This chapter discusses the governance, quality, and accessibility of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Greece. It highlights recent reforms, including the extension of compulsory pre-primary education to age four and the introduction of a new national curriculum, while noting ongoing fragmentation between pre-primary education and services for children under age four, as well as disparities in provision across municipalities. Drawing on international evidence, the chapter recommends consolidating governance, developing a unified curriculum framework for children under four, and strengthening pedagogical quality. It also calls for improved structural conditions and targeted workforce support to ensure equitable access and high-quality learning environments for all young children.
Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece
Abstract
Early childhood is a sensitive period for development and learning because early experiences can have a strong impact on various life outcomes (Bethlehem R.A.I., 2022[1]) (Shuey and Kankaraš, 2018[2]). Strong early learning positively predicts well-being across a range of indicators in adulthood, including general well-being, physical and mental health, educational attainment and employment. Areas of early learning that are of particular importance, and are all interrelated, include: language and literacy; numeracy and other non-verbal cognitive skills; self-regulation; emotional health, social well-being and social and emotional skills.
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) can give a strong start to all children by providing equitable opportunities and experiences that support development, promote well-being and connect families to one another and their community. Participation in ECEC is linked with both short- and long-term benefits that range across domains (Barry et al., 2024[3]) (Melhuish et al., 2015[4]). In the short term, these benefits include providing children with opportunities to enjoy exploring their own interests and growing capabilities while developing a sense of belonging. In addition, ECEC helps ensure children have the skills (cognitive, language and, and social and emotional) and confidence to transition smoothly into primary school. This early educational investment is followed by increased success in employment, social integration and sometimes reduced criminality. Families and society also benefit from ECEC in the short term, notably through stronger parental labour market participation.
Achieving these positive effects is strongly linked to the context and features of ECEC systems (Duncan et al., 2023[5]). Both the quantity of participation in ECEC and its quality matter for achieving short- and long-term effects (Dalli et al., 2011[6]). There are two main parameters for the quantity of ECEC: the starting age and the number of hours per week. The quality of ECEC is a broad concept that includes several dimensions (OECD, 2021[7]). Specifically, the quality of children’s daily interactions through their ECEC settings with other children, staff and teachers, called process quality, is closely related to children’s development and learning (Pianta, Downer and Hamre, 2016[8]). Structural features of ECEC provision (e.g. curriculum frameworks, staff training requirements, child-staff ratios) are instrumental by setting the conditions for high-quality interactions between children and staff in ECEC settings or process quality. Findings on the possible ideal quantity of participation in ECEC indicate that this is closely related to the quality of ECEC and thereby, the impact of early start in ECEC varies across countries (Melhuish et al., 2015[4]). According to the same source, overall, there is evidence that enrolment in ECEC at age 2 to 3 years is beneficial for children, while evidence is more mixed for younger children.
Policy makers increasingly recognise the importance of safeguarding children’s access to equitable opportunities and experiences that favourably kick-start their educational careers. In this context, enrolment in ECEC is growing and is near-universal in several OECD countries including Greece for children aged 4 to 5. Many OECD countries have also reached large ECEC participation for children aged 3, which is not the case in Greece, although efforts to provide free ECEC for children below age 4 are ongoing. Yet, in most OECD countries, investments in the sector remain below public spending in comparison with the expenditure on later education levels, a critical factor that could hinder access and updated service quality. In addition, although enrolment of children under age 3 in ECEC is increasing, it is still more variable compared to the participation of older children. Finally, while children from low socio-economic and immigrant backgrounds and children in rural or remote areas are those who benefit the most from ECEC, in most OECD countries, they are less likely to be enrolled, particularly at younger age, and when they are, they tend to receive ECEC provision of lower quality (OECD, 2025[9]).
Over the recent years, Greece has invested in the early years, including by making pre-primary education for children aged 4 to 6 compulsory since 2020. This has been accompanied by introducing measures to strengthen the quality of pre-primary education, such as a new curriculum, and to make it inclusive for all children. PISA results discussed in Chapter 1 showing test scores for Greece being below the OECD average concern students who attended ECEC 10 years ago and therefore do not capture the effect of these more recent reforms. However, with ECEC participation being low below age 4 and public spending also being below the OECD average as discussed in this chapter, investing more and better in the early years can be an important part of a strategy that aims to improve student outcomes. Furthermore, while the gap in test scores between socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged students is not particularly large in Greece, the level of performance of socio-economically disadvantaged students in mathematics was among the lowest in OECD countries in 2022 (see Figure 3.5 in (OECD, 2025[9])). Therefore, effort needs to be placed on strengthening early learning experiences for vulnerable children, which involves a dual strategy that aims to remove barrier to participation in ECEC below age 4 and ensures these children benefit from high-quality ECEC.
Strengthening investment in ECEC, as discussed in this chapter, is part of a broad strategy to reduce inequalities from an early age and support economic growth. Despite progress in recent years, difficulties in access to ECEC for families with young children continue to hold back women in the labour market. Stepping up the provision of ECEC for children under age 4 would allow more women to join the labour market with positive effect on GDP growth by expanding the workforce and bringing a larger pool of talents, including in management positions, which has been shown to be associated with better firm performance (OECD, 2024[10]) (Criscuolo et al., 2021[11]).
Based on this context, this chapter examines policy directions to improve and expand ECEC in Greece. While the primary focus is on pre-primary education, in line with the scope of this review on compulsory education, the chapter also includes relevant information on ECEC provision for children under the age of 4, along with considerations for the future development of this segment.
Governance and organisation
The Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system in Greece is fragmented in different parts (or “split”), with governance, responsibilities and type of provision divided by the age of the child. For children under the age of 4 (ISCED 01), public ECEC services-including municipal infant care, infant/childcare, and childcare centres are overseen by the Ministry of Interior and local municipalities. Private ECEC settings for this age group are licensed, operated, and supervised by the Ministry of Social Cohesion and Family Affairs. For children aged 4 and 5 (ISCED 02), pre-primary education (nipiagogeia) is compulsory and provided under the authority of the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports, covering both public and private settings. Primary education (ISCED 1) begins at age 6.
While Greek national legislation considers pre-primary education as part of “primary education”, this chapter adopts the international classification: ECEC covers all education and care for children from birth until entry into primary education (ISCED 0). This includes:
Pre-primary education (ISCED 02, ages 4 and 5), under the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports.
Early childhood care and education for children under 4 (ISCED 01), provided by the Ministry of Interior and local municipalities (public) and the Ministry of Social Cohesion and Family Affairs (private).
Pre-primary education is mainly public, centre-based and free for all children. In 2018, compulsory pre-primary education for children aged 4 to 6 was established by law and became effective at national level in the 2020-21 school year, placing Greece among the OECD countries with an early start of compulsory education (Figure 4.1). In 2023, 14% of children were enrolled in private pre-primary institutions, which was on the rise compared to 2013 (7%), but below the OECD average at 33% (OECD, 2025[12]). Children under age 4 can be enrolled in public municipal or private settings. For this age group, different types of settings exist depending on the children’s age (infant care, infant/childcare and childcare centres).
2023
Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order by the starting age of compulsory education.
Source: OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
The ECEC system (covering children aged 0 to 6) is highly fragmented. All aspects of governance of pre-primary education (monitoring, curriculum design, ECEC workforce training and funding) are common to those for primary education while ECEC provision for children under age 4 follows different approaches, with limited co-operation between the Ministry of Education and the two Ministries in charge. While pre-primary education is mostly regulated and funded by the central government, public ECEC for children under the age of 4 is under the responsibility of municipalities although most of the funding comes from the central level (Ministry of Interior).
In pre-primary education, the number of children per class with one teacher should not exceed 25, which is among the highest number of children per teacher in European countries. However, due to the large share of very small schools according to OECD data, in 2023 there were on average 8 children per teacher in pre-primary education, which is well below the OECD average at 13 (OECD, 2025[12]). Compulsory preschool involves 25 teaching hours per week (from 8:30 am to 13:00 pm). In addition, children can attend a non-compulsory all-day programme that extends to 16:00 or 17:00 pm.
Expenditure and funding mechanisms
Greece’s total spending on pre-primary education as a percentage of GDP was below the OECD average at 0.3% compared to 0.6% on average in the OECD in 2022 (OECD, 2025[12]). This, to some extent, reflects the fact that pre-primary education lasts two years in Greece compared to three years in many other countries. However, total spending per child were also well below the OECD average for pre-primary education (Figure 4.2). As pre-primary education is free to families in public institutions, most expenditure are public, with 11% of total expenditure on pre-primary education coming from private sources, close to the OECD average (14%). Private expenditure corresponds to the cost for children enrolled in private pre-primary institutions.
Annual expenditure per child in USD, converted using PPPs (based on head counts), 2022
Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order of pre-primary annual expenditure per child,
Source: OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en
OECD data on ECEC spending for Greece do not include ECEC provision for children under age 4. Public ECEC for this age group is funded through annual grants from the Ministry of Interior to municipalities, complemented by municipalities’ own resources and parental fees for children who are not covered by a voucher. The annual grant is determined according to the minimum operating cost of the childcare setting and is further adjusted for demographic and geographic criteria. Salaries of staff are paid through this grant. Municipalities bear responsibility for funding physical infrastructure, while operating expenses (such as building maintenance and heating costs) are covered by the grant from the Ministry of Interior. In addition, the government has introduced a voucher system—co-funded by the European Social Fund—to support registration in both public ECEC settings and some private facilities participating in the voucher programme (MERAS, 2025[13]). Vouchers are allocated to employed or unemployed parents based on income, family characteristics, and employment status, making ECEC free of charge for children who receive a voucher. Furthermore, the government has introduced a specific voucher scheme for parents employing a home-based provider, under the “Neighbourhood Nannies” programme. In addition, it is important to note the following:
According to the relevant legal framework (MD 41087/2017 and JMD 134947/2025), municipalities may set modest, income-based parental fees (τροφεία), but no additional fees can be imposed for core educational or care activities during official hours. Fees must be transparent and made known to parents prior to enrolment (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Children in public childcare settings who attend with a voucher do so entirely free of charge; municipalities are reimbursed directly by the Hellenic Agency for Local Development and Local Government (EETAA) on a per-child basis. No charges may be levied on parents with a valid voucher, and nurseries (municipal or private, if participating in the programme) contract with EETAA for reimbursement (MERAS, 2025[13]).
In private ECEC settings, parents are generally responsible for all fees, except where vouchers are used and, in such cases, the voucher covers the full cost during its validity (MERAS, 2025[13]).
