This chapter describes the early childhood education and care (ECEC) workforce, including both staff and leaders. It discusses the demographic characteristics of the workforce as well as their initial education and training and work experience. The chapter also portrays the employment conditions of staff and leaders, including their contractual status and working hours. These characteristics and profiles help interpret results from the survey throughout the report while also pointing to key areas of strong ECEC.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
Many countries and subnational entities rely on a mix of teachers and assistants while others rely mainly on teachers. In six systems at the pre-primary level and five at the level of children under age 3, more than 80% of staff are teachers. In the remaining systems, around half of staff are teachers and the other half are mainly assistants, with two exceptions: 1) Spain (pre-primary settings), where around one-third of staff report their role is either to work with individual children or for special tasks; and 2) Israel (pre-primary settings), where the majority of staff who are not setting leaders are assistants.
ECEC staff are mostly women, with some countries and subnational entities and leadership positions in pre-primary settings attracting more men. Only in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Denmark and Morocco are more than 10% of staff men. Men are also rare among leaders in settings for children under age 3 but they represent a higher share of leaders in pre-primary settings.
The age structure of staff varies by country or subnational entity. At the pre-primary level in Japan, Morocco and Türkiye; in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada); and both levels of ECEC in Germany and Ireland, there are higher shares of younger staff (under age 30). At the pre-primary level in Colombia Denmark, Finland, Israel, Norway, Spain and Sweden, there are higher shares of older staff (aged 50 or older).
Although it is not universal, most staff are trained to work with children. Around 90% or more of staff are trained to work with children, with a slightly lower share in pre-primary settings in Morocco and in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Norway. A majority of staff also have some post-secondary education in all countries and subnational entities, except in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium. Staff’s education profiles are generally mixed, with three exceptions: nearly all pre‑primary staff in Spain and more than 80% of staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Türkiye have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher.
Leaders tend to have substantial previous work experience with children. This experience is acquired in other roles in ECEC settings and in other pedagogical/educational roles with children, suggesting a variety of pathways into leadership roles.
Staff in most systems have predominately permanent contracts, but this is more often the case for teachers than assistants, and for full-time workers than part-time ones. Except for pre-primary settings in Colombia and Morocco, which use fixed-term contracts widely, approximately 70% of staff or more in each country or subnational entity have a permanent contract. These permanent contracts are more common among teachers than assistants and for full-time workers than for part-time workers in some systems. These findings indicate that some terms of the employment contract that result in lower job security tend to accumulate on some ECEC staff.
Part-time work is prevalent and chosen in several ECEC systems. Settings in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Israel, as well as pre‑primary settings in Denmark and New Zealand**, have about a third of staff or more who work part time. In these systems, staff who work part time tend to report that this is the case because they were looking for part-time work (e.g. due to health reasons, family commitments or further education). In contrast, in pre-primary settings in Chile, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, 20% or more of staff work part time, but staff tend to report this was because they were only offered part-time work (e.g. only part-time hours available, limited opening hours of the setting).
ECEC staff and leaders are at the heart of a strong system. Their backgrounds and characteristics influence their practice and their capacity to adapt to new challenges, shaping how ECEC systems function and support children and their families (Eadie et al., 2024[1]; Leseman and Slot, 2025[2]; Nutbrown, 2021[3]; OECD, 2019[4]). Countries design their ECEC systems differently (see Chapter 3), with implications for the mix of staff profiles needed to address key policy goals. Within systems, growing attention to the importance of a well-trained, professional workforce in ECEC settings must be reconciled with the funding available for the sector, the qualifications of the existing workforce and societal expectations around who should provide ECEC. As systems grapple with these issues, ECEC staff shortages are a pressing concern in many places, highlighting the need for innovative strategies to attract, retain and develop a high-quality workforce, prepared to adapt to evolving challenges in the sector. Understanding the characteristics and employment conditions of the ECEC workforce is therefore essential to plan for the future.
The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024 is the only internationally comparable source of information coming directly from ECEC staff and leaders. It asks about their demographic characteristics, educational and professional background, and employment and working conditions. This chapter provides an overview of the profiles of ECEC staff in participating countries and subnational entities by addressing the following questions:
What are the demographic, educational and professional backgrounds of ECEC staff and leaders?
What different staff roles are present in ECEC settings across countries and subnational entities?
What are the employment conditions, including full-time or part-time working hours and contractual status, of the ECEC workforce?
The configuration of staff roles and the diversity of staff’s backgrounds shape children’s daily experiences in their ECEC settings and have implications for recruitment needs (OECD, 2019[4]). Establishing complementary competence profiles and adopting strategies to attract more diverse staff to the profession can help address all children’s needs while expanding the pool of potential candidates and enhancing working conditions for staff in all roles (McDonald, Coles and Thorpe, 2024[5]; Peeters, Sharmahd and Budginaité, 2018[6]; Wilkinson, Davies and Warin, 2024[7]). A key move in this direction is attracting more men to the profession – along with addressing the gendered perception of ECEC tasks. Understanding the age structure of the workforce is important to plan for expected retirement from the field, as well as anticipating needs to attract younger people to the profession.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff to describe their primary role in their ECEC setting with seven international categories: leader, teacher, assistant, staff for individual children, staff for special tasks, intern or other. The ECEC setting leader, the person with the most responsibility for the administrative, managerial and/or pedagogical leadership, is not asked this question. The survey also collects information from staff and leaders on their gender and age.
