Drawing on data from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong), this chapter examines staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning as a key lever to enhance staff skills and knowledge while also reducing disparities in staff practice. It also considers monitoring practices that can help identify where to focus additional support and better target improvement measures. Beyond policies targeting quality improvements in the workforce and in settings, the chapter also examines transition support mechanisms that can help ensure smooth and continuous early childhood education and care experiences for children within a fragmented system.
Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three
Further Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Abstract
While traditional forms of professional development remain common, most staff in settings for children under age 3 also participate in job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities aligned with their day-to-day work with children. This participation more frequently takes the form of professional learning networks, particularly for home-based staff who have fewer opportunities to interact with peers on a daily basis. Coaching programmes are less prevalent overall, with the notable exception of Israel, particularly in home-based settings. In Ireland and Israel, staff working with more vulnerable children engage more in coaching, suggesting some targeting of these programmes.
Participation in coaching programmes is linked with greater use of practices related to child-centred planning in the Flemish Community of Belgium, while coaching and planned visits within one’s own setting or across early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings are associated with more frequent literacy and numeracy practices in several systems. In Ireland and Israel, staff participation in professional learning networks is related to greater use of practices supporting literacy, numeracy or pro-social development, as well as greater adaptation of activities to children’s levels of development.
Barriers to participating in professional development most often reflect support constraints (e.g. lack of replacement staff, lack of time and high costs) and are more pronounced in some settings. Staff in settings with higher percentages of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland more frequently report barriers associated with technology or geography constraints, as well as with cost in Ireland, compared with staff working with fewer such children.
Support for professional development is not targeted to settings that may be more in need, although it appears to alleviate some barriers to participation. Most systems provide monetary and non-monetary support for staff to participate in professional development, but support does not appear to be targeted to settings with higher proportions of vulnerable children.
External monitoring tends to be more frequent in settings facing more pronounced resource constraints or lower quality practices. It tends to occur more frequently in specific types of settings, reflecting targeted efforts to support quality in the weakest or less regulated parts of the sector or to cover large shares of staff and children. In Israel and Norway, some monitoring practices are more frequent in settings with more vulnerable children. While internal quality monitoring practices tend to be well-established, they are less prominent in settings serving more vulnerable children in some systems.
Staff training pays only limited attention to children’s transitions to pre-primary and more vulnerable children may not benefit from the additional support needed to navigate transitions smoothly. In systems with split governance or no integrated settings, support for children’s transitions focuses more on the transition to primary education than on transitions within ECEC, suggesting children are at risk of experiencing a stressful transition at an early age. While settings serving higher shares of more vulnerable children in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada) provide more activities to support children’s transitions, no such differences are observed in other systems. In parallel, leaders of public settings and of settings serving more vulnerable children in some systems report greater professional development needs for collaborating with external actors.
Strong ECEC systems provide equal access to quality environments for children’s holistic development, learning and well-being, building on a qualified workforce and co-ordinated services that ensure continuity in children’s pathways (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). Yet the fragmentation of the sector in many countries means that not all children may participate in quality ECEC experiences, depending on the setting they attend or characteristics that may increase their vulnerability (see Chapters 3 and 4). Reducing variations in quality, particularly in the context of an expanding sector, is pivotal to building equitable ECEC systems that enable all children to thrive.
Chapter 2 showed that in some systems, children experiencing vulnerability are more likely to be concentrated in some parts of the system. Chapter 3 revealed that staff beliefs about developmental priorities for children and their practices with children (process quality) can vary across the different segments of the sector. Chapter 4 further demonstrated that material and human resources (structural quality), staff working conditions, and their intentions to leave the sector also differ across the system. Combined, these findings suggest that, dependant on their characteristics or the setting they are enrolled in, children do not have an equal likelihood of attending the same quality ECEC. At the same time, the fragmentation of the sector can help governments target efforts to parts of the sector where vulnerable children are more likely to be enrolled.
This chapter explores policies and mechanisms aimed at reducing quality variation across ECEC settings and promoting continuous quality improvement. Drawing on evidence from TALIS Starting Strong 2024, it examines staff participation in professional development, and particularly in job-embedded training and collaborative learning, as a key lever to enhance staff skills and knowledge while also reducing disparities in staff practice. It also considers monitoring practices that can help identify where support is needed to better target improvement measures. Beyond policies targeting quality improvements in the workforce and in settings, the chapter also examines transition support mechanisms that facilitate children’s transitions from home to ECEC, within ECEC and beyond, helping to ensure smooth and continuous ECEC experiences for children across the system. Specifically, the chapter addresses the following questions:
Does staff exposure to job-embedded training and collaborative learning differ across different types of ECEC provision and settings? How do barriers to and support for staff participation in professional development vary with setting characteristics?
What aspects of the quality of ECEC are monitored in ECEC settings, at what frequency and how does this vary with setting characteristics? How do monitoring practices interact with the distribution of leadership responsibilities and sector governance (split versus integrated)?
Do settings undertake activities to facilitate children’s transition to a new ECEC setting and how does this vary across settings? Are staff prepared to facilitate transitions in ECEC?
