Croatia is taking important steps to expand access to quality early childhood education and care (ECEC). The government has made universal participation in full-day pre-school for six-year-olds a national goal by 2027 and is increasing its financial support to help expand ECEC services across the country. However, while enrolment rates for children aged 3–5 are rising, persistent gaps remain—especially for children from poorer families, minority groups, and rural or economically disadvantaged areas. This chapter explores how Croatia can learn from OECD experience to create a more inclusive system. It looks at strategies to improve staff recruitment and training, reduce cost and distance barriers, and better monitor the quality of provision. It also highlights the need for clearer national planning, stronger central steering and support to sub-national levels, and better use of data to steer ECEC expansion.
Education and Skills in Croatia
Abstract
Croatia recognises the importance of a child’s first years of life for their development and well-being. For this reason, expanding the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector has become a national priority. The government’s primary goal is to ensure that all six-year-old children take part in a full-day pre-school programme by 2027. Croatia also plans to progressively expand participation in ECEC so that all young children – regardless of their background or where they live - have access to early learning and development services. The central government is supporting this expansion by increasing its financial contribution to ECEC. This represents a significant policy shift since Croatia’s highly decentralised ECEC sector has mainly relied on the revenue of sub-national government authorities, many of which struggle to meet the demand of families.
The policy focus on expanding ECEC participation is important. While enrolments for children aged 3-5 are rising and younger children already participate at levels that are on par with OECD countries, disparities persist across the country. Children from poor families, minority groups, and economically lagging and more remote parts of Croatia are less likely to participate in ECEC programmes, often because they cannot afford a place or live too far from an ECEC setting. The sector also faces severe staff shortages, leaving many ECEC settings to operate with large group sizes, which risks weakening the quality of relationships between children and educators. Moreover, both sub-national and central government actors have limited staff capacity, preventing regular monitoring of ECEC settings. As a result, practitioners receive little feedback to help them improve their practices, and decisionmakers have little information on the quality of ECEC provision to better target resources and policies. This chapter looks at how Croatia can draw on OECD experience to drive expansion in a way that promotes equal access to quality ECEC services.
Section I: Provides an overview of Croatia’s ECEC sector, focusing on how policies compare internationally;
Section II: Compares the sector’s performance with OECD benchmarks on international indicators;
Section III: Provides recommendations on how Croatia can learn from OECD evidence and experience to further improve ECEC.
Governance and structure
The Ministry of Science, Education and Youth sets ECEC policy at the national level
Croatia has an integrated ECEC system, meaning that both early childhood educational development (International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 01, for children aged 0-3) and pre-primary education (ISCED 02, for children aged 3-6) are managed jointly under the authority of the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (henceforth, the MSEY or Ministry). Around half of OECD countries have an integrated system, where responsibility for administering all ECEC services lies with one lead authority at the national and/or regional level, usually the education ministry (OECD, 2019[1]). Such an approach can facilitate collaboration and coherence between education levels and thereby help children transition more smoothly through the early years of education, and into school education (OECD, 2017[2]).
Like lead authorities in other integrated systems, the Croatian MSEY has a wide range of responsibilities, covering curriculum development, standard setting, monitoring, training staff and financing. The Ministry works with specialised government agencies to fulfil these responsibilities, which are independent in their actions but operate under the MSEY’s authority (Figure 3.2). However, these bodies have limited staff capacity. Moreover, limited co-ordination across central government bodies and with sub-national governments creates inefficiencies in oversight of the sector (see below).
Note: This figure presents a selection of bodies involved in ECEC governance relevant to the chapter's topics, rather than a comprehensive representation of all stakeholders.
Source: Adapted from Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2023[3]), Accession candidate country's self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills.
Delivery and funding of ECEC is highly decentralised
In Croatia, counties, municipalities, and towns (hereafter referred to as “regional and/or local” or “sub-national” government authorities) are responsible for establishing ECEC settings, determining the number of places, monitoring programmes, as well as hiring and firing staff. Sub-national governments also have considerable autonomy to undertake these tasks. For example, they determine participation fees, and the level and criteria of subsidies offered to families. Until recently, the salaries of staff working in public ECEC centres were also set at the sub-national level. However, the 2023 civil service salary reform moved this responsibility to the central Ministry, which aligned the salaries of ECEC educators with those of school teachers in the public sector. Private ECEC centres continue to set the salaries of their own staff, which are often lower than those of the public sector. This reduces the overall cost of private provision and has motivated many sub-national governments to rely on private providers to help expand ECEC access.
The decentralisation of Croatia’s ECEC sector started in the 1990s, as part of broader reforms to make public services more responsive to meet local needs. However, this governance arrangement created challenges that continue to impact the sector today. For example, there are disparities in provision across Croatia’s sub-national authorities, which differ in terms of their territory’s population size and density, as well as the revenue, administrative capacity, and awareness of the importance of ECEC (see Chapter 2). These disparities affect the extent to which sub-national governments are able and willing to invest in expanding and improving the quality of ECEC provision (UNICEF, 2021[4]).
Children usually attend a single setting across ECEC cycles
Croatia has a range of different ECEC providers (e.g. public, private, religious, etc.). Most centres bring children together under one ECEC setting that serves children from the earliest years through to pre-school age (see Table 3.1). However, settings located in small towns and remote areas sometimes operate in clusters. For example, a nursery and kindergarten may be in separate buildings but share a single centre leader and/or administrative team to help reduce expenses.
Source: Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2023[3]), Accession candidate country's self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills.
ECEC is only compulsory in the last year before primary education
Only the last year before primary education – known in Croatia as the “pre-school programme” - is compulsory, with access guaranteed publicly and free of charge. However, with only 250 hours/year required, it currently falls short of qualifying fully as a ISCED 02 pre-school programme, which is defined by a minimum of 750 hours/year. Children under 6 years-old do not have the right to an ECEC spot in Croatia and some children may only benefit from formal ECEC when they reach age six and can participate in the pre-school programme. Across the OECD, there are significant differences in the age at which countries guarantee children a place in an ECEC institution (Figure 3.3). This ranges from shortly after birth to age six, but most OECD countries offer publicly subsidised ECEC from when children are around three years-old (OECD, 2018[5]; OECD, 2024[6]). While Croatia’s National Development Strategy 2030 references establishing the legal right to ECEC for all children as a medium-term national goal, the government has not yet taken steps to develop or pass legislation in this direction (World Bank, 2019[7]).
Years of gap between well-paid childcare leave and earliest start of a universal place guarantee in ECEC across European countries, 2022/23
Note: Countries are sorted in ascending order of gap between childcare leave and place guarantee in ECEC. The ECEC gap is the difference between the maximum length of well-paid leave and the earliest start of a universal place guarantee in ECEC (legal entitlement or compulsory ECEC). When there is no guaranteed place in ECEC, the gap is calculated until the start of compulsory primary education. Well-paid leave includes post-natal maternity, paternity and parental leaves. ‘Well-paid’ means earnings-related payment at 66% of earnings or above. For more information on how data was gathered, refer to the source.
Source: Adapted from Eurydice (2023[8]), Access to early childhood education and care in Europe 2022/2023, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/91692e3e-9320-11ee-8aa6-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 7 June 2024).
Croatia has national criteria for prioritising enrolment in ECEC, but these are not implemented consistently across sub-national governments
Like most OECD countries, the MSEY sets national criteria for prioritising enrolment in ECEC for certain groups of children. In Croatia, this includes children of working and single parents, of disabled veterans from the Croatian Homeland War, as well as children from large families, with disabilities, in foster care and/or beneficiaries from social support. However, there is evidence that Croatian sub-national authorities do not always implement these national criteria. For example, while around 81% of regional and local governments give preference to enrolling children with two working parents, only around 50% of prioritise children from families that receive welfare benefits (UNICEF, 2021[4]; Dobrotić, 2018[9]). This review did not find evidence of any mechanisms by which the MSEY could ensure that sub-national governments align their ECEC enrolment policies with national criteria.
Families and childminders provide the main alternative to ECEC settings
Despite the lack of official data, anecdotal evidence suggests that when spots in Croatian nurseries and kindergartens are unavailable or unaffordable, parents typically rely on the child’s grandparents (Dobrotić, Matković and Zrinščak, 2013[10]), or home-based childcare providers. Home-based childcare, operated by one or multiple childminders (often referred to as “nannies”), is particularly prevalent in Croatia’s bigger towns and cities. Childminders are licensed professionals who must complete initial training and have at least a secondary education (ISCED 3) (Eurydice, 2024[11]). However, their responsibilities focus on care duties, and they are not expected to support and monitor children’s early learning. As a result, childminders are not considered part of Croatia’s formal ECEC sector and fall under the social welfare system, which is managed by the Ministry of Labour, Pensions, Family and Social Policy (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]).
Home-based childcare providers tend to offer lower participation fees and have become an alternative way for regional and local governments in Croatia to expand childcare provision. The number of families who use home-based care or childminders is supposedly increasing as a result. In addition, it was reported that childminders have become an important form of care for children with special needs. Allegedly, ECEC centres frequently do not have enough staff to offer individualised and hands-on care for children with special needs or meet staffing regulations. In such cases, the care of these children is often directed to childminders, who rarely have training in how to support children with specific difficulties and needs.
Play hubs that target vulnerable children are being piloted in some towns and municipalities
Many OECD countries have sought ways to offer stimulating activities and playgroups to children who are not enrolled in ECEC. In Croatia, the UNICEF country office, with financial support from the European Union, has been piloting play hubs in disadvantaged areas (e.g. where large Roma communities live) and where kindergartens are currently unavailable. The play hubs are set up by sub‑national governments and often located in schools or community centres. They offer different services to the community, including non-formal activities that encourage children to learn and develop through play (e.g. play sessions, story time, arts and crafts, toy libraries) and to socialise. Parents can take part in these activities, discuss challenges with experts, and receive advice on different topics. Opening hours vary, but the majority open twice a week (ISSA, 2019[12]; Romani Early years Network, n.d.[13]). Croatia’s play hubs are based on the principle of inclusion, and professionals who manage these activities are trained in inclusive education to help dismantle biases against Roma and children with special needs (UNICEF, 2023[14]; UNICEF, 2022[15]).
Funding of ECEC
Croatia’s expenditure in ECEC is similar to the OECD average as a proportion of GDP, but lower per child
Croatia spent the equivalent to 0.8% of Gross domestic product (GDP) on ECEC settings in 2021, on par with the OECD average (0.9%) (OECD, 2024[6]). However, expenditure per child remains below the OECD average (USD PPP 8 753 compared to 12 749) (see Figure 3.4). The central government has been increasing public expenditure on ECEC, a trend that is likely to continue in the years to come. Private expenditure on ECEC is also on the rise and is already higher in Croatia (0.2% of GDP) than on average across OECD countries (0.1%) (OECD, 2024[6]).