Many countries rely on a mix of teachers and assistants as categories of staff in ECEC settings, while some rely primarily on teachers
In eight of the participating countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level, around 40% to 60% of staff describe their role in the ECEC setting as a teacher or leader, whereas in six of the countries and subnational entities teachers and leaders represent over 80% of staff (Figure 2.2). Among settings for children under age 3, there are only three systems where 40-60% of respondents describe their role in the ECEC setting as a teacher or leader and five countries and subnational entities with 80% or more of staff describe themselves as teachers or leaders. Given that there is a share of staff who identify as leaders in most countries and subnational entities, separately from the main ECEC setting leader, responses suggest that aspects of leadership can be shared among staff within ECEC settings, with variations between countries and subnational entities. This can be the case when there is a deputy leader in the ECEC setting, when teachers take on leading pedagogical roles or, more generally, in settings with more distributed leadership (see Chapter 7). For this reason, throughout this report, staff who describe themselves as leaders are grouped together with those who describe themselves as teachers and are collectively referred to as “teachers”.
With two exceptions, in countries and subnational entities where teachers represent only about half of ECEC staff, the remainder of staff are predominantly assistants (seven countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and three at the level for children under age 3; Table D.2.1). The first exception is Spain, where besides around 60% of staff who report working as teachers, 15% report their role as staff for individual children and another 19% indicate they are staff for special tasks.
The other exception is pre-primary settings in Israel, which have an overall different staffing approach than the other systems, with roughly two-thirds of staff reporting they are assistants. This reflects the structure of the pre-primary system in Israel, where settings are quite small in terms of the number of children enrolled (see Chapter 3) and the main administrative leaders of these settings are also teachers. The different profiles of staff roles across countries and subnational entities suggest that responsibilities within settings and within groups may also be shared differently across systems.
Percentage of staff by role, based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Note: Leaders without staff duties and leaders with staff duties who were identified as the person with the most responsibility for the administrative, managerial and/or pedagogical leadership in the ECEC setting did not respond to this question.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order by the percentage of staff who are leaders or teachers.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.3.
ECEC staff are predominantly women, but men are an important minority of staff in some countries and more common in leadership roles
Across participating countries and subnational entities, the vast majority of ECEC staff are female. However, in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Denmark and Morocco, around 10% or more of staff are male (Figure 2.3). In pre-primary settings in Denmark, the proportion of men in assistant roles is even higher: more than 20% (Table D.2.2). There is a concerted effort in Denmark to attract men to assistant roles by offering training that facilitates career transitions (Peeters, Sharmahd and Budginaité, 2018[6]). Men are also more represented among staff for special tasks compared to other roles in pre-primary settings in Chile, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Spain and Türkiye, although staff in this role represent only a small share of staff in these countries and subnational entities, except in Spain.
ECEC setting leaders are also predominantly women in most participating countries and subnational entities, although there are often more men in leadership roles compared to men in staff roles in pre‑primary settings. For settings for children under age 3, the proportion of women among leaders is similar to the proportion of women among staff (Tables D.2.2 and D.2.3).
Percentage of staff and leaders by age group and gender, based on staff and leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in ascending order according to the percentage of staff aged 50 or older.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.2.2, D.2.3 and D.2.4.
Since the introduction of the Act on Good Early Childhood Education and Care (2019-2022), Germany’s federal states have been focusing on improving the early childhood education and care (ECEC) system (BMBFSFJ, 2025[8]). This has been pursued by identifying several fields of action and letting federal states prioritise investing in those the most pertinent to their context. Alongside this act, a federal programme called the “Skilled Labour Initiative: Attracting young talent, retaining professionals in early education” was implemented. With the Childcare Quality Act (2023-2025), funding was expanded and actions to recruit and retain qualified teaching staff became mandatory. Whereas in other countries and subnational entities in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 interns account for less than 2% of the ECEC workforce, in Germany they account for around 8% of staff in settings for children under age 3 and around 10% in pre-primary settings. This greater engagement of interns in the ECEC workforce reflects the emphasis put on practical training to prepare ECEC staff for their roles while simultaneously addressing staff shortages in the sector (Table D.2.1).
In Denmark, training for educators allows for flexibility that can help to attract staff to the profession. “Pedagogues” are trained in a professional bachelor’s degree with a practical component and a general orientation towards welfare that allows graduates to work in multiple types of institutions (Eurydice Unit, 2025[9]; Peeters, Sharmahd and Budginaité, 2018[6]). The training programmes also have quotas for untrained but experienced workers (merit education). Assistants often have upper-secondary vocational training to be “assistant pedagogues” and often work for some years before pursuing a qualification as a pedagogue. This pathway is attractive as it entails responsibilities and remuneration (Peeters, Sharmahd and Budginaité, 2018[6]). TALIS Starting Strong 2024 shows that, in Denmark, around 28% of assistants are under age 30, compared to only 8% of teachers (Table D.2.4). This reflects the high numbers of assistants who work after vocational upper-secondary training and are a source of recruitment for the more qualified and stable roles of “pedagogues” later.