ECEC workforce qualifications, training and salaries
Workforce policies governing pre-primary education in Greece are broadly aligned with those for primary education, as detailed in the chapter on the teaching profession in this review. The staff composition consists primarily of leaders and teachers, with no assistant positions akin to those found in other OECD countries such as France, Germany or Norway, where staff may support teachers with the care and education of children. For compulsory pre-primary education (ages 4–6), teachers are required to hold a tertiary qualification at ISCED level 6 or above, obtained from a Department of Early Childhood Education at a Greek higher education institution or from an academically equivalent degree programme abroad. A bachelor's degree is the minimum requirement, and while a master's qualification is common among teachers, no data are available on the qualification levels of the pre-primary workforce. Bachelor’s degrees typically include practical training, the duration and content of which vary across programmes (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Staff working in ECEC settings for children under age 4 are subject to different qualification standards. Lead educators must hold a vocationally-oriented short-cycle tertiary education degree (ISCED 5), as stipulated in Presidential Decree 85/2022, which details the required qualifications for each category of personnel. Assistants may possess a vocational high school diploma or a non-tertiary post-secondary qualification (e.g. SAEK diploma) with specialisation in early childhood education, applying equally to both public and private settings. These qualification requirements are meant to establish consistency across providers for children under age 4, distinct from those in place for pre-primary education (ages 4–6) (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Recruitment procedures are defined by Law 4589/2019, which governs the permanent appointments and recruitment of temporary substitute teachers in primary and secondary education, including special education. The Supreme Council for Civil Personnel Selection (ASEP) prepares ranked lists of candidates based on sector and specialty, following predetermined merit criteria. In the Kindergarten Teacher sector, applicants must hold a degree from a Department of Early Childhood Education or an equivalent qualification from abroad. Additional qualifications and experience are required for special education and English language teacher posts. The appointment and recruitment process, based on academic and social criteria such as degree level, knowledge of foreign languages, teaching experience and family status, ensures that most teachers possess multiple formal qualifications (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Teachers are mandated to participate in compulsory professional development and can also engage in optional activities. Continuous professional development is organised in line with that for higher levels of education, with key institutions such as the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) responsible for designing and coordinating training programmes (see chapter on the teaching profession). Pedagogical and teaching competence is evaluated either before or after appointment and can be acquired through higher education studies or certified training programmes, as detailed by Law 4589/2019 (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Despite high qualification requirements, salary levels for pre-primary teachers remain low compared to other tertiary-educated workers in Greece as well as to teachers with similar attainment in other OECD countries. In addition, salary growth with experience is limited, which may affect the attractiveness of the profession (Figure 4.3).
Ratio of teacher salaries relative to the earnings of full-time, full-year workers aged 25-64, 2024
Notes: Countries and jurisdictions are ranked in descending order of the ratio of teachers' salaries to earnings for tertiary-educated workers.
Source: OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
Curriculum framework
The Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports introduced a new curriculum framework for pre-primary education for the school year 2023-24. This is part of a comprehensive reform of curricula for all levels of compulsory education, with the implementation for pre-primary education coming first. The curriculum has been developed by the IEP, the scientific and research body that supports the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports, and aims to develop 21st century competences from an early age following the principles of children’s holistic development and learning. The content of learning is organised around four main areas: 1) Child and Communication, including language Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); 2) Child, Self and Society; 3) Child and Science and 4) Child, Body, Creation and Expression. Multilingualism is also part of the curriculum: English classes for all children in pre-primary education have been introduced in 2021-22. The curriculum is organised around knowledge (what?), skills (how?) and attitudes (why?). It defines the role of teachers as “orchestrator” of children’s learning experience, a social educator, but also a researcher, a critical friend, a mediator and a leader through participation in administrative tasks. Overall, the curriculum refers to several research-based concepts and principles that are recognised as central for child development.
The new curriculum framework was first piloted in 2021-2022 and then in 2022 to 2023 in experimental preschools. Experimental schools in Greece, known as "Peiramatika Scholeia," are public institutions established to promote educational research, teacher training, and the exchange of innovative practices. They operate at all levels of compulsory education and serve as testing grounds for new teaching methods and curricula, with the aim of improving the broader educational system. Admission is typically done through a lottery, ensuring equal access, and teachers are selected for their expertise in educational innovation. These schools are closely linked with universities and research institutes, fostering collaboration and continuous professional development (Eurydice, 2023[14]). Training to implement the new curriculum framework has started with a third of teachers who have been trained by IEP and the remaining part who are trained by education advisors.
In contrast to pre-primary education, there is no curriculum framework for ECEC for children below age 4. Settings generally develop a pedagogical plan. An attempt to develop a common pedagogical programme in 2021 failed to be implemented. The lack of curriculum reflects the fact that this part of the sector in not under the Ministry of Education although the goals of ECEC for children under age 4 aims to offer comprehensive preschool care, following the most up-to-date scientific developments and support children’s development in a holistic manner, physically, mentally, emotionally and socially (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2025[15]). Advances in neuroscience highlight the learning children are doing before age 3 and there is a growing recognition across OECD countries of the role curricula have to support the quality of ECEC that children experience (OECD, 2021[7]) (OECD, 2025[9]). Although the content may differ from curricula for pre-primary aged children, having a curriculum in place for ECEC settings that serve children under age 3 is common in OECD countries (Table 4.1).
Curriculum frameworks’ coverage across age groups and settings in some European countries, 2023/2024
Source: European Education and Culture Executive Agency (2025), Eurydice, Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe 2025 – Eurydice report, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/66224.
Monitoring and quality assurance
For pre-primary education, monitoring and quality assurance systems are the same as for higher levels of education (see chapters on school autonomy and the teaching profession). Important changes have been introduced over the last five years with the development of frameworks, institutions and processes for monitoring at both the teacher and pre-school levels. In 2021, Greece introduced a new teacher appraisal process. The appraisal of teachers has followed the evaluation of school units carried out as a first step during the 2021/2022 school year, aiming to improve the efficiency of the education system, increase teachers' job satisfaction, enhance their professional development and better link assessment results with educational outcomes. The appraisal focusses on the pedagogical work of the teachers, as well as on the consistency and adequacy of their performance. To support this process, an electronic platform has been developed.
Reflecting the split governance of the ECEC sector, public ECEC settings for children under age 4 are supervised by municipal authorities, and monitoring practices accordingly show significant variation. Social counsellors from the regional authority of the Ministry of Interior are currently responsible for inspecting the operation of these facilities to ensure compliance with applicable legal and quality standards. Monitoring in this sector mainly addresses health, safety and child protection aspects of quality, with limited focus on education purposes, due to the absence of a national pedagogical framework. The licensing of private ECEC settings is overseen by the Ministry of Social Cohesion and Family, which is responsible for the regulatory framework and terms of operation. However, establishment and operational licences for private centres are issued by municipal authorities, following the harmonised requirements set out in Law 3852/2010 (Government Gazette A’ 87). Both public and private ECEC centres now operate under a unified regulatory framework with harmonised operational rules, and monitoring by Regional Social Advisors relies on this framework. Notably, a single pedagogical quality framework for ECEC settings is currently under development (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Pre-primary education is universal and free starting from the age of 4
Enrolment rates of children aged 4 and 5 in ECEC are above the OECD average and the EU targets (Figure 4.4). These rates have increased markedly for children aged 4 from 2018 with the beginning of the introduction of compulsory education at age 4 to reach almost full enrolment at age 4 and universal enrolment at age 5 in 2022.
Free pre-primary education and easy access to all children are key achievements. Children from vulnerable social groups are accepted regardless of whether they are registered in government records and school leaders should not hinder the registration of children from vulnerable social groups due to the lack of a certificate of permanent residence. Any types of documents proving that the child lives in Greece should be accepted. In case of inability to register the child due to non-vaccination, cooperation with local, health and social agencies is required. In addition, children from vulnerable social groups can register in the optional full-day programme without any condition.
Note: In Panel A, countries are ranked by the enrolment rate at 5-year-olds.
Source: OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
A broad enrolment in high quality ECEC can have multiple benefits on children, families, societies and economies. Participation in high quality ECEC has been shown to improve children’s cognitive and socio-emotional skills in the short- to long-term, leading to a range of positive education outcomes, labour market and social outcomes later in life (OECD, 2025[9]). With these effects being stronger for more vulnerable children. By supporting the development of foundational skills that children need to succeed in subsequent levels of education, ECEC policies set the groundwork for more efficient public investment in education later as this benefits to a full cohort of children thereby improving class climate in later years of education (Heckman, 2006[16]).
Pre-primary education is well connected to primary education
On many aspects, pre-primary education is integrated with primary education and in fact known and called “primary education” in Greece, which leads to important benefits. For example, governance and funding, workforce policies, and curriculum framework development are common or well-aligned between pre-primary and primary education, with almost no distinction between these two levels of education. This type of arrangement is similar to the one in some other countries that have historically placed pre-primary education under the Ministry of Education such as Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, France, Luxembourg and Scotland, but is different from other systems that are divided between pre-primary and primary education such as Germany for instance, although strong co-ordination can be achieved in systems with divided governance (e.g. Ireland).
Continuity in curricula and close collaboration between pre-primary and primary teachers and school principals, along with transition practices such as school visits, can offer multiple benefits for children, including smoother transitions and more consistent skill development. From the perspective of the ECEC workforce, having similar approaches to training, initial education requirements, quality monitoring, and equal pay in both pre-primary and primary education—as done in Greece—helps reduce the risk of the ECEC profession being perceived as lower in status compared to other levels of education. Furthermore, it should be noted that according to EURYDICE data, Greece is the only European country with an oversupply of teachers in pre-primary education (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2025[15]). This situation contrasts with most other OECD countries in which shortages of staff is a common challenge. In Greece, shortages of staff seem to mainly relate to lengthy and complicated process of teacher’s allocation rather than to fundamental difficulties for the sector to attract candidates.
Candidates need to be well trained to enter the ECEC profession
Teachers in pre-primary education need to have a bachelor’s degree (ISCED 6), which is similar to requirements to most European OECD countries. Programmes to become a teacher include a practical component and classes on child development and pedagogies to work with young children. Close connection with professors in initial education programmes and IEP that develops curricula is also a strength and ensures that new policy development on the curriculum is reflected in initial teacher training. Analysis across several countries (though not including Greece) shows that staff with higher levels of education—especially those trained specifically to work with children—are more likely to adapt their classroom practices to each child’s developmental needs and interests (OECD, 2019[17]).
