This chapter examines how the organisation of work with children and staff practices with children shape opportunities for high‑quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) in settings for children under age 3. Drawing on data from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong), it explores how staff time allocation, beliefs about development priorities for children and practices interact with the characteristics of children, groups and settings in a fragmented sector.
Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three
Further Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Abstract
ECEC staff practices target children’s social and emotional development, but staff also frequently use some early literacy development practices. Staff frequently sing songs, read books to children and ask questions when doing so.
Staff place a greater value on developing social and emotional and physical skills in children than on other foundational skills. Executive functions that enable children to focus their attention, follow routines and adapt to new situations are less prioritised than other areas of development, although they underpin all types of learning.
Staff practices with children reflect their professional beliefs about developmental priorities for children. Staff who place a greater value on developing a broader range of social and emotional skills make greater use of practices to foster children’s social and emotional development. The breadth of social and emotional skills staff value is also aligned with a greater use of practices to stimulate cognitive development in some systems.
In non-integrated settings, children under age 3 are, by design, grouped together. In integrated settings, staff commonly work with mixed age groups of children covering multiple age categories, which may include children ranging from under 1 year old to 6 years and older. In New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand**, around half of children in the group are under age 3; the other half are mostly aged 3-4. In Germany and Ireland, groups also include older children. In contrast, in Norway, children under age 3 tend to be grouped together within integrated settings.
In systems with integrated settings, staff working primarily with children under age 3 tend to make greater use of specific practices to meet children’s needs relative to staff working with more mixed age groups. This is observed in Germany and Ireland and points to the risks for children under age 3 who are grouped with older children of receiving practices less adapted to their age. In Norway, where children under age 3 are grouped together within integrated settings, staff adapt their practices more to children’s age. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, where settings are specifically targeted at children under age 3, staff in these and in pre-primary settings make different uses of literacy and numeracy development practices.
Children in home-based settings may experience different staff practices than those in centre-based settings. Staff more frequently use practices to support several areas of children’s development in home-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada). However, they allocate less time to documenting children’s development, collaborating with parents or direct interactions with children in these settings in some systems.
Vulnerable children may not receive the more intensive support needed in some areas of development. Staff who work in settings with a higher share of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes only make greater use of practices to support some areas of children’s development in Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway. The same holds for children with special education needs only in Quebec (Canada) for numeracy development practices. When staff and setting characteristics are accounted for, staff make similar and, in some cases, lower use of practices to support children’s development when they work with vulnerable children. In some systems, staff in settings with more children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes spend less time in direct interaction with children. These findings point to the need to provide more resources to staff or settings working with higher shares of vulnerable children.
Process quality, or the interactions children have every day with staff and peers, and their engagement in play, activities and routines in early childhood education and care (ECEC) shapes children’s learning, development and well-being. For children under age 3, ECEC provides a first life experience interacting with adults and children outside of their home environment. Warm, sensitive and stimulating interactions that are attuned to children’s cues and developmental stage form the core of process quality for children at this age (Dalli et al., 2011[1]; Cadima et al., 2020[2]). Education and care are intertwined, and physical care is a key aspect of professional practices for children under age 3.
As ECEC sectors expand and serve more diverse groups of children, maintaining and improving quality hinges on sustaining the quality of these interactions with all children, but also on staff’s capacity to respond to children’s more varied needs and strengths. Research evidence indicates children from disadvantaged and minority backgrounds often experience lower process quality (OECD, 2025[3]). Some degree of variation in quality across and within ECEC settings is inherent to ECEC systems. Yet such variability is problematic when some groups of children are consistently exposed to lower levels of quality due to their background, needs or the type of setting they attend (OECD, 2025[3]).
Most countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 offer home‑based provision, though at varying degrees (see Chapter 2). While there is scope for a more robust evidence base, some studies have found that home-based settings tend to be associated with lower quality interactions compared to centre-based ones. Structural characteristics such as size or child-to-staff ratios are often advantageous in home-based settings. However, other aspects related to staff qualifications, regulatory frameworks and their influence on process quality may be less favourable (Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[4]; Cadima et al., 2020[2]; Goodson and Layzer, 2010[5]).
Private settings play a prominent role in many countries’ and subnational entities’ ECEC systems (see Chapter 2). Studies show that the relationship between private management and process quality differs across countries and tends to reflect differences in investment patterns and resource allocation between publicly and privately managed settings (OECD, 2019[6]; Cadima et al., 2020[2]). The type of setting management alone is not a consistent predictor of the quality of child-staff interactions in ECEC settings. Overall, evidence on the extent to which setting management type shapes process quality is mixed and remains limited for provision for children under age 3 (Leseman and Slot, 2025[7]; Cadima et al., 2020[2]).
This chapter investigates how the organisation of work with children in settings serving children under age 3, staff time allocation and practices interact with the type of settings and the diversity of children in settings to shape opportunities for quality ECEC experiences. It addresses the following questions:
What are the characteristics of the groups of children staff most frequently work with?
How do staff working with children under age 3 allocate their working time across different activities and how does staff time allocation vary across different types of settings?
What skills and traits do staff view as the most important for children’s development? How frequently do staff use practices that support children’s learning, development and well-being and how do these practices relate to child, group and setting characteristics?