The generalist nature of the programme and the flexible pathways have also helped attract male students, which is reflected in the fact that around 15% of assistants in Denmark are men in the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data – the highest across all countries and subnational entities (Table D.2.2). Nonetheless, the overall attractiveness of the pedagogue training is declining (Koch and Jensen, 2024[10]). To counter this trend, the national government has allocated funds to municipalities, which are supporting merit education, among other policies, to increase the number of applicants.
ECEC staff age varies by role and level of ECEC
Most ECEC staff are 30-49 years old in all participating countries and subnational entities, followed by the share of staff that are 50 years or older, with staff under age 30 being the minority (see Figure 2.3). Nevertheless, at the pre-primary level in Japan, Morocco and Türkiye; settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada); and at both levels of ECEC in Germany and Ireland, there are comparatively large shares (about 25% or more) of young staff under 30 years old. This suggests that these systems have successfully generated interest in the sector from younger cohorts, but could also be failing to retain workers as they progress in their careers. In contrast, at the pre-primary level in Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Norway, Spain and Sweden, there are relatively fewer young staff and about 25% or more of staff aged 50 or older, indicating a potentially greater forthcoming need to recruit in these countries. Assistants generally tend to be younger than teachers at the pre-primary level, with higher shares under age 30 in most countries and subnational entities. However, at the pre-primary level in Israel and Norway, there is a greater share of assistants aged 50 or older compared to teachers (Table D.2.4).
Staff also tend to be younger in settings for children under age 3 than in pre-primary settings. In settings for children under age 3, there are generally higher shares of staff under age 30 (Figure 2.3) and the mean age for staff in these settings is lower than that for staff in pre-primary settings in five of the six systems with data for both levels of ECEC (Table Staff.2).
As for staff, most ECEC setting leaders are 30-49 years old (Table D.2.3). Nevertheless, unlike staff, leaders tend to have the same age distribution in both ECEC levels; this is the case in the six systems with data at both levels. Also, unlike staff, almost no leaders are aged 30 or younger. Furthermore, the proportion of leaders aged 50 and older is higher than for staff in all countries and subnational entities except for both ECEC levels in Israel, pointing to the need to also recruit leaders. However, since leaders tend to have previous experience in ECEC roles, this also means that opening pathways for staff to move into leadership roles is an opportunity for leader recruitment and staff career progression. In systems where higher shares of staff are older, such as pre-primary settings in Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Norway, Spain and Sweden, this pathway from staff roles to leadership might not suffice to replace leaders that are retiring and alternative strategies for attracting both staff and leaders may be needed. In addition, the career pathways for becoming a leader may not always be evident for staff (see Chapter 8), potentially limiting the ability of ECEC systems to fill this crucial role with qualified candidates.
Staff’s initial education and training is a key factor to build a strong ECEC workforce, providing foundational knowledge and opportunities for practice that staff need to support children’s development, learning and well-being as they enter their careers (Nutbrown, 2021[3]). Strong initial education for ECEC staff is associated with several aspects of process quality as well as outcomes for children (Beisly and Lake, 2021[11]; Fukkink et al., 2019[12]; Geißler et al., 2022[13]; Manning et al., 2019[14]; OECD, 2019[4]). Having some post-secondary education and covering topics specifically related to ECEC are linked to better quality (Lin and Magnuson, 2018[15]). Likewise for leaders, higher education levels are associated with better outcomes for children and staff, such as classroom quality (Drake et al., 2023[16]). As with staff roles, ECEC systems have different profiles for staff and leader education and training requirements. While extant research highlights the importance of having a workforce that is well-prepared for the demands of work in the ECEC sector to support quality for children and retention in field, the type of training to meet these goals may look different across countries and subnational entities.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff about their highest educational attainment, whether they received training specifically to work with children and, if so, whether practical training was included in their training to work with children. The survey also asks leaders about their educational attainment and whether four content areas were covered in the education and training they have completed: 1) early childhood development, well-being and learning; 2) financial management; 3) human resource management; and 4) pedagogical leadership. This section covers these aspects of leaders’ education and training, whereas the content of staff education and training is covered in greater detail in Chapter 6. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the ongoing professional development of staff and leaders, respectively.
Most staff had initial training to work with children, although this is not universal
In most countries, over 90% of ECEC staff have completed programmes that included training specifically to work with children (Figure 2.4). Although this share is high in all participating countries and subnational entities, there is a small share of staff who did not have training to work with children before entering the ECEC sector, ranging from under 2% in pre-primary settings in Ireland, Spain and Türkiye, and in settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada), to around 10% or more in pre-primary settings in Morocco and in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Norway (Table D.2.5).
In most countries and subnational entities, the majority of staff have some post-secondary education (ISCED level 4 and above), with strong variation in the educational attainment between systems (Figure 2.4). For example, nearly all pre-primary staff in Spain and more than 80% of staff in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Türkiye have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent, or higher (ISCED level 6 and above). In contrast, more than a third of staff in pre-primary settings in Finland and Morocco and both levels of ECEC in Israel only have secondary education or less (ISCED level 3 or below) as their highest level of educational attainment; this is the case for over 70% of staff in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium (Table D.2.6). Some systems also rely on post‑secondary vocational and short-cycle tertiary education (ISCED levels 4 and 5): high shares of staff in pre-primary settings in Ireland and Japan, and in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) have these qualifications.