Quality professional development can ensure all staff continue to develop their skills throughout their career and adapt to the ever-changing needs of the children they interact with, irrespective of the contexts in which they work (OECD, 2020[2]). The effectiveness of professional development hinges on the quality of activities staff can access. Job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities have been shown to enhance staff practices with children and translate into positive outcomes for staff and children, particularly when coaching is involved. They also provide a cost-effective way to develop staff expertise in formal or informal learning contexts (Egert, Fukkink and Eckhardt, 2018[3]; Markussen-Brown et al., 2017[4]; OECD, 2020[2]; 2025[5]; Peleman et al., 2018[6]). However, engaging in professional development can entail direct and indirect costs for staff (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[7]). Hence, providing support for staff to participate in professional development can improve access and alleviate some of the barriers associated with participation. Job‑embedded training and collaborative learning can also enable more equal access to professional development while also supporting setting-wide professional learning and addressing local needs.
This section examines the extent to which staff in different settings engage in professional development, and particularly in job-embedded training and collaborative learning (including planned visits to one’s or other ECEC settings, professional learning networks, and coaching and induction programmes). It also explores the barriers to professional development staff in different parts of the sector experience and the types of support for professional development participation that can alleviate some of these barriers.
Most systems do not require nor regulate professional development activities, yet most staff report participating in such activities
Participation in professional development is not formally required in most participating systems (Table 5.1). Only Germany and the two Canadian provinces (for some ECEC settings only) formally require participation in professional development. Yet even in these systems, professional development requirements do not apply consistently to staff in all types of ECEC settings. For instance, requirements differ by setting type or region in Germany and both Canadian provinces, potentially translating into varying degrees of staff participation in professional development within the system. While requirements can support staff participation, they do not necessarily translate into quality professional development experiences.
Voluntary participation in professional development, whether in addition to requirements or not, can be a result of intrinsic staff motivation or extrinsic motivation gained through the provided support. In countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024, staff participation in professional development is high overall, with over 85% of staff participating in at least one professional development activity in the 12 months prior to the survey in most systems (OECD, 2025[8]).
Annual requirements in participating countries and subnational entities
Note: “Professional development” is defined as activities designed to develop an individual’s skills, knowledge and expertise as an ECEC staff or leader (or more generally as a professional).
Source: OECD (2025[8]), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, Annex A.
A majority of staff in most countries and subnational entities have participated in at least one type of job-embedded and collaborative learning activity
Staff in settings for children under age 3 most frequently take part in traditional professional development activities in the form of courses, seminars and workshops (Figure 5.1). High uptake in traditional professional development activities is, however, combined with participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities (Table C.5.1). At least 50% of staff working in settings for children under age 3 across most participating countries and subnational entities report having taken part in at least one job-embedded training and collaborative learning activity in the 12 months prior to the survey (Figure 5.1).
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who participated in the following types of professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey
* 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 of staff participation in at least one job‑embedded and collaborative learning activity in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.1.
Staff participation in job-embedded and collaborative learning activities tends to be similar at both ECEC levels in systems with integrated governance. Staff at both ECEC levels in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, where ECEC governance is split (see Chapter 2), are equally likely to participate in traditional professional development activities, whereas differences emerge for participation in job‑embedded and collaborative learning activities. For instance, staff in settings serving children under age 3 participate more in induction programmes in Israel, and in coaching programmes in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, compared with staff in pre-primary settings (Table C.5.1).
Formal or informal ECEC staff networks are the most common form of collaborative learning activities, and uptake is related to greater usage of practices to facilitate children’s development
Among job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities, staff in settings for children under age 3 in most countries and subnational entities most frequently participate in formal or informal ECEC staff networks. This pattern is observed in the Flemish Community of Belgium, both Canadian provinces, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand** and Norway, with more than 30% of staff participating in staff networks (Table 5.2). Staff networks can help foster a community among ECEC staff, which promotes individual and collective staff self-efficacy and improvements in children’s outcomes (OECD, 2025[5]; Vangrieken et al., 2017[9]). Participation in staff networks is associated with increased use of practices in facilitating numeracy and literacy development in Israel (Tables C.3.25, C.3.26, C.3.27, C.3.28) and with practices in facilitating pro-social development in Ireland (Table C.3.23). Staff who participate in networks are more likely to provide different activities to suit different children’s levels of development in Ireland and Israel (Tables C.5.2 and C.5.3). In Israel, staff who participated in networks are also more likely to read books to children and encourage pre-verbal children to point to pictures when looking at a book (Tables C.3.29, C.3.30, C.3.35 and C.3.36). These results are robust to the consideration of a range of staff, children and setting characteristics that could shape staff practices with children, such as staff’s highest level of education or experience, the concentration of children under age 3 in the group staff work with, setting management and profit status.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who participated in each type of professional development activity in the 12 months prior to the survey
* 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 reflects the within-system ranking of reported professional development participation in each activity type among the nine areas covered in the survey. In each system, activities staff most frequently participate in are shown in darker shades. Activities reported less frequently appear in lighter shades, with white indicating the least frequently reported activities. Intermediate shades represent mid-range frequencies. Grey cells indicate low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.1.
Staff use formats of collaborative professional development that best match the organisation of work with young children
Staff networks can be a reliable professional development opportunity for staff in smaller settings and in home-based settings who have fewer opportunities for interacting with peers on a daily basis. Staff in home‑based settings more commonly take part in professional networks than staff in centre-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) (Figure 5.2). This pattern also aligns with evidence that home-based settings can be organised in networks (see Box 2.1 in Chapter 2). Staff in home-based settings in Israel also take part in coaching programmes and induction programmes significantly more than staff in centre-based settings. In smaller settings in Germany and Israel, staff also participate more in professional networks and inductions than staff in larger settings (C.5.4).