Several innovative approaches to pre-primary education have been launched
Over the last years, the government has followed an innovative approach to pre-primary education. The new pre-primary education curriculum is research-based and aims to develop 21st century skills in children.
The introduction of English learning also follows an innovative and play-based approach with the English teacher and the main teacher working together with children. English teachers need to have a degree in English Language and Literature from a Greek university or an equivalent academic qualification from a foreign university. In addition, they have received a training by IEP. Related educational material was developed by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The English teacher and the regular teacher have to be present during the two hours per week activities in English. This requirement aims to ensure that both teachers co-operate on the planning, implementation, and assessment of the implementation of activities in English.
The “Skills Labs” were piloted in 2020-21, introduced in September 2021, and now part of the curriculum. They consist in a set of activities aiming to develop transversal (e.g. communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity) and digital skills. Pre-primary and primary schools have to allocate some hours per week (three in pre-primary schools) to activities designed around a major contemporary issue (e.g. mental health, climate change, diversity, robotics) to foster these sets of skills. Education materials are developed by civil society (universities, non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations, citizens’ groups, local government, private research centres as well as teachers) and are evaluated, selected and monitored by the IEP. All educational materials are uploaded on an online platform which allows teachers to access material. The Ministry of Education plans to make the platform interactive to enable collaboration and exchange of good practices. In addition, robotics kits were distributed to some schools for children to develop early digital skills with this material. Most teachers have been trained on “Skills Labs” with a 32-hours online workshop (European Commission, 2022[18]).
Overall, the focus on the development of early digital skills in Greece is ambitious. The new curriculum includes all areas of early digital literacy that are generally considered for this age, but rarely all included in other OECD curriculum framework (Figure 4.5) (OECD, 2023[19]). In particular, an emergent sense of computational thinking is included in the Greek curriculum, which is still rarely the case in other OECD countries for this age group.
Source: (OECD, 2023[19])
Ensuring high-quality ECEC is central for childhood and adult outcomes, but this has not been comprehensively and systematically monitored over the past years
In addition to large enrolment rates, ensuring strong quality ECEC (for both pre-primary education and ECEC under age 4) is key to lead to strong students and adulthood outcomes. The quality of ECEC is a complex and multi-dimensional concept that is difficult to assess (OECD, 2015[20]). Areas to monitor include the quality of teachers practices with children, which is at the centre of their learning, the implementation of the curriculum framework, compliance with regulations, profiles of staff and their work practices, working conditions, leadership and management. Methods for monitoring are either external or internal. External monitoring generally involves inspections to observe and evaluate ECEC performance at the setting level. Other options could include parent surveys. Internal evaluation often relies on self-assessment tools employed by ECEC leaders and/or teachers to assess the level of quality in the setting they are working in. Self-evaluation can be combined with external monitoring. Appraisals of teachers by leaders or by peers is another option.
Recent development of monitoring in Greece includes both external and internal evaluation for preschools and external appraisal of teachers. For preschools, the school action plan, a self-assessment tool, can be a starting point for reflections on the pedagogical project of the school and exchanges on activities with children (see chapters on school autonomy and on the teaching profession for more information about these practices in Greece). However, it can also be a document with no concrete implications. The risk is that good pre-schools would in any case have worked in this way while more problematic schools develop a plan with no concrete actions in practices. Countries that have followed a similar approach (Luxembourg) identify schools that are more problematic and have regional officers who closely follow the preparation and implementation of the plan as discussed later in this chapter (OECD, 2022[21]).
Greece’s internal evaluation framework is structured around nine axes, each accompanied by a set of analytic indicators that aim to improve educational work across three main domains: pedagogy and teaching; school management and administration; and teachers’ professional development (see chapter on school autonomy). Since the evaluation system is relatively new, depth or quality of implementation of the evaluation framework may still vary across schools. Information on the quality of pre-primary education therefore remains limited. Research indicates that what matters the most for children learning and development is the quality of the interactions between teachers and children (process quality) (Pianta et al., 2005[22]). Some countries for instance use the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) to assess the quality of adults-child interactions in schools such as teachers’ capacity to develop a positive climate, provide emotional support and support concept development in children.
At the system level, despite its limitations, the association between participation in ECEC and children’s outcomes in the early years of primary education—or later in their educational trajectories—can serve as an approximate indicator of certain aspects of ECEC quality. This can be done when the country has for instance national children’s assessment in the beginning of primary combined with information on children participation in ECEC. In Greece, there was no national student assessment before Panhellenic exams until 2022. Since then, the National Diagnostic exams are carried out once a year in a sample of schools to test students’ performance in language and mathematics at the end of sixth grade of primary school and at the end of the third year of lower secondary education (Gymnasium). At international level, association between participation in ECEC and children’s outcomes can be estimated by using the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRLS) surveys, or Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). However, Greece only participates in PISA, which concerns students at age 15 and therefore can only approximate the quality of ECEC ten years before the student assessment took place. Differences in the association between PISA scores and ECEC participation can be considered to signal differences in the system-level quality of ECEC between countries, but might also reflect different political goals for ECEC, including the weight put on school preparedness. Moreover, this particular measure concentrates on only some learning areas of the potential short-term effects of ECEC, neglecting other areas such as socio-emotional development (OECD, 2025[9]).
As displayed in Figure 4.6, the gap in PISA scores between children who have attended more than one year of ECEC but less than two or two but less than three and children who have attended for less than a year (first two bars) provide an approximation of the quality of pre-primary education ten years ago. The gap in PISA scores between children who have attended more than three years of ECEC and children who have attended for less than a year (third bar) provide an approximation of the quality of ECEC for children aged 4. These comparisons suggest that, ten years ago, the quality of ECEC in this context was above the OECD average—and that pre-primary education was of higher quality than ECEC for younger children.
Score-point differences in mathematics at age 15 between students who had attended ECEC for different durations and students who attended ECEC for less than a year or did not attend ECEC, after controlling for students’ socio-economic status, 2022
Source: OECD (n.d.), PISA 2015 and 2022 databases, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa/pisa-data.html [Table II.B1.4.5].
A key question for Greece is to ensure that pre-primary teachers implement the new curriculum and adopt practices that align with it. Experiences from other countries that have introduced ambitious/research based curricula, such as Ireland and New Zealand, indicate gaps between the ideal, intended curriculum and pedagogy, and how guidelines are interpreted and implemented in practice (Leseman and Slot, 2025[23]). One of the reasons is that early childhood teachers do not sufficiently understand the official curriculum or do not know how to translate guidelines into practice, as was noted in Sweden (Björklund and Barendregt, 2016[24]). This might be particularly the case when the official curriculum is global and open-ended (McLachlan, 2018[25]; Rege et al., 2018[26]; Yang and Li, 2018[27]). During schools’ visits, interviewed teachers and leaders indicated that there was a feeling that the curriculum framework and Skills Labs are just formalising practices that teachers already use. Furthermore, teachers and leaders who are not concerned by teaching appraisal (for instance because they are not new) have no incentives to try to implement the curriculum framework. Overall, without further mechanisms to support the implementation of the innovations introduced for pre-primary education, these efforts might not fully lead to quality improvement.
Structural features of ECEC provision are likely to lead to varying or low quality
Structural features of ECEC provision, including class size, children-to-teacher ratios and the number of teaching hours, create the foundational conditions for teachers to build relationships with children and support their holistic development. In Greece, the maximum group size is 25 children per teacher, a figure that is comparatively high among OECD countries. This can pose specific challenges for teachers in adapting to individual learning and developmental needs, especially where children come from diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, a situation often found in disadvantaged areas with high population density. In contrast, in remote areas with low population density, children-to-teacher ratios tend to be lower due to very small school sizes. However, this arrangement may result in the teacher being the only adult present in the school, a scenario that was discussed during school visits and meetings of the OECD Review Team, which brings additional challenges such as being solely responsible for administrative duties or for preparing lunches while remaining in contact with the children.
Paid hours for work without contact with children in Greece amount to one hour per day. This means that teachers have little time to prepare activities or train themselves. While there is no internationally comparable data on paid hours without contact with children, it seems that there are large variations across countries (OECD, 2021[7]). In Greece, leaders also have a high number of teaching hours. With high administrative burden, this leaves them with little time for informal learning and exchanges in teams (leaders and teachers) during paid hours.
These structural aspects of ECEC provision can hinder the quality of teachers’ and leaders’ interactions with children. The challenges are likely to be greater in schools with maximum class sizes or in very small schools. As far as these schools are in areas with more vulnerable children, it is likely that more vulnerable children tend to receive ECEC of lower quality, while they should in fact receive ECEC of higher quality for ECEC to close the achievement gap before it widens.
Enrolment of children under age 4 is low
While enrolments rates in ECEC are high for children aged 4 and 5, they are much more limited for children under age 3 (Figure 4.7). They have increased between 2013 and 2023 but remain below the EU target. Furthermore, with pre-primary education starting only at age 4 and not at age 3 like in many other OECD countries (e.g. Bulgaria, France, Italy), enrolment rate at age 3 in Greece is below the OECD average of 75% in 2022, although no recent international data exist for Greece for this specific age.
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC (tepsr_sp210) (last updated 4 October 2024) in European Education and Culture Executive Agency: Eurydice, Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe 2025 – Eurydice report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/66224.
The provision of ECEC for children below age 4 can lead to multiple benefits (OECD, 2023[19]). The first years of life are a highly sensitive period for children’s development and learning. Interventions during the first years of life can offset the effects of trauma and deprivation on children’s brain development while interventions later in life tend to have a more limited effectiveness (Vanderwert et al., 2010[28]). This means that the opportunity cost of not investing enough in ECEC for the youngest children can be large. By supporting the development of foundational skills (a combination of cognitive and social-emotional skills, as well as executive function, which support learning across domains) that children need to succeed in subsequent levels of education, ECEC policies set the groundwork for more efficient public investment in education later on and limit the risks for vulnerable children to fall behind in their education pathways (Heckman, 2006[16]). ECEC policies can support parents’ labour market participation and income, and thereby mitigate the risks of poverty, with benefits for children through higher quality of home environments in addition to the economic gains of stronger parents’ labour market participation (Humphries et al., 2024[29]). Mothers’ labour market participation and enrolment rates in ECEC are closely linked (Figure 4.8). Both of them for Greece are below the EU average and well below the group of countries with high maternal employment (Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia).