Percentage of staff in each category of highest educational attainment and whether they received training specifically to work with children, based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: Respondents in the “ISCED level 3 or below” group are those whose highest education is at a secondary level or below. Respondents in the “ISCED level 4 or 5” group are those whose level of highest education is beyond secondary schooling but less than a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent), including post-secondary non-tertiary education (generally vocationally oriented) and short-cycle tertiary education. Respondents in the “ISCED level 6 or above” group are those whose highest level of education is at the level of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in ascending order according to the percentage of staff with ISCED level 3 or below educational attainment.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.2.5 and D.2.6.
A lower share of staff in settings for children under age 3 have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or above (ISCED level 6 or above) compared to their peers in pre-primary settings (Table D.2.6). This is especially evident in split, or historically split, systems, such as the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, where settings for children under 3 and pre-primary settings have different regulations and oversight. Both Canadian provinces also have split ECEC systems, although data are not available in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 for the pre-primary level in these contexts. In contrast, the fully integrated ECEC systems in Germany and Norway, which serve children from infancy until they begin primary school, have the same educational attainment among staff at both levels of ECEC (see Annex A).
Educational attainment among staff differs by role. In all participating countries and subnational entities that rely on a mix of teachers and assistants at the pre-primary level, and most at the level of children under age 3 (see Figure 2.2), teachers are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or above (ISCED level 6 or above) than assistants (Table D.2.6).
Among staff who are trained to work with children, this training generally included a practical component, regardless of the level of qualification in most countries and subnational entities (Table D.2.5). Although practical training is very common among staff, it is sometimes more frequent among teachers than among assistants, with gaps in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland and Sweden and in settings at both levels in Norway. In these countries, assistants also had initial training specifically to work with children less often than teachers. However, these gaps are not present in all other systems that rely on a mix of these roles. In systems where assistants have a lower educational attainment than teachers but similar rates of training to work with children, there is not generally a difference between teachers and assistants receiving practical training. This suggests that ECEC content and practical components can be fully incorporated into programmes at different levels of qualification.
Leaders’ educational attainment is often higher than that of staff but not necessarily targeted to ECEC leadership
For leaders of pre-primary settings, it is common to have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher (ISCED level 6 or above). Furthermore, in settings at this level, about 30% or more of leaders in Chile, Colombia, Finland, Israel, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye have a master’s degree or equivalent or higher (ISCED level 7 or above; Figure 2.5). For leaders of settings for children under age 3, most likewise have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher (ISCED level 6 or above). However, in pre-primary settings in Japan and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada), for a majority of leaders, the highest educational attainment is post-secondary vocational or short-cycle tertiary qualifications (ISCED level 4 or 5; Table Leader.3). This reflects typical staff educational attainment in these countries and subnational entities. Leaders’ qualifications also align with typical staff qualifications in pre-primary settings in Chile, Denmark and Finland, and in settings at both levels of ECEC in Germany and Norway (Table D.2.6; Table D.2.7). Overall, these results suggest that transitions from teacher to leader roles are possible, given the similar educational attainment profiles. Transitions from assistant to teacher or leader seem more complicated given the differences in educational attainment profiles, which would therefore more often require staff to acquire higher qualifications.
Percentage of leaders in each category of highest educational attainment and whether they received training in early childhood development, well-being and learning, based on leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: Respondents in the “ISCED level 3 or below” group are those whose highest education is at a secondary level or below. Respondents in the “ISCED level 4 or 5” group are those whose highest level of education is beyond secondary schooling but less than a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent), including post-secondary non-tertiary education (generally vocationally oriented) and short-cycle tertiary education. Respondents in the “ISCED level 6” group are those whose highest level of education is at the level of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. Respondents in the “ISCED level 7 or 8” group are those whose highest education is at the level of a master’s or doctoral degree.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in ascending order according to the percentage of leaders with ISCED level 5 qualifications or below.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.2.7 and Leader.4.
As part of their education, more than three-quarters of leaders covered early childhood development, well‑being and learning (Table Leader.4; Figure 2.5). This suggests that ECEC leaders are generally trained to work in early childhood contexts. However, there is important variation across countries and subnational entities in the proportion of leaders who did not cover this area in their education: while it is nearly universal among pre-primary leaders in Finland and at both levels of ECEC in Norway, over 20% of leaders in pre‑primary settings in Colombia and Morocco did not cover this area in their education.
Among other topics that leaders covered in their education and training programmes, pedagogical leadership is the next most common, followed by human resource management; the least frequent topic covered was financial management, which is covered by only around half or less of leaders in most countries and subnational entities (Table Leader.4). Training on pedagogical leadership ranges from about 50% of leaders in settings at both levels in Germany and New Zealand** and settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) to more than 90% of leaders in pre-primary settings in Chile, Japan and Sweden and at both levels of ECEC in Norway. This may reflect differences in whether ECEC leaders prepare for leadership from their initial stages of education, versus developing leadership-specific skills throughout their career in the ECEC sector. Likewise, having training on human resource management is relatively common only in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Morocco, Sweden and Türkiye where about 75% or more of leaders report covering this topic.