Although staff are less engaged in planned visits to other ECEC settings, likely due to constraints that come with working with very young children, they do tend to take part in peer observations in the form of planned visits within their own setting, with around a third of staff participating in this kind of visit in several countries and subnational entities. Staff participation in planned visits, whether to other ECEC settings or within their own setting, is associated with increased use of staff practices in facilitating literacy development in New Brunswick (Canada) and in facilitating numeracy development in Germany, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) (Tables C.3.25, C.3.26, C.3.27 and C.3.28).
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who participated in formal and informal professional learning networks and coaching in the 12 months prior to the survey
* 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.
In Panel A, countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of participation in staff networks of staff from home-based settings. In Panel B, countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of participation in coaching of staff from home-based settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.1.
Coaching is associated with greater use of practices to support children’s development and is more common among staff working with more vulnerable children in some systems
Around 20-30% of staff in most countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 participate in coaching programmes, with the exception of Norway, where only 10% of staff do, and Israel, where over 60% of staff report taking part in this form of professional development (Table 5.2). Yet staff participation in coaching is associated with greater use of practices to facilitate children’s development in some systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff who participate in coaching make greater use of practices related to child-centred planning (Tables C.3.33 and C.3.34). Participation in coaching programmes is also related to greater use of numeracy practices in Quebec (Canada) and literacy practices in Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand** (Tables C.3.25, C.3.26, C.3.27 and C.3.28). These results align with others that have shown that coaching programmes can improve staff-child interactions and are especially effective when implemented over longer periods of time (OECD, 2025[5]; Fiene, 2002[10]; Peleman et al., 2018[6]).
Targeting coaching provision to settings with more vulnerable children can enhance staff practice within these settings, where professional development needs are high (see Chapter 4). Staff in settings with more vulnerable children in Ireland (children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and children with special education needs) participate more in at least one job-embedded training and collaborative learning activity in general, and more specifically, these staff in Ireland, as well as staff in settings with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in Israel, participate more in coaching programmes than staff in settings with lower percentages of these children (Tables C.5.5 and C.5.6 and Table 5.3). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in privately managed not-for-profit settings also report higher participation in coaching; staff in these settings are also more likely to work with higher shares of vulnerable children (see Chapter 2).
Differences in the percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who reported taking part in coaching programmes in the 12 months prior to the survey, 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.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.5.1, C.5.5, C.5.6 and C.5.7.
Barriers to participation in professional development most often reflect support constraints and are more pronounced in specific types of settings
Despite widespread staff engagement in professional development, staff still experience barriers to participation. Barriers associated with support constraints – lack of sufficient staff to fill in for absences, lack of time and high costs – tend to be more commonly reported than barriers associated with staff skills or qualifications (Table 5.4) (OECD, 2025[8]). In Israel, lack of access to digital resources or transportation difficulties to reach the location where the professional development is delivered are also reported by a comparatively high share of staff relative to other barriers.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the following are barriers to their participation in professional development
* 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 reflects the within-system ranking of reported professional development participation in each activity type among the eight categories of barriers to staff participation in professional development. In each system, darker shades represent activities staff most frequently participated in. Activities reported less frequently appear in lighter shades, with white indicating the least frequently reported activities. Intermediate shades represent mid-range frequencies. Grey cells indicate low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.8.
Differences in reported barriers to participation in professional development are linked with provision type in some systems (Table 5.5). Staff working in home-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium report insufficient staff to fill in for absences as a barrier to professional development participation more than staff in centre-based settings, in line with the lack of support staff in home-based settings (see Chapter 4). In New Brunswick (Canada), a lack of time to participate in professional development is more often a barrier for staff in home-based settings than those in centre-based settings. On the other hand, a lack of skills or experience is more often reported by staff in centre-based settings than in home-based settings in Israel and New Brunswick (Canada).
While staff in general report a need for targeted professional development to support vulnerable children (see Chapter 4), barriers to participation in professional development tend to be similar irrespective of the share of vulnerable children in the setting, with some exceptions. Staff in settings with higher percentages of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland more frequently report barriers associated with technology or geography constraints, as well as with cost in Ireland, compared to staff in settings with lower percentages of these children (Table 5.5). These findings suggest that challenges associated with working with more vulnerable children can further compound existing structural constraints to staff professional development participation. In contrast, staff in Germany and New Brunswick (Canada) working with higher percentages of children with special education needs are less likely to report time as a barrier than staff working with fewer of these children.
Reported barriers to participation in professional development also differ by management arrangements in some systems. Staff in privately managed not-for-profit settings report insufficient staff to fill in for absences in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, and a lack of ECEC setting leader support in Israel and New Zealand** as barriers to participation in professional development more than staff in privately managed for-profit settings (Table 5.5). Staff in private settings in New Brunswick (Canada) are more likely to report a lack of relevant professional development as a barrier to participation than those working in public settings (Table C.5.8).
Differences in the percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 reporting a range of barriers to participation in professional development, between different types of settings
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.5.8, C.5.9, C.5.10 and C.5.11.