Low ECEC enrolment of children under age 4 comes from multiple barriers to ECEC participation, ranging from immediate and tangible challenges such as cost and location to more subtle factors including social norms, parental perceptions or institutional biases. In Greece, the development of vouchers to cover the cost of ECEC should help to overcome some of these barriers and support maternal employment while bringing benefits to children enrolled in ECEC settings, particularly those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. However, direct barriers relating to the limited affordability of ECEC for children under age 4, particularly for parents not receiving the voucher, and to the insufficient supply of ECEC places together with the underdevelopment of the network of ECEC centres remain. Creating new ECEC infrastructures involves efforts from Municipalities to apply for funding and needs to co-fund new projects as well as complexities relating to the hiring of staff and other aspects of ECEC provision.
Labour market participation of women whose youngest children are under age 3 years (2021) and enrolment rates in formal childcare of children under age 3 years (2022)
Note: Data generally include children enrolled in ECEC (ISCED 2011 Level 0) and other registered ECEC services (ECEC services outside the scope of ISCED 0 because they are not in adherence with all ISCED 2011 criteria. Employment rates refer to women aged 25‑64 years whose youngest children are aged 0‑2 years.
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC (tepsr_sp210) (last updated 4 October 2024) in European Education and Culture Executive Agency: Eurydice, Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe 2025 – Eurydice report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/66224 and OECD Family Database, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.
Social norms that emphasise the importance of parental childcare, particularly provided by mothers, act against children’s enrolment in ECEC at a young age in Greece and tend to lower the demand for places. On average across OECD countries, around 34% of individuals think that children suffer when their mothers work, but this percentage reaches almost 40% in Greece (Figure 4.9). These social attitudes create what is called indirect barriers to ECEC participation (OECD, 2025[9]).
Association between the national population who agrees that “when a mother works for pay, the children suffer” and ECEC enrolment for 0-2-year-olds
Note: Data for 0-2-year-olds generally include children enrolled in early childhood education services (ISCED 2011 Level 01) and other registered ECEC services (outside the scope of ISCED Level 01, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED-2011 criteria) (see Annex B). Percentages for the response options “agree” and “strongly agree” from the World Values Survey (WVS) were combined. The WVS data was matched to the closest, most recent year of ECEC enrolment data available for each country.
Source: OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
Social norms partly relate to paid maternity leave, which are among the longest in Greece among OECD countries (Figure 4.10). While extended parental leave delivers multiple benefits to families and broader society, including supporting fertility rates in ageing populations, these advantages involve trade-offs that require thoughtful policy design (Adema, Clarke and Frey, 2015[30]; Thomas et al., 2022[31]). One notable trade-off is the potential impact on maternal employment. Although paid leave supports women’s re-entry into the labour market, evidence shows that extending leave beyond six months may adversely affect wages and long-term employment prospects (Canaan et al., 2022[32]). Recent reviews of causal studies find that maternal work after childbirth yields either positive or neutral effects on children’s outcomes, indicating that maternal employment does not necessarily compromise child development (Lo Bue, Perova and Reynolds, 2023[33]). In response to ongoing demographic challenges, the government has introduced a National Demographic Action Plan in recent years to devise strategies addressing the implications of adverse demographic developments on fiscal sustainability, long-term competitiveness, prosperity and social cohesion (MERAS, 2025[13]).
Weeks of paid maternity leave, 2024
Source: Source: OECD Family Database, PF2.1.A, Summary of paid leave entitlements available to mothers, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.
Furthermore, despite long maternity leaves, as in many OECD countries, there is a discrepancy between the duration of paid leave and access to free ECEC that starts at age 4 (Eurydice, 2023[34]; OECD, 2024[35]). Women in low-income families have higher incentives than those with high income to leave the labour market and take care of the child as the loss in wages can be smaller than the costs associated with private ECEC. This explain why, in Greece as in many other OECD countries, children from socio-economically disadvantaged are less likely to be enrolled in ECEC in the first years while they would benefit the most from it [see Figure 5.1 in (OECD, 2025[9])].
Finally, there are signals of variation in the scope and quality of ECEC for children under age 4 across municipalities. Municipalities have large degree of freedom to allocate public ECEC places. Although the government has developed vouchers to cover fees for disadvantaged children, there seems to be limited funding to expand ECEC provision for this age group. In the absence of curriculum framework and national quality framework, some features of the quality of these programmes are not monitored. Overall, low enrolment rates of children aged 3 and below and risks of low quality of these programmes mean that there is a missed opportunity to give a strong start to all children at an age that is particularly important for child development.
Over the past decades, Greece has introduced substantial reforms aiming to expand access to ECEC and improve its quality, with a particular focus on pre-primary education. However, there are still gaps that can be progressively addressed. This section presents three main recommendations to improve and expand ECEC in Greece:
Recommendation 1: Strengthen pedagogical (or process) quality in pre-primary education. With large efforts recently made to modernise pre-primary education such as the introduction of a new ambitious curriculum framework, the development of training for teachers as well as changes made to school evaluation and teacher assessment for compulsory education, conditions are there to strengthen the quality of teachers’ practices with children, which is a key driver of children’s learning outcomes. However, additional efforts are needed to ensure that these changes deliver their outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Support quality pre-primary education through improved structural conditions. Structural factors such as the number of children per teacher and workforce’s workload relative to administrative tasks set the conditions for the quality of teachers’ interactions with children in the class. Addressing gaps in these structural conditions between urban and rural areas as well as between advantaged and disadvantaged ones will ensure more equity in the provision of quality pre-primary education.
Recommendation 3: Advance quality, equity and integration across the whole ECEC sector. Improving access to ECEC for children under age 4 and raising its quality will support all children’s development and learning before learning gaps widen while also supporting female labour market participation. This can be done by progressively integrating ECEC for children under age 4 and pre-primary education. This could also help improve structural conditions for pre-primary education as discussed in the following sections.
In the following sections each one of these recommendations are further developed. In addition to these three main recommendations, two additional transversal recommendations are proposed:
As Greece has already advanced the ECEC policy agenda and is planning to do more, it is recommended to explicitly articulate the various policy measures around a strategy to improve visibility on the reform agenda, help following progress made, and ensure the consistency of the various reforms. For instance, the method followed by Ireland to put in place, adapt and review its strategy for early years policies can inform the approach followed by Greece (Box 4.1). A particular strength of Ireland’s “First 5” strategy is its built-in process for review and updates every three years. Another strength of Ireland’s strategy is to include a national “Workforce Development Plan”, recognising that the ECEC workforce is at the core of policies to strengthen ECEC quality. Furthermore, to develop and advance the strategy, the government has adopted a participatory approach aimed to consolidate a national vision for the ECEC sector, which can also be beneficial to Greece.
As data on the ECEC sector are scarce for Greece, it is also recommended to develop data covering the whole ECEC sector that enable to monitor the performance at the system level. Data on the expenditure (public and private) in the sector and workforce are important. In addition, as the government has set ambitious goals for pre-primary education, children’s assessment at the beginning of pre-primary education would help understand the extent to which innovations in the sector are implemented as well as their effect on children’s outcomes. This would need to start as soon as possible and before all schools implement the new curriculum in practice. In particular, the introduction of National Diagnostic exams provide data on children outcomes and can help assess quality and equity in ECEC at a system level, particularly as data on children’s participation in ECEC are collected.
Ireland’s “First 5” is a 10-year strategy (2019-2028) that focusses on improving systems and supports in the first five years of a child’s life, recognising that no single measure can address the full range of child and family needs in this period of the life course (Government of Ireland, 2019[36]). The strategy includes multiple elements. It has committed to increase public funding, with the objective of improving quality, affordability and accessibility. The Government has revised the monitoring and inspection system with the aim of strengthening quality assurance. Ensuring that all ECEC settings implement the curriculum framework is also a priority for the Government. To build a high-quality workforce, a national Workforce Development Plan covering both initial and continuing professional development has been developed. Finally, a National Action Plan for Childminding has also been published, as part of a strategy to extend regulation and support for childminders.
A particular strength of the First 5 strategy is its built-in process for review and updates every three years through “Implementation Plans”, as it is intended to be a living strategy that develops and adapts to the context. Another relevant feature is its governance structure, with oversight and accountability in the hands of the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy and Public Services, which is comprised of ministers from numerous departments, and national leadership for implementation lying with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which is the agency responsible for ECEC in Ireland. Furthermore, to develop and advance the strategy, the government has brought together different stakeholders in the sector through a participatory approach (e.g. the Early Learning and Childcare Stakeholder Forum). In the context of a complex governance system, these consultations aimed to consolidate a national vision for the ECEC sector.
Policy recommendation 1: Strengthening pedagogical (process) quality in pre-primary education
Significant efforts have been made to modernise pre-primary education and align it with research-informed practices, including the introduction of an ambitious new curriculum framework grounded in the science of child development. This includes the incorporation of English language learning and “Skills Labs”. Going forward, sustained support will be needed to ensure the effective implementation of these innovations and to translate them into tangible improvements in the quality of pre-primary education.
The new Greek curriculum framework has been piloted in experimental schools, however, as teachers who work in experimental schools have applied to work in these schools, they are more likely than other teachers to be willing to innovate and adapt new practices, and therefore, they might not be an ideal and reliable control sample. Efforts should now concentrate on ensuring that these innovations deliver their effect in all pre-primary schools and lead to stronger learning and development outcomes for all children. This includes:
Developing effective guidelines on the new curriculum framework.
Supporting progressive training of the workforce through in-service training and informal learning.
Strengthening the monitoring of the quality of teachers’ practices, including through self-and peers- evaluation.
Develop effective guidelines on the new curriculum framework
The curriculum framework and its accompanying guidelines are lengthy and research-oriented. It is therefore recommended that IEP develops simpler educational guidelines highlighting examples of activities with a clearer focus on teachers’ practices with children. More clarity on features of teachers’ practices that are not anymore aligned with the goals of the curriculum framework is needed for the implementation of these innovations and the evolution of teaching practices. In relation to this, it is important to note that the IEP has already issued teaching guidelines with sample practical educational activities. However, this proposal specifically concerns guidelines on staff practices and not just examples of activities. The latest teacher’s guide accompanying the new curriculum focusses on teaching practices such as active engagement of pupils, transition issues, and lesson design for inquiry-based learning, but further clarity is recommended to ensure comprehensive alignment with the curriculum's goals.
Examples of countries that have developed guidelines for the ECEC workforce on the implementation of the curriculum include:
In Luxembourg, to facilitate the understanding of the curriculum framework for non-formal education, the Ministry has developed series of publications for ECEC leaders, for staff and for parents as well as a library of short videos (Enfancejeunesse, 2025[38]). Publications for staff include multiple concrete situations with clear description and explanation of the role and attitude of staff in the situation.