Leaders in pre-primary settings in Morocco and in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) report the highest rates of training that included financial management, with over 60% of leaders indicating they had this type of training. The prevalence of financial management training in Quebec (Canada) may be linked to the important role home-based settings play in ECEC provision for children under age 3 in this province: individuals preparing to open their own settings may be particularly likely to engage in financial management training in preparation for operating their own ECEC business. Likewise, in Morocco, ECEC leaders in pre-primary settings often work independently, likely creating a strong incentive to prepare for this aspect of administrative leadership.
More experienced staff bring stability to the ECEC sector as well as accumulated knowledge and skillsets; however, given the balance of job rewards and demands in the sector (see Chapter 8) as well as the need for ongoing professional development (see Chapter 6), experience on its own is not a clear predictor of quality in ECEC (McMullen et al., 2020[17]). In elementary and middle school education, teacher experience has a non-linear effect on students’ schooling outcomes, with decreasing but positive marginal benefits (Harris and Sass, 2011[18]); a similar pattern could be expected among ECEC staff, with the first few years working in the sector being a time for learning the profession and turning knowledge from initial education into practice. Although work experience is not easy to separate from other drivers of skill development (McMullen et al., 2020[17]), such as ongoing training or role changes, several studies have found it is associated with positive aspects of staff-child interactions (Banghart et al., 2020[19]; Geißler et al., 2022[13]; Leseman and Slot, 2025[2]). Like for staff, leaders’ work experience is associated with different styles of leadership, as leaders build on their previous experiences to shape their practice. For example, a Canadian study found that leaders who have more experience conduct less formal performance evaluations since they might rely on other, more informal strategies to lead (Perlman et al., 2020[20]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff and leaders about their years of work experience, in terms of both years in the ECEC sector and years in other education-related fields aside from ECEC settings. In the case of leaders, this also includes previous years of experience in ECEC settings in roles other than as a leader. This section summarises staff’s and leaders’ work experience in these areas. Chapter 6 discusses further implications for novice staff (those with three years of experience or less).
Some countries and subnational entities have high shares of novice staff at all ages
Across countries and subnational entities, staff’s average number of years of experience as ECEC staff range from less than 10 years in pre-primary settings in Morocco and Türkiye, settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada), and settings at both levels in Ireland to about 14 years or more in settings at both ECEC levels in Germany and pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan, Norway and Sweden (Table D.2.8).
Experience varies considerably among staff: the least experienced 25% of staff have less than 5 years of experience on average and the most experienced 25% have around 25 years of experience or more on average in most systems (Table Staff.8). Novice staff, with three years of experience or less, represent a sizeable share of staff, ranging from about 12% in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Japan to about 30% or more in settings for children under age 3 in Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), in pre-primary settings in Morocco, and in settings at both ECEC levels in Ireland (Figure 2.6). Novice staff can bring new ideas to the profession, help address staff shortages that are common internationally and support the expansion of the ECEC sector in places where this is a priority; however, they also have different professional needs than their more experienced peers (see Chapter 6).
Experience is closely associated with age, although this is more the case in some countries and subnational entities. For example, in Morocco (pre-primary settings), New Brunswick (Canada; settings for children under age 3) and Ireland (both levels of ECEC), staff tend to be younger than in other countries and subnational entities (see Figure 2.3), and the majority of staff also has less than ten years of experience (Figure 2.6). Together these results suggest that sectors in these countries and subnational entities may be attracting new, younger people to the profession, in line with the expansion in the ECEC sector. Similarly, in pre-primary settings in Türkiye, settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and settings at both ECEC levels in Germany, staff also tend to be younger (see Figure 2.3), but the majority of staff have 10 years of experience or more (Figure 2.6), suggesting these systems may be both attracting young staff to the sector and retaining staff with more years of experience.
Other countries and subnational entities have high shares of new staff to the profession at all ages, with differences in the demographic profiles. While 20% or more of 30-49-year-olds working as staff at the pre‑primary level in Denmark and New Zealand** have 3 years of experience or less, settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland are attracting new staff aged 50 and older at higher rates: at least 10% of staff aged 50 and older have 3 years of experience or less (Table D.2.9). By the same criteria, pre-primary settings in Colombia, Ireland and Morocco and settings for children under age 3 in Israel are attracting 30-49-year-olds as well as staff aged 50 and older as novice staff (Table D.2.9). In all these countries and subnational entities, the proportion of staff under age 30 is about a quarter or more (see Figure 2.3), indicating that staff in these countries have high shares of young staff too. The combination of high shares of young staff and novice staff coming into the workforce at several stages of their lives and careers suggests that these countries and subnational entities might be attracting staff of all ages into the workforce – but it could also mean that staff are leaving their roles before gaining longer term experience, therefore novice staff represent higher proportions of the workforce.
Based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff with three years of experience or less.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.2.10.
Staff with more experience are more likely to be teachers and have higher educational attainment in several countries and subnational entities
Average years of experience are similar across staff roles in most systems, except in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland and Sweden, where teachers are more experienced than assistants (Table D.2.10). This difference might sometimes be linked to educational attainment: in pre‑primary settings in Denmark, Finland and Germany, staff whose highest educational attainment is a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher (ISCED level 6 or above) also tend to have more years of experience (Table D.2.11). Since teachers also have higher educational attainment than other staff in these three countries (Table D.2.6), this might reflect that higher educational attainment leads to more specialisation that increases their attachment to the sector, compared to potentially more transitory employment for staff with lower and more general qualifications. In some cases, it could also signal that staff with lower educational attainment are being recruited more than in the past to address staff shortages, and that staff with longer tenure in the sector and higher qualifications occupy teacher roles.