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for settings for children under age 3 includes systems with integrated settings that serve children of different ages before entry into primary education and systems with non‑integrated settings that specifically target children under age 3 (see Chapter 2). Research evidence on the role of age composition remains limited, particularly for the youngest children. On the one hand, earlier studies indicated that in centre-based ECEC, mixed age groups or groups with greater age ranges tend to be associated with lower process quality (Cadima et al., 2020[2]; Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[8]; Linberg et al., 2019[9]). On the other hand, evidence of lower quality ECEC provided in home-based settings for children under age 3 compared with those serving mixed age groups or older children might reflect a likely shift from basic care towards activities that support language and cognitive development when older children are involved (Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[4]). Mixed evidence on the implications of age composition point to the importance of accounting for a range of structural factors (e.g. staff-child ratios, group size, staff qualifications) that are likely to mediate the relationship between age group composition and the quality of interactions in ECEC (Van Lombergen, Vandenbroeck and Devlieghere, 2025[10]).
Apart from age, group composition can also be shaped by other characteristics related to children’s backgrounds, with implications for staff’s behaviour, beliefs and practices. Increasing diversity in ECEC settings means that staff and settings experience new pedagogical and organisational challenges in order to respond to children’s and families’ more varied needs while also building on the strengths of their experiences and backgrounds (OECD, 2025[3]). Group composition in terms of children’s socio-economic, ethnic or migration background has been shown to affect children’s development (OECD, 2018[11]). For children with special education needs, inclusion in ECEC is reflected in the extent to which they attend mainstream settings, groups or classes as opposed to being concentrated in fully separate special settings, classes or taking part in activities with mainstream peers only occasionally (OECD, 2025[3]; 2025[12]).
This section discusses the characteristics of children staff work with on a regular basis and how they vary across systems and types of settings. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects evidence on the “target group”, defined as the group of children staff worked with the most on their last working day prior to the survey, recognising that working with the target group may not represent everything the staff does. Data on the composition of target groups are not intended to be representative at the country or subnational entity level; rather, they serve to illustrate staff experiences in working with children in their most recent working day. In integrated settings that serve children of different ages up to age 6 and above (see Chapter 2, Box 2.2), only staff who provide learning opportunities for children under age 3 were asked about their work with the target group and the characteristics of that group (see Annex A).
Children under age 3 are grouped together in non-integrated settings while they are mixed with older children in integrated settings
In integrated settings (covering children under age 3 and above, see Chapter 2), target groups serve from multiple age categories, including children aged 6 years and above, though the share of children under age 3 varies widely across systems (Figure 3.1). In both Canadian provinces and New Zealand**, around half of children in the target group are under age 3; the other half are mostly aged 3-4. In Germany, target groups in integrated settings are more heterogeneous, typically comprising children across a broader range of ages (from 3 to 6 years old and above). Norway stands out for the large share of children under age 3 in the target group, even in settings with a minority of children of this age, suggesting that children under age 3 are grouped together. Target groups in non-integrated settings (specific to children under age 3) contrast with those of integrated ones as children under age 3 are, by design of these settings, grouped together. This is the case in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel. In Germany, non-integrated settings also mostly cover children under age 3.
In line with system-level data, evidence from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 shows that few children under age 1 are enrolled in ECEC and participation in ECEC tends to increase with age (Table C.3.1). The Flemish Community of Belgium demonstrates a balanced distribution of children across all age groups under 3, indicating that ECEC settings are enrolling children from an early age. This is not the case in most other countries and subnational entities, where fewer than 10% of staff report having children under age 1 in the target group. Combined with the fact that non‑integrated settings specifically target children under age 3, target groups on average are composed of the youngest children in the Flemish Community of Belgium, followed by Israel and Norway.
Percentage of children of the following ages who were in the target group, in integrated and non-integrated 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: The “target group” refers to the group of children with whom staff worked the most on their last working day before the survey. In systems with integrated settings (all systems except the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel), settings with less than 60% of children under age 3 are considered as integrated and those with 60% or more of children under age 3 are considered as non-integrated (see Chapter 2). Data are missing for non-integrated settings in Ireland and Quebec (Canada) due to an insufficient number of observations.
The figure only shows valid data. Values are not shown because the data were excluded for technical reasons or were based on too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.3.1.
The prevalence of vulnerable children in the target group reflects differences in enrolment and setting-level concentration of these children
Variation in the degree to which staff work with vulnerable children in the target group across countries and subnational entities partly reflects a combined effect of differences across systems in the average percentages of these children in settings and differences in the extent to which these children are concentrated in some settings (see Chapter 2). Differences in the extent to which vulnerable children are concentrated within settings in some target groups can also contribute to this variation and further amplify setting-level differences.
While target groups are not representative at the country or subnational entity level, staff reports of the share of vulnerable children they work with are representative of staff experiences in working with children. Staff in settings with a greater share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes consistently work with higher shares of such children in the target group (Figure 3.2). This pattern is particularly pronounced in Ireland and Israel: in settings with higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, more than 40% of staff report that at least 10% of the children in their group come from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, compared with fewer than 10% of staff in other settings.
The average proportion of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group in settings with 10% or more such children ranges from 8% in Norway to 24% in Ireland (Table C.3.2). Settings with higher percentages of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes also tend to show greater variation in the proportion of these children in the setting. While this may indicate a potential clustering of vulnerable children in specific groups in settings with higher shares of such children, the variation remains limited in some systems.
Percentage of staff reporting 10% or more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group, by setting share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, based on staff and 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 “target group” refers to the group of children with whom staff worked the most on their last working day before the survey.
Missing values are due to the question not being administered or having too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff reporting 10% or more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group at each ECEC level.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.3.3.
Lower shares of staff in settings serving children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Norway report working with 10% or more children with special education needs in their target groups, compared to staff in other participating systems (Figure 3.3). This reflects system-level differences in the presence of children with special education needs in ECEC settings (see Chapter 2). Ireland stands out for the wide range between the proportion of children with special education needs in target groups in settings with a high percentage of such children and the proportion of children with special education needs in settings with a lower percentage of such children. Among staff working in settings with 10% or more children with special education needs, more than 80% report that their target group also includes 10% or more such children. By contrast, this is the case for only 35% of staff in other settings. The average proportion of children with special education needs in target groups in settings with higher shares of such children ranges from 13% in New Brunswick (Canada) to 23% in Ireland (Table C.3.4).
