This chapter looks at the practices in place in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings to build awareness and acceptance of diversity among children as well as strategies to communicate and engage with families. In the context of growing ECEC participation and increasing diversity among children, the chapter highlights ECEC staff and setting capacity to work with children whose home language is different from the main language(s) used at the ECEC setting. The chapter considers practices related to diversity, family engagement and staff perceptions of priorities for increased spending in the ECEC sector in the context of the concentration of children with diverse characteristics in the ECEC setting.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
In settings with more practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity, staff also report more use of child-centred and adaptive pedagogical practices. Greater efforts to promote diversity in ECEC can contribute to fostering high-quality practices, regardless of the backgrounds of the children in the settings. In most ECEC systems, staff practices to promote diversity are not associated with the characteristics of the children in the setting in terms of language, socio-economic background or special education needs.
Greater agreement among staff that practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity are used in their ECEC settings is associated with their self-efficacy in this area and with leaders reporting more policies and practices in this area. Staff who feel more capable of helping children develop their interest in differences and commonalities can facilitate stronger institutional cultures of practices around support for diversity. Setting-level practices can further reinforce staff practices.
In most systems, books and other materials in the setting represent people from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups more often than they do other aspects of diversity. While representations of diversity in different materials are common, staff in many systems report less representation of people with different physical needs and diverse family structures than those from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups.
Most ECEC staff work with children whose home language is different from the language used at the ECEC setting and many staff also speak these languages. In settings where leaders report there are parents who do not speak the main language of the setting, it is common for staff members to speak at least some, if not all, of the languages represented.
In some systems, staff in settings with a higher share of children from different language backgrounds support greater funding for this group. Increased spending to support children with different language backgrounds is generally a lower priority than investments to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds or those with special education needs.
Overall, communication with parents is common across systems, particularly informing them about daily activities in the setting. Practices that require more time and more involvement from parents, such as participating in setting-level decision making, are less common in most, but not all, systems.
Staff perspectives on family engagement in the setting are not systematically linked with the prevalence of vulnerable children in the setting. The concentration of children whose home language is different from the main language(s) used at the ECEC setting, who come from socio-economically disadvantaged homes or who have special education needs is not generally associated with staff reports of the use of family engagement practices in their settings.
Disparities in children’s experiences in their early years can lead to enduring inequalities in key life outcomes. A child’s social, cultural or economic background can limit their access to environments that support their development and well-being (OECD, 2025[1]). Access to high-quality ECEC has the potential to bridge gaps in children’s opportunities at a time when their development is particularly sensitive to intervention, and these benefits can extend throughout their lives (Leseman and Slot, 2025[2]). At the same time, children’s experiences in ECEC settings can deepen inequalities when some children are less likely to participate in ECEC or it is of a poorer quality (González-Sancho et al., 2023[3]).
Many ECEC systems have successfully increased and broadened participation in recent decades. Although increases in ECEC participation often fail to reach the most vulnerable children, more widespread access to ECEC nonetheless means more children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and migrant families or other minoritised groups are enrolled in ECEC settings. These shifts, alongside societal changes such as increased migration, have led to increased diversity among children participating in ECEC (OECD, 2025[1]). With this greater diversity, ECEC staff need to respond to a wider range of expectations, strengths and needs among children and their families. Strong ECEC systems ensure all children have the opportunity to experience high-quality ECEC that is responsive to their individual needs (Leseman and Slot, 2025[2]).
This chapter focuses on policies and practices that help all children and their families feel welcome and included in ECEC settings:
How do ECEC settings promote awareness and acceptance of diversity among children?
How do ECEC settings support children and families from linguistically diverse backgrounds?
How do policies and practices related to promoting awareness and acceptance of diversity differ according to the profiles of the children in the setting and staff self-efficacy in this domain?
How do ECEC settings engage with parents and guardians? Do practices to engage with families differ according to the profiles of the children in the setting?