Most systems provide different forms of support for staff participation in professional development, but support is not targeted to settings that may be more in need
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 provides information on the types of support staff benefited from for their professional development participation: 1) release from working with children during regular working hours; 2) monetary support such as supplements for time spent outside working hours, reimbursement or payments of professional development costs; and 3) non-monetary support such as resources/materials, book vouchers or software/apps.
Support, whether monetary, non‑monetary or in the form of release from working with children during regular hours, is associated with enhanced participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning (OECD, 2025[8]). Most systems provide different types of support to facilitate staff participation in professional development, with monetary support being the most common type in several systems. Staff in Germany, Ireland, New Zealand**, Norway and Quebec (Canada) more frequently receive monetary support, such as monetary supplements, reimbursements or increased salary, compared with other forms of support (Figure 5.3). This is especially pronounced in Germany, New Zealand** and Quebec (Canada), where over 75% of staff received monetary support. Non-monetary support such as receiving materials needed for activities, non-monetary rewards or non-monetary professional benefits, is more frequently reported than other types of support by staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada). In contrast, releases from working with children to support professional development participation tend to be less common. Only in Germany and New Zealand** do more than half of staff report receiving such support.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who received the following types of support to facilitate participation in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who reported receiving monetary support to participate in professional development.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.12.
Support for staff participation in professional development is unevenly distributed within systems and does not appear to prioritise settings where training needs may be more pronounced. In some systems, staff in settings that already display comparatively stronger workforce characteristics are more likely to benefit from support for professional development participation. In Norway, staff in privately managed settings more frequently receive non-monetary and monetary support and these settings also employ higher shares of qualified staff (Table C.5.12 and see Chapter 4). Similarly, staff in publicly managed settings in Germany benefit from releases from working with children more frequently than staff in privately managed settings. Yet staff in public settings in Germany already report higher levels of practical training to work with children and make greater use of international practices to support children’s development, even when participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning is accounted for (see Chapter 3). By contrast, support for staff participation in professional development is similar across settings with different compositions of children (Tables C.5.13, C.5.14 and C.5.15). Taken together, these patterns suggest that support for participation in professional development does not appear to specifically target settings with greater needs, such as those with higher proportions of vulnerable children and where professional development needs tend to be more marked (see Chapter 4).
Support can alleviate barriers to professional development participation in some contexts
Different forms of support available to staff may be linked with alleviating certain barriers to participation in professional development and investigating these links may allow systems to better align their policies to improve learning opportunities for staff.
Insufficient staff to fill in for absences due to professional development participation is the main barrier to staff participation in training (see Table 5.5). However, staff who received support in the form of release from working with children during regular working hours did not report barriers at significantly different rates compared with those who did not receive this type of support (Table C.5.16). This may reflect that while releases can support staff participation, they may not be sufficiently frequent or widespread to substantially reduce the perception of some barriers, particularly the lack of replacement staff. For instance, staff who were released from working with children may either report no barriers because the release was effective for them or may still identify it as a barrier because lack of replacement staff remains a major obstacle for most staff in absolute terms. However, staff receiving other types of support in some systems are less likely to report a lack of replacement staff as a barrier (Table 5.6). Staff who receive monetary support in New Brunswick (Canada) and those who benefit from non-monetary support in Norway and Quebec (Canada) less frequently report insufficient replacement staff as a barrier to their participation in professional development.
Monetary and non-monetary support also appear to be linked with fewer accessibility barriers in some systems. Staff who received non-monetary support in Germany and Norway are less inclined to report barriers related to digital resources and tools or transportation to and/or from the location where the professional development is delivered. A similar pattern is visible in Quebec (Canada), where fewer staff who benefited from monetary support report such barriers compared with staff who did not receive such support. While monetary support tends to be associated with fewer concerns about the cost of professional development in Germany, staff receiving monetary support are more likely to report a lack of technology or geography constraints as barriers. Coupled with evidence on non-monetary support, this suggests that in Germany, monetary support alone may be insufficient to address barriers related to geography or technology constraints experienced by staff. Staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium who received support to participate in professional development did not report any different barriers than those who did not receive support. Given that time and cost and insufficient staff are the most frequently reported barriers to participation in professional development in the Flemish Community of Belgium, this may suggest that certain support types may not be fully sufficient to alleviate barriers when provided individually and may be more effective if combined with other supports.
Differences in barriers reported by staff in settings for children under age 3 to participation in professional development between staff who received or did not receive monetary or non-monetary support
* 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.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.16.
Quality monitoring in ECEC fulfils several objectives, from meeting public accountability requirements to providing insights that can guide improvement measures across the sector and at local levels and help families make more informed choices (OECD, 2025[11]). Systematically tracking multiple areas of performance is a key feature of strong ECEC systems (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). Monitoring establishes a shared understanding of standards and expectations for all types of ECEC providers, making it a key part of quality assurance processes across the sector. In addition, by drawing on collected evidence, monitoring policies can underpin efforts to reduce variations in quality and promote equity in ECEC systems. Monitoring, therefore, plays a crucial role in assuring the quality of a fragmented sector. It can guide the design of targeted supports, including professional development opportunities that meet the varying needs of ECEC staff who operate in different contexts.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects evidence on the frequency and scope of external monitoring in ECEC settings, which are practices of evaluating ECEC settings by assessors/evaluators from outside the setting, leaders’ own observations of staff practices and provision of feedback to staff, or internal monitoring. This section examines the external and internal monitoring practices available in settings serving children under age 3 and whether these are shaped by the characteristics of the settings in which staff operate.