Percentage of staff reporting 10% or more children with special education needs in the target group, by setting share of children with special education needs, based on staff and 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 “target group” refers to the group of children with whom staff worked the most on their last working day before the survey.
Missing values are due to the question not being administered or having too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff reporting 10% or more children with special education needs in the target group at each ECEC level.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.3.5.
It should be noted that responses about children’s characteristics in the target group reflect staff’s perceptions while those in settings reflect leaders’ perceptions; discrepancies may thus appear between leader and staff responses. While leaders may have access to families’ income levels (e.g. if families need to report household income for ECEC fee or benefits entitlement), staff engage more directly with families on a daily basis. This may provide them with a different view of families’ level of disadvantage in absolute terms. Likewise, leaders and staff can have different levels of information on whether children have been formally identified as having a special education need.
How staff spend their time is at the core of quality practices in ECEC settings. Working with young children involves balancing a range of tasks, from basic care to more intentional development practices. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects evidence on staff time use, focusing on how staff allocate their working time across different activities and how much time they devote to direct interactions with children compared to other tasks. Multitasking while in contact with children is common in all ECEC systems participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 and working longer hours does not always result in more time dedicated to direct interactions with children (OECD, 2025[13]).
This section explores how staff time use varies across countries and subnational entities and within systems serving children under age 3, contrasting time allocations for staff working in different types of settings.
Staff spend most of their time in direct interaction with children, but in some systems, this is less the case for staff in settings with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes
Staff were asked how many hours they spent in total on tasks related to their job at the ECEC setting during their most recent complete calendar week (including any work in the evening, on weekends or other out of setting hours). Overall working hours vary across ECEC systems (for staff working full-time, in a single ECEC setting) from 38 hours in Quebec (Canada) to 46 hours in the Flemish Community of Belgium (Table C.3.6). Longer working hours result in more time spent in direct contact with children at the setting in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada). This is not the case in Israel, where staff report among the longest working hours in comparison to other countries and subnational entities but also the greatest amount of time spent without contact with children at the setting.
In systems with integrated and non-integrated settings (see Chapter 2, Box 2.2), staff working in both types of settings report comparable working hours and when considering all staff, regardless of the number of hours worked, staff in both types of settings devote a similar proportion of their time in direct contact with children. In addition, staff working primarily with children under age 3 in the target group report allocating a comparable share of their time to direct interactions with children as those working with fewer of these children (Table C.3.7). Ireland is an exception, with staff working in target groups with a majority of children under age 3 reporting spending more time in direct contact with children than staff working in mixed age groups. Similarly, staff in public and private settings report comparable working hours and devote a similar proportion of their time in direct contact with children (Tables C.3.8 and C.3.9).
In Ireland and Israel, staff who work with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes devote a lower share of their time in contact with children than those working with fewer vulnerable children (Tables C.3.10 and C.3.11). At the same time, in Ireland, settings with higher shares of vulnerable children report higher numbers of staff per child (see Chapter 4). This likely reflects additional funding that enables staff to devote time to tasks beyond direct care, while ensuring children continue to receive direct attention from staff. In Israel, staff in home-based settings devote a lower share of their time interacting with children. To the extent that home-based settings in Israel serve a higher share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes than centre-based ones, this suggests that more vulnerable children may receive less direct attention from staff (Table C.2.11).
Staff spend most of their time on planning or preparing play and/or learning activities alone and on routine tasks, alongside direct work with children
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff how much time they spend on planning or preparing activities alone or with other staff; documenting children’s development; collaborating or speaking with parents or guardians from the setting; participating in administrative or management tasks; and on routine tasks (e.g. laundry, cleaning or food preparation). These tasks could overlap with time spent in direct contact with children. Among these tasks, planning or preparing play and/or learning activities alone and routine tasks occupy most of staff’s working time in their ECEC settings (Table C.3.12). In contrast, participating in setting management, staff meetings or administrative work is uncommon among staff in most countries and subnational entities.
The amount of time ECEC staff spend on various tasks does not vary much with the percentage of vulnerable children at the ECEC setting. However, staff in settings with a higher percentage of children with special education needs in Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) allocate less of their time to parental engagement than those in settings with fewer vulnerable children (Table C.3.13). While the quality of interactions may matter more than the amount of time staff spend with parents, devoting time to family engagement is an important tool for understanding children’s family context and creating bridges with the home environment, particularly for vulnerable children.
Staff allocate less of their time to documenting children’s development and collaborating with parents in home-based settings in some systems
Staff time allocations for different activities tend to differ between centre-based and home-based settings (Figure 3.4). In the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), staff in home‑based settings devote less time documenting children’s development (Table C.3.12). This result warrants attention, as time devoted to documentation is linked with more frequent use of practices that support children’s learning, development and well-being (OECD, 2025[13]).
The share of time devoted to parental engagement is also lower in home-based settings in some systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), staff in home-based settings report spending less time collaborating or speaking with parents than those in centre-based settings. This may reflect the more limited flexibility that staff in home-based settings have to balance care with other responsibilities, due to the absence or limited availability of additional supporting staff (see Chapter 4).
Staff time allocations for other activities at the setting are mostly similar for staff in home-based and in centre-based settings (Table C.3.12). Staff in home-based and centre-based settings devote similar shares of time to planning or preparing activities alone, participating in setting management or on general administrative work, and routine tasks (e.g. laundry). However, staff in centre-based settings devote more time to planning or preparing activities with other staff, reflecting the limited availability of support staff in home-based settings.