Promoting awareness and acceptance of diversity in ECEC settings can help all children and their families feel welcome and included, enabling more children to benefit from high-quality ECEC. Even when ECEC settings appear to be relatively homogenous in terms of the family and child backgrounds represented, developing young children’s openness to differences through opportunities to learn about various forms of diversity (e.g. languages, physical abilities) can be an important foundation on which to build more inclusive societies in the future. Young people who demonstrate greater openness to different perspectives, values and forms of diversity are less likely to engage in bullying, more likely to reject stereotypes, and have better relationships with their teachers and peers (OECD, 2024[4]).
The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024 collected information from staff on the extent to which various practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity characterise daily interactions with children at their ECEC settings. These included having materials, such as books and pictures, that show aspects of diversity (e.g. people from different ethnic and cultural groups, people with different physical needs) as well as using activities to raise awareness of differences and commonalities and opportunities to play with toys and artefacts from other cultures. This section looks at these reports to understand the different forms of diversity reflected in materials and practices across countries and subnational entities. Within countries and subnational entities, differences are considered in relation to the different characteristics of the children in the ECEC settings, focusing on children whose home language is different from the language used at the ECEC setting, children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and children with special education needs. In addition, the section considers staff reports of their self-efficacy to stimulate children’s interest in cultural differences and commonalities (i.e. how much they feel they can do this), as well as their beliefs about how important it is to develop children’s citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures to prepare children for the future.
Books and pictures in settings more often represent people from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups than people with different physical needs or family structures
There is wide variation across countries and subnational entities in the extent to which staff agree various practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity characterise practices in their settings. Nonetheless, having books and pictures is generally among the most common practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity, compared with the use of specific activities (i.e. activities that emphasise what people from different ethnic and cultural groups have in common or that aim to raise awareness about the different languages of the children in the group) or opportunities to play with toys and artefacts from cultures other than the ethnic majority (Table D.5.1). Exceptions to this pattern are in pre‑primary settings in Finland and Morocco, where activities are used more, and in Japan, where activities and playing with toys and artefacts from cultures other than the ethnic majority are used more.
Notably, staff in all systems report that books and pictures in the setting less often represent people with different physical needs or with diverse family structures than people from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups, although the differences are small in some cases (Figure 5.2). Including people from diverse backgrounds in books and other materials allows more children to see themselves and their families reflected in their surroundings. Such representations also offer all children a window into experiences beyond their own, helping them to develop skills such as tolerance and openness to different perspectives (OECD, 2023[5]).
Percentage of staff who agree “quite a bit” or “a lot” that the following groups are represented in books and pictures at their ECEC setting
* 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: Data are not available from Israel, Morocco and Türkiye on the representation of diverse family structures in books and pictures in ECEC settings.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentages of staff reporting that the ECEC setting has books and pictures showing people from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.5.1.
More staff-reported use of practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity is associated with self-efficacy in this area and leader-reported diversity policies and practices
When the different practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity are combined to paint an overall picture of staff perceptions of their settings’ efforts in this area, there is a positive association with staff self-efficacy around stimulating children’s interest in cultural differences and commonalities (Figure 5.3). Feeling more capable of helping children develop their interest in differences and commonalities may enable staff to use such practices more regularly. At the same time, a stronger sense of self-efficacy in this area may follow from regular use of practices that value diversity.
Setting-level policies and practices in this area, as reported by leaders, also support staff reports of more practices around diversity in their settings in some contexts. This is the case in pre-primary settings in several countries (Chile, Japan, Morocco and Spain), although the strength of association is not as strong as for self-efficacy (Table D.5.2). This finding highlights the potential for leaders to contribute to a setting-level culture around diversity practices, reinforcing staff self-efficacy in this area. In contrast, staff in Quebec (Canada) report less use of diversity practices in their settings when leaders report more policies and practices in this area, suggesting a mismatch between leaders’ intentions and staff perceptions of on‑the-ground implementation.