Note: In Panel A, the sum of public and private expenditure equals the total expenditure on ECEC in Croatia.
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
Until recently, almost all public funding for ECEC came from sub-national governments
A new equalisation mechanism, introduced in 2023, will increase the central government’s contribution to the ECEC sector. This is an important development given that regional and local governments have traditionally been the main source of funding for ECEC settings, covering virtually all their expenses (99%), including building maintenance and staff salaries. Under previous ECEC funding arrangements, Croatia’s central government was only responsible for the costs associated with the mandatory pre‑school programme, and specific ECEC programmes for children with special education needs, from Roma communities or those undertaking bilingual education (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]).
The historic reliance on sub-national governments to fund Croatia’s ECEC system created disparities. Wealthier regions and localities, with a larger revenue base, were able to (and often did) invest more in ECEC (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]; UNICEF, 2021[4]). For example, in 2020, the most developed sub-national authorities spent HRV 7 538 per inhabitant and invested 11.4% of their budget in ECEC, while the least developed municipalities and towns spent only HRK 3 355 per inhabitant and invested 2.6% of the budget in ECEC (UNICEF, 2020[16]). Consequently, the most advantaged sub‑national authorities could offer higher ECEC staff salaries, more places, and/or more generous subsidies to parents who enrol their children.
Croatia’s new equalisation mechanism should help address these disparities by transferring central funds to sub-national governments according to their level of development. The MSEY estimates that these earmarked transfers will cover between 5-60% of sub-national governments’ ECEC expenditure. Sub‑national authorities can use the funds to increase capacity, lower fees for parents, or raise salaries for ECEC staff but cannot use the funds to reduce their own ECEC expenditure. This means that total funding for ECEC is expected to increase.
Household costs of enrolling children in ECEC vary across the country, and are a significant barrier to participation
In Croatia, each sub-national government determines how much parents must pay to enrol their child in ECEC, as well as the criteria for and level of subsidies they receive. Most Croatian parents pay tuition fees to enrol their children in ECEC, as very few sub-national authorities choose to wave all fees. One exception is Croatia’s mandatory pre-school programme, which since 2013 has offered a free ECEC experience to all children in the year before entering primary school. While cost-sharing arrangements for ECEC are common across OECD countries, private expenditure in ECEC is higher in Croatia (27% of total expenditure after transfers) than the OECD average (15%) (OECD, 2024[17]).
Croatia also stands out for the limited use of funding policies to support ECEC participation for the most disadvantaged children. Only around 30% of young children in Croatia live in municipalities where household income is used to determine parental contributions to ECEC and around half (47%) live in municipalities where welfare recipients must pay full tuition costs (UNICEF, 2021[4]; 2020[16]). In contrast, most OECD-EU countries offer funding support to low-income families through differentiated fee structures, fee regulations and subsidies (OECD, 2023[18]). In the absence of such policies, cost has become a barrier to ECEC participation for some children in Croatia. A third of respondents in a 2016 survey stated that the reason for not enrolling their child(ren) in ECEC was primarily of a financial nature (UNICEF, 2021[4]; Stubbs et al., 2017[19]). The cost of ECEC is especially a barrier for low-income families (UNICEF, 2021[4]; 2020[16]; Šućur et al., 2015[20]).
ECEC workforce
The qualifications of Croatia’s ECEC workforce are on par with those of OECD countries, but the role of ECEC assistant does not exist
The main individuals working with children in ECEC centres are “educators”, who must have a bachelor’s degree. ECEC centres also have specialised staff (referred to as “expert associates”), who have master’s degrees in a specific field and support different aspects of ECEC provision or groups of children, like those with special needs (see Figure 3.5). This diversity of ECEC staff profiles is common among OECD countries and can help to enrich the experiences offered to children (OECD, 2022[21]). While high qualification requirements of ECEC educators can help raise the status of ECEC jobs, they can also make it difficult for settings to hire adequate numbers of qualified staff. To reduce this risk, many OECD countries combine positions akin to educators and expert associates – which emphasise education - with auxiliary roles (i.e. “assistants”) that primarily focus on caregiving (OECD, 2022[21]). Croatia differs in this respect, while the role of assistant for children with developmental disabilities was introduced in 2022, the general assistant role does not exist.
Source: Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2023[3]), Accession candidate country's self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills.
The lack of compulsory subjects or standards for initial training raises concerns that students may not acquire the competencies needed to become ECEC educators
Croatia’s prospective ECEC educators are expected to graduate from initial training programmes at the tertiary level having acquired the competencies to support, monitor and evaluate children’s development and well-being. In this respect, the bachelor’s degrees for ECEC educators in Croatia resemble initial training programmes in many OECD countries. However, it is common for OECD countries to have compulsory subjects or standards for ECEC teacher training (OECD, 2021[22]). This is not the case in Croatia, meaning that across tertiary institutions, initial training for ECEC educators may cover different topics, use different evaluation criteria and have different practicum requirements. While it is positive that all incoming ECEC educators in Croatia are required to complete a one-year internship in an ECEC setting and pass a licensing exam after earning their diploma, not all initial training programmes require students to implement what they are learning about in coursework though a practical experience during their studies. For example, practical training is only an elective course in the University of Rijeka and the University of Zagreb (Bouillet, 2018[23]). OECD research highlights the importance of providing high‑quality practical placements during initial training to provide future ECEC educators with hands-on experience working with young children (OECD, 2024[24]).
Staff select professional development training, but most activities are not geared to ECEC
ECEC staff in Croatia are required to undertake continuous professional development. Training is usually provided by Education and Teacher Training Agency (ETTA), tertiary institutions, and within ECEC settings. Staff in training are entitled to a paid leave, reimbursements of any expenses, and opportunities to advance in their career to the positions of mentor, advisor, and excellent advisor (Eurydice, 2024[11]). ECEC staff are free to select their own training from a wide offering of topics, as well as to determine how many hours they want to devote to their professional development. While these features provide opportunities for ECEC staff to build their knowledge and skills, Croatia has few mechanisms in place to help assess their professional development needs and inform the training offer. This creates a risk that ongoing training may not align with the competencies and practices needed to ensure ECEC quality.
Studies have also identified other concerns with the training offer for ECEC staff in Croatia: training usually takes place on a one-off basis; provides little opportunities for experiential learning and reflection; and its impact is not evaluated (Bouillet, 2018[23]; Matešić, Sviben and Gotlin, 2023[25]). It is also unclear how the ETTA selects or trains trainers (Matešić, Sviben and Gotlin, 2023[25]), and how training providers co-ordinate their work to ensure sufficient consistency in how professional development is provided.
Poor working conditions lower the attractiveness of ECEC careers and help explain staff shortages
Staff working in Croatian ECEC settings have on average, lower salaries relative to similarly educated individuals. This is particularly true of those working in poorer municipalities and private settings. Despite reforms to align the salaries of ECEC educators with those of school teachers in the public sector, it was reported that this does not always happen in practice, yet recent legislative changes have aimed to address remaining disparities. Many ECEC staff also report job insecurity, long hours, and high child-to‑staff ratios (UNICEF, 2021[4]; 2020[16]; Matković et al., n.d.[26]). There is some evidence that staff’s working conditions have become more precarious over time, with a growing number of staff in temporary contracts (UNICEF, 2021[4]; 2020[16]; Matković et al., n.d.[26]). Poor working conditions are considered an underlying reason behind Croatia’s staff shortages, and an important obstacle to expanding the ECEC sector.
To help address staff shortages, the MSEY is trying to re-direct the current surplus of primary school teachers (see Chapter 4) to re-train as ECEC educators. According to legislation, school teachers who opt to work in ECEC settings are expected to take a re-qualification programme within two years from the start date of their employment at a higher education institution with an accredited early childhood education study programme (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2022[27]). At the time of the OECD review visit, tertiary institutions were not yet offering these re-training programmes. However, in the 2024-25 academic year, two out of seven eligible higher education institutions offered this type of re-training, with more expected to start. The MSEY plans to expand Croatia’s new voucher scheme, which subsidises adult learning, to cover more areas and could potentially help primary school teachers cover the cost of the ECEC re-training programme (see Chapter 6).
Centre leaders receive limited initial training and ongoing support
Leaders of public ECEC centres in Croatia are appointed by the founder (often the sub-national governments) based upon a proposal made by the governing council, which consists mainly of public employees, as well as parent and educator representatives (Eurydice, 2024[11]). Centre leaders are appointed for renewable five-year mandates. Like school leaders, leaders of ECEC centres do not receive any formal initial training in educational management. Once on the job, centre leaders can participate in training offered by ETTA; however, they receive little feedback and on-site support. For example, while ECEC centres are required to submit annual plans to the MSEY, it was reported that they do not receive any response or feedback on these plans. The absence of initial training and limited ongoing support for centre leaders creates a risk that some ECEC centres will lack the skills to ensure quality ECEC for children and set conducive working environments for staff.
Monitoring and quality assurance practices
Croatia measures dimensions of quality that are specific to ECEC services, but the agencies involved in oversight are not well co-ordinated and have limited staff capacity
All ECEC centres in Croatia, whether public or private, are subject to the same legal provisions and standards. The quality assurance measures in place to ensure settings meet national standards cover dimensions of quality that are specific to ECEC services and are similar to those evaluated in an increasing number of OECD countries. Specifically, the Croatian Inspectorate monitors structural quality, or settings’ compliance with regulations (e.g. child-to-staff ratios, group sizes, minimum staff qualifications), and the ETTA assesses process quality, or the quality of children’s interactions with ECEC staff. The Ministry of Health and sub-national governments may also monitor ECEC settings.
OECD research suggests that ensuring clearly defined and complementary roles for the agencies involved in ECEC quality assurance is important for consistency and to avoid placing an excessive burden on providers (OECD, 2022[28]). This does not seem to be the case in Croatia, as sub-national governments determine the focus and process of their own ECEC evaluations, which may at times overlap with the pre-determined procedures and standards used by the ETTA and Inspectorate.
There are also capacity issues within the agencies involved in the sector’s oversight. For example, the Inspectorate has less than 30 inspectors to monitor all public and private ECEC settings and schools across Croatia. Moreover, sub-national governments often lack a dedicated staff member who has ECEC expertise and/or whose role is concentrated on the sector’s quality. As a result, external evaluations of ECEC settings typically occur only when a complaint has been filed against a setting or a staff member, or when a staff member is being assessed for a promotion. In the absence of other information about process quality, such as synthesised findings from centre’s self-evaluations or commissioned pieces of research, Croatia’s view of ECEC quality is uncomprehensive.