External monitoring is common in most systems but monitoring of process quality only covers a limited proportion of settings in some systems
External monitoring of structural quality features is common in several, but not all, participating systems (Table 5.7). In Ireland, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**, more than 80% of leaders report their settings receive external monitoring of facilities or other structural features at least once every two years. In contrast, only 30% of leaders in the Flemish Community of Belgium report that facilities are examined at least once every two years, and 21% report similar monitoring frequency for other structural features. While there is no established optimal frequency for external monitoring practices, a relatively high share of settings in some systems benefit from external monitoring of structural quality features only very rarely. Staffing-related challenges are often identified as a major barrier to quality provision and although physical shortages are less recurrent than staffing constraints, they tend to be concentrated in settings with more vulnerable children (see Chapter 4). Constraints related to ventilation and noise can also be a concern in some contexts. Where monitoring of structural quality features is absent or infrequent, settings may lack the appropriate support to address material deficiencies while authorities in charge of ECEC may have limited visibility over the scope and nature of staffing constraints.
The monitoring of financial records is overall less common across systems, except in New Zealand**. This is because most ECEC settings receive public funding, even if they are privately managed (see Chapter 2) and leaders are often responsible for allocating budgets within settings. In Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), leaders are also often responsible for establishing staff salaries. In some systems, including the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Quebec (Canada), more than 40% of leaders report never receiving external inspections or monitoring of financial records (Table Leader.34) (OECD, 2025[8]).
As leaders and staff have significant pedagogical responsibilities in most ECEC settings (see Chapter 2), external monitoring practices of process quality provide an external perspective that can support practices, drive improvement and facilitate access to appropriate supports (e.g. training). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Norway, external monitoring of staff practices by trained observers takes place in around one-third of settings at least once every two years. As participation in planned visits to observe practice or coaching remain relatively low across the workforce (Table 5.7), many staff miss out on the insights that an external perspective can offer to enhance their practice, particularly in the context of many small ECEC settings. Yet in Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), external monitoring of structural and process quality go hand in hand. Almost all leaders in these systems report external monitoring covering structural quality features of their settings and staff practices at least every two years.
Percentage of ECEC settings for children under age 3 whose leaders reported their ECEC setting receives the following types of external inspection or monitoring “once every two years”, “once every year” or “more than once every year”
* 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: “External inspection/monitoring of other structural features” can include the monitoring of features such as child-adult ratio, group size or staff qualification levels. “External inspection/monitoring of staff practices by trained observers” can include the monitoring of practices such as the quality of interactions with children or content of activities. “External inspection/monitoring of financial records” can include financial audits. The shading of the cells reflects the within-country ranking of monitoring areas. In each country, the most frequently reported areas for monitoring are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported areas for monitoring are indicated in white. Areas for monitoring for which intermediate percentages of staff reported having a high or moderate need are indicated by intermediate shades. Gray cells indicate low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.5.17.
External monitoring is more frequent in settings facing more pronounced resource constraints or lower quality practices in some systems
External monitoring tends to occur more frequently in specific types of settings, which can reflect targeted efforts to support quality in the weakest or less regulated parts of the sector or could potentially further amplify quality differentials if some low-quality parts of the sector are not covered (Table 5.8).
Differences in the percentage of leaders in settings for children under age 3 reporting external monitoring practices between different types of settings
* 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: “External inspection/monitoring of other structural features” can include the monitoring of features such as child-adult ratio, group size or staff qualification levels. “External inspection/monitoring of staff practices by trained observers” can include the monitoring of practices such as the quality of interactions with children or content of activities. “External inspection/monitoring of financial records” can include financial audits.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.5.17, C.5.18, C.5.19 and C.5.20.
In systems with home-based provision, monitoring practices that prioritise centre-based settings allow covering a larger share of the sector but may not enable quality enhancements in parts of the sector where improvements would be needed most. In Israel, monitoring of structural quality related to group size or child-staff ratios targets centre-based settings, which tend to have lower staff qualifications. However, monitoring of other structural and process quality aspects is comparable across settings, although home-based settings face more pronounced material shortages and staff in these settings use fewer practices to support children’s development (see Chapters 3 and 4). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, monitoring is limited overall and concentrated in centre-based settings, despite efforts to cover all types of settings (Box 5.1): 46% of such settings receive external inspections of facilities, compared to 18% of home-based settings. While this may reflect a strategy to reach more children, it also points to disparities between settings likely guiding monitoring efforts: centre-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium face greater resource constraints and staff in these settings report lower use of practices to support children’s development than in home-based settings (see Chapters 3 and 4). In contrast, in Quebec (Canada), monitoring of both structural and process quality is more frequent in home‑based settings (except for inspections of financial records), where staff also report less frequent use of practices to facilitate children’s development (see Chapter 3).
External monitoring practices vary between integrated and non-integrated settings in some systems (see Table 5.8). In Germany, integrated settings, which comprise the majority of settings in the sector (see Chapter 2), are more frequently monitored with respect to structural features and staff practices with children. These settings enrol more vulnerable children, and while staff qualifications tend to be higher, staff shortages, stress and training needs for supporting vulnerable children are also more pronounced (see Chapter 4).