In addition, staff views that developing children’s citizenship, tolerance and openness to other cultures are of high importance are associated with greater use of practices to promote awareness of acceptance and diversity in pre-primary settings in Israel, Japan and Türkiye, although the opposite is true in pre-primary settings in Norway. This contradictory finding may indicate that pre-primary staff in Norway who place a particularly high value on diversity practices feel that their ECEC settings could do more to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity among children.
Additional setting-level characteristics associated with staff perceptions of their settings’ diversity practices are likewise mixed. For instance, in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain as well as in settings for children under age 3 in Israel, staff in publicly managed settings report more use of practices related to diversity, whereas staff in private settings report this more often in pre-primary settings in Germany and Morocco.
Change in the scale of practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity associated with strong self‑efficacy to stimulate children’s interest in cultural differences and commonalities
* 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: Results show unstandardised coefficients from a multivariable linear regression model of the scale of practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity (reported by staff) on staff self-efficacy to stimulate children’s interest in cultural differences and commonalities. All coefficients are statistically significant. For more information, see Annex C.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between staff reports of practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity and their self-efficacy in stimulating children’s interest in cultural differences and commonalities.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.5.2.
Diversity practices in ECEC settings do not differ based on the characteristics of the children in the setting, but do align with stronger staff pedagogical practices with children
There are a few ECEC systems where staff reports of the diversity practices in their settings are associated with the composition of the children in the setting in terms of the concentration of children who have a different home language, those from disadvantaged homes or those with special education needs; however, there are no systematic differences across countries and subnational entities related to one of these specific dimensions of diversity (Table D.5.2). Having higher shares of children with these different characteristics can highlight the importance of fostering awareness and acceptance of diversity among children, but such practices are still relevant in more homogenous peer groups. Exposure to and awareness of different dimensions of diversity can better equip young children with the values and skills to understand different perspectives. Moreover, when aspects of diversity are present in the group of children but not visible to children or staff, staff practices that value diversity can make children and families feel more welcome. Thus, it is important to continue fostering the use of these practices in ECEC systems across settings regardless of the children they serve.
On this point, staff who report greater use of practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity in their settings also report that they used more child-centred approaches to structuring and facilitating learning in their work in the week prior to the survey in pre-primary settings in nearly all countries and subnational entities (with the exception of Germany and Norway), as well as in settings for children under age 3 in Germany and Israel (Table D.5.3). Likewise, in the same countries and subnational entities, greater use of diversity practices in the setting is associated with greater use by staff of adaptive pedagogical practices in the group of children they work with the most (Table D.5.4). These practices with children reflect strong staff capacity to respond to individual children’s needs and interests, and a regard for children’s perspectives that is often associated with higher levels of quality in ECEC settings (Pianta, La Paro and Hamre, 2008[6]). Thus, more use of practices to promote awareness and appreciation of diversity in ECEC settings may encourage staff to use more high‑quality practices with children in their daily work. The opposite may also be true, with staff who use more of these high-quality practices in their own work with children creating a stronger setting-level culture around promoting awareness and acceptance of diversity.
There is an increasing share of children in ECEC whose home language is different from that used in the setting (OECD, 2025[1]). This growing linguistic diversity means that children have a broader range of experiences at home, including variation in their early exposure to the primary language used in their ECEC settings. Despite the individual benefits that can be associated with multilingualism (Espinosa, 2020[7]; Yurtsever, Anderson and Grundy, 2023[8]), ECEC staff working with multiple language learners must respond to different emerging language strengths and needs. In addition, when families speak different languages than ECEC staff, this can also pose challenges for effectively communicating and engaging with them.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks staff and leaders about linguistic diversity in their ECEC settings. Staff indicate whether they speak any of the languages spoken by children whose home language(s) is (or are) different from the main language(s) used in the ECEC setting. Leaders also indicate whether there are staff in their setting who speak the language of parents or guardians who do not speak the main language(s) used at the ECEC setting, in addition to reporting the number of children in the setting who have a different home language. In addition, staff were asked how much importance they would place on 11 different spending priorities, including support for children with a different home language, children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with special education needs, if budgets for the sector were to be increased by 5%. Staff also reported on their practices to raise awareness of different home languages used by children in the ECEC setting.