Some leaders of ECEC centres in Croatia conduct self-evaluation, but it is not required
Between 2011 and 2015, Croatia’s National Centre for External Evaluation of Education (NCEEE) piloted self-evaluation in over 140 ECEC settings across the country. The NCEEE gave ECEC centres guidance on how to conduct self-evaluation and assess different elements of quality, including organisational leadership, working conditions, curriculum and pedagogical practices, and collaboration with parents (NCEEE, 2013[29]). Many stakeholders involved in the pilot acknowledged the importance of self‑reflection for improving practices (Majcen and Pribela-Hodap, 2017[30]). However, they also found self‑evaluation to be a challenging process and reported a “clear need for additional education and training” in this area (Majcen and Pribela-Hodap, 2017[30]). While many ECEC centres continue to conduct self‑evaluation, there is no requirement or external incentive for them to do so (Eurydice, 2024[11]). As a result, manging self-evaluation and developing improvement plans depends on the capacity and willingness of centre leaders, who may not be well-prepared for these tasks.
Croatia collects information on ECEC settings but the scope of data available and its use for policymaking remain limited
Croatia collects administrative data on ECEC centres through an e-register of pre-school institutions run by the Ministry. This information is mainly quantitative, such as the number of facilities by locality, number and qualifications of staff, and number of children by grade, age, and sex (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]). Information on the more qualitative aspects of ECEC provision, such as the types of educational and developmental activities offered, are not currently collected at the sub‑national or national levels. A recent government proposal may soon require ECEC settings to upload records of children’s development - which are documented for their internal purposes - to the e-register. This would provide government authorities with access to more qualitative information, potentially allowing for insights on the learning and development of young children.
At present, Croatia also lacks a “child-sensitive data collection and monitoring system” that provides information on children's individual backgrounds and needs (UNICEF, 2021[4]). Croatia aggregates its data on children and allows for overall trends rather than detailed information, such as whether a child’s family is a welfare beneficiary, at risk of poverty, or from a migrant background. National data on the share of children cared for by childminders is not available, which hinders the MSEY’s ability to determine the extent to which the most vulnerable children are participating in ECEC.
Croatia disseminates some data it collects on the ECEC system in a database, which the Ministry recently built to monitor progress towards national and international participation targets. This data has helped inform how Croatia allocates National Resilience and Recovery funds to finance the sector’s expansion. However, staff with the capacity to conduct integrated analysis of data and report evidence on the ECEC sector in ways that support policymaking and accountability is often limited.
Curriculum frameworks and pedagogy in ECEC
Croatia’s ECEC curriculum emphasises play-based learning and children’s holistic development, with the goal of supporting children’s transition into school
Many countries with integrated ECEC systems aim to ensure pedagogical continuity when children enter primary school. Croatia does this through the National Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care, which covers ECEC until the start of primary education (Table 3.1). The Croatian ECEC Curriculum also aligns with the country’s National Framework Curriculum for Pre-school Education and General Compulsory and Secondary Education, an umbrella document that aims to support transitions across levels of education and shift actors from a focus on content mastery towards one focused on child outcomes. Also like an increasing number of OECD countries, Croatia’s ECEC curriculum is based on a humanist-developmental approach, which emphasises children’s holistic development, inclusiveness, and prioritises learning by playing, discovery and self-expression (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]; Eurydice, 2024[11]). While the curriculum is not structured around traditional learning areas, as it common in the early years, it is meant to support the development of children’s foundational competences (e.g. communication in mother tongue, motor skills).
Croatia is currently reviewing its pre-school curriculum to lengthen the hours covered by the mandatory pre-school programme, so it qualifies as an ISCED 02 programme. This reform aims to give children more opportunities to learn and develop, helping to improve their readiness to start school. This can be especially beneficial for disadvantaged children who may lack stimulating home learning environments. Croatia is also ensuring that schools are better prepared to welcome children who transition from ECEC: the whole day schooling reform, for example, also introduces longer school days, and more opportunities for children to play and undertake activities that support development of non-academic competencies (see Chapter 4). It was highlighted that these reforms were necessary because a growing number of parents choose to defer their child’s entrance into primary education because they believe their child is not sufficiently mature to join primary education, are concerned that schools give less attention to children’s well-being and holistic development, and that schools offer very short days compared to ECEC centres.
The curriculum lacks robust supporting tools or guidelines
Croatia’s ECEC curriculum has not been accompanied by tools or guidelines to help educators and other ECEC staff understand and translate it into practice (Bouillet and Majcen, 2022[31]). Nor are there any mechanisms to monitor and evaluate its implementation. In contrast, most OECD countries have developed resources to accompany curriculum implementation, and support staff to appropriate it in their practice. Examples of such resources include implementation guides or examples of specific pedagogical practices. Croatia’s lack of supporting materials is not only unusual internationally but leaves ECEC educators without the support they may need to implement the pedagogical approaches promoted in the national ECEC curriculum.
ECEC staff are required to record information on children’s development
Croatian ECEC educators are expected to document children’s development and progression through written notes, video recordings, photo documentation, etc. on a regular basis (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]). However, it is unclear whether the shortage of staff in many ECEC centres allows educators to follow the necessary requirements; take detailed and useful notes; and examine, reflect on, and discuss the information that is collected.
Croatia believes in introducing digital technologies in class when children are older
While the government is placing a strong emphasis on digital skills and infrastructure in the school and tertiary sectors (see Chapters 4 and 5), Croatia has taken a much more measured approach with regards to digital technologies in ECEC. Croatian policymakers do not consider information and communication technologies (ICT) appropriate for supporting young children to learn, and digital tools are not introduced until children are 5 years-old. This is common internationally: OECD research has shown that many countries adopt “a more cautious approach (to the use of digital technologies) for the youngest children” (OECD, 2023[32]).
Main reforms
Croatia aims to raise ECEC participation to OECD levels, supported by new national and EU investments
Over the last decade, the Croatian government has been working to expand coverage and close the ECEC participation gap with EU countries. Croatia is now building on these reforms to achieve national goals of raising pre-school enrolment to 96% by 2029 and gradually increasing coverage for younger children, which is already similar to OECD levels (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]). To do this, the central government introduced a new equalisation fund in 2023 that aims to address disparities in funding for ECEC (and schools) across sub-national governments. The increases in central resources for ECEC have created a more prominent role for the MSEY, as Croatia’s ECEC sector has traditionally relied almost entirely on sub-national funding. EU funds also continue to play an important role: approximately EUR 215 million from the Croatian Recovery and Resilience Plan will be allocated to help create 22 500 new ECEC enrolment places by 2026 (European Commission, 2022[33]) and additional resources are being mobilised to build and update existing capacity municipal kindergartens. Estimates suggest that even with these increases, additional places will still be needed for Croatia to meet national targets (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2021[34]).
Access and participation
Participation in ECEC has been steadily growing, but significant work is still needed to reach the Barcelona targets
Among children aged 0-2, enrolment rates in Croatia increased from 19% to 29% between 2014 and 2022. For children aged 3-5, enrolment rates grew from 59% to 76% over the same period (see Figure 3.6). This steady expansion was fuelled in part by the private sector, which now makes up around one out of five enrolments in Croatia’s ECEC system (OECD, 2024[35]). The overall increase of enrolments means that Croatia’s participation rates are on par with the OECD average for children under age three, but lower for the 3–5-year-old age group. Croatia’s current reform objectives aim to bring enrolment rates closer to the Barcelona targets adopted by the European Council, which aim by 2030 to reach 45% enrolment for children under age 3 and 96% for children aged 3 to the start of primary school (Official Journal of the European Union, 2022[36]).
Note: In Panel A, the Barcelona target concerns children aged 0-3.
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
Children’s learning and development outcomes
Croatia has low child-to-staff ratios compared to OECD countries but some settings, especially nursery groups, exceed national standards
Croatia has, on average, low child-to-staff ratios relative to OECD countries for both private and public institutions (see Figure 3.7). The ratios have also been declining from 12 children per staff in 2014 to 9 children per staff in 2022. However, there is evidence that the maximum number of children per group is frequently exceeded in some ECEC settings because of staff shortages (UNICEF, 2020[16]). For example, estimates suggest that 80% of children in nursery programmes and 30% of children in kindergartens were in groups that exceeded state standards (UNICEF, 2021[4]). These standards set a maximum of 5-14 children per nursery group and 18-25 children per kindergarten group, depending on age (Eurydice, 2024[11]). Some nursery groups reportedly had double the statutory maximum of children per group (Matković et al., n.d.[26]) (UNICEF, 2021[4]). Such large groups of children per staff can hinder effective interactions between staff and individual children, especially very young children or those with special needs who require more constant and personalised attention (OECD, 2021[22]). This situation can also worsen the working conditions of ECEC educators.
Ratio of children to teaching staff in early childhood education in 2022 by type of institutions
Note: The OECD-EU average includes the 25 countries that are members or accession countries of both the EU and the OECD (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden). The OECD-CEE average includes Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovak Republic. Countries are sorted in descending order of the children to teaching staff ratio in public institutions.
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Education at a Glance 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en; OECD (2024[37]), Ratio of students to teaching staff by type of institution, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hl.
Attending ECEC is not associated with better learning outcomes later in schooling
Croatia collects little data on staff practices and child outcomes in the early years. This chapter therefore draws on results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to provide some perspective on the quality of children’s experiences in Croatia’s ECEC sector. These results must be interpreted with caution because PISA test-takers were in ECEC approximately a decade ago and therefore results do not reflect the status of Croatia’s ECEC system today. On average across the OECD, children who attended ECEC usually have higher outcomes in PISA at age 15 than their peers who did not attend ECEC. Croatia’s PISA results show the opposite: regardless of how long a student had attended ECEC, their learning outcomes tended to be lower (Figure 3.8). This highlights the importance of ensuring that Croatia’s current plans to expand ECEC participation goes hand in hand with measures to ensure young children who attend ECEC have quality learning and development experiences.
Change in PISA 2022 mathematics performance associated with length of pre-primary school attendance
Note: Change in score is measured compared to not having attended or having attended for less than a year. The score point difference accounts for students' and schools' socio-economic profile.
Source: OECD (2023[38]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II), Learning During – and From – Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
Equity
Children from vulnerable groups are less likely to take part in ECEC
In Croatia, children’s participation in ECEC differs according to their socio-economic profile. OECD countries face similar issues, although Croatia’s participation gap by income level is smaller than the OECD average. Nevertheless, only 11% of 0-2-year-olds in Croatia from the lowest income tercile were enrolled in ECEC in 2022, which is around a third of the enrolment rate of children in the second and third income terciles (35% and 29% respectively) (see Figure 3.9). These socio-economic disparities reflect and reinforce broader social trends in Croatia, such as low employment rates among mothers with low qualification levels and incomes (see Box 3.1). Even when vulnerable children enrol in Croatian ECEC centres, they tend to “have less regular and shorter attendance” (Bouillet and Majcen, 2022[31]).