In New Zealand, the ECEC curriculum is framed in general terms and focusses on broad competencies, which has led to difficulties for the ECEC workforce to implement the curriculum. The Ministry of Education has therefore developed an online curriculum resource that aim to help staff to implement the curriculum and strengthen their practices with children (Ministry of Education, 2025[39]). The online resource is organised around three broad competencies, social and emotional, oral language and literacy and mathematics. The documents indicate what the ECEC staff can do to support children’s development according to the curriculum approach, with concrete examples, including on how staff can assess children’s progress. The resource pays particular attention to the cultural background of children and proposes examples that make explicit references to it (e.g. by proposing to use music that is familiar to the child for the developmental assessment).
Support progressive training of the workforce through in-service training and informal learning
Training for ECEC teachers and leaders is a critical mechanism for securing the adoption of practices that support the objectives of the new curriculum framework. According to national sources, a third of teachers and all education advisers have participated in curriculum framework training, and additional professional development is planned by the IEP from the end of 2025 (MERAS, 2025[13]). Participation in training is mandatory under Article 17 of Presidential Decree 79/2018. Education advisers have a statutory role in pedagogical and scientific guidance, as defined by Law 4823/2021 (Article 10), which includes providing training and support through seminars, model lessons, and innovation initiatives. Selection processes and regulatory provisions ensure advisors are qualified for this role and authorise the use of up to two working days per year per class for professional development activities without the need for additional permission. All teachers within a region are required to participate in these sessions, according to Law 1566/1985. Advisors collaborate with principals, teachers, training organisations and specialists to help ensure comprehensive coverage and quality in professional development programmes. Constraints related to time, working hours and resources may limit opportunities for structured training. While formal professional development is indispensable, effective implementation of the curriculum framework can also benefit from informal mechanisms such as peer collaboration and experiential learning, combined with more structured approaches including workshops. These factors will be important to consider when designing future strategies to support ECEC workforce development.
Evidence suggests that features of continuous professional development (CPD) that positively relate to the quality of ECEC staff practices include responsiveness to the context, a practical component, opportunities for reflection in real situations, and the inclusion of feedback or individual guidance (Egert, Fukkink and Eckhardt, 2018[40]). CPD in Greece mainly relies on traditional in-person or online classes with little peer exchanges and practical experience with a trainer. In addition to structured CPD, team collaboration and regular professional exchanges are valuable means to implement and transfer newly acquired knowledge (Resa et al., 2017[41]). Some relevant international practices can be considered to develop new formats of CPD:
In Luxembourg, to support the implementation of the new ECEC curriculum framework for children aged 1 to 4, the government has developed an extensive supply of CPD programmes (freely provided to staff and leaders), as well as a system of extra quota hours at the centre level for leaders’ coaching and training programmes in teams of staff.
In Ireland, the official CPD programme on the curriculum framework includes five individual workshops (two and a half hours each) and two onsite support visits from an Early Years Specialist to support settings to apply the learning from the training.
The Greek Ministry of Education could set mechanisms to identify regional education advisors, leaders and teachers who have been trained on the curriculum framework and/or have particular expertise in ECEC and build on them as “coaches” to train other regional education advisors and other ECEC staff. Special focus needs to be put on preschools with higher shares of socio-economically disadvantaged children. Some country examples can inform policies going in this direction (OECD, 2020[42]):
In Israel, a 2013 reform on the resourcing of the ECEC sector included funding for an additional staff member for ECEC centres with over 30 children aged 3 to 4 and funding for a leading teacher for small centres. A leading teacher is a teacher who stands out in their educational activities and is therefore appointed by the supervisor at the district level to serve as a leading teacher, alongside their duty as a teacher. Each leading teacher supports teachers from 10-15 ECEC centres (within a geographical district), for 30 hours per year (recognised for promotion and salary increase), where they mainly support the professional needs of teachers and promote community-related issues. A leading teacher is required to first participate in a year-long training before taking the role and undergoes continuous professional development activities while in the role. In 2021, approximately 5% of all teachers were also leading teachers. The leading teacher role is considered as middle-level leadership (higher than a teacher, but lower than leaders), which offers teachers a career development path.
In Norway, there are two specific leadership roles in ECEC centres: head teachers and pedagogical leaders. Head teachers, who act as centre leaders, carry the day-to-day responsibility for pedagogical practices, staff and administration. Besides the head teacher, there are pedagogical leaders, who are trained teachers with the responsibility to lead a team working with a group of children. The pedagogical leader oversees the process of planning, implementing, documenting, assessing and developing the work taking place with the group of children. In practice, pedagogical leaders and the head teacher have meetings where they discuss and work together to achieve the common goals of the ECEC centre. In smaller ECEC centres, both leadership roles may be combined, and the centre leader may work partly as head teacher and partly as pedagogical leader.
Strengthen the monitoring of the quality of teachers’ practices, including through self-and peers-evaluation
With teachers’ appraisals starting only recently, there is not enough information on the quality of teaching practices. The monitoring of the implementation of the curriculum framework and of the quality of teachers’ practices with children is a crucial process for ensuring that pre-primary education influences children’s development. This is also an opportunity to create more positive views and innovative approaches around evaluation steered towards improvement and collective training, as discussed in the previous section and in other chapters of this review. With limited capacity for external appraisals done by regional education advisors, options to develop a monitoring system steered towards quality improvement for pre-schools is highly connected to building capacity within leaders and teachers to advise and reflect on high quality practices with children.
Directions to develop strong monitoring mechanisms steered towards quality include:
Developing self-evaluation tools to clarify standards of practices aligned with ECEC goals and encourage observations by peers as part of internal evaluations.
Developing a risk-weighted approach to teachers and schools’ external evaluation to first focus on those that are more likely to require support for quality improvement, such as those in rural/disadvantaged areas and small schools with only one teacher and no opportunity for peer learning.
Linking outcomes of evaluation to quality improvement measures. Specifically, appraisal processes should include feedback and advice that support teachers' professional growth, rather than routinely requiring intensive training courses to address specific weaknesses, as this practice may be time consuming and less targeted.
Several country examples can inform policies going in these directions:
In Finland, ECEC centre evaluation and teacher appraisal heavily rely on self-evaluation (Box 4.2). The “Guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early childhood education and care” offer standards for municipalities, leaders and teachers of what quality means for each of these levels of the ECEC system. Reports coming from the evaluation process offer information to ECEC staff and leaders that can help them improve the quality of their practices. The self-evaluation materials aim to promote reflection on how quality can be improved by setting out clear standards for high-quality ECEC.
In Scotland, the two inspectorates playing complementary roles in the ECEC sector promote self-evaluation and improvement planning in the sector. Education Scotland published How Good is our Learning and Childcare? a self-evaluation resource which sits within a well-established family of guides produced for schools and other actors in education (Education Scotland, 2016[43]). Evaluating a setting’s arrangements for self-evaluation and improvement planning is a core part of the evaluation process promoted by this guide. It is also a core element in any inspection undertaken by Education Scotland inspectors. In 2019, the Care Inspectorate published Self-evaluation for Improvement - Your Guide, which provides guidance on how settings can develop systematic processes for assessing their performance against the recently revised National Standards for Early Learning and Care Providers (Care Inspectorate, 2019[44]). Guidance is provided on how to turn the outcomes of self-evaluation into an effective programme of action to generate improvement. The Care Inspectorate is also providing a more intensive programme of improvement support for staff in almost 90 ECEC settings which were identified as needing help to move forward.
In Luxembourg, the introduction of a curriculum for ECEC for children under the age of 4 was accompanied by a new system to monitor process quality, closely linked to workforce training. This approach aimed to support curriculum implementation and strengthen the quality of interactions in ECEC settings. Regional officers, somewhat similar to regional education advisors in Greece, are in charge of the monitoring of process quality, but do so by working closely with ECEC centre leaders specifically on the implementation of the curriculum (Box 4.2).
In Ireland, the Better Start Quality Development Service is a national initiative that provides professional development support to all ECEC settings. The service is delivered by Early Years Specialists, who offer mentoring and coaching to support the implementation of the national quality and curriculum frameworks. These specialists collaborate with ECEC centre leaders and staff in conducting joint assessments using curriculum self-evaluation tools to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Together, they set quality development goals, define concrete actions, and agree on realistic timeframes for implementation. A range of mentoring, coaching, and modelling strategies are employed to help centres achieve these goals.
Regional officers in Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, providers of ECEC for children under age 4 are supported by a team of 32 regional officers working under the Ministry of Education, Children and Youth to focus on process quality and improvement of education and care to complement the other body of inspectors, who are predominantly focussed on structural quality and compliance with regulatory standards. Regional officers are trained to exchange with ECEC settings and explore pedagogical approaches and practices that are documented of practices by centre staff and leader in a logbook. New guidelines for monitoring procedures were introduced at the end of 2021, with a stronger focus on pedagogical approaches, setting environment and materials, staff-child interactions, interactions with parents and the quality of management. In addition, indicators have been developed for each area to help regional officers in their evaluations. At the end of their visit, regional officers make recommendation to the ECEC centre to improve quality and have a discussion with the setting leader. Regional officers are not responsible for coaching managers and ECEC staff, but they are responsible for supporting providers to collaborate in the development of improvement plans. Each regional officer needs to hold a master’s degree in pedagogics or equivalent, receive two months of initial training and is regularly monitored by two co-ordinators.
Data-driven monitoring based on self-evaluation in Finland
In Finland, where a large part of responsibilities and funding for ECEC lie with municipalities, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) is an independent authority responsible for the national evaluation of education from early childhood education to higher education. For ECEC, FINEEC’s task is to conduct national external evaluations of ECEC and provide support for ECEC organisers (municipalities for public ECEC provision and private ECEC providers) in their statutory task of self-evaluation and quality management.
A document called “Guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early childhood education and care” provides a conceptual basis for quality evaluation at both the national and local level. In particular, the document presents a list of “indicators” similar to standards for the national and local levels as well as for ECEC centre leaders and staff for hight quality ECEC. The purpose of the document is to support local authorities and private providers in their self-evaluation of the quality of ECEC they provide as well as to support quality at the ECEC centre level.