The diversity of children in the setting does not appear to shape monitoring practices in most countries and subnational entities (Tables C.5.21 and C.5.22). Israel and Norway are exceptions for some monitoring practices that are more frequent in settings with more vulnerable children. In Israel, external monitoring of structural features related to child-adult ratios and group sizes are more frequent in settings with higher shares of children with special education needs. Financial audits are also more likely to concern settings serving more children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes in Israel than settings serving fewer such children. In Norway, settings with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes more frequently receive external inspections of facilities than other settings.
In most systems, there are no differences in external monitoring of most areas between public and private, private not-for-profit and private for-profit settings (see Table 5.8), despite differences in structural and process quality between these settings (see Chapters 3 and 4). The main difference concerns financial audits, which tend to be more recurrent in public settings than in private ones in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Quebec (Canada). Only in Norway are financial records of private settings more frequently monitored than those of public settings.
The Flemish Community of Belgium, a group of universities carried out a project entitled “Measuring and Monitoring the process or pedagogical Quality of Childcare for Babies and Toddlers (MeMoQ)” from 2013 to 2016. The project led to the development of a unified set of tools to support process quality monitoring in home-based and centre-based early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. At the system level, a single framework defines pedagogical quality in settings across several dimensions: children’s well-being and involvement, emotional and educational support, the environment and respect for diversity, and collaboration with parents. These dimensions informed process quality measurements in a representative sample of settings in 2016 and 2023, resulting in recommendations for practice and policy. At the service level, an external evaluation tool was developed to enable the Care Inspectorate to evaluate the dimensions of process quality defined in the pedagogical framework alongside structural quality. Results from the visits were aggregated and analysed. Inspections remain at the initiative of the inspectorate or at the request of the Growing Up government agency following a complaint. A self‑evaluation tool, aligned with the external evaluation tool, has also been developed to enable quality monitoring in individual settings, but its use is not compulsory.
In New Brunswick (Canada), early learning and childcare facilities/garderies éducatives fall under the New Brunswick Curriculum Framework for Early Learning and Child Care and the New Brunswick Francophone Curriculum Framework for Early Learning and Childcare (Curriculum éducatif Services de garde francophone du Nouveau-Brunswick). The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development holds responsibility for the licencing, monitoring and inspection of home-based and centre-based ECEC settings. Licensed facilities are inspected annually. Additional monitoring visits are required and determined based on the facility’s compliance history and assessed level of risk. Licensing and monitoring inspections are unannounced, with the monitoring inspection aiming to assess the setting’s compliance with the Early Childhood Services Act and regulations for licensed ECEC in New Brunswick (Canada). Annual inspection reports and the most recent monitoring inspection reports are meant to be posted in a visible place in the setting, to facilitate parents’ access to these sources. Operator manuals identify specific indicators of compliance with ECEC regulators, related to features of structural and process quality (e.g. programming and daily routine, supervision and child guidance, indoor and outdoor environment, safety and well-being of children) with the objective to help settings and licensing applicants comply with regulatory requirements. Inspections of ECEC facilities build on these indicators to confirm compliance.
Sources: OECD (2025[8]), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/20af08c0-en; Opgroeien (n.d.[12]), Kwaliteit en beleidsvoerend vermogen, https://www.opgroeien.be/aanbod/kinderopvang/voorzieningen/kwaliteit-en-beleidsvoerend-vermogen (accessed on 28 May 2026),
Eurydice (2023[13]), Quality assurance in early childhood and school education - Belgium - Flemish Community, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/belgium-flemish-community/quality-assurance-early-childhood-and-school-education (accessed on 28 May 2026). Government of New Brunswick (n.d.[14]), Early Learning and Childcare Services, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/services_renderer.2736.Early_Learning_and_Childcare_Services.html (accessed on 28 May 2026); Government of New Brunswick (2024[15]), Operator Manual Revision Chart: Early Learning and Childcare Homes, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/OperatorManualEarlyLearningChildcareHomes.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2026).
Internal quality monitoring is less common in settings serving more vulnerable children in some systems
Internal monitoring practices tend to be well-established in most ECEC systems. In Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**, 80% of leaders or more report observing staff practices and staff-child interactions in the settings at least once a week (Table C.5.23). Providing feedback to staff based on observations is, however, less common across most systems, suggesting that staff and leaders may sometime miss out on opportunities for improvement triggered by monitoring practices. In Israel, however, 78% of leaders provide such feedback at least once a week.
Internal quality monitoring occurs with similar frequency across different types of settings in most countries and subnational entities. Yet in a few systems, internal quality monitoring is less of a focus in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes report less internal quality monitoring (Table C.5.24). Private not-for-profit settings in Ireland as well as larger and integrated settings in Germany report more limited internal quality monitoring than for-profit, smaller and non-integrated settings, respectively (Tables C.5.23, C.5.25 and C.5.26). These settings also serve higher concentrations of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes (see Chapter 2).