There are also participation disparities among Roma children. According to a 2021 Survey carried out by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, only 24% of Roma children in Croatia are in ECEC, compared to 79% of the overall population. This was the largest difference across the ten countries surveyed (OECD, Forthcoming[39]; Fundamental Rights Agency, 2022[40]). Several factors help explain this trend. One relates to the physical distance between Roma communities and ECEC settings. National studies have found that only around 20% of 3–6-year-old children from Roma communities live less than 3 km away from the nearest ECEC setting (Klasnić, Kunac and Rodik, 2020[41]). Limited public transport may make it difficult for these children to reach ECEC services (UNICEF, 2023[14]).
Participation rates in ECEC, 0-2-year-olds, by equivalised disposable income tertile, 2022
Note: Countries are sorted in ascending order of participation of students from the lowest tertile.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[42]), Family Indicators (Edition 2022), https://doi.org/10.1787/6cb62cd0-en.
ECEC enrolment rates are higher in more urban and developed parts of Croatia
National data reveal enrolment differences across counties in Croatia (Figure 3.10). Several counties in the Adriatic region and Zagreb had enrolment rates of over 90% among 3- to 6-year-olds, while some counties in the Pannonian region, which shares southeast borders with Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, had less than 70% of children enrolled in ECEC. Positively, substantial increases in ECEC enrolment rates have occurred over the past five years across all counties, with particularly notable increases in rural and remote areas, where enrolment rates rose by about 30 percentage points (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[3]).
Enrolment rate in early childhood and pre-school programmes in Croatia (3 to 6 years-old), by county, 2023/2024
Note: Counties are sorted in descending order of the enrolment rate.
Source: Data provided by Ministry of Science, Education and Youth.
Maternity leave in Croatia lasts 30 weeks with 100% pay and can be extended for 26 weeks with 62% pay. While the total leave time available to Croatian mothers (at 56 weeks) is more generous than the average found across OECD countries (OECD, n.d.[43]), some mothers wishing to return to their jobs after maternity leave appear to face difficulties. Figure 3.11 shows that one in four inactive women in Croatia who would like to work do not seek employment due to personal reasons and care responsibilities. Mothers who are poorer and have lower levels of education are particularly vulnerable to these trends (Dobrotić, 2022[44]). The 2023 OECD Economic Survey of Croatia suggests that expanding access to childcare can help improve the inclusiveness of the labour market and reduce gender inequalities (OECD, 2023[45]).
Percentage of inactive women (15-64 years-old) wanting to work but not seeking employment due to care of adults with disabilities or children and other family or personal reasons
Note: The EU average includes all 27 member states of the EU as of 2020, after Brexit. Countries are sorted in descending order of the share of inactive women wanting to work but not seeking employment due to care and family or personal reasons.
Source: Eurostat (2024[46]), Inactive population not seeking employment by sex, age and main reason, https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSA_IGAR.
There is some evidence that the quality of provision varies across the country
The lack of data on the quality of ECEC provision at the national level makes it difficult to reliably evaluate quality across settings, regions, and population groups in Croatia. Still, there are some concerning signs that the quality of ECEC is inconsistent across the sector, usually at the detriment of the most vulnerable students. A 2022 survey of 66 ECEC settings, found that the quality of child-staff interactions was higher in Zagreb and in Central Croatia relative to less developed communities (Bouillet and Majcen, 2022[31]). This study also found that children at risk of social exclusion (defined as children with special needs or from low income or single-parent households) were also subject to lower-quality child-staff interactions. These findings might be a result of educators “holding stereotyped attitudes towards minority groups of children and of some teachers lacking the skills to adapt their pedagogical practice to the child” (Bouillet and Majcen, 2022[31]).
Quality of programmes and outcomes: Supporting the quality of ECEC providers to create stronger foundations for learning and life
Potential benefits of ECEC participation include development of children’s cognitive, social, and emotional, and self-regulatory skills; greater parental participation in the labour market, and stronger community links. However, the quality of ECEC is crucial to realising this potential (OECD, 2021[22]). For this reason, an increasing number of OECD countries have promoted policies to assure quality and help improve ECEC services (OECD, 2022[28]). Croatia has also taken steps in this direction over the past two decades. For example, the MSEY has raised the qualification requirements and salaries of its ECEC workforce, established quality standards, and introduced policies to monitor ECEC settings.
Despite this progress, Croatia’s quality assurance system for the ECEC sector remains underdeveloped and processes to support improvements in provision are limited. Specifically, there is limited co‑ordination among bodies involved in the sector’s development, and like many OECD countries, Croatia is facing significant shortages of ECEC staff. As a result, some ECEC centres exceed legal child-to-staff requirements, which risks negatively impacting the quality of children’s experiences in ECEC, and on the working conditions of staff. Responsibility for improving ECEC quality also depends on centre leaders and their staff, who have no obligation or external incentive to evaluate and improve their practices, nor much support to do so.
Addressing these issues would be challenging in any context, but even more so at a time of major expansion. However, a strong focus on quality is crucial, as it will determine whether Croatia’s growing investments in ECEC pay off and deliver their potential benefits for young children. In reflecting on policies to strengthen ECEC quality, Croatia can consider the following insights OECD countries.
Recommendation 3.1. Address ECEC staff shortages
Staff shortages are an important challenge for Croatia’s ECEC sector. Estimates suggest the country will need 5 658 additional educators to include all children over the age of three in ECEC by 2030, and even more to include children under the age of 3 (European Commission, 2022[33]). The lack of ECEC educators forces some settings to operate with child-to-staff ratios that exceed national standards, which risks reducing the quality of child-staff interactions. Many settings also report difficulties hiring and retaining specialised staff, who are important to identify and support children with special needs. The government has rolled out initiatives to help address these shortages, for example, by tapping into Croatia’s current surplus of primary school teachers (see Chapter 4). At the Ministry’s request, tertiary education institutions are now developing a re-training programme to equip primary school teachers with the competencies needed to work with small children. Former teachers who become ECEC educators will have to complete this training within their first two years on the job.
While this initiative provides a practical solution to Croatia’s ECEC staff shortages, it is not yet working as well as the government had anticipated. Few primary school teachers are willing to take up jobs in ECEC because the working conditions are considered less attractive than those of primary schools (notably with regards to the size of classes and the number of working hours). Moreover, while some tertiary education institutions have now started offering the re-training programme, these are not yet widely accessible. Former teachers currently working in ECEC settings may therefore lack the specific competences needed to support the development of younger children. Beyond these immediate issues, Croatia’s primary school workforce will also start declining in the upcoming years, meaning the re-training initiative is not a sustainable solution in the medium- and long-term. Attracting enough well-prepared and motivated individuals to work in ECEC will likely require more fundamental policy shifts. One policy shift could be to diversify roles and pathways to help increase the number of ECEC staff while also managing cost pressures. Another could be to improve professional development, which in addition to supporting quality ECEC experiences for children can help improve the attractiveness of ECEC jobs for staff.
Diversifying roles and pathways
Croatia sets high qualification requirements for ECEC staff. While this helps to ensure educators are qualified to support the learning and development of young children, it can also make recruitment more challenging. Many OECD countries have diversified roles within ECEC centres in ways that avoid lowering quality. In the face of ECEC staff shortages, Croatia can consider introducing some flexibility into the recruitment process by:
Introducing assistant positions in ECEC settings. Croatia only allows educators and expert associates to work with children in ECEC centres. In many OECD countries, ECEC centres rely on a wider range of staff profiles to support larger class sizes while providing the same quality of child and staff interactions. This includes ECEC assistants, who tend to have lower educational qualifications and often focus on tasks related to care (OECD, 2019[47]). In France, for example, ECEC teachers and assistants have well-defined complementary roles. Teachers (with ISCED level 7 qualifications), plan and implement curriculum activities, while assistants (with ISCED level 3 qualifications), focus on childcare duties, such as welcoming children, ensuring hygiene, maintaining premises and equipment, and supervising extracurricular activities (Eurydice, 2024[48]). Having complementary roles for assistants could help Croatia widen the pool of candidates who can support ECEC staff teams. This policy would need to ensure a good balance of educators and assistants in ECEC classrooms. For example, England (United Kingdom) requires that at least 50% of staff in charge of children under age 3 must have a relevant lower‑secondary qualification, while at least one member of staff must have a qualification at upper‑secondary level. Introducing an assistant position in Croatia’s ECEC workforce could help more centres meet national standards for child-to-staff ratios while ensuring some cost efficiencies as the sector continues to expand (UNICEF, 2020[16]).
Introducing alternative pathways for staff without prerequisite qualifications. Croatia is working to re-train and re-allocate primary school teachers to work as ECEC educators, which can help address staff shortages. However, the MSEY could also consider other policies to further address this challenge. Some countries, for example, combine on the job training and study thorough apprenticeship programmes, validate the skills and experiences gained outside formal ECEC training courses and/or offer accelerated programmes to candidates with degrees outside of ECEC fields and who have little to no experience with young children (see Box 3.2). These policies can help diversify pathways for entry into ECEC careers. Croatia could take forward many of these initiatives as the government works to introduce a wider range of publicly subsidised and professionally oriented education and training programmes at the upper-secondary and post‑schooling levels (see Chapters 4 and 6).
Apprenticeships that lead to ECEC qualifications
Apprentices combine work with practical on the job training and study. This is likely to be particularly attractive to younger workers without the qualifications needed to enter full bachelor programmes for ECEC (e.g. those graduating with 1–3-year vocational education and training (VET) qualifications in Croatia). England (United Kingdom), for example, provides a range of ECEC apprenticeship programmes to unqualified entrants that end in qualifications at lower- or upper-secondary level. Exact details vary between providers and across levels, but the apprenticeships usually last between one and two years, during which time apprentices work under the supervision of qualified staff and are afforded one study day per week. Apprenticeships are also common in Finland, where entrants train for the three-year upper-secondary level “Children’s instructor” (Lastenohjaaja) qualification that allows them to work in a ‘co-worker’ role.
Programmes that recognise and validate relevant skills and competencies gained outside of ECEC
In Finland, staff looking to work in certain ECEC support roles have the option of gaining the required upper-secondary level qualification through a partial or full demonstration of the relevant vocational skills. The resulting qualification is fully equivalent to the one gained through the conventional training course. Alternatively, Australia operates a “Recognition of Prior Learning” (RPL) programme whereby existing skills, knowledge and experience are validated as credits towards a vocational ECEC qualification. This helps experienced but unqualified staff have their skills recognised and allows early childhood workers to become qualified ECEC professionals without needing to undertake a full ECEC training programme. A similar policy could be undertaken as part of Croatia’s efforts to strengthen its RPL system (see Chapter 6).
Accelerated programmes for potential ECEC staff who have unrelated qualifications and experience
In England (United Kingdom), university graduates from any discipline can attain the Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS) (previously known as the Early Years Professional Status) (Department of Education, n.d.[49]). EYTS aims to upgrade the qualifications of the childcare workforce and encourage more graduates to enter ECEC through accelerated programmes. There are four routes to achieve EYTS, each catering to candidates from different backgrounds. The Graduate Entry route is specifically designed for graduates with degrees outside of ECEC fields and who have little to no experience with children aged 0-5. This route involves a one-year, full-time, university programme with intensive training, practical experience in ECEC settings, and a final assessment at the end of the programme.