Average percentage of staff time spent on the following activities during the most recent complete calendar week in 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 “complete calendar week” is defined as a week not shortened by breaks, public holidays, sick leave, etc. Staff were asked to consider tasks related to their job at the ECEC setting where they received the questionnaire and to round to the nearest whole hour. Staff were asked to include tasks that took place during evenings, weekends or other out of classroom/playgroup/group/ECEC setting hours (including at home). Staff were asked to count time in all appropriate categories, even when activities overlapped.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in ascending order of centre-based settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.3.12.
Staff professional beliefs about children’s development, learning and well-being can shape the types of practices they use in their work with children (OECD, 2025[12]). Earlier studies have found that even after adjusting for structural quality factors (e.g. child-staff ratios, staff experience), staff beliefs about children are strongly tied with pedagogical quality (Pianta et al., 2005[14]; OECD, 2019[6]). More recent research suggests though that the relationship between staff beliefs and practices may not be systematic, and other considerations (e.g. staff shortages, programme structure) may constrain the extent to which such beliefs translate into practice (Nilsen, 2021[15]; OECD, 2025[12]; Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[8]).
A range of factors can shape staff professional beliefs, including staff training, cultural factors and the characteristics of the children they work with. For instance, there is mixed evidence on the value staff place on developmental priorities for children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Staff working with children from such backgrounds have been found to place a greater value on academic activities and stimulation (e.g. mathematics practices), assuming that children from more advantaged homes already receive strong academic support (Lee and Ginsburg, 2007[16]). Other studies, however, highlighted that ECEC staff working with children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes prioritised the acquisition of more basic skills or memorising facts over more complex problem-solving tasks (Stipek and Byler, 1997[17]; OECD, 2025[12]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff about the skills or traits they believe to be important to develop in children to prepare them for the future. This section examines the skills staff in settings serving children under age 3 highlight as developmental priorities for children and the extent to which professional beliefs are shaped by the context in which staff work, including the type of setting staff operate in and the characteristics of the children they engage with in their daily work.
Staff place a greater value on developing physical and some social and emotional skills in children than other foundational skills, including cognitive ones
Overall, staff place great value on most cognitive, social and emotional skills and learning dispositions, with more than 60% of staff in all countries and subnational entities considering these skills and attitudes to be very important to develop in children to prepare them for the future (Table 3.1).
Staff in most ECEC systems tend to place a greater value overall on physical development, self‑care and a range of social and emotional skills than on early learning of content areas or school preparedness. A high share of staff in all countries and subnational entities recognise self-care skills (e.g. feeding oneself, hygiene, dressing), physical and motor skills (e.g. physical exercises, jumping, dancing), and the ability to communicate and co-operate with others and to understand and manage one’s own emotions as important for young children to develop. Staff in pre-primary settings also perceived these to be of high importance. In contrast, overall, fewer staff highly value knowledge and skills in specific subjects (e.g. early language, literacy, numeracy, science). Staff also place less emphasis on executive functions that enable children to focus their attention and follow routines, although executive functions, together with emotional regulation, are foundational for all types of learning. The lower priority staff give to executive function may partly reflect the relatively low age of children staff work with in settings for children under age 3.
Preparedness for school, which reflects the extent to which children possess a range of skills and attitudes that provide them with strong foundations for the transition to school, receives overall lower levels of support among staff in a range of countries and subnational entities. This perspective on foundational academic-related abilities may reflect the younger age of children staff engage with in settings serving children under age 3. Yet staff in pre-primary settings in most countries and subnational entities also place a lower emphasis on fostering early learning of content areas and school preparedness.
Staff views on skills and traits to prepare children for the future vary more widely between ECEC systems for other skill areas. In most systems, instilling values related to citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures and creativity are less often perceived as top developmental priorities relative to other skills areas. This is, however, not the case in Ireland, Norway and the two Canadian provinces, where staff consider at least one of these values as top priorities. In these systems, joy for exploration and care for the environment also rank quite high.
Staff at both ECEC levels in systems with integrated governance show similar appreciation of skills and traits to be developed in children, but this is not the case in split ECEC systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in pre-primary settings value a mix cognitive, socio-emotional skills and learning attitudes while those in settings serving children under age 3 place less emphasis on early learning of content areas, the ability to stay focused, autonomy and responsible decision making, although they value school preparedness. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, children under age 1 make up a considerable proportion of children in settings for children under age 3 (see Figure 3.1), which may partly explain why staff in these settings place less emphasis on some developmental areas. In Israel, staff in pre-primary settings also value more children’s early cognitive skills and executive functions.
Within settings at the target group level, the development of a range of foundational cognitive, social and emotional skills, and learning attitudes tends to be regarded in similar ways by staff working with a majority of children under age 3 and those working in mixed age groups (Table C.3.14). Staff in Germany, however, indicate different professional beliefs depending on the age mix of the group they work with. Staff working primarily with children under age 3 in the target group place a lower emphasis on school preparedness, executive functions and citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures than those working in mixed age groups.
Percentage of staff who reported “somewhat high importance” or “very high importance” for developing these skills or traits in children to prepare them for life in the future
* 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 shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of skills or traits to be developed in children to prepare them for life in the future within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported skills or traits to develop in children are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported skills or traits are indicated in white. Skills or traits reported by intermediate percentages of staff are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage. ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.3.15.
Staff views about developmental priorities are not uniform across provision types
As ECEC sectors are fragmented, if staff in specific settings hold different beliefs about developmental priorities for children it may shape the practices and experiences children are exposed to in the setting.