ECEC programmes that adapt to children’s and families’ needs and co-ordinate with settings to which children transition or other stakeholders supporting vulnerable families can facilitate smoother transitions for children and enhance quality of practice (OECD, 2025[11]). Transitions from home to ECEC and within ECEC from settings serving children under age 3 to pre-primary are sensitive moments for children as they adapt to the requirements of new environments, which can be a source of stress (OECD, 2025[11]; Raittila, Vuorisalo and Rutanen, 2025[16]). Interactions between staff and children, but also between parents and children, and among children themselves within the setting, can mitigate the emotional intensity of transitions for children and foster emotional security (Gath et al., 2024[17]; White et al., 2025[18]) Children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds may be more vulnerable during such transitions given the cumulated disadvantages to which they may be exposed (e.g. family stress, poor environmental conditions, lower access to services). This highlights the need for continuous and co‑ordinated child and family support to facilitate children’s transitions and sustain the benefits of different services provided to families while contributing to the long-lasting effects of ECEC (OECD, 2025[11]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects evidence on the types of activities settings put in place to support children’s transitions. To the extent that the survey asks leaders about activities to facilitate transitions to a new ECEC setting or school, the data may capture leader reports of activities that may also pertain to transitions towards school rather than between ECEC levels, particularly in integrated settings. The survey also collects evidence on whether staff received training in their initial education or training programme or through professional development to support children’s transitions and on leaders’ professional development participation and needs in areas related to collaboration with parents, other settings or community services. This section explores staff and leaders’ preparedness to support children’s transitions and whether staff and leaders operating in different types of settings are consistently prepared to facilitate such transitions.
In split systems, support for children’s transitions focuses more on the transition to primary education than on transitions within ECEC
In most systems, communicating with ECEC settings or primary schools about children, organising visits to the next ECEC setting or primary school, and providing activities for parents to understand the transition are the most common activities settings put in place to facilitate children’s transitions (Table C.5.27). In contrast, in-service training for ECEC staff regarding transitions and working with local authorities to develop transition programmes are less common. In Germany, Ireland and Israel, however, at least half of ECEC settings report providing in-service training sessions for staff on transitions while Norway stands out for having more than 90% of settings work with local authorities to develop transition programmes.
In systems with integrated settings, settings serving children under age 3 and pre-primary settings provide activities to support children’s transitions at similar frequencies. In most of these systems, integrated and non-integrated settings working with children under age 3 engage in similar practices to support transitions. Taken together, this evidence suggests that support is designed to facilitate children’s transitions within ECEC (when it exists) and from ECEC to primary education. In Germany, non-integrated and integrated settings differ in their transition practices, potentially reflecting the additional practices offered by integrated settings to support children’s transitions to school. Indeed, integrated settings in Germany more often hold meetings with staff across ECEC settings and work with local authorities to develop transition programmes (Table C.5.28). In Norway, where all settings are integrated, setting leaders report undertaking a comprehensive set of activities to support children’s activities. Yet some of these may capture support for transitions to primary settings, as in Norway children under age 3 tend to be grouped together, hence transitions within ECEC are more likely to occur within the setting.
In split systems, support for children’s transitions is more limited and focuses less on children’s transitions within ECEC than on transitions from ECEC to primary education. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, fewer than one in four settings report any activity to support children’s transitions, and in both the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, settings serving children under age 3 provide less support than pre-primary settings to facilitate children’s transitions.
Settings serving higher shares of more vulnerable children provide more activities to support children’s transitions in some systems
Settings serving more vulnerable children provide more activities to support children’s transitions in some systems. Communicating with ECEC settings or primary schools and organising visits to these institutions are more frequent in settings with higher proportions of more vulnerable children in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada) (Table 5.9). Leaders in Ireland are also more likely to report working with local authorities to develop transition programmes when they operate in settings with a higher concentration of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In contrast, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, in-service training sessions for staff on transitions tend to be more common in settings serving fewer children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
Activities to facilitate children’s transitions are more frequent in larger settings in some systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany, larger settings are more likely to communicate with other settings or schools, organise visits to these institutions, hold meetings with staff in other settings or schools (in Germany), and provide activities for parents to understand transitions (in Germany). Larger settings may be better resourced to organise these activities whereas smaller settings, with fewer staff to mobilise, may find planning and implementing activities to support children’s transitions more challenging. In Germany, these disparities may reflect the fact that larger settings are more likely to be integrated, and hence, unfold additional practices to facilitate children’s transitions to primary (see above).
Differences in the percentage of leaders in settings for children under age 3 reporting the following activities to facilitate children’s transitions between different types of settings
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.5.27, C.5.29, C.5.30 and C.5.31.
Initial education and training and professional development programmes place less emphasis on preparing staff to support children’s transitions
Planning and organising activities to facilitate children’s transitions can be shaped by staff preparedness for such practices and recognition of their role for children’s development. Supporting children’s transitions to other ECEC settings or to primary schools is less commonly covered than other areas of training as part of staff’s initial education or training programme that prepared them to work with children (Table Staff.14 in OECD (2025[8])). In most countries and subnational entities, around two-thirds of staff report receiving training in this area as part of their initial education.
Staff in some contexts are also less likely to have benefited from training in this area during their initial preparation. Staff working in private settings in New Brunswick (Canada), in centre-based settings in Israel, and in large settings in Ireland and Israel are less likely to report that supporting children’s transitions was included in their initial education and training programmes (Tables C.5.32, C.5.33 and C.5.34). This is also the case for staff working with a majority of children under age 3 in the target group in Quebec (Canada) (Table C.5.35 In contrast, staff working with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in New Brunswick (Canada) have more frequently covered support for children’s transitions in their initial education or training (Table C.5.36).