Source: OECD (2019[50]), Good Practice for Good Jobs in Early Childhood Education and Care, https://doi.org/10.1787/64562be6-en.
Strengthening professional learning opportunities for ECEC staff
Croatia has already introduced some policies to improve the professional status and working conditions of ECEC jobs. For example, public sector salaries are aligned with those of school teachers, and there are policies to ensure ECEC educators have time to participate in professional development. At the same time, however, ECEC staff in Croatia still work long hours and often with high child-to-staff ratios. These factors contribute to staff shortages. Building a stronger quality assurance system (see Recommendation 3.2), can help ensure that all ECEC settings respect national regulations on group sizes and in turn, help improve working conditions. However, some OECD countries have also used other policies to attract, improve and professionalise the working conditions of ECEC staff. One such policy approach is to ensure that professional development offers meet their needs. This can not only help improve staff practice but also counteract negative influences of the work environment for staff, helping to reduce burnout and mid-year job turnover (Peleman et al., 2018[51]; Davis, Barrueco and Perry, 2020[52]; Wolf et al., 2018[53]).
Croatia already provides career progression opportunities and ongoing professional development for ECEC educators. To build on these policies, the MSEY could consider developing mechanisms to better align training offers with the needs of ECEC staff and national curriculum goals. The MSEY could also provide ECEC centre leaders with initial and ongoing support to guide their staff’s professional development. Examples from OECD countries suggest these policies can be especially helpful when systems:
Embed professional learning within ECEC centres. When multiple staff members undertake professional development within an ECEC setting, this can help better reflect daily realities of staff and promote an ethos of ongoing goal setting and quality improvement (OECD, 2022[54]). Mentoring and coaching can also be helpful beyond the internship year. As Croatia prepares to welcome former primary school teachers and other professionals to work in ECEC, on the job support can help these incoming staff better adapt and develop their practice.
Include all ECEC roles in training activities. Beyond ECEC educators centre leaders also need support in pedagogy, but also in management/administration. In Croatia, ETTA offers educational management training for ECEC centre leaders, but this is not required. Considering there is no initial training for centre leaders in Croatia, this represents a missed opportunity to equip all ECEC leaders with the competencies needed to effectively manage their centres. People hired in Croatia’s new ECEC assistant role (see above) should also be included in professional development opportunities.
Assess training needs. The majority of OECD countries rely on different sources of information to ensure professional development is relevant to the training needs and interests of staff. This can be done at the national or sub-national level or within ECEC settings. In Switzerland, for example, new professional development initiatives can be created based on results from regional inspections and regular discussions between staff, centre leaders, experts and professional associations (OECD, 2021[22]). In Ireland, pre-primary inspections are used as an opportunity to identify teacher needs and recommend targeted professional development (OECD, 2021[22]).
Support home-based care providers. Some OECD countries offer professional development programmes that consider the specific strengths and challenges of those providing ECEC in home-based settings. This might include finding time to for childminders to participate in training and implementing curricula in mixed-age groups of children. Luxembourg for example, is considering a policy to create networks of home-based care providers who could receive shared supports to improve their working conditions and the quality of their service (OECD, 2022[54]).
Recommendation 3.2. Build a quality assurance system that can support improvement
Croatia has national standards that set expectations for ECEC staff and settings that cover elements of both structural and process quality. There are also some resources to support ECEC centres to conduct self-evaluations and several bodies have responsibilities for oversight of the sector. However, despite these valuable policies and practices, Croatia’s quality assurance system reveals some weaknesses. The central government, for example, lacks the capacity and resources to effectively assure quality and steer improvements across the ECEC sector. At the setting level, centre leaders and staff report a shortage of adequate support to undertake meaningful self-reflection and self-improvement activities. Sub-national governments, the ETTA, and the Inspectorate all lack staff capacity and cannot monitor ECEC centres on a regular basis. Moreover, having multiple bodies involved in external monitoring of ECEC settings, without clear co-ordination, creates inefficiencies.
As Croatia works to expand the ECEC sector, there is an increasing need to ensure that all providers offer quality development and learning experiences for young children. This will put additional pressure on Croatia’s already limited capacity to monitor and support ECEC quality. To ensure the sector’s ongoing expansion does not come at the expense of lower quality, the Croatian government could strengthen its quality assurance system to better support improvement. This will require ensuring clear and coherent roles for the bodies involved in monitoring and supporting ECEC providers, while also developing the human and practical resources these processes require.
Strengthening the governance of ECEC quality assurance
The current allocation of responsibilities for oversight of Croatia’s ECEC system creates inefficacies since the bodies involved operate with limited staff resources and a lack of mechanisms to facilitate their co-ordination. To address this challenge, some OECD countries, including Ireland and Luxembourg, have established co-ordination committees to ensure the roles of involved agencies are clearly defined and complementary in nature (OECD, 2022[28]). Other OECD members have gone further, streamlining their institutional architecture. For example, England (United Kingdom) brought together all registration and inspection functions within a single and stronger body, the reformed education and children’s services Inspectorate (OECD, 2022[28]). In Croatia, the current responsibilities for external monitoring held by the ETTA and sub-national governments could be moved to the Inspectorate, making this the authoritative body for quality assurance as the sector expands. As part of this change, the Inspectorate might also take on responsibility for monitoring home-based childcare. While these settings are not within the purview of the MSEY, their quality should be monitored more carefully, partly because childminders tend to have lower qualifications and frequently take care of children with special needs.
By consolidating responsibilities for the external monitoring and evaluation of ECEC settings under the Inspectorate, this change would allow the other bodies currently involved in ECEC oversight to use their limited resources more strategically. For example, the ETTA could instead focus on providing ongoing support to ECEC centre leaders and staff. Stronger clarity and co-ordination of roles would also enable results from the Inspectorate’s monitoring and evaluation activities to feed into the ETTA’s work. For example, if the Inspectorate finds that centre leaders need support in providing their staff with feedback to develop professional training plans, the ETTA could design and offer targeted support in this area. Finally, Croatia could also clarify the role of sub-national governments in promoting quality improvements and supporting equity, such as what information they should report to the national level. This would help the MSEY consider quality factors when planning and allocating resources for ECEC.
Making quality assurance work in practice
Consolidating responsibilities for the external monitoring of ECEC providers under the Inspectorate will require that inspectors go beyond checking compliance with rules and regulations, to assessing the practices of ECEC staff and other elements of process quality. This change will require Croatia to re-train current inspectors and recruit experienced ECEC practitioners and leaders who have knowledge of young children’s development, learning and well-being. Box 3.3 provides examples how evaluation agencies across the OECD have trained external evaluators. These examples could provide insights as the Croatian government works to build a new cohort of inspectors who have the right blend of expertise for this role. Developing an effective system for external quality assurance will also require adequate funding and close engagement with practitioners.
The Inspectorate will need time to build its capacity to monitor ECEC providers comprehensively and it is unlikely they will be able to monitor all ECEC settings (and schools) on a regular basis in the short- and medium-term. Croatia will therefore need interim solutions to ensure that settings meet quality standards to protect children and support their development. To do this, some OECD countries have adopted a risk-based approach to monitor a large field of providers with a relatively limited number of inspectors (OECD, 2022[28]). In Croatia, this would require collecting data on process quality in ECEC centres (see Recommendation 3.5). The MSEY’s plans to upload pedagogical records of kindergartens on the e‑register database could support this effort. Other OECD countries rely on self-evaluation results to help monitor quality (see below).
The Inspectorate of the Department of Education and Skills, Ireland
The Irish Inspectorate provides specialised training in school evaluation as part of inspectors’ induction, which lasts around six months. In addition, professional development training is organised throughout the year and participation is mandatory for staff. Programmes are often facilitated or provided by external experts.
The Danish Evaluation Institute (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut), Denmark
The Danish Evaluation Institute is another example of an evaluation and assessment agency that attaches great importance to the professional development of its employees. Professional development programmes are offered in various modules adapted to staff’s levels and experience (i.e. onboarding, basic, advanced). These programmes aim to strengthen staff’s competencies in areas related to institute’s work, such as project management, evaluation design, data collection and management, strategic thinking, and sector knowledge.
Sources: Eurydice (2015[55]), Assuring Quality in Education, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/959997 (accessed on 7 June 2024); Estyn (2022[56]) Annual Report & Account 2021-2022, https://www.estyn.gov.wales/system/files/2022-10/Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts %202021-2022.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2024); EVA (n.d.[57]) Development of EVA employees’ competencies, https://www.eva.dk/om-eva/udvikling-eva-medarbejderes-kompetencer (accessed on 7 June 2024); Ofsted (n.d.[58]), How to become a contracted Ofsted inspector, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-become-a-contracted-ofsted-inspector (accessed on 7 June 2024).
Supporting self-improvement within ECEC settings
Education systems across the OECD have increasingly placed an emphasis on developing self-evaluation and improvement planning to “build-in” quality at the point of service delivery (OECD, 2022[28]). In Croatia, self-evaluation is not mandatory for ECEC centres and there are limited resources to help them conduct self-evaluation. In contrast, internal evaluations have been mandatory in Estonia since 2006 (OECD, 2020[59]). And in Luxembourg, self-evaluation is mandatory for centres that receive funding through a national subsidy scheme (OECD, 2022[28]). Drawing on these examples, Croatia might consider making self-evaluation a requirement for ECEC centres that benefit from central funding to build and renovate infrastructure. If done well, introducing requirements for ECEC centres to conduct self-evaluations in Croatia could help build their capacity for improvement since most will not receive external evaluations or feedback on their policies and practices.
Any requirements to conduct self-evaluation should be matched with support to help ECEC centres use this exercise to improve their structural and process quality. The latter is crucial to helping staff understand how to translate the national curriculum into high-quality teaching practices and stimulating activities for young children. Croatia already has a comprehensive Handbook for the Self-evaluation of Early Childhood and Pre-school Education Institutions, but national evidence suggests that staff need more training in this area (Majcen and Pribela-Hodap, 2017[30]). The MSEY and national agencies could review settings’ experience with self-evaluation to determine what further tools and support might be useful. Examples of self-evaluation resources from OECD countries include:
Descriptors and benchmarks that explain what “poor” to “very good” structural and process quality look like can help ECEC centres make more reliable judgements about their own practices.
Examples of effective self-evaluation reports and improvement plans could be beneficial for Croatian ECEC settings. In Scotland (United Kingdom), evaluation agencies not only provide examples of self-evaluation reports but also provide ECEC centres with feedback on their self-evaluation reports and improvement arrangements (OECD, 2022[28]).
Detailed “stories” from institutions, including videos that explain how staff conducted self-evaluations and acted on the findings (Department of Education and Skills of Ireland, 2024[60]). This would be particularly valuable for settings that have no experience in conducting self-evaluation.
