on the ability to communicate as well as school preparedness. When staff and setting characteristics are accounted for, staff in settings with more children with special education needs in Israel appear more inclined to adapt their practices and make greater uses of emotional and literacy development as well as some child‑adaptive practices.
Norway
Norway is the most integrated system among the countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024, with all settings under the same ministry. Staff are highly qualified across the ECEC sector. All settings are for all age groups, but children under age 3 are grouped within these settings. A minority of settings are home-based and were not included in the survey. The sector includes public and private providers but the data do not reveal differences in the likelihood to enrol a high share of vulnerable children between these two parts of the sector. Enrolment rates are high in Norway and unmet demand is infrequent. No major differences in the various parts of the ECEC sector appear. More specifically:
Some differences in resources appear between public and private settings. Privately managed settings employ higher shares of highly qualified staff. Public settings have more assistants and more experienced staff. Public settings report more staff shortages (e.g. staff absences, shortages of qualified staff or staff relative to the number of enrolled children) and limitations to professional development as barriers to quality.
Children from different socio-economic backgrounds appear to experience similar staff practices to support learning and development in ECEC settings. Barriers to quality related to shortages of staff with competence in working with children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are less frequently reported in settings serving more such children. Staff in settings with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes participate more in professional development to support children’s social and emotional development, place a higher emphasis on developing children’s joy for exploration and make greater use of practices to support children’s emotional development.
Within the integrated system, grouping the youngest children within settings enables staff to adapt their practices to children’s age. Staff who work primarily with children under age 3 are more likely to encourage pre-verbal children to point to pictures when looking at a book daily, to respond to non-verbal invitations to play and to adapt daily activities to natural rhythms than those working in mixed age groups. School preparedness is more highly valued by staff in pre-primary settings than in settings serving children under age 3.
New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada)
In New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada), ECEC for children under age 3 is mostly provided in integrated settings that can be home-based or centre-based and, in New Brunswick, publicly or privately managed. In Quebec, all settings are private. A large majority of children are enrolled at age 2 in Quebec while no data are available for New Brunswick, but unmet demand is frequently reported in this province. The average percentage of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes in ECEC settings is low in Quebec and higher in New Brunswick while the percentage of children with special education needs is high in both provinces. These two categories of children are highly concentrated in some settings in the two provinces. Apart from this, no differences are observed in the likelihood for vulnerable children to be concentrated in some types of settings (e.g. public vs. private, home-based vs. centre-based). More specifically:
Staff in New Brunswick appear to adapt their practices more systematically to the diversity of the children they work with while in Quebec, children with higher vulnerability may less frequently receive support in some areas of development. In New Brunswick, staff working in settings with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes report more frequent use of practices to support children’s emotional development. When working with more children with special education needs, staff in New Brunswick also place more importance on developing children’s ability to communicate but consider early learning of content areas to be less important. By contrast, staff in Quebec report lower use of different practices to support children’s development when working with more children with special education needs. Furthermore, in New Brunswick, staff in settings with a higher concentration of children with special education needs devote less time to documenting children’s development and on parental engagement, which may reflect the higher levels of stress due to an excessive administrative workload in these settings.
In New Brunswick, staff practices differ between home-based and centre-based settings. Home‑based staff rely more extensively on practices to support children’s literacy, numeracy, and social and emotional development relative to staff in centre‑based settings. This aligns with their professional beliefs about developmental priorities for young children that focus more on a range of social and emotional skills for children’s development compared to staff in centre-based settings. Home-based staff in this province also value more self‑care and physical skills. Furthermore, staff in home-based settings devote less time documenting children’s development but also engaging with parents than those in centre-based settings. While staff in home-based settings are more likely to report higher salary and job satisfaction, they also more frequently report excessive administrative work and documentation demands as sources of stress. Once staff and setting characteristics are accounted for, home‑based and centre-based staff in New Brunswick appear to make similar uses of practices with children. In Quebec, the small sample size does not allow for this type of analysis.
In New Brunswick, publicly managed settings more frequently report shortages of staff relative to the number of children enrolled as barriers to quality, whereas privately managed settings are more likely to report barriers related to shortages of staff with competences to support children from diverse language backgrounds. Needs for professional development focused on early learning are more commonly reported in publicly managed settings. Yet structural differences between the two types of settings are not reflected in differences in practices used with children.
New Zealand
In New Zealand**, ECEC is provided in home-based and centre-based settings that are all privately managed, either for-profit or not-for-profit. Children under age 3 are in integrated settings and in target groups with children of different ages. A majority of children are enrolled at age 2 but a minority of children under age 2 are enrolled. On average, settings enrol a high share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and with special education needs; however, these children do not appear to be very concentrated in some settings. Due to the lack of representativeness of the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data for New Zealand**, analysis on features of the fragmentation of the sector is not possible.
References
[2] 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.
[1] OECD (forthcoming), Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 Technical Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.