Professional development activities can enable staff to acquire new knowledge and skills, yet few staff report having had training to support children’s transitions as part of their most recent training activities (Table Staff.16 in OECD (2025[8])). Only in Ireland and Israel do more than 50% of staff report that supporting children’s transitions to other settings or to primary schools was included in their professional development activities in the year prior to the survey. Staff working in different contexts tend to have covered this topic in a similar way, with a few exceptions. Fewer staff in private not-for-profit settings in Ireland, in centre-based settings in Israel and staff working with a majority of children under age 3 in the target group in Quebec (Canada) report recent training in supporting children’s transitions (Tables C.5.37, C.5.38, C.5.39 and C.5.40).
Limited participation in professional development may reflect a lack of perceived need in this area, particularly relative to other areas of professional development. Fewer than half of staff in settings for children under age 3 in participating systems report a moderate or high level of need for training in supporting children’s transitions (Table Staff.19 in OECD (2025[8])) and staff working in various contexts generally experience similar levels of need in this domain (Tables C.5.41, C.5.42, C.5.43, C.5.44 and C.5.45). In Germany, however, staff in non-integrated settings more frequently report training needs to support children’s transitions than staff in integrated settings where such practices also tend to be more common.
Leaders of public settings and of settings serving more vulnerable children report greater professional development needs for collaborating with external actors in some systems
Leaders can drive the planning of activities to support transitions in their settings as these hinge on strong collaboration between ECEC settings, families and potentially other services that support children and families. In most systems, around half of leaders or more had participated in training covering collaboration with parents, other ECEC settings or primary schools, and with community services in the year prior to the survey (Table Leader.10 in OECD (2025[8])). While collaborating with parents features often among leaders’ professional development topics, collaborating with other settings and with community services were relatively less frequently covered in leaders’ recent training in some systems. This is particularly the case in the Flemish Community of Belgium, where a large majority of leaders were trained in collaborating with parents in the year preceding the survey but fewer than 40% of them report recent training in collaborating with other settings or with community services.
In most systems, the topics covered in leaders’ professional development activities focused on collaboration with external actors are consistent across different types of settings (Tables C.5.46, C.5.47, C.5.48, C.5.49 and C.5.50). Variations in training patterns between leaders of different settings are observed only in the two Canadian provinces: in New Brunswick, leaders in privately managed settings more often report recent training in collaborating with parents than those in publicly managed settings; in Quebec, leaders in settings serving more children with special education needs report more recent training in collaboration with other services.
In contrast, leaders’ professional development needs for collaboration with external actors tend to be more pronounced in specific contexts, and particularly in settings serving more vulnerable populations. Although this topic is not widely considered a top area for professional training needs relative to other areas (Table Leader.11 in OECD (2025[8])), more leaders in publicly managed settings in Germany, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) report collaboration with parents as a professional development need than those working in privately managed settings (Table C.5.51). In Germany, leaders in public and integrated settings are also more likely to report collaboration with other ECEC settings as a professional development need (Table C.5.52). In some systems, leaders of settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children also report stronger professional development needs for collaboration with external actors. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, leaders of settings with more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes have greater needs for professional development in collaborating with parents while those working in similar settings in Israel report greater needs in collaborating with community services (Table C.5.53).
References
[7] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.
[3] Egert, F., R. Fukkink and A. Eckhardt (2018), “Impact of in-service professional development programs for early childhood teachers on quality ratings and child outcomes: A meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88/3, pp. 401-433, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751918.
[13] Eurydice (2023), Quality assurance in early childhood and school education - Belgium - Flemish Community, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/belgium-flemish-community/quality-assurance-early-childhood-and-school-education (accessed on 28 May 2026).
[10] Fiene, R. (2002), “Improving child care quality through an infant caregiver mentoring project”, Child and Youth Care Forum, Vol. 31/2, pp. 79-87, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015318501688.
[17] Gath, M. et al. (2024), “Infants’ emotional and social experiences during and after the transition to early childhood education and care”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 22/1, pp. 88-105, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X231195706.
[15] Government of New Brunswick (2024), Operator Manual Revision Chart: Early Learning and Childcare Homes, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/OperatorManualEarlyLearningChildcareHomes.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2026).
[14] Government of New Brunswick (n.d.), Early Learning and Childcare Services, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/services_renderer.2736.Early_Learning_and_Childcare_Services.html (accessed on 28 May 2026).
[1] 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.
[4] Markussen-Brown, J. et al. (2017), “The effects of language- and literacy-focused professional development on early educators and children: A best-evidence meta-analysis”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 97-115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.07.002.
[11] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[8] 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.
[5] OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f49228be-en.
[2] OECD (2020), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.
[12] Opgroeien (n.d.), Kwaliteit en beleidsvoerend vermogen, https://www.opgroeien.be/aanbod/kinderopvang/voorzieningen/kwaliteit-en-beleidsvoerend-vermogen (accessed on 28 May 2026).
[6] Peleman, B. et al. (2018), “Continuous professional development and ECEC quality: Findings from a European systematic literature review”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 53/1, pp. 9-22, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12257.
[16] Raittila, R., M. Vuorisalo and N. Rutanen (2025), “Constructing the space of transition within the early childhood education and care pedagogical environment: A child’s resources and positions”, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol. 26/3, pp. 412-425, https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241246120.
[9] Vangrieken, K. et al. (2017), “Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 61, pp. 47-59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001.
[18] White, E. et al. (2025), “Ameliorating infant distress during early transitions to early childhood education and care (ECEC): Teacher practices over time and place”, International Journal of Early Childhood, pp. 1-28, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-025-00453-1.