Advice webpages where staff can find the answer to questions they have, or tips on how to carry out self-evaluations. In Scotland (United Kingdom), both the Care Inspectorate and the education Inspectorate (Education Scotland) publish widely used self-evaluation handbooks for providers, which are accompanied by a range of web-based advice, and practice exemplars designed to support the self-evaluation process (OECD, 2022[28]).
Training and peer learning on self-evaluation for centre leaders and other members of the self-evaluation team could help orient them on how to use self-evaluation as a self-improvement exercise. The ETTA could co-ordinate this in Croatia, drawing on the expertise of mentors, advisors, and excellent advisors from ECEC settings who have experience in conducting meaningful self-evaluations. Centres with effective practices could be paired with those that have little or no experience, a strategy that has helped many OECD European countries to scale self‑evaluation.
Equality of opportunities and access: Expanding ECEC access in ways that prioritise equity
In Croatia, children’s participation in ECEC is influenced significantly by their parents’ socio-economic status. Twice as many 0–2-year-olds from wealthy households participate in ECEC compared to those from poorer backgrounds (see Figure 3.9). Geographical disparities are also large: over 90% of 3–6‑year-old children living in Zagreb and other wealthy counties participate in ECEC, whereas enrolment rates in more remote and poorer localities struggle to reach 70% enrolments. The lack of affordable and adequate ECEC can have long-term implications for children: this report reveals how disadvantages that emerge in the early years often persist as children progress through the Croatian education system and enter work.
The MSEY’s efforts to expand ECEC access can help reduce these inequalities. For example, the new national equalisation fund aims to mitigate funding disparities and help local governments build new facilities, hire more staff and, in turn, increase the amount of ECEC places. The MSEY is also prioritising support to build new ECEC centres in areas where none exist (European Commission, 2022[33]). However, for many low-income families across Croatia, increasing the number of available ECEC places will not be enough. The main obstacle to participation in Croatia’s ECEC sector remains - places are not affordable to families with low incomes. The below examples from OECD research and experience provide policy insights to help Croatia ensure that increased financial transfers from the central government, as well as other ongoing reforms, can support children from the most disadvantaged groups to access quality ECEC.
Recommendation 3.3. Ensure formal ECEC and other development activities are available to vulnerable children
Traditionally, Croatia’s more rural and remote sub-national governments have struggled to offer adequate provision of ECEC services. This is mainly because of differences in their tax revenues and public capacity (OECD, Forthcoming[39]). However, accessibility issues are not only symptoms of Croatia’s geographical inequalities. Several national and sub-national policies also create obstacles to the participation of children from low-income backgrounds (especially if parents are unemployed) and those with special needs. The latter, for example, are often re-directed to home-based settings where they are less likely to receive specialised support. In addition, there is no mechanism to ensure that regional and local governments apply national priority enrolment criteria for all groups of children. Finally, while sub‑national governments have autonomy over how they use resources from the new national equalisation fund, there are no expectations or accountability measures that they use these to strengthen equity in ECEC access. This represents a missed opportunity for Croatia and there is scope to build on the MSEY’s ongoing reforms to expand ECEC access in ways that better support the participation of the most vulnerable children.
Steering sub-national governments to expand formal ECEC in ways that support equity
The MSEY could play a more directive role to help ensure that all of Croatia works towards enrolling more children in ECEC, including more children from disadvantaged groups. Two ways the MSEY could encourage regional and local governments to pursue greater equity in their ECEC systems include:
Leveraging the national equalisation fund. The new national equalisation funds expect to cover between 5-60% of sub-national governments’ expenditure in ECEC. This will give the central government considerably more leverage to steer the sector and expand access in ways that support equity. There are two main approaches to consider. First, the central government could establish stricter conditions on the use of the national equalisation funds. For example, sub-national governments may have to use the funds to prioritise developing ECEC in deprived areas or for disadvantaged populations. Another approach would be to require local governments to present a plan that outlines how the funds will be used and with what goal. The Ministry could then review and approve the plans to ensure the funds will support equity. These two approaches could also be combined, allowing the central government to set a clearer direction while also providing space for sub-national governments to exercise greater autonomy. The United States provides examples of how a combined approach can encourage greater access to quality ECEC (see Box 3.4).
Reviewing and enforcing national enrolment policies and practices. To ensure fairness, enrolment policies and practices (e.g. enrolment criteria) are often common at the national level and meet the needs of families and children. As a first step, the MSEY could undertake a review to identify the reasons why sub-national governments are not currently following the national enrolment criteria and adjust them as needed. This would be an opportunity for the MSEY to ensure that all vulnerable groups are considered a priority for ECEC participation. Once the criteria have been reviewed, ECEC settings and providers will need guidance and support to follow them. While some flexibility will be needed depending on the specific contexts of each sub‑national authority and ECEC setting, the Inspectorate could provide oversight to ensure the national criteria are respected as part of its monitoring activities.
The US Office of Child Care administers the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which helps low-income families access childcare. States, territories, and tribes in the United States can access the CCDF block grant if they comply with federal guidelines that include:
establishing income eligibility limits at or below 85 percent of state median income
setting the maximum age for children receiving a subsidy at under 13 years of age, or under age 19 if children have special needs
defining the activities that qualify a family for assistance, within the federally allowed categories (employment, education, etc.)
In addition to covering the participation costs of childcare for eligible families and children, grant recipients are required to spend a portion of their funds in activities that improve the quality and supply of childcare (e.g. by offering professional development training, building a quality rating, constructing new facilities, or establishing a resource network). Grant recipients must also submit plans every three years, which are reviewed by the Office of Child Care (OCC). The plans are also discussed during public hearings to allow comments from stakeholders.
Sources: United States government (2024[61]), OCC Fact Sheet, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/fact-sheet (accessed on 13 June 2024); Congressional Research Service (2022[62]), The Child Care and Development Block Grant: In Brief, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R47312 (accessed on 13 June 2024).
Expanding development activities for young children outside of formal ECEC centres
Expansion of Croatia’s ECEC sector will be progressive, and it will likely take several years before all young children can access a place in a kindergarten or nursery. Even when enough places become available, there will always be some parents who prefer to stay home with their children or have grandparents, or nannies look after them. These parents and carers may need access to education and care activities and/or other types of support to foster their child’s development and well-being. Croatia should ensure that children who remain outside of formal ECEC have access to activities that can help foster their motor, physical, psychological, and cognitive development, as well as opportunities to interact with other children and adults beyond their own family. This is especially important for vulnerable children and their carers who may otherwise lack access to stimulating development and learning opportunities. In Croatia, young children with special needs, those who come from poor families, or have a minority or immigrant background, may especially benefit.
Examples from OECD countries can provide Croatia with insights on how to build on initiatives that already exist in the country and provide more diverse and engaging opportunities for young children. Such efforts would complement Croatia’s reforms to expand the formal ECEC sector and may include:
Expand the provision of home-based ECEC. Sub-national governments could expand provision of home-based care as a cost-effective way to ensure that more families and children, especially vulnerable ones, have access to ECEC. For example, sub-national authorities could use the national equalisation fund to support childminders to provide care for at-risk population groups. However, strong quality assurance measures are needed to ensure childminders are licensed, trained and monitored (see Recommendation 3.2).
Scale activities and programmes that provide young children outside of formal ECEC with enriching experiences. Such programmes should not only allow children to play and develop, but also encourage their caregivers to connect with each other and early childhood experts. This can in turn enhance the home learning environment. Internationally, these programmes take place in a range of settings, from formal centres that offer regular activities, to more informal community-based play dates/meet ups (see Box 3.5). Activities are often run by parents, government entities or organisations, such as libraries, cultural associations, and sports institutions. Croatia’s play hubs initiative, led by UNICEF, could provide a useful model for such activities. The MSEY could partner with sub-national governments and UNICEF to scale play hubs by allowing the national equalisation fund to help finance these activities and by making schools or other public buildings available to host play hubs.
Scotland, United Kingdom
Early Years Scotland offers Stay, Play, and Learn sessions to young children and their parents/carers. This involves opportunities for children to take part in physical exercise, painting, gardening or other activities. Parents might take part in activities alongside their children or use the time for other activities offered by Early Years Scotland. Activities offered for adults can vary from English or yoga lessons to counselling on finding a job or accommodation. The aim of the Stay, Play and Learn sessions is to strengthen children’s and parents’ confidence, attachments, interactions, and shared learning and to improve the home learning environment, as well as children’s transitions into nurseries and schools. The sessions also help socialise children who may not have started nursery/school and promote families’ integration into the community. These sessions are run by qualified early years practitioners and are offered in community centres, churches, nurseries, schools, as well as prisons.
Switzerland
The “petits pas, apprendre en jouant” programme (“small steps, learn by playing” in English) is based on two elements. The first is home visits, which take place once or twice a week and where children and their parents/carers take part in developmental play activities. The second is group meetings, which take place every two weeks and focus on strengthening parents’ social networking and parenting skills. The programme is targeted at families from disadvantaged backgrounds. The individuals organising the home visits and group meetings are not early years experts, and often have a similar background as the family to help build trust.
Germany
In Hamburg, parent-child centres ('Eltern-Kind-Zentren') have been available since 2007 to support families with children under age three. These centres offer play and educational activities for children and counselling on child-rearing for parents, among other services. They are often situated in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and are easily accessible to families in need. Families can use these centres and receive all services free of charge. Parent-child centres are part of a broader network of family support services in Hamburg, including Child and Family Support Centres ('Kinder- und Familienhilfezentren'), Parents' Schools ('Elternschulen') and Mother's Centres ('Mütterzentren').
Source: Early Years Scotland (n.d.[63]), Stay, Play and Learn, https://earlyyearsscotland.org/children-and-families/stay-play-and-learn/ (accessed on 14 June 2024); a:primo (n.d.[64]), petits:pas, apprendre en jouant dès la petite enfance, https://www.a-primo.ch/fr/offres/petits-pas/qu-est-ce-que-petits-pas (accessed on 14 June 2024); Serapioni (2023[65]), Report of the European Observatory on Family Policy, https://coface-eu.org/report-of-the-european-observatory-on-family-policy-towards-greater-family-policy-integration-across-europe/.