In some other countries and subnational entities that do not have a mix of staff roles (i.e. teachers and assistants), experience is also correlated with educational attainment. This is the case, for example, in pre‑primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Türkiye and settings at both levels of ECEC in Israel, where staff with more than ten years of experience tend to have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher qualification (Table D.2.11). Interestingly, staff in pre-primary settings in Morocco with more than ten years of experience tend to have secondary education as their highest level of education more often than both short-cycle tertiary or vocational education (ISCED levels 4 and 5) and a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher (Table D.2.11). This might also reflect an increase in the educational level of younger generations and therefore of staff newer to the profession.
Leaders have significant previous experiences with children, with experience predominantly acquired in ECEC settings in some systems and outside ECEC settings in others
Leaders have 5-14 years of experience as leaders on average across systems (Table Leader.5; Figure 2.7), reflecting the fact that experience is a requirement for becoming a leader in many ECEC systems (OECD, 2021[21]). Leader experience at their ECEC setting is closely related to experience as an ECEC setting leader in total, which suggests that a sizeable share of leaders tend to stay at the setting where they began their role as a leader, with variations between countries and subnational entities. Additionally, they tend to have significant experience in other ECEC or educational roles before coming into their leadership position. However, leaders’ previous experience is acquired differently across systems (Table D.2.12; Figure 2.7). In some systems, leaders acquire this experience mostly in ECEC settings, before progressing to leadership positions, suggesting greater involvement in the sector from earlier in their careers. This is the case in pre-primary settings in Chile, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Spain and Sweden; in settings for children under age 3 in the two Canadian provinces; and at both levels of ECEC in Germany, Ireland, New Zealand** and Norway. In other systems, leaders’ experience comes predominantly from other educational/pedagogical roles with children outside of ECEC settings, suggesting more interconnections between sectors: this is the case in pre-primary settings in Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco and Türkiye. Nonetheless, even when one kind of experience is dominant, in most systems, leaders have a mix of experience from within and outside the ECEC sector, signalling a diversity of pathways to leadership roles in ECEC systems. This diversity can be positive for recruiting strong candidates to the ECEC leader role but may also contribute to challenges for ECEC staff in identifying clear career pathways to stay in the sector (see Chapter 8).
Based on leader reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand are ranked in descending order according to years of experience as an ECEC leader in total.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Leader.5.
The employment conditions of ECEC staff, such as remuneration and career structure, are key for attracting and retaining staff – one of the major challenges faced by the ECEC sector (Nutbrown, 2021[3]) (see also Chapter 8). The diversity of ECEC systems and complexity of staff roles within these systems contribute to a wide range of working conditions. For example, assistants tend to have less clear competence profiles and professional recognition, as well as lower qualification requirements, which can lead to poorer job quality for some ECEC staff (Peeters, Sharmahd and Budginaité, 2018[6]). On the other hand, staff with lower levels of education tend to be more satisfied with their working conditions (see Chapter 8) (OECD, 2019[4]). As ECEC staff’s employment conditions can have meaningful associations with programme quality (Banghart et al., 2020[19]), it is crucial to understand them from the perspective of supporting children’s experiences in ECEC and of retaining staff in the sector.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff about their contractual status, in terms of whether they have permanent or fixed-term contracts or are self-employed or working without a contract. Staff also report whether they work as full time or part time, and among staff working part time, whether this was the type of work the respondent was seeking or if it was all that was offered. Both staff and leaders also reported on the number of settings in which they work. This section presents a summary of these various aspects of ECEC staff’s employment conditions. Staff working hours are described further in Chapter 4 and the implications of employment conditions in relation to staff retention are considered in Chapter 8.
Most staff have permanent employment, but assistants are more likely to have a fixed‑term contract than teachers in some systems
Around 70% or more of staff have permanent contracts across most systems, with most remaining staff in fixed-term contracts, and fewer in self-employment or without a contract (Figure 2.8; Table D.2.13). However, some systems make greater use of fixed-term contracts, such as pre-primary settings in Colombia and Morocco. In pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden, as well as settings for children under age 3 in Germany and Ireland, teachers tend to have permanent contracts more often than assistants, despite the central role assistants have in the staffing structures of these systems (Tables D.2.13). This could be related to years of experience in the sector: in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden, higher shares of teachers than assistants have ten years of experience or more (Table D.2.10).
A few systems also have relatively high proportions of self-employed staff, such as pre-primary settings in Colombia, Ireland and Morocco, and staff for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) (Table D.2.13). Although the share of staff without any employment contract tends to be very low across systems, this is not the case in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) and pre-primary settings in Morocco, Israel and New Zealand**, where more than 5% of staff do not have an employment contract (Table D.2.13). Among settings for children under age 3, high shares of staff in self-employment and with no contract are explained by the prevalent role of home-based ECEC providers in those four systems. In New Zealand** (both levels of ECEC), these differences also reflect the important role of parent volunteers in some types of ECEC, who do not have employment contracts.
Percentage of staff by working hour arrangements and with a permanent contract, based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff in full-time work.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.2.13 and Staff.6.