A majority of ECEC staff work with children whose home language is different than that of the ECEC setting and many staff also speak these languages
In all countries and subnational entities, a majority of ECEC staff report working with children whose home language is different from the main language used in the ECEC setting (Table Staff.4). This is particularly common in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Sweden; in settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada); and at both levels of ECEC in Germany, New Zealand** and Norway. These are countries and subnational entities that have officially multilingual contexts and/or high rates of ECEC participation, making it more likely that linguistically diverse children, including those who use sign language, are included in ECEC settings (OECD, 2025[1]).
Leader reports of parents who speak the language of the setting are generally aligned with staff reports of children who speak another language at home, underscoring the prevalence of different language backgrounds among families in ECEC settings (Table Leader.16). In only a few of the participating ECEC systems (pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia and Japan and settings at both levels of ECEC in Israel) do a majority of ECEC setting leaders indicate that all parents or guardians speak the main language used at the ECEC setting. Taken with the information that a majority of staff in all systems work with children who speak a different language at home, this information from leaders suggests that some families may use another language at home but are also able to use the main language of the ECEC setting for exchanges with staff and other families.
In settings where leaders report that there are parents who do not speak the main language of the setting, it is common for the leaders to also indicate that members of their staff speak at least some, if not all, of the languages represented (Table Leader.16). This is even more common in settings that are more linguistically diverse; that is, where 10% or more of the children in the setting have a different home language, compared to settings where there are fewer children with a different home language (Table D.5.5). Likewise, staff are more likely to report they speak the home language of at least some children in the setting when they work in more linguistically diverse settings in pre-primary settings in Finland, Morocco and Norway; in settings for children under age 3 in Israel and Quebec (Canada); and at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Ireland (Table D.5.6).
These findings from both leaders and staff highlight the challenges of matching staff’s linguistic skills to those of children and families within ECEC settings, which is not always possible to do when many languages are represented or when there is a small number of children and families who speak a language different from the main language of the ECEC setting. A majority of leaders in most pre-primary systems and in half of the systems for children under age 3 report that they make efforts to employ ECEC staff that are representative of the diverse backgrounds of the children and families served (Table D.5.7), likely contributing to the multilingual profiles of staff in settings where a higher share of children have a different home language.
Among countries where the workforce comprises a mix of teachers and assistants (see Chapter 2), there are some differences in the shares of teachers and assistants who report speaking any of the home languages spoken by children in their settings: in pre-primary settings in Denmark and Sweden, assistants are slightly more likely to speak the children’s home languages, whereas in pre-primary settings in Chile, teachers more often indicate they speak these other languages (Table D.5.8). These differences tend to be small and likely reflect different national priorities around staff recruitment and education. For example, some countries may try to recruit more staff with language profiles similar to those of the children in the ECEC setting into the assistant role, as this pathway can require less specific education and training (see Chapter 2). In other contexts, it may be that more educated staff, who are more often teachers, are also more likely to have knowledge of additional languages.
Staff in several systems favour more spending to support children who speak another language at home when they work in settings with a higher concentration of these children
When comparing settings with higher and lower shares of children whose home language is different from the main language(s) used at the ECEC setting (10% or more of children versus fewer), staff working in settings with higher shares of these children in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Türkiye and at both levels of ECEC in Germany are more likely to indicate it is of “somewhat high” or “very high” importance to increase spending in the sector on support for children whose home languages are different than that of the setting (Figure 5.4).