Recommendation 3.4. Address cost barriers for children from poorer families
At present, only the mandatory pre-school programme – the last year of ECEC – is free in Croatia. For the earlier years, parents are expected to cover the costs of their children’s participation in ECEC. What they are expected to pay, whether they are entitled to a subsidy and how much financial support they can receive vary across the country. In most parts of Croatia, however, parental income is not considered to calculate fees, or to target subsidies. Consequently, ECEC is unaffordable for low-income families and contribute to enrolment rates that reflect children’s socio-economic status. This is part of a broader issue related to social spending in Croatia, which the OECD has found “is not very effective at supporting the most vulnerable households” (OECD, Forthcoming[39]). Addressing this issue will be crucial for the success of Croatia’s plans to expand the ECEC sector, which depends on reducing inequalities in access. Drawing on the experience from OECD countries, Croatia could consider the following policies to address the cost barriers to ECEC participation:
Lowering cost barriers to participation in ECEC
Croatia stands out internationally for the limited support parents and families with low incomes receive to help cover ECEC costs. There are several ways OECD governments tailor fees to individual family circumstances. One approach is to provide parents with a subsidy to reimburse some of their ECEC costs, which is the case in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. While the amount of subsidy might vary depending on the locality or type of setting, these policies ultimately help reduce expenses for families. Another approach is to introduce an income-dependent fee structure that is applied to the whole ECEC sector. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Sweden use this approach (OECD, 2023[18]), which can provide a more transparent and consistent model for funding. This policy approach makes it easier for families to anticipate what they will need to pay for their child/children to enrol in ECEC.
While both approaches have merits, a common fee structure could be especially advantageous for Croatia considering the current lack of coherence in how fees and subsidies are calculated by sub‑national governments. Moreover, if families must first pay a participation fee and then receive a subsidy to be reimbursed, low-income families who might lack the liquidity to pay up front costs could be discouraged from enrolling their children in ECEC.
Providing additional support that targets families with very low incomes and other vulnerable groups
While Croatia should ensure that fees are, to the extent possible, affordable for families, the fee structure also needs to be realistic and sustainable. This implies that families will still be expected to contribute to ECEC costs, as is the case in the policy examples above. However, for families with very low incomes, even reduced costs may still be too expensive. To target these particularly vulnerable groups, the Croatian government could consider offering other types of additional support provided by some OECD countries. Depending on the overall fee model used, these policies might include:
fee exemptions for families with very low incomes or other groups considered particularly vulnerable or needy (e.g. Germany). This is typically done when the country has an income‑contingent fee structure.
special financial support to families with income levels below certain thresholds (which exists in Estonia) (OECD, 2023[18]). This could mean offering higher or additional subsidies depending on families’ incomes.
Good governance: Steering the ECEC sector towards increased participation, quality and equality
In recent years, the MSEY has played an increasingly prominent role in Croatia’s highly decentralised ECEC sector. This shift is largely driven by the mobilisation of EU funds and increases in central funding transfers to sub-national governments. However, sub-national governments continue to have considerable responsibility over the provision, operation, and supervision of ECEC and vary in terms of their ability and willingness to advance national goals of expanding the sector. Moreover, co-ordination across levels of government is weak. For example, several central bodies are involved in monitoring and quality assurance of ECEC centres, and their functions may at times overlap with the monitoring done by sub-national governments. These factors make it difficult for the MSEY to effectively steer ECEC policy and practice.
The policy measures discussed earlier in this chapter can help Croatia achieve its expansion goals, while also supporting higher quality and equity in the provision of ECEC services. However, steering stakeholders towards these objectives will also require the central government to use its growing influence over the sector to improve co-ordination among national agencies and sub-national governments. Croatia could also strengthen the use of evidence for strategic planning and better communicate plans and progress to improve transparency and introduce accountability in the ECEC system. Here we provide suggestions of how this may be done.
Recommendation 3.5. Improve the use of data to advance ECEC quality and equity
At present, the Croatian government’s view of the quality of its ECEC system is limited. There are no regular external evaluations of ECEC centres and while some centres conduct self-evaluations, the findings are not aggregated at the national or sub-national level to provide a summary view of the ECEC quality. Plans to upload pedagogical records and other data related to process quality are in development, but the MSEY will need to strengthen availability of ECEC monitoring data. Importantly, it will also need to analyse this information to help support accountability and drive improvements in the sector.
Analysing and reporting ECEC data to support accountability and policymaking
Croatia is taking steps to collect more information on ECEC service quality. However, no summary reports or national studies that provide insights on the quality of Croatia’s ECEC sector were found. Many OECD countries do this by integrating analysis of data and evidence from different monitoring activities and publishing generalised results (OECD, 2015[66]). In Czechia, for example, information gathered from inspections on the quality of nursery schools is collated into a national report that is used by policy makers to inform the national education strategy (OECD, 2015[66]). The Croatian MSEY could analyse the administrative data it already collects, like the child-to staff ratios or share of expert associates and triangulate this with results from the self-evaluations of ECEC centres. This could provide insights on what combinations of staff profiles would be most effective for creating a staffing team in ECEC centres. When available, results from external inspections could also be aggregated and analysed to inform policy making and accountability in Croatia’s ECEC sector.
Some OECD countries also conduct or commission evaluations and reports on topical issues in their ECEC sector. For example, New Zealand’s Education Review Office recently published a report on the extent to which disabled children were supported in New Zealand’s ECEC and schooling system, as well as recommendations for improvement (Education Evaluation Centre, 2022[67]). In Croatia, the NCEEE could conduct this type of analysis to provide valuable insights on relevant policy questions like whether children with special needs are being included in formal ECEC centres.
Collecting data on vulnerable children to ensure their participation in ECEC
Administrative and quality data can help enhance service provision for children enrolled in formal ECEC centres, but do not provide insights on children outside of ECEC and how to improve their access to ECEC and/or early development activities. To expand ECEC equitably and better target subsidies, Croatia needs evidence to identify areas and children with the greatest needs. Currently, the country lacks a “child-sensitive data collection and monitoring system” (UNICEF, 2021[4]), which hinders the government’s ability to determine the extent to which vulnerable groups of children participate in ECEC, what access barriers they face, and what types of targeted interventions or support they may need.
To address similar challenges, some OECD systems have integrated data sources from multiple service providers that benefit children and families to target the most vulnerable. For example, the city of Philadelphia in the United States combined health, education, and human service data to identify neighbourhoods with more children facing multiple risks and fewer places in high-quality early education providers. It estimated demand based on individual early risk experiences and supply based on actual places in high-quality preschools, improving the accuracy of previous estimates (Fantuzzo et al., 2021[68]; OECD, 2023[69]). Croatia’s MSEY could collaborate with other line ministries and stakeholders to refine national indicators for child vulnerability, which could help ensure these children also benefit from ECEC.
Recommendation 3.6. Clarify the national strategy for expanding Croatia’s ECEC sector
Croatia’s MSEY has established ambitious goals for the expansion of the ECEC sector. These include creating over 20 000 places in ECEC settings by 2026 and ensuring that all six-year-old children take part in a full ISCED 02 pre-school programme by 2027. Both national and EU funds have been mobilised to support expansion efforts. However, funds are being allocated to sub-national governments primarily based on demand. No evidence that the MSEY provides national analysis of demographic trends and available ECEC places to support sub-national governments in planning provision within their territory was found. While some sub-national authorities may conduct such analysis themselves, not all will have the capacity to do so nor see how their needs align with those of nearby towns and municipalities and consider ways to optimise their networks.
Other important details about Croatia’s expansion plans remain unclear, which may create confusion among stakeholders. For example, the central government has not clarified its position on the role of the private sector or home-based care in helping to increase ECEC participation. As a result, sub-national governments take different approaches when deciding to use these providers or invest in public ECEC centres. It is also unclear when the central government will officially establish the legal right to ECEC for all children, as stipulated in Croatia’s National Development Strategy. The MSEY could take a stronger steering role by clarifying its strategy for the ECEC sector to better co-ordinate stakeholders and direct investments towards achieving national goals.
Articulating an action plan for expansion of the ECEC sector
The MSEY should articulate a plan for the sector’s expansion that assigns roles and responsibilities, as well as indicative milestones to monitor and manage progress towards national goals. This plan would provide an opportunity to communicate that expanding Croatia’s ECEC sector can and must go hand in hand with efforts to improve quality and equality. Several OECD countries have published ECEC sector plans to develop and implement policies for education and learning in the early years. In Québec (Canada), for example, the government’s action plan for expanding the ECEC sector outlines what actions are immediately possible, and which are conditional on new laws being passed (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2022[70]). This approach helps clarify the status of the different actions, as well as identify where more effort and advocacy from the government is needed. In Sweden, the National Agency for Education gathers statistics on children, staff, and costs to provide an overall view of ECEC services (OECD, 2015[66]). This data is then used to establish action plans at the national and local level, which has helped address challenges like the shortage of pre-school teachers. Given the prominent role sub-national governments play in Croatia’s ECEC sector, they could be involved in developing the national ECEC action plan, alongside other important stakeholders like practitioners and parent representatives.
Studying and developing strategies to ensure adequate funding for the ECEC sector
Like many OECD countries, Croatia, relies on a mix of sources, including from the EU, private and public sources to invest in its ECEC system. Overall, public spending for ECEC has been increasing but expenditure per child remains below the OECD average. Expanding the sector in ways that reach the most vulnerable children, addressing staff shortages, and ensuring the quality of provision will require further investments and policy solutions to help reduce costs. A UNICEF study from 2020 (described in detail in Box 2.6.) developed some useful projections that could help the Croatian government understand the financial trade-offs associated with different policy decisions on how to expand the sector. The study also noted that rationalising the ECEC network could help keep costs down, and discussed what rationalisation could look like under different scenarios. Options to rationalise the network, such as increasing the size of ECEC groups, should be studied carefully to reduce the risk of having negative implications on the quality of provision.
Clarifying the role of private and home-based care providers
Many countries in the OECD and EU have tapped into private sources to expand ECEC services and address demand that the public sector cannot fulfil. In Croatia, some sub-national governments already use private and home-based providers to support the demand for ECEC in their territory. However, the central government has not clarified the role these providers play within the national strategy for expanding the sector. As a result, some sub-national authorities might rely on private providers to raise enrolment, whereas others might prefer to rely on and invest in public providers. These different approaches risk reinforcing imbalances across the country. Croatia should therefore consider clarifying the role for these providers within Croatia’s national ECEC system and establishing key guardrails (e.g. code of conduct for staff and founders, fee caps, or making public funds conditional on the promotion of equity, quality and accountability).
A UNICEF study forecasted that providing a place in kindergarten for each child would cost Croatia an additional HRK 879 million per year (2018 taken as reference year), that would be equivalent to 118 million euros or 0.2% of GDP. It is important to note that this estimate only accounts for children aged 3-6, which means that a wider expansion of the ECEC sector – i.e. to cover children under 3 - would require even more resources.
The study noted however that the costs of expanding the sector would be lower if Croatia were to “rationalise” its network by, for example, increasing group sizes from 22 to 26 children, standardising staff salaries, changing the composition of the staff working directly with students (i.e. reducing the number of educators and including an assistant in the staff team), seeking cost efficiencies in the building maintenance (e.g. electricity use), prioritising half-day programmes instead of full-day programmes, among others. In fact, costs could be as low as HRK 401 million per year, for example, if Croatia were to simultaneously standardise salaries and change the staff team structure. Consultations for the study indicated that stakeholders were not open to some of the potential ways UNICEF had identified to “rationalise” Croatia’s ECEC network. Stakeholders argued that the following issues would hinder rationalisation efforts: inadequate co-ordination and fiscal disparities among local governments, and bureaucratic hurdles. Consequently, UNICEF recommended more conservative measures to expand access to ECEC while also reducing costs.