Part-time work is prevalent and chosen by staff in several systems
Settings in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Israel – as well as pre-primary settings in Denmark and New Zealand** – have about a third of staff or more who work part time (see Figure 2.8). In these systems, staff who work part time tend to report that this is the case because they were looking for part-time work (e.g. for health reasons, family commitments or to further their education) (Table D.2.14). In contrast, in pre-primary settings in Chile, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, where 20% or more of staff work part time, more than half of these staff say they were only offered a part-time arrangement in the settings where they work (e.g. only part-time hours were available or due to limited opening hours of the ECEC setting; Table Staff.7). Part-time work can enable staff to balance their jobs with other responsibilities or personal priorities; however, it can also create undesired underemployment and limit opportunities for staff to stay in their roles or in the sector when this is the case. This may be particularly the case when the operating hours of ECEC settings do not align with the working hours desired by staff, such as for programmes that serve children for only part of the day.
Terms of the employment contract that can lead to lower job security tend to accumulate for some ECEC staff
In pre-primary settings in Chile, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand** and Spain; in settings for children under age 3 in Norway and Quebec (Canada); and in settings at both ECEC levels in Ireland and Israel, staff who work full time also have permanent employment at higher rates than those who work part time (Table D.2.15). Staff who work part time tend to more often have fixed-term arrangements, and in pre-primary settings in Israel, settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) and both levels of ECEC in Ireland, staff who work part time more often do not have an employment contract than staff who work full time, reflecting an accumulation of more unstable job conditions. In most of these countries and subnational entities, about 20% or more staff work part time (see Figure 2.8).
However, staff may prefer to work on a part-time basis. Among staff who work part time because they were only looking for part-time work (voluntary part-time employment), permanent employment is more common than among staff who work part time because they were only offered part-time work (involuntary part-time employment), who tend to have fixed-term contracts more often. This is the case in pre-primary settings in Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland and Spain. In these countries and subnational entities, voluntary part-time work generally does not accumulate with fixed-term contracts. However, in Chile and Morocco (pre-primary settings), where involuntary part-time work is the most common form of part-time work, staff in voluntary and involuntary part-time work are both more likely to have a fixed-term contract.
Most staff work in a single ECEC setting whereas leaders in several countries work in multiple settings
With the exception of pre-primary settings in Israel, across all countries and subnational entities, fewer than 10% of staff work in more than one setting (Table D.2.16). In the case of staff in pre-primary settings in Israel, nearly 19% of staff report working in more than one ECEC setting. This work across settings is concentrated among teachers and staff for individual children. These teachers and staff for individual children can offer more targeted or widespread support to leaders who, in the pre-primary system in Israel, also have staff duties. Although working across settings is much less common for ECEC staff in other countries and subnational entities, there is a general trend of staff in supporting roles (e.g. staff for individual children, staff for special tasks) working in multiple settings.
Leaders tend to work in multiple settings more often than staff. The share of leaders who do so ranges from around 1% at the pre-primary level in Chile to more than 60% at the pre-primary level in Finland and Sweden, as well as in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium (Table D.2.17). The number of settings also varies with the system: leaders who work across multiple pre-primary settings in Finland and Sweden work in less than three settings on average. In contrast, leaders who work across multiple settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium report working in more than ten settings. This is an important feature of home-based provision for this sector in the Flemish Community of Belgium, with leaders working across a network of providers to support them, particularly with administrative and financial responsibilities. At the pre-primary level in Colombia and Morocco, more moderate shares (a quarter to a third) of leaders work across multiple settings, but the number of settings in which they report working is quite high. In addition to working at multiple ECEC settings, leaders can also have major responsibilities outside the ECEC setting; for example, leaders in Türkiye often have responsibility for other levels of schooling (i.e. primary and secondary schools) along with ECEC. In these contexts, they may have limited direct contact with the ECEC staff and children, with some leaders reporting they do not work any hours in the ECEC setting in a typical week (Table Leader.6).
Reflecting the fact that leaders can work in multiple ECEC settings, leaders’ average paid working hours at the ECEC setting where they received the survey, for those who usually work at least one hour per week with the ECEC setting, vary from around 20 in pre-primary settings in Colombia and settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium to more than 40 in pre-primary settings in Chile, and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) (Table D.2.18). This wide range reflects the tendency to work in multiple ECEC settings and responsibilities beyond the ECEC setting in particular contexts.
Leaders’ unpaid working hours are generally low, but leaders of pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain and of settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada), report working eight unpaid hours or more, on average, per week. In both Canadian provinces, the high number of unpaid working hours contributes to working over 50 hours a week on average; long working hours are typical among home-based providers (OECD, 2020[22]).
Align qualification requirements with options to develop further qualifications, allowing for diverse professional pathways for all categories of staff. In many countries and subnational entities, staff with more experience in the sector tend to be teachers, which overlaps with higher educational attainment and reflects that staff who have invested more in training for the profession are more likely to stay, but also that career progression options for less educated staff might be less developed. Having pathways for all categories of staff to pursue further qualifications and evolve in their careers within the sector can help fulfil different roles and retain staff longer in the sector (see Chapter 8). In systems with both assistants and teachers, differences in the educational attainment of these two categories of staff indicate that a transition from an assistant to a teacher role might require achieving a higher level of education, which can be supported through professional development opportunities (see Chapter 6) and systems that formally recognise skills and qualifications acquired on the job.