A national digital system (Valssi) aims to support the quality management of ECEC. The digital system can be used to carry out the collection of evaluation data, obtain evaluation reports from local authorities or ECEC centres, produce location-specific evaluation summaries and publish the statutory evaluation results of local operators. Valssi has different user profiles: administrators (FINEEC), main users (municipalities for public ECEC provision and private providers), implementers (ECEC centre leaders) and respondents (ECEC staff). Main users can view evaluation reports and ECEC centres’ self-evaluations. Leaders of ECEC centres are responsible for carrying out the evaluation process at their centre. They send the evaluation forms to the staff and support the staff at different stages of the evaluation. Together with the staff, leaders identify strengths and development areas associated with the theme to be evaluated, draw up a development plan and monitor its implementation. In addition to the evaluation report, the main users can examine the summaries saved by ECEC centres and other information, such as customer service surveys. Based on this information, the strengths and development areas of the entire ECEC provision can be identified, and plans of action and monitoring plans can be drawn up. Once the evaluation has been completed, Valssi is used to publish the evaluation results and inform the entire organisation about them, including guardians, stakeholders and decision-makers.
Finally, once training material is made available by IEP in Greece, there could be clearer obligation for preschools to include actions towards the progressive implementation of the curriculum as one of the themes of the school action plan (the new self-evaluation tool for schools, see chapter 2) in the coming years. This would encourage teamwork and leader’s engagement in training on the curriculum, particularly if this is repeated each year. For instance, in Finland and Luxembourg (Box 4.2) where ECEC setting leaders develop an annual report with their plans to improve the quality of their provision, the implementation of the curriculum is central to the report rather than being an optional theme.
Policy recommendation 2: Supporting quality pre-primary education through improved structural conditions
Greece aims to provide high quality pre-primary education to all children. As in all large-scale systems variation in the quality is inevitable. In Greece, the geography of the country with several remote areas creates variations in the quality of pre-primary education coming from the prevalence of small centres where human and material resources are more limited. Likewise, socio-economically disadvantaged areas face difficulties to provide high quality pre-primary education due to staff absences and shortages of specialised staff. Improving structural conditions that set the basis for high quality ECEC, with a particular focus on remote and disadvantaged areas will ensure more equity in the provision of quality ECEC. This includes:
Alleviating administrative burden to allow pre-primary leaders and teachers to focus on core educational tasks.
Streamline the organisation of “Skills Labs” and build on the experience of English classes to further address the needs of children with diverse home languages.
Considering directions to improve staff-to-children ratios in preschools that demonstrate the greatest needs.
Alleviate administrative burden to allow pre-primary leaders and teachers to focus on core educational tasks
Alleviating the high administrative burden on pre-schools leaders and teachers is central to expand their time for quality work with children, preparation of activities, engagement in training and interactions with parents. For instance, it seems that several prescribed learning activities (“Skill labs”) need to be heavily and regularly documented by schools. The same applies to any unusual activities initiated by teachers or schools (e.g. outdoor activities outside the schools, library visits etc.). This administrative burden might discourage schools to implement innovative or outdoor practices that can benefit children’s development, learning and well-being. It might also take too much of leaders’ and teachers’ time, leaving them with insufficient time to focus on the quality of the activity itself.
While some regulations and administrative processes are necessary, they can at times be excessive or poorly adapted to the geographical context of ECEC settings—for example, requirements for outdoor activities may be less relevant in rural areas than in densely populated suburbs. In some cases, these procedures are not sufficiently proportionate to the actual safety or operational risks involved. Reviewing, streamlining, or removing unnecessary administrative burdens could help free up time for staff to engage more meaningfully with children and better prepare educational activities. More generally, several European countries have adopted strategy to better support leaders, including through adequate support from national and regional authorities, and build on leadership as a key pillar of ECEC quality that can inform policies in Greece (European Commission, 2024[46]).
Streamline the organisation of “Skills Labs” and build on the experience of English classes to further address the needs of children with diverse home languages
The introduction of “Skills Labs” to foster the development of 21st century skills as well as of English classes are important innovations. Attention should be put on ensuring that “Skills Labs” are well integrated into the curriculum framework and teachers’ activities with children, rather than being treated as separated activities as this is now the case. Teachers have to report specifically on activities done as part of the “Skills Labs” and have to allocate a fix number of hours to these activities (three hours per week). While a clear identification of these activities might be needed during the phase of their introduction, in the future, it seems unnecessary to treat them separately from the curriculum framework as this has created administrative burden to teachers and leaders, as discussed in the previous section.
While the goal to develop children’s foreign language skills is welcome, countries that are at the frontier of multilingualism, such as Luxembourg, integrate foreign languages throughout the day at school rather than through specific classes (Box 4.3). Luxembourg’s programme is particularly ambitious due to the country’s unique linguistic context. However, several of its features may offer useful insights for Greece, including the integration of multilingual learning into everyday activities and the inclusion of children’s diverse home languages, which is also an objective of Greece’s curriculum framework.
In Luxembourg, a multilingual education programme was launched in 2017, building on a playful initiation to languages (OECD, 2022[21]). ECEC centres serving children aged 1‑4 are obligated to implement the multilingual education programme in order to receive public funding. The multilingual programme places specific emphasis on ensuring children are exposed to both French and Luxembourgish but also aims to promote the different home languages of children. As multilingualism is central to Luxembourg’s societies, requirements for ECEC staff are strong: at least one person with basic fluency in French and one in Luxembourgish must be employed at the ECEC centre. In addition, each centre must appoint a pedagogical referent who co-ordinates the implementation of multilingual education for the setting. A specific 30‑hour training course is offered free of charge by the National Youth Service for these designated referents. In addition, all ECEC staff in the non-formal sector must have content on language development included in their ongoing professional development. The multilingual education programme benefits from input from a scientific council, which was involved in establishing the programme and advises on its ongoing implementation. In addition, parents are viewed as key partners in this programme, and their involvement in sharing their languages and cultures in ECEC settings is a core pillar of the programme.
Source: (OECD, 2022[21]).
Consider directions to improve staff-to-children ratios in pre-schools that demonstrate the greatest needs
Improving the number of professionals with groups of children in pre-schools where working conditions are particularly difficult would facilitate teachers’ work with children and could improve the learning and well-being environment. Particular attention needs to be placed on very small schools with only one teacher, schools in remote areas or areas with large shares of disadvantaged children, and schools with high teacher turnover. Considering that the budget is limited to increase the number of staff, efforts can be made to more strategically allocate staff across pre-schools. Growing attention from researchers as well as from countries are put on multi-professional teams, given the potential of complementary specialisations and profiles to better accommodate the complex range of supports needed by children and families in increasingly diverse societies (Oberhuemer et al., 2023[47]). Multi-professional work in ECEC may involve collaboration between professionals from different sectors on a shared task or programme, or, at the setting ECEC level, differently qualified ECEC professionals working together with the same group of children. ECEC settings can build on the various strengths present in multi-professional teams and allocate tasks according to individual staff competencies to offer more tailored supports to children and families with diverse needs.
In Greece, the pool of professionals working in pre-primary schools includes leaders and teachers, psychologists and other staff for children with special education needs, nurses, English teachers and art teachers. In addition, assistants and teachers working in ECEC settings for children 4 can be considered as part of the potentially extended pool of candidates as discussed later in this chapter. These professionals work relatively independently rather than in teams, apart from leaders and teachers (including English teachers) who work together. A direction could be to build more strategically on the pool of professionals as a team of staff who can give more consistent support to schools. This could include:
Changing the “shadow teacher system” (as planned by the government) in which professionals for special education needs are allocated to one child in particular rather than working more broadly with the group of children. For instance, Ireland’s Accession and Inclusion Model (AIM) is a comprehensive programme that aims to create a more inclusive environment in pre-schools (Box 4.4). It includes universal support, such as the possibility for staff to take a training to become an inclusion coordinator (in addition to the regular role) who provides leadership in ECEC settings in relation to issues of diversity, equality and inclusion, and can therefore benefit all children. Among the targeted support that can be granted when universal support is not sufficient to address the needs of a particular child, the highest level of support consists in additional funding to pre-schools that can be used either to reduce the child-to-adult ratio in the pre-school room or to fund an extra staff member as a shared resource with other children in the ECCE setting. This type of approach, which aims to provide additional support to a child in particular while also benefiting to other children can inform policies in Greece. It involves an efficient allocation of resources that builds on the capacity of the existing ECEC workforce rather than systematically involving specialised staff.
Allocating more flexibility to leaders and teachers for arranging children’s groups when the English teacher (or another teacher on a specific subject) is in the school. While the requirement that the English teacher and the regular work together with children is a strength of the approach, there could be flexibility in its application depending on pre-schools contexts, such as in small schools.
Considering the creation of a pool of assistants who would be allocated to schools that are most in need and could work in several schools per week (working part-time in one school) on a regular basis to avoid uncertainty. In pre-primary education, there are no assistants (teacher aids) working together with teachers as they exist in countries like France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden. Particularly when educational requirements for teachers, and therefore wage expectations, are high and when budget constraints are strong, having assistants working together with teachers can be a cost-effective way to improve staff-to-children ratios. The government could consider enrolling a pool of assistants and allocate them strategically to pre-schools (on a part-time basis in one school), depending on the needs of schools. These assistants would have received a vocational degree in early childhood education and care, such as those working in settings for children under age 4 (see section below). As discussed at the end of the chapter, a more substantive reform of the overall ECEC sector could include the development of age-integrated settings with pre-primary education teachers and ECEC staff for children under age 4 working together in the same settings to serve children below age 4 and older children.
Planning to allocate these staff to schools by considering all categories of staff together to avoid that the English teacher and a specialised staff come on the same day with no one coming on the other day. Additional examples of ECEC organisation that builds on teams of professionals are given in Box 4.4. In Finland, specialised staff can advise on a range of ECEC centres activities. In Portugal, multi-disciplinary teams work with clusters of schools.
These options to improve the staff-to-children ratios would help free up time for teachers and leaders’ work without contact with children. In particular, this will offer room for more frequent informal exchanges on practices with children and self- and peer-reflection on measures to improve the quality of ECEC provision.
Targeted staffing as part of targeted supports in the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) in Ireland
The model aims to create a more inclusive environment in pre-schools and offer support focussed on the needs of the child without requiring a diagnosis of disability. The model is organised around seven levels of support, the first three being universal and the last four being targeted. AIM universal supports continuous professional development, an inclusion charter and guidelines for pre-schools and an ISCED 5 (Leadership for Inclusion in Early Years Care - LINC). The goal of the universal supports is to build capacity in the existing ECEC workforce on addressing children’s needs rather than always involving specialised staff. Some of the targeted supports available under AIM involve staffing to cater to a wide range of children’s abilities and needs (Government of Ireland, n.d.[48]). The first of these is expert advice through access to early years specialists who can coach and mentor other staff, support parents and ECEC providers when applying for AIM targeted supports, and support children’s transitions to primary school. At another level, therapeutic supports such as behaviour support plans or professional advice can be provided though collaboration with health services and local networks of disability services for children who have complex needs. Lastly, additional assistance in preschool rooms can be provided by means of funding for extra staff to reduce the child-to-adult ratio or as a shared resource with other children.