Source: UNICEF (2020[16]), Kako do vrtića za sve? Mogućnosti financiranja sustava ranog i predškolskog odgoja i obrazovanja [How to get to kindergarten for everyone? Possibilities of financing the system of early and pre-school education], https://www.unicef.org/croatia/media/4951/file/Kako%20do%20vrti%C4%87a%20za%20sve.pdf.
References
[31] Bouillet, D. and S. Majcen (2022), Potential for preventing the risk of social exclusion of children in Early Childhood Education and Care in Croatia, https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2022-0006.
[62] Congressional Research Service (2022), The Child Care and Development Block Grant: In Brief, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47312 (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[52] Davis, A., S. Barrueco and D. Perry (2020), “The role of consultative alliance in infant and early childhood mental health consultation: Child, teacher, and classroom outcomes”, Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 42/2, pp. 246-262, https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21889.
[49] Department of Education (n.d.), Become an early years teacher. Get Into Teaching., https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/is-teaching-right-for-me/become-an-early-years-teacher.
[60] Department of Education and Skills of Ireland (2024), School Self-Evaluation, https://www.gov.ie/en/service/3f07cf-school-self-evaluation/.
[44] Dobrotić, I. (2022), The (in)equality dynamic of childcare-related policy development in post-Yugoslav countries, pp. 270-286, https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221088167.
[9] Dobrotić, I. (2018), Ambivalent character of leave policies development in Croatia: between pronatalist and gender equality agenda, pp. 109-128, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/ejemplar/498265.
[10] Dobrotić, I., T. Matković and S. Zrinščak (2013), Gender Equality Policies and Practices in Croatia – The Interplay of Transition and Late Europeanization, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12016.
[63] Early Years Scotland (n.d.), Stay Play & Learn, https://earlyyearsscotland.org/children-and-families/stay-play-and-learn/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
[67] Education Evaluation Centre (2022), Education for disabled learners: From early childhood to school, https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/media/q4vdzjws/education-for-disabled-learners-from-early-childhood-to-school.pdf.
[56] Estyn (2022), Annual Report & Account 2021-2022, https://www.estyn.gov.wales/system/files/2022-10/Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202021-2022.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2024).
[33] European Commission (2022), Education and Training Monitor 2022 - Croatia, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/973942.
[46] Eurostat (2024), Inactive population not seeking employment by sex, age and main reason, https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSA_IGAR (accessed on 14 October 2024).
[48] Eurydice (2024), France - Early Childhood Education and Care, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/france/organisation-centre-based-ecec.
[11] Eurydice (2024), National Education Systems - Croatia, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/croatia/overview.
[8] Eurydice (2023), Access to early childhood education and care in Europe 2022/2023, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/91692e3e-9320-11ee-8aa6-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 2024 June 7).
[55] Eurydice (2015), Assuring quality in education – Policies and approaches to school evaluation in Europe, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/959997 (accessed on 7 June 2024).
[57] EVA (n.d.), Development of EVA employees’ competencies, https://www.eva.dk/om-eva/udvikling-eva-medarbejderes-kompetencer (accessed on 7 June 2024).
[68] Fantuzzo, J. et al. (2021), “Expansion of quality preschool in Philadelphia: Leveraging an evidence-based, integrated data system to provide actionable intelligence for policy and program planning”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 127, p. 106093, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106093.
[40] Fundamental Rights Agency (2022), Roma in 10 European Countries - Main Results, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2022-roma-survey-2021-main-results2_en.pdf.
[12] ISSA (2019), Newly opened Play Hub in Croatia, https://www.issa.nl/content/newly-opened-play-hub-croatia.
[41] Klasnić, K., S. Kunac and P. Rodik (2020), Uključivanje Roma u hrvatsko društvo: žene, mladi i djeca, Ured za ljudska prava i prava nacionalnih manjina Vlade Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb, https://repozitorij.ffzg.unizg.hr/islandora/object/ffzg:5471.
[30] Majcen, S. and S. Pribela-Hodap (2017), Prvi koraci na putu prema kvaliteti - Samovrednovanje ustanova ranoga i predškolskoga odgoja i obrazovanja, https://www.ncvvo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Prvi-koraci-na-putu-prema-kvaliteti_Samovrednovanje-ustanova-ranoga-i-pred%C5%A1kolskoga-odgoja-i-obrazovanja.pdf.
[25] Matešić, M., I. Sviben and B. Gotlin (2023), Existing Practices for the Recruitment and Professional Development of Continuous Professional Development - Educators in Croatia - Piqet Country analysis, https://www.issa.nl/sites/default/files/u327/PIQET_Analysis_Croatia.pdf.
[26] Matković, T. et al. (n.d.), Working in kindergartens: results of research on working conditions in early childhood education [Raditi u dječjim vrtićima: rezultati istraživanja uvjeta rada u ranom i predškolskom odgoju i obrazovanju], http://idiprints.knjiznica.idi.hr/932/1/Raditi%20u%20dje%C4%8Djim%20vrti%C4%87ima.pdf.
[3] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2023), Accession candidate country’s self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills: Guidelines and questionnaire Croatia.
[70] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2022), Decision on enrollment of students in the first grade of secondary school in the school year 2022/2023, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2022_05_57_820.html.
[27] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2022), Preschool Edicatopm Act [Zakon o predškolskom odgoju i obrazovanju], https://mzom.gov.hr/istaknute-teme/odgoj-i-obrazovanje/zakon-o-predskolskom-odgoju-i-obrazovanju/3479 (accessed on 29 April 2025).
[34] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2021), Presentation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan – Education, Science and Research, https://planoporavka.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Prezentacija%20NPOO%20-%20znanost%20i%20obrazovanje.pdf?vel=2480365.
[29] NCEEE (2013), Handbook for the Self-Evaluation of Early Childhood and Preschool Education Institutions, https://www.ncvvo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/handbook_for_the_self_evaluation.pdf.
[23] Oberhuemer, P. and I. Schreyer (eds.) (2018), ECEC Workforce Profile - Croatia, Seepro-r, https://www.seepro.eu/ISBN-publication.pdf.
[35] OECD (2024), Distribution of enrolled students and graduates by type of institution, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hm (accessed on 10 October 2024).
[17] OECD (2024), Distribution of government, private and non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hn (accessed on 10 October 2024).
[6] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[37] OECD (2024), Ratio of students to teaching staff by type of institution, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hl (accessed on 10 October 2024).
[24] OECD (2024), Supporting early childhood education and care staff in the beginning of their careers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a6be52bd-en.
[69] OECD (2023), Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en.
[32] OECD (2023), Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en.
[42] OECD (2023), “Family Indicators (Edition 2022)”, OECD Social and Welfare Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/6cb62cd0-en (accessed on 8 October 2024).
[18] OECD (2023), Net childcare costs in EU countries, 2022, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages/Net%20childcare%20costs%20in%20EU%20countries%20in%202022.pdf.
[45] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Croatia 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f945053-en.
[38] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[54] OECD (2022), Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce Development as a Foundation for Process Quality, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/e012efc0-en.pdf?expires=1719222671&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=BEC2092C5EA3FA61E632FA02C25F5DF3.
[28] OECD (2022), “Quality assurance and improvement in the early education and care sector”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/774688bf-en.
[21] OECD (2022), “Staff teams in early childhood education and care centres”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 53, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b913691-en.
[22] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
[59] OECD (2020), Early Learning and Child Well-being in Estonia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15009dbe-en.
[1] OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
[50] OECD (2019), Good Practice for Good Jobs in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/64562be6-en.
[47] OECD (2019), Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/301005d1-en.
[5] 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.
[2] OECD (2017), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en.
[66] OECD (2015), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en.
[39] OECD (Forthcoming), DELSA Accession Review of Croatia.
[43] OECD (n.d.), Parental leave systems, OECD Family Database, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf.
[36] Official Journal of the European Union (2022), Council Recommendation of 8 December 2022 on early childhood education and care: the Barcelona targets for 2030 2022/C 484/01, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022H1220%2801%29&qid=1719404197109.
[58] Ofsted (n.d.), How to become a contracted Ofsted inspector, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-become-a-contracted-ofsted-inspector (accessed on 7 June 2024).
[51] 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.
[64] Petits : pas (n.d.), petits:pas, apprendre en jouant dès la petite enfance, https://www.a-primo.ch/fr/offres/petits-pas/qu-est-ce-que-petits-pas (accessed on 14 June 2024).
[13] Romani Early years Network (n.d.), Croatian Play HUbs, https://www.reyn.eu/croatian-play-hubs/.
[65] Serapioni, M. (2023), Report of the European Observatory on Family Policy: Towards greater family policy integration across Europe, https://coface-eu.org/report-of-the-european-observatory-on-family-policy-towards-greater-family-policy-integration-across-europe/.
[19] Stubbs, P. et al. (2017), Dječje siromaštvo i strategije nošenja sa siromaštvom kućanstava u Hrvatskoj, https://www.eizg.hr/projekti/zavrseni-projekti/djecje-siromastvo-i-strategijenosenja-sa-siromastvom-kucanstava-u-hrvats.
[20] Šućur, Z. et al. (2015), Siromaštvo i dobrobit djece predškolske dobi u Republici Hrvatskoj, https://www.croris.hr/crosbi/publikacija/knjiga/13301.
[14] UNICEF (2023), Delivering the EU Child Guarantee - practical lessons for effective interventions, https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/media/3771/file/UNICEF-Delivering-EU-Child-Guarantee-2023.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[15] UNICEF (2022), EU Child Guarantee: Play Hubs with Toy Libraries for children and their families, https://www.unicef.org/croatia/en/node/3101 (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[4] UNICEF (2021), A deep-dive into the European Child Guarantee in Croatia - Literature Review, https://www.unicef.org/croatia/media/9951/file/Literature%20Review%20-%20EU%20Child%20Guarantee%20in%20Croatia%20-%20ENG.pdf.
[16] UNICEF (2020), Kako do vrtića za sve? Mogućnosti financiranja sustava ranog i predškolskog odgoja i obrazovanja [How to get to kindergarten for everyone? Possibilities of financing the system of early and preschool education], UNICEF Office for Croatia, https://demografijaimladi.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/Direktorij%201/Kako%20do%20vrti%c4%87a%20za%20sve.pdf.
[61] United States government (2024), Office of Child Care Fact Sheet, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/fact-sheet (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[53] Wolf, S. et al. (2018), “Measuring and predicting process quality in Ghanaian pre-primary classrooms using the Teacher Instructional Practices and Processes System (TIPPS)”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 18-30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.003.
[7] World Bank (2019), National Development Strategy Croatia 2030 Policy Note: Education and Skills.