Staff in public and private settings in some systems tend to hold different professional beliefs about skills and traits to instil in young children (Table C.3.16). Staff in private for-profit settings in Ireland more often view early learning of content areas as a developmental priority for children relative to staff in private not-for profit settings. In Israel, staff in private settings tend to more often report executive function as an important skill to develop in children than staff in public settings. Consideration of social and emotional skills is also not uniform across public and private settings. Open-mindedness skills tend to be more highly valued by staff in public settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium (for creativity), while staff in private settings in Israel value more such skills (creativity and citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures) than staff in public settings. Staff in private settings in Israel also tend to report more preparedness for school, the ability to communicate with others and autonomy as important skills to develop in children to prepare them for the future.
Staff in home-based or centre-based settings also tend to hold different professional beliefs in some systems. 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 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) are more inclined to value such skills than staff in centre‑based settings (Table C.3.15). Staff in home-based settings in these systems also tend to consider more strongly a range of socio-emotional skills (to varying degrees in each system depending on the skill area), including the ability to communicate with others, emotional regulation and open-mindedness.
In some systems, staff in settings with more vulnerable children place a higher emphasis on preparing children for school
Staff views on developmental priorities for children can also be shaped by the characteristics of the children staff are exposed to in their work environments. In some systems, staff in settings with more vulnerable children place more emphasis on specific types of skills as developmental priorities (Tables C.3.17 and C.3.18). Staff in settings with 10% or more children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds support more developing school preparedness and citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures in Germany, and joy for exploration in Norway. Germany also stands out for the gap in professional beliefs between staff working with different percentages of children with special education needs: staff in settings with a higher percentage of children with special education needs tend to more highly value the development of school preparedness, executive functions and a range of social and emotional skills than staff in other settings. In Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), staff working with more children with special education needs also place greater importance on the ability to communicate; in Israel they value more school preparedness while in New Brunswick (Canada) they consider early learning of content areas to be less important than staff in other settings.
Differences in staff beliefs appear to be more closely linked with the percentage of vulnerable children in their setting rather than in their target group, suggesting that staff beliefs are likely shaped by the broader context in which staff evolve and familiarity with a variety of children. Only in a few systems do staff professional beliefs vary with the percentage of more vulnerable children in the target group (Tables C.3.19 and C.3.20). This is particularly the case in New Zealand** and Norway, where staff working with more children with special education needs in the target group place a greater emphasis on school preparedness while staff working with more children with from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group in Quebec (Canada) value school preparedness less.
Close, reciprocal exchanges between staff and children – sustained and increasingly complex over time – enable children’s exploration, learning, emotional regulation and the development of autonomy (Cadima et al., 2020[2]). Research evidence on process quality in ECEC points to the intertwined nature of a range of practices that, taken together, ensure a child-centred approach that supports children’s development, learning and well-being (OECD, 2025[12]). Quality interactions for children under age 3 build on staff’s sensitive and responsive reactions to children’s gestures, body and cues, recognising that learning and care are interrelated (OECD, 2025[12]; Dalli et al., 2011[1]). Such reactions involve paying attention to learning opportunities within routines and the rhythms of children’s experiences, and adapting practice to children’s developmental stages (Dalli et al., 2011[1]). Beyond practices to facilitate children’s emotional development, supporting cognitive and language development in the context of play has also been recognised as a core feature of process quality for toddlers (Cadima et al., 2023[18]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects evidence on the approaches and activities staff use during their work week to facilitate children’s development. This section examines fairness in children’s exposure to quality practices, with a focus on several types of development practices for children under age 3, including literacy; numeracy; social and emotional development practices (captured through synthetic indicators based on staff reports); and a few selected adaptive, child-centred and responsive practices relevant for children under age 3. To understand the factors that shape staff practices with children, this section discusses how staff professional beliefs, staff and setting characteristics, and the characteristics of the target group are associated with the use of these various practices.
Practices targeting children’s social and emotional development are common, but staff also report frequent use of some early literacy practices
In most ECEC systems, staff use practices supporting children’s social and emotional development more frequently than practices to support their early literacy and numeracy development (Table 3.2). Encouraging children to share and to help each other and helping children express their feelings and comforting them when they are upset are the most common practices to support their social and emotional development in settings serving children under age 3. This pattern aligns with staff beliefs about the importance of emotional regulation and the ability to communicate and co-operate with others as developmental priorities for children (see Table 3.1). More intentional practices such as talking with children about their feelings or helping them understand their feelings are less frequent, potentially due to the children’s young age, although more than 50% of staff in all systems use these practices daily.
While less frequent than activities targeting social and emotional development, early literacy practices are far from uncommon in settings serving children under age 3. Singing songs to children is the most frequent activity staff perform on a daily basis at both ECEC levels in most systems. Staff also frequently read books to children and ask questions when doing so: this is the case for more than 75% of staff in Ireland, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**. In countries and subnational entities with data at both ECEC levels, higher shares of staff in settings serving children under age 3 in Germany, Israel, New Zealand** and Norway read books daily and ask questions when reading books to children than staff in pre-primary settings.
Staff tend to less frequently use practices that support children’s numeracy development. Helping children to use numbers or count and verbalising maths concepts in everyday routines are the most frequent numeracy practices staff employ, although to a lesser extent than practices to stimulate literacy. In Ireland, New Zealand** and Norway, such practices are almost as frequently used by staff in settings serving children under age 3 as they are by staff in pre-primary settings. This likely reflects the shared curriculum framework across the two ECEC levels in these systems and the presence of integrated settings, which contribute to similar patterns of practice use among staff at both levels. Singing songs with numbers and using sorting activities by shape or colour are also relatively frequently used in Ireland, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**. Yet, in split systems (the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel), staff in settings for children under age 3 generally make less frequent use of numeracy development practices than staff in pre-primary settings, which is likely to be linked to the younger age of the children in these settings (see Figure 3.1).