Multi-disciplinary teams to support educational inclusion in Portugal
In Portugal, in each school cluster, there is a multi-disciplinary team to support inclusive education (Equipa Multidisciplinar de Apoio à Educação Inclusiva – Decree-Law 54/2018). This team includes permanent and variable members. The permanent members include a teacher who supports the school director, a special education teacher, three members of the pedagogical council and the school psychologist. The variable members are chosen according to each learner’s needs. The learners’ parents/guardians and the learners themselves are also part of the team (OECD, 2022[49]).
The multi-disciplinary teams can intervene at all levels of education, from preschool education to upper secondary school. Among the responsibilities are to raise awareness of the educational community towards inclusive education; to suggest the learning support measures to be mobilised; to follow up and monitor the implementation of the learning support measures and to provide advice to teachers about the implementation of inclusive pedagogical practices.
Multi-professional ECEC teamwork in Finland
In Finland, multi-professional teamwork is considered a key component of contemporary ECEC professionalism. Finnish ECEC policy states the right of children to receive support from regular ECEC staff teams as well as from early childhood special education teachers (ECSETs), who are experts in individualised child supports with particular qualification requirements (e.g. a master’s degree in special education) beyond teacher training. While ECSETs can act as special education teachers as part of a team, often ECSETs also participate in planning, implementation and assessment of support in a consulting role for multiple teams, which offers them a privileged perspective into the factors promoting teamwork’s success, which they can then bring from one team to another (Karila and Kupila, 2023[50]); (Ranta et al., 2023[51]).
Source: (OECD, 2025[9]).
Policy recommendation 3: Advancing quality, equity and integration across the whole ECEC sector
A key direction for Greece is to further expand access to ECEC before age 4 and ensure high quality early learning experiences from a very early age. This will support women labour market participation and help address inequalities in children development before they widen. Moving towards a more integrated ECEC sector that covers children from the first months to entry into primary education includes:
Removing barriers to participation in ECEC for children under age 4.
Considering the possibility to develop age-integrated settings and to move towards greater integration of the whole ECEC sector.
Developing a curriculum framework for settings serving children ages 0-3.
Remove barriers to participation in ECEC for children under age 4
Removing barriers to participation in ECEC before age 4, particularly for children from low socio-economic background, would help address inequalities of opportunities from the early years while supporting women’s participation in the labour market. A comprehensive effort is needed to address the multi-faceted barriers to ECEC participation that are likely to disproportionately affect children from low socio-economic and immigrant backgrounds as well remote areas, removing the impediments to the supply and demand for ECEC places. Such an effort could include:
The introduction of legal entitlements to ECEC to provide strong messages about the importance of child development in the early years.
Central-level support for municipalities to apply to EU funds and strategically develop the ECEC network in areas where this is more needed.
Building on private provision to expand supply while ensuring affordability of private ECEC and strong monitoring of its quality.
Information campaigns on the benefits of high quality ECEC for children’s development, particularly those from low socio-economic and immigrant backgrounds.
Several country examples can inform policies going in these directions:
In Norway, the Kindergarten Agreement of 2003 initiated a series of comprehensive policy changes to enhance participation and address availability and cost barriers in the sector. Public funding for the sector tripled between 2003 and 2011 to enable the provision of kindergarten places under reduced parental fees. The Agreement provided municipalities enhanced funding and obligated them to provide per-child funding for private kindergartens. An individual statutory right to a kindergarten place for all children aged 1-5 entered into force in 2009. The policy changes resulted in an expansion of kindergarten spaces since 2003 and of children enrolment, particularly for the youngest children and children from low-income families. The reforms have resulted in a shift in parental attitudes of Norwegian parents towards ECEC, with stronger preference for ECEC services as the best form of care for preschool-age children (Ellingsaeter, Kitterod and Lyngstad, 2016[52]) A fee cap was set for public and private kindergartens, and discounts were granted depending on household income.
In Flanders (Belgium), the “Opgroeien” (Grow up) programme established by the Flemish Child Family Agency, has established an outreach network, made up of different professionals - including nurses, social workers, psycho-pedagogues and volunteers – either directly employed or affiliated through partnerships. These professionals help raise parental awareness on the importance of vaccination, health and development screenings, participation in ECEC and other social programmes. Professionals also offer parents practical advice on how to access basic public services. Outreach is carried out through universal and regular home and hospital visits, and tele/virtual consultations. Parents can also access outreach centres for free; these centres are located across the region, according to their population density and accessibility. The programme reaches virtually all (98%) newborns.
The affordability of ECEC for children under age 4 needs to be maintained and possibly even improved, particularly for low-income families. Greece’s voucher system subsidises public and private ECEC depending on the economic status of the family. The OECD childcare cost indicator suggests that this system covers most of childcare fees in public ECEC settings, at least in some regions (OECD, 2025[3], Figure 5.5). However, affordability needs to be checked for ECEC private provision, particularly for most vulnerable families if places cannot be allocated in the public sector.
As recommended in the OECD Economic Survey on Greece, expanding ECEC provision for children under age 4, particularly vulnerable children, can be financed by shifting public spending from birth grants towards ECEC (OECD, 2024[10]). Static estimates suggest that an increase in in-kind ECEC support combined with reduced family cash benefits, including birth grants, would have a moderate negative fiscal impact (Table 1.6 in (OECD, 2024[10])). These estimates however do not account for the positive effect on women labour market participation and related increased tax revenues.
Consider the possibility to develop age-integrated settings and to move towards greater integration of the whole ECEC sector
When considering plans to expand ECEC participation of children under age 4, it is recommended to move towards a more integrated system for ECEC covering all children from the first months to entry in primary education rather than keeping ECEC for children under age 4 and pre-primary education separated. This would expand the gains achieved from the integration of pre-primary education with primary education to the ECEC sector for children under age 4.
In a first step, Greece could build on the successful development of pre-primary education for children under age 4 and expand it to children below age 4 (e.g. starting with children aged 3), particularly those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Demographic trends mean that more places will be available in at least some preschools in the future, which can free-up spaces for children under age 4. In doing so, care will be needed to ensure that learning content, activities and pedagogies are appropriate to children’s ages. In a second step, or in parallel, the three Ministries involved in ECEC could work together to more broadly develop age integrated settings that are adapted to the needs of children with different ages, with an objective to guarantee all children’s right to benefit from the same quality education and care. With several geographical areas in Greece having very small pre-schools (e.g. schools with around 15 children or less) and lack of funding to develop settings for the youngest children, age integrated settings could be a cost-effective option. This could be a way to reorganise groups of children and staff from both the under age 4 and pre-school sectors with pre-primary education teachers working together with staff for children under age 4. This could offer options to move towards a model with teachers and assistants working together to improve staff-to-children ratios in areas where this is most needed, as suggested earlier in this chapter. This would ensure that ECEC provision is adapted to children’s needs, with the perspective of staff working with the youngest children fully integrated. These age-integrated settings could be piloted in a couple of municipalities and progressively extended to co-exist with or replace age-specific nurseries and pre-schools.
While the opening of pre-primary education to some children aged 3 would be a relatively simple measure to implement, moving towards a more integrated ECEC system is more substantial reform that would require careful planning and considerations. Some countries have moved into this direction that can inform the situation in Greece:
In Korea, the ECEC system has been split between kindergartens for children aged three to five under the Ministry of Education and childcare facilities for children aged from zero to five under the Ministry of Health and Welfare and managed by local authorities (see Box 4.5). This situation was similar to the one in Greece. Since 2023, the government has advanced the integration of the ECEC sector, with administrative and financial responsibilities for ECEC from the Ministry of Health and Welfare (for childcare centres) being moved under the Ministry of Education, which takes full responsibility for ECEC from 2025. This consolidation involves moving funding and administrative responsibilities from municipalities and regions to local and regional offices of the Ministry of Education, with funding mostly coming from the central government in the integrated system. By strengthening the central level’s management and funding responsibility and moving the sector under the Ministry of Education, this reform aims to reduce regional inequalities and improve access to services, while also improving overall quality (KICCE Policy Brief, 2023[53]). Policy developments in Korea could inspire policies in Greece. On the method, the government established a committee and a taskforce to work on the steps of the integration while building consensus among the main stakeholders (see Box 4.5). On the content, the integration plan builds on existing structure, aims to reduce the differences between daycare centres and kindergartens, and then move to integrated facilities, which could also be a good strategy for Greece.
In Japan, the government introduced Integrated Centres for ECEC in 2010, in addition to existing kindergartens for children aged 3 to 5 and nursery centres for children under age 3. They combine the functions and characteristics of both types of older ECEC settings. In particular, they offer support to local communities on children’s development and learning, even for families who do not attend the centre. Existing nursery centres and kindergartens can decide to become an integrated ECEC centres depending on the needs and characteristics of the local areas, with the help of municipal services. Japan provides example of a gradual and limited integration of the sector, which can also inform policy developments in Greece.
In Korea, the ECEC system has long been split between kindergartens for children aged 3 to 5 that aim to educate young children and are placed under the authority of the Ministry of Education and childcare facilities for children aged from 0 to 5 that are social welfare services that protect and nurture children but also educate them, under the authority of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Kindergartens are part of the school education system and in terms of administration and financing, are managed and supervised by the provincial offices of education. Childcare is managed by local governments. Kindergartens are mostly financed by a grant of the Ministry of Education from the central to local levels while childcares are financed by grants from the Ministry of Health and Welfare as well as local governments’ own resources. There are also differences in the qualification requirements for teachers, with a university degree for those of kindergartens and a high school diploma for teachers in childcare centres. Finally, while the national curriculum “Nuri” for three to five-year olds should apply to both age groups, there are still gaps and there is no curriculum for children under age 3.
As a starting point, the government announced that all policy tasks related to ECEC will be under the authority of the Ministry of Education at the end of 2023. The first stage (2023-2024) aimed to set the foundation for the integration. This included allocated support to regional offices of education to help them put in place measures to reduce the gap between kindergartens and daycare centres (cost support, care time and facility improvement). In the second stage starting in 2025, existing kindergartens and daycare are converted into new integrated institutions. In parallel, the government worked on a unified teachers qualification requirements and the extension of the curriculum to the youngest children.