For staff with a higher educational attainment, opening pathways to transition into more specialised roles or into leadership can help not only fulfil these roles, but also improve the retention of experienced staff in the sector. Supporting staff to contribute to leadership responsibilities as part of their staff role can be a meaningful option for career development, while also offering job‑embedded professional development that facilitates transitions towards leadership positions (see Chapter 7). Likewise, in systems with specific training requirements to become a leader, skills development opportunities can be integrated with ongoing work in the field to retain staff in their roles in the short term and support longer term careers in the sector.
Ensure that the terms of the employment contract align with goals to retain staff in the sector. Job security and satisfaction with the terms of employment can contribute to attracting and retaining staff in the sector (see Chapter 8). However, staff turnover rates are high in some countries and subnational entities (see Chapter 3). Having a fixed-term contract and working part time, especially when working part time is not preferred, can lead to feelings of job insecurity and dissatisfaction. These characteristics tend to accumulate for some staff, particularly assistants, in some countries and subnational entities. As staff shortages are a major concern in the sector, governments might consider directions to improve the terms of ECEC contracts. Likewise, staff who work in several settings, who tend to be mostly staff in specialised roles, also need employment conditions that adapt to their job demands while guaranteeing attractive employment conditions, and helping to address staff absences (see Chapters 3 and 8). On the other hand, leaders tend to have additional responsibilities, such as responsibility over multiple settings or pedagogical duties. Supporting leaders in these responsibilities can also help increase their commitment to remain in the sector and the overall quality of ECEC (see Chapter 7).
References
[19] Banghart, P. et al. (2020), A Review of the Literature on Access to High-Quality Care for Infants and Toddlers, Child Trends, https://cms.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/HighQualityCareLitReview_ChildTrends_May2020.pdf.
[11] Beisly, A. and V. Lake (2021), “Knowledge of child development: Associations among pre-service teachers’ level of education and work experience”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 19/2, pp. 195-210, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X20942948.
[8] BMBFSFJ (2025), Early Opportunities Online Portal, https://www.fruehe-chancen.de/en.
[16] Drake, T. et al. (2023), “What shapes principals’ early education leadership practices? A mixed-methods study of North Carolina school leaders”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, pp. 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2023.2277270.
[1] Eadie, P. et al. (2024), “Domains of quality in early childhood education and care: A scoping review of the extent and consistency of the literature”, Educational Review, Vol. 76/4, pp. 1057-1086, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2077704.
[9] Eurydice Unit (2025), “Denmark: 8.1. Initial education for teachers working in early childhood and school education”, Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, Copenhagen, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/denmark/initial-education-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school-education.
[12] Fukkink, R. et al. (2019), “Training interaction skills of pre-service ECEC teachers: Moving from in-service to pre-service professional development”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 47/4, pp. 497-507, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00928-6.
[13] Geißler, C. et al. (2022), “The influence of formal education, years of service and team meetings on the quality of interaction in Austrian centre-based settings for children under 3 years”, Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, Vol. 11/1, pp. 68-96, https://journal.fi/jecer/article/view/114008.
[18] Harris, D. and T. Sass (2011), “Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 95/7-8, pp. 798-812, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272710001696?via%3Dihub.
[10] Koch, A. and J. Jensen (2024), “Denmark – ECEC workforce profile”, in Oberhuemer, P. and I. Schreyer (eds.), Early Childhood Workforce Profiles across Europe: 33 Country Reports with Key Contextual Data, State Institute for Early Childhood Research and Media Literacy, Munich, https://www.ucviden.dk/en/publications/denmark-ecec-workforce-profile.
[2] 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.
[15] Lin, Y. and K. Magnuson (2018), “Classroom quality and children’s academic skills in child care centers: Understanding the role of teacher qualifications”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 215-227, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200617302491?via%3Dihub.
[14] Manning, M. et al. (2019), “Is teacher qualification associated with the quality of the early childhood education and care environment? A meta-analytic review”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 89/3, pp. 370-415, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319837540.
[5] McDonald, P., L. Coles and K. Thorpe (2024), “How women educators frame the scarcity of men in early childhood education and care”, Gender and Education, Vol. 36/5, pp. 510-526, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2024.2357825.
[17] McMullen, E. et al. (2020), “Is educators’ years of experience in early childhood education and care settings associated with child outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 171-184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.03.004.
[3] Nutbrown, C. (2021), “Early childhood educators’ qualifications: A framework for change”, International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 29/3, pp. 236-249, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1892601.
[21] 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.
[22] OECD (2020), Quality Early Childhood Education and Care for Children Under Age 3: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/99f8bc95-en.
[4] 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.
[6] Peeters, J., N. Sharmahd and I. Budginaité (2018), “Early childhood education and care (ECEC) assistants in Europe: Pathways towards continuous professional development (CPD) and qualification”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 53/1, pp. 46-57, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12254.
[20] Perlman, M. et al. (2020), “Associations between directors’ characteristics, supervision practices and quality of early childhood education and care classrooms”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 31/4, pp. 507-523, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1679006.
[7] Wilkinson, J., J. Davies and J. Warin (2024), “Men changing nappies: Dismantling a key barrier to gender-diversifying the early years workforce”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 22/2, pp. 224-237, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X231201725.