Staff practices and professional beliefs about developmental priorities for children are aligned, particularly about the importance of social and emotional skills
The range of practices staff use in their work with children (see Table 3.2) can be synthetised in indicators (or scales) capturing several domains – literacy, numeracy, social and emotional development, child‑centred planning – to examine the extent to which children in different settings or who interact with staff with different professional beliefs or characteristics are differently exposed to quality practices (see Annex B).
Staff who have a stronger belief about developing a range of cognitive, social and emotional skills in children make greater use of practices to foster children’s development, although the relationship is not consistent across all ECEC systems and development domains. In Germany, Ireland, Israel and New Zealand**, staff who value more social and emotional skills as developmental priorities for children tend to make greater use of practices to support children’s emotional development (Figure 3.5; Tables C.3.21 and C.3.22). In Ireland and Israel, a greater emphasis on developing a range of social and emotional skills is also linked with increased use of practices to stimulate children’s pro-social development (Tables C.3.23 and C.3.24). These results are robust to differences in structural quality, including staff number per child, staff experience and training, and characteristics of the contexts in which staff work.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice once a day or more during the most recent complete calendar week
* 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 shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of practices to support social, emotional, early literacy and early numeracy development within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices for supporting development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice once a day or more are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025[13]), TALIS Starting Strong Database, Tables D.4.5, D.4.6, D.4.8 and D.4.9.
Change in the scales of staff practices to facilitate emotional and literacy development associated with staff in settings for children under age 3 reporting placing a “somewhat high” or “very high importance” importance on developing social and emotional skills in children
* 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: Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour. The figure shows unstandardised coefficients from two multivariable linear regression models of the scales of practices to facilitate emotional and literacy development on a composite indicator of staff professional beliefs about the importance of developing social and emotional skills in children. For more information, see Annex B.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between staff practices with children to facilitate emotional development and staff professional beliefs about the importance of developing social and emotional skills in children
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.3.22 and C.3.26.
While staff place less emphasis on developing foundational cognitive skills than on fostering children’s social and emotional development (see previous sections), professional beliefs about the importance of cognitive development are also related to greater use of practices that support cognitive growth in some systems. Staff who place a greater value on early learning of content areas are more inclined to use practices that stimulate children’s literacy (in Germany, Ireland and Israel) and numeracy development (in Quebec, Canada) (Figure 3.6; Tables C.3.25, C.3.26, C.3.27 and C.3.28).
Furthermore, when staff place a greater emphasis on some development areas it can spill over into richer practices in other areas of development. The breadth of social and emotional skills valued by staff is also associated with a greater use of practices to stimulate cognitive development in some systems. In Israel, staff who value a wider range of social and emotional skills to be developed in children also tend to make greater use of practices supporting literacy and numeracy development, even when accounting for staff beliefs about the importance of cognitive development (Figure 3.5; Tables C.3.25, C.3.26 and C.3.27). Also in Israel, staff who work in centres and who place a greater value on early learning of content areas are more inclined to use practices that stimulate children’s emotional development (Table C.3.21). In Norway, staff are more likely to read books to children daily when they place a greater value on developing a broader range of social and emotional skills in children (Table C.3.29). Staff who place a greater value on early learning of content areas are also more inclined to respond positively to non-verbal invitations to play (in Germany, Ireland and Israel) (Tables C.3.31 and C.3.32). This suggests that staff practices can benefit children when staff hold a holistic view of child development.
Change in the scales of staff practices to facilitate literacy and numeracy development associated with staff in settings for children under age 3 reporting to place a “somewhat high” or “very high importance” importance on developing knowledge and skills in specific subjects in children
* 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: Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour. The figure shows unstandardised coefficients from two multivariable linear regression models of the scale of practices to facilitate literacy and numeracy development on staff professional beliefs about the importance of developing knowledge and skills in specific subjects. For more information, see Annex B.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between staff practices with children to facilitate literacy development and staff professional beliefs about the importance of developing knowledge and skills in specific subjects.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.3.26 and C.3.28.
In contrast, professional beliefs about the importance of executive function align less consistently with staff practices. Placing a greater emphasis on the ability to stay focused, control impulses and complete tasks as a developmental priority for children is related to greater use of practices related to child‑centred planning in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany, but with a lower use of such practices in Ireland and Norway (Tables C.3.33 and C.3.34). In Norway, staff who give a higher priority to executive function as a development area report a lower use of practices to stimulate children’s literacy and numeracy development (Tables C.3.25 and C.3.27), while in Ireland they make less frequent use of emotional development and some literacy practices (Tables C.3.21, C.3.29 and C.3.35). This may suggest shifts in pedagogical practices when staff emphasise children’s ability to stay focused, control impulses and complete tasks, as staff may prioritise activities or routines that are less conducive to distractions as well as task competition and behaviour regulation over tasks that require children’s sustained attention (such as some literacy or numeracy tasks) or provide flexibility for child exploration.
Staff who work primarily with children under age 3 report greater use of some literacy and child-centred, responsive practices than those working in mixed age groups
Staff working primarily with children under age 3 tend to be more likely to make greater use of specific practices and adapt activities to meet children’s needs relative to those working in more mixed age groups. In Germany and Ireland, staff in target groups with a majority of children under age 3 make greater use of literacy development practices than other staff when a range of staff characteristics and structural factors that may influence the use of literacy-related practices are accounted for (Table C.3.25).