There are fewer and smaller differences among staff placing a high importance on spending to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special education needs related to the share of children with these characteristics in settings. This is likely related to the fact that increased spending to support these two groups is widely viewed as important across countries and subnational entities, more so than for children whose home language is different (Table D.1.2). Investing in supporting children with special education needs stands out, in particular, among staff priorities for additional investments in the ECEC sector: across pre-primary systems, it is the most consistently endorsed area for additional funding across all countries and subnational entities and one of the top 3 priorities for staff in 13 pre-primary systems and 6 systems for settings for children under age 3. The only other area for additional funding with a similar level of priority across all countries and subnational entities is improving ECEC staff salaries, underscoring the high level of importance ECEC staff assign to increasing support for children with special education needs.
Staff who work more regularly with children who have a different home language can be more attuned to their needs and how additional spending could be used to support them. This is reflected in the greater use of activities to raise awareness about the different languages of the children in the group among staff working in settings with 10% or more of children who speak another language at home, compared to their colleagues in settings with fewer children with different home languages, in most countries and subnational entities (Table D.5.12). At the same time, staff who work with more children with different language backgrounds may feel under-resourced to sufficiently support these children, therefore identifying investments in this area as being of greater importance.
Difference in staff spending priorities to support children with different characteristics if the budget for the ECEC sector were to be increased by 5% among staff who work in settings with 10% or more of children with the respective characteristic versus in settings with less than 10% of children with that characteristic
* 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: Staff who indicated that supporting children with the respective characteristics is of “somewhat high” or “very high” importance if the budget in the ECEC sector were increased by 5% are compared to staff who indicated it to be of “very low,” “somewhat low” or “moderate” importance.
Statistically significant differences are indicated in a darker colour, except for New Zealand.
The figure only shows valid data. Values that are not shown were based on too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the size of the difference in the importance of supporting children whose home language is different than the language of the ECEC setting between staff who work in settings with 10% or more of children whose home language is different than the language of the ECEC setting versus in settings with less than 10% of children with that characteristic.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.5.9, D.5.10 and D.5.11.
All children stand to benefit from engagement between ECEC staff and families. Meaningful partnerships with parents or guardians can increase trust in services, enable ECEC staff to develop a deeper understanding of each child and the wider family context, and help parents to build on children’s ECEC experiences at home (OECD, 2024[9]). Consequently, many systems have reflected the importance of working with families in ECEC curricula and quality frameworks (OECD, 2021[10]) (Box 5.1). Engagement with families can also be an important tool for promoting equity, helping all children have high-quality interactions with ECEC staff, other children, toys and materials, and their communities and families, in complementary ways in their ECEC settings and at home (Eurofound, 2025[11]; Iruka, Cabrera and Páez, 2022[12]).
The curriculum in many early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems includes co-operation between the ECEC settings and families as one of its goals. For example, the curriculum framework in Ireland, updated in 2024, highlights the importance of partnerships and collaborations, with “Family and Community” identified as one of nine underpinning principles (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2024[13]). The framework promotes a key person approach. The key person is a point of contact for the family and works in partnership with them. The Guidelines for Good Practice, which accompany the framework, outline how to support learning and development through partnerships with families, including the need to build and maintain trusting relationships, and making time and creating space to have meaningful conversations and interactions with parents (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2009[14]).
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, the pedagogical framework for ECEC settings for children under age 3 also highlights the central role of families (Kind & Gezin, 2014[15]). It notes the value of ECEC for children, families and societies and frames the way ECEC providers view these different stakeholders. Three of the framework’s ten central principles focus on the way ECEC views families: 1) families are competent; 2) relationships are reciprocal; and 3) people are interconnected. In everyday practice, this vision is expressed through mutual acquaintance and relationship-building between practitioners and families as well as active participation and regular consultation with families.
Likewise, in Norway, the ECEC Framework Plan for Kindergartens has a dedicated chapter on “Co‑operation between home and kindergarten” (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017[16]). This document states that kindergartens must facilitate co-operation and good dialogue with parents, at the individual level and through a parents’ council and the co-ordinating committee. The co‑ordinating committee offers parents the opportunity to draw up an annual plan for the kindergarten and to participate in other important matters, such as budget proposals. The Norwegian Kindergarten Act