Korea explicitly recognises the need for consensus-building among stakeholders to achieve the government’s vision for a unified ECEC system for children from birth to primary school, as well as strong co-ordination with primary school education. To achieve this vision and integrate ECEC settings, a Committee on Consolidation of ECEC was established in 2023. The Committee is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, to provide strategic guidance and high-level support across the government. The Committee also includes five additional political members from other relevant ministries and 19 non-political members, representing various stakeholder groups (e.g. teacher unions, researchers, local authorities, parents). Under the Committee, a taskforce was created to handle administrative aspects of moving forward the agenda developed by the Committee. This taskforce includes 30 members from regional government, local governments, and research centres. It is headed by a representative from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, with support from a director from the Ministry of Education, to ensure balanced consideration of the perspectives from both of these ministries. Gathering input from stakeholders on planned reforms in a core aspect of the work assigned to this taskforce. In addition, the taskforce oversees four advisory groups that provide expertise on core areas of policy reform. The areas focussed on by these groups are: (1) funding and planning; (2) alignment of standards for facilities; (3) linking curriculum standards, and (4) reforming teacher qualification and initial teacher training systems.
Source: Korean Ministry of Education, Press release on Consolidation of Early Childhood Education and Care to Provide Safe and Responsible Public Education and Childcare Service from Birth, https://english.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/viewRenewal.do?boardID=265 &boardSeq=93891&lev=0&searchType=null&statusYN=W&page=1&s=english&m=0201&opType=N.
Develop a curriculum framework for settings serving children ages 0-4
Developing a curriculum framework for settings serving children below age 4 would clarify the goals for this part of the sector and help achieve more uniform quality within the country and between public and private provision. Ideally, the curriculum would be developed in co-ordination between the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Social Cohesions and Family to ensure alignment with the pre-school curriculum. If age-integrated settings are considered, as proposed in the previous section, the curriculum framework could be developed for these settings and give a basis for adaption in ECEC settings for children under age 4. Curricula that are age-integrated or focussed on children under age 3 tend to have less focus on specific learning areas and instead include broad concepts, principles and values (OECD, 2021[7]).
As the government contributes to the funding of private ECEC provision, a curriculum framework would help ensure that public expenditure in this part of the sector supports ECEC provision with learning goals that align with those of the government. A curriculum framework would also provide a basis for the monitoring of process quality in this part of the sector. As the government develops schools and teachers’ assessment for pre-primary education, there could be discussions on introducing monitoring of process quality for this sector in a form that is adapted to its characteristics, particularly if age-integrated settings are considered.
References
[30] Adema, W., C. Clarke and V. Frey (2015), “Paid Parental Leave: Lessons from OECD Countries and Selected U.S. States”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 172, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqgvqqb4vb-en.
[3] Barry, K. et al. (2024), “Early childcare arrangements and children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms: an individual participant data meta-analysis of six prospective birth cohorts in Europe”, The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, Vol. 45, p. 101036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101036.
[1] Bethlehem R.A.I., S. (2022), “Brain charts for the human lifespan”, Nature, Vol. 604/7906, pp. 525-533, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y.
[24] Björklund, C. and W. Barendregt (2016), “Teachers‘ pedagogical mathematical awareness in Swedish early childhood education”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 60/3, pp. 359-377, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066426.
[32] Canaan, S. et al. (2022), “Maternity Leave and Paternity Leave: Evidence on the Economic Impact of Legislative Changes in High Income Countries”, https://www.iza.org/de/publications/dp/15129/maternity-leave-and-paternity-leave-evidence-on-the-economic-impact-of-legislative-changes-in-high-income-countries.
[44] Care Inspectorate (2019), Supporting Self-evaluation for Improvement – your guide, Care Inspectorate, Dundee, https://www.careinspectorate.com/images/Self_evaluation_for_improvement_-_your_guide.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2021).
[11] Criscuolo, C. et al. (2021), “The human side of productivity: Uncovering the role of skills and diversity for firm productivity”, OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 29, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f391ba9-en.
[6] Dalli, C. et al. (2011), Quality early childhood education for under-two-year-olds: What should it look like? A literature review, Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
[5] Duncan, G. et al. (2023), “Investing in early childhood development in preschool and at home”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesedu.2022.11.005.
[43] Education Scotland (2016), How Good is our Early Learning and Childcare?, Education Scotland, Livingston, https://education.gov.scot/improvement/self-evaluation/how-good-is-our-early-learning-and-childcare (accessed on 6 October 2021).
[40] Egert, F., R. Fukkink and A. Eckhardt (2018), “Impact of In-Service Professional Development Programs for Early Childhood Teachers on Quality Ratings and Child Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88/3, pp. 401-433, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751918.
[52] Ellingsaeter, A., R. Kitterod and J. Lyngstad (2016), “Universalising Childcare, Changing Mothers’ Attitudes: Policy Feedback in Norway”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 46/1, pp. 149-173, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279416000349.
[38] Enfancejeunesse (2025), Publications - enfancejeunesse, https://www.enfancejeunesse.lu/fr/documents-et-publications/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).
[55] European Commission (2025), Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe 2025 : Eurydice report., Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2797/66224.
[46] European Commission (2024), Report on leadership in early childhood education and care - models and practices in Europe | European School Education Platform, European Commission, https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/publications/report-leadership-early-childhood-education-and-care-models-and-practices-europe (accessed on 29 October 2025).
[18] European Commission (2022), Greece: 21st century Skills Labs (Ergastiria Dexiotiton), Eurydice, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/greece-21st-century-skills-labs-ergastiria-dexiotiton (accessed on 21 May 2025).
[15] European Education and Culture Executive Agency (2025), Eurydice, Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe 2025 – Eurydice report, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/66224.
[34] Eurydice (2023), Access to early childhood education and care in Europe 2022/2023.
[14] Eurydice (2023), Greece: Overview, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/greece/overview.
[28] Ferrari, P. (ed.) (2010), “Timing of Intervention Affects Brain Electrical Activity in Children Exposed to Severe Psychosocial Neglect”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 5/7, p. e11415, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011415.
[45] Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (2025), Early childhood education and care | Finnish education evaluation centre (Karvi), https://www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/early-childhood-education-and-care (accessed on 22 May 2025).
[36] Government of Ireland (2019), First 5: A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families 2019-2028, https://first5.gov.ie (accessed on 8 September 2021).
[48] Government of Ireland (n.d.), The Access and Inclusion Model Homepage - Access and Inclusion Model, https://aim.gov.ie/ (accessed on 30 June 2025).
[16] Heckman, J. (2006), “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children”, Science, Vol. 312/5782, pp. 1900-1902, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898.
[29] Humphries, J. et al. (2024), Parents’ Earnings and the Returns to Universal Pre-Kindergarten, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w33038.
[50] Karila, K. and P. Kupila (2023), “Multi-professional teamwork in Finnish early childhood education and care”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00124-5.
[53] KICCE Policy Brief (2023), The integration of ECC and ECE in Korea, https://kicce.re.kr/eng/board/view.do?menu_idx=26&board_idx=50063&manage_idx=89.
[56] Law 4823 (2021), Αναβάθμιση του σχολείου, ενδυνάμωση των εκπαιδευτικών και άλλες διατάξεις [School upgrading, empowering teachers and other provisions], Government Gazette 136 A, https://search.et.gr/el/fek/?fekId=603011 (accessed on 28 April 2025).
[23] Leseman, P. and P. Slot (2025), “Strong early childhood education and care systems for the future: A conceptual framework for thematic analyses”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 329, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d0a97f-en.
[33] Lo Bue, M., E. Perova and S. Reynolds (2023), Maternal Work and Children’s Development Examining 20 Years of Evidence, https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099413302142327891/idu0ddfa53760d59004f670a7a9049595a20ba6d.
[25] McLachlan, C. (2018), “Te Whāriki revisited: How approaches to assessment can make valued learning visible.”, He Kupu, Vol. 5/3, pp. 45-56, https://hdl.handle.net/10289/11854.
[4] Melhuish, E. et al. (2015), “A review of research on the effects of early childhood Education and Care (ECEC) upon child development. CARE project”, Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC).
[13] MERAS (2025), OECD Background Questionnaire: Education Policy Review of Greece, Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports.
[39] Ministry of Education (2025), Supporting teachers to assess and share children’s early learning progress - Kōwhiti Whakapae, https://kowhiti-whakapae.education.govt.nz/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).
[47] Oberhuemer, P. et al. (2023), “Team concepts in ECEC: potentials and challenges of heterogeneous staff teams”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00127-2.
[12] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[9] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[35] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[54] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[10] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Greece 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a35a56b6-en.
[19] OECD (2023), Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en.
[49] OECD (2022), Review of Inclusive Education in Portugal, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9c95902-en.
[21] OECD (2022), Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care in Luxembourg: A Focus on Non-formal Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/04780b15-en.
[7] 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.
[37] OECD (2021), Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care in Ireland: Review on Sector Quality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/72fab7d1-en.
[42] OECD (2020), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.
[17] OECD (2019), Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/301005d1-en.
[20] OECD (2015), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en.
[8] Pianta, R., J. Downer and B. Hamre (2016), Quality in Early Education Classrooms: Definitions, Gaps, and Systems, http://www.futureofchildren.org (accessed on 23 May 2019).
[22] Pianta, R. et al. (2005), “Features of Pre-Kindergarten Programs, Classrooms, and Teachers: Do They Predict Observed Classroom Quality and Child-Teacher Interactions?”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 9/3, pp. 144-159, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903.
[51] Ranta, S. et al. (2023), “Teamwork as a cornerstone of a child’s educational support in early childhood education and care in Finland”, Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, Vol. 12/2, pp. 158-178, https://doi.org/10.58955/jecer.121462.
[26] Rege, M. et al. (2018), “Variation in center quality in a universal publicly subsidized and regulated childcare system.”, Labour Economics, Vol. 55, pp. 230-240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.10.003.
[41] Resa, E. et al. (2017), “The role of professional exchange in improving language-related process quality in daycare centres”, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 33/4, pp. 472-491, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1353671.
[2] Shuey, E. and M. Kankaraš (2018), “The Power and Promise of Early Learning”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9b2e53f-en.
[31] Thomas, J. et al. (2022), “The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review”, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w.
[27] Yang, W. and H. Li (2018), “Cultural ideology matters in early childhood curriculum innovations: A comparative case study of Chinese kindergartens between Hong Kong and Shenzhen.”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 50/4, pp. 560-585, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1428367.