In fact, staff working in groups with a majority of children under age 3 particularly rely upon some practices to support early literacy development. Staff in Germany, Ireland, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway 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 than those working in mixed age groups (Figure 3.7). In Germany, staff who work primarily with children under age 3 are also more inclined to report reading books to children daily than other staff, while no differences emerge between staff working in groups with different age compositions in other systems (Table C.3.37). Despite this, staff in Germany report an overall lower use of such literacy practices compared to staff in other countries and subnational entities (see Table 3.2).
Working in groups with a majority of children under age 3 is also associated with greater use of some child-centred, responsive practices in a few systems. In Germany and Norway, staff working primarily with children under age 3 tend to more frequently respond to non-verbal invitations to play (Table C.3.39). This difference between staff working primarily with children under age 3 and other staff is also found in Germany, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway when a range of staff and setting characteristics are accounted for (Tables C.3.31 and C.3.32). In Norway, children under age 3 tend to be grouped together even when they are in integrated settings. In Germany, staff working with a majority of children under age 3 in the target group tend to be concentrated in non-integrated settings (see Figure 3.1). This means that children under age 3 in integrated settings in Germany may experience fewer such adaptive practices (as well as practices to support their literacy development) than children in non-integrated settings.
In contrast, staff make more limited use of practices to support children’s numeracy development when working primarily with children under age 3 (Tables C.3.27, C.3.28 and C.3.40). This is the case in Germany and Ireland, where staff working in mixed age groups make greater use of numeracy-related practices than those working mostly with younger children. This may reflect a closer alignment with the presence of older children in the group for whom staff and curricular guidance may place a greater emphasis on numeracy development.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who reported encouraging pre-verbal children to point to pictures when looking at a book once a day or more than once a day at their ECEC setting during the most recent complete calendar week, by percentage of children under age 3 in the target group
* 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.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff working with more than 60% of children under age 3 in the target group who reported encouraging pre-verbal children to point to pictures when looking at a book once a day or more than once a day at their ECEC setting during the most recent complete calendar week as leader or teacher.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.3.38.
In most systems, practices in ECEC centres for children under age 3 are similar across settings, regardless of setting management and profit status
In most countries and subnational entities, staff in public and private settings tend to report similar uses of a range of literacy, numeracy, and social and emotional development practices (Table C.3.41). While public and private not-for-profit settings are generally more likely to enrol a high share of vulnerable children (see Chapter 2), staff in these settings tend to employ similar practices. Exceptions include the Flemish Community of Belgium, where staff in private for-profit settings report a greater use of practices to support numeracy development than staff in not-for-profit settings, and Ireland, where the same pattern holds for practices to support literacy development. When staff training, experience and beliefs, other structural quality conditions, and the composition of the group of children in the centre (as home-based settings cannot be included in the analysis) are accounted for, differences in practices by type of centre management disappear in the two systems (Tables C.3.21 and C.3.27). These findings indicate a lack of systematic differences in staff practices between public and private, for-profit and not-for-profit centre‑based settings, but possible differences are due to differences in structural conditions or the characteristics of the children enrolled, which is in line with evidence from other research (OECD, 2019[6]; Cadima et al., 2020[2]).
In a few systems, however, setting management and profit status are associated with differential staff practices with children once staff and setting characteristics are accounted for, pointing to the potential role of other organisational or pedagogical factors in shaping staff interactions with children. This is particularly the case in Germany, where practices related to child-centred planning and literacy development are more frequent among staff in private not-for-profit and public (only for literacy development) centres (Tables C.3.25 and C.3.33). Staff in private not-for-profit centres in Germany also rely more on emotional development practices than staff in private for-profit centres (Table C.3.21). In Israel, staff in public centre-based settings make greater use of numeracy development practices (Table C.3.27).
Children in home-based settings tend to experience different staff practices than those in centre-based settings in some systems
In systems with home-based provision, staff in centre-based and home-based settings tend to differ in some of the practices they use in their work with children (Table C.3.42). When staff and setting characteristics are not accounted for, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in home-based settings report a greater use of practices that facilitate pro-social development, literacy, numeracy and child-centred planning. Staff in home-based settings in New Brunswick (Canada) also rely more extensively on practices to support children’s literacy, numeracy, pro-social and emotional development relative to staff in centre-based settings. Staff use of practices in these systems aligns with their professional beliefs about developmental priorities for young children: staff in home-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada) place a stronger emphasis on the role of a range of social and emotional skills for children’s development than staff in centre-based settings (see Table 3.1). In contrast, staff in Israel employ literacy, numeracy, and social and emotional development practices in similar ways irrespective of the type of setting in which they work.
When staff beliefs, education and experience, and a range of other structural quality conditions 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 (Tables C.3.26 and C.3.28). The prevalence of differences in staff practices between home-based and centre-based settings even after accounting for a range of staff and setting characteristics point to factors that are structurally related to these types of settings, such as differences in the physical environment and in the type of work, either in teams or in isolation.
In some systems, groups with more children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes receive less consistent support across certain areas of development
In some systems, staff who work in settings with a higher share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes make greater use of practices to support some areas of children’s development. This is the case for emotional development in Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway and for numeracy development also in Israel (Table C.3.43). However, results suggest that staff who work with target groups with a higher share of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes do not make greater use of practices to support children’s development, except for Germany for emotional and numeracy development and Israel for emotional development and child-centred planning. In contrast, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff report a lower use of practices in several areas of children’s development when they have a higher share of vulnerable children in the target group (Table C.3.44). This suggests that vulnerable children might receive more intensive support when they are in settings with a higher percentage of vulnerable children, but that they are more likely to be in groups that benefit from fewer practices to facilitate children’s development. These findings should, however, be interpreted with caution as there is little evidence that settings with a higher share of vulnerable children receive more resources (see Chapter 4).
In the same vein, when staff beliefs, education and experience, and a range of other structural quality conditions are accounted for, in most systems, staff who work with more vulnerable children do not appear to make a differential use of practices to support children’s development or to adapt to young children’s needs. In almost all systems, the use of practices related to child-centred planning (Table C.3.34) or that support children’s literacy (Table C.3.26) and pro-social development (Table C.3.24) is unrelated to the percentage of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group.
In addition, in some systems, staff report less frequent use of some practices when interacting with more vulnerable children, even after accounting for staff and setting characteristics. In Quebec (Canada), staff working with higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes report less frequent use of emotional development (Tables C.3.21 and C.3.22) and numeracy practices (Tables C.3.27 and C.3.28). In Ireland and Israel, staff in centre-based settings are less inclined to respond positively to non‑verbal invitations to play (Table C.3.31), while in Israel, staff are less inclined to adapt daily activities to children’s natural rhythms (Tables C.3.46 and C.3.47) or engage in some literacy practices (e.g. reading books or encouraging pre-verbal children to point to pictures when looking at a book) (Tables C.3.29 and C.3.35) when they work with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In contrast, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff working with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are more inclined to adapt daily activities to children’s natural rhythms (Tables C.3.46 and C.3.47).
Staff use practices with similar frequency across groups with varying special education needs
While staff in some systems tend to hold different professional beliefs about developmental priorities for children (see above) when they work with more children with special education needs, staff also tend to report similar practices irrespective of the percentage of children with special education needs in their settings (Table C.3.45). The only exception is Quebec (Canada), where staff in settings with higher shares of children with special education needs report lower use of practices to support numeracy development.
When staff beliefs, education and experience, and a range of other structural quality conditions are accounted for, in most systems, staff working with higher shares of children with special education needs in the target group report similar uses of a range of practices as staff working with fewer such children. Only in Israel do staff report greater use of emotional development (Tables C.3.21 and C.3.22) and literacy practices (Table C.3.26) and are more likely to adapt daily activities to children’s natural rhythms (Tables C.3.46 and C.3.47) when they work with 10% or more children with special education needs. Yet staff in centre-based settings in Israel also report less use of numeracy development practices (Table C.3.27), suggesting that staff may prioritise some developmental areas when working with more children with special education needs.
In contrast, in Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand**, the presence of more children with special education needs in the target group is associated with fewer reported practices to support children’s development. This is the case for practices to facilitate literacy development in centre-based settings in Quebec (Canada) (Table C.3.25) and in relation to child-centred planning in New Zealand** (Tables C.3.33 and C.3.34), which tend to be less frequent when staff interact with more children with special education needs.
These results show that no clear pattern emerges in the way staff engage in practices with children with special education needs. Whether staff adapt their practices to ensure similar levels of use as those working with fewer children with special education needs or staff apply broadly similar approaches irrespective of the level of vulnerability in the group, these findings point to the importance of training and support to enable staff to respond effectively to children’s diverse needs. Yet staff report relatively limited participation in professional development to support children with special education needs despite high self-reported needs in this area (see Chapter 4).
References
[18] Cadima, J. et al. (2023), “Process quality in toddler classrooms in four European countries”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 34/7, pp. 1565-1589, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2139548.
[2] 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.
[1] Dalli, C. et al. (2011), Quality Early Childhood Education for Under-two-year-olds: What Should It Look Like?, Ministry of Education New Zealand, https://thehub.sia.govt.nz/assets/documents/41442_QualityECE_Web-22032011_0.pdf.
[4] Eckhardt, A. and F. Egert (2020), “Predictors for the quality of family child care: A meta-analysis”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 116, p. 105205, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2020.105205.
[8] Eckhardt, A. and F. Egert (2020), “Process quality for children under three years in early child care and family child care in Germany”, Early Years, Vol. 40/3, pp. 287-305, https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1438373.
[5] Goodson, B. and J. Layzer (2010), “Defining and measuring quality in home-based care settings”, OPRE Research-to-Policy, Research-to-Practice Brief, OPRE 2011-10d, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, https://acf.gov/opre/report/defining-and-measuring-quality-home-based-care-settings (accessed on 19 January 2026).
[16] Lee, J. and H. Ginsburg (2007), “Preschool teachers’ beliefs about appropriate early literacy and mathematics education for low- and middle-socioeconomic status children”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 18/1, pp. 111-143, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701274758.
[7] Leseman, P. and P. Slot (2025), “Strong early childhood education and care systems for the future: A conceptual framework for thematic analyses”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 329, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d0a97f-en.
[9] Linberg, A. et al. (2019), “Quality of toddler childcare: Can it be assessed with questionnaires?”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 189/8, pp. 1369-1383, https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1380636.
[15] Nilsen, T. (2021), “Pedagogical intentions or practical considerations when facilitating children’s play? Teachers’ beliefs about the availability of play materials in the indoor ECEC environment”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 15/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-020-00078-y.
[3] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[13] 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.
[12] OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f49228be-en.
[6] OECD (2019), Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/301005d1-en.
[11] OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.
[14] Pianta, R. et al. (2005), “Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions?”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 9/3, pp. 144-159, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2.
[17] Stipek, D. and P. Byler (1997), “Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach?”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 12/3, pp. 305-325, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90005-3.
[10] Van Lombergen, L., M. Vandenbroeck and J. Devlieghere (2025), “Scoping review on same-age and mixed-age groups in early childhood education and care”, Early Years, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2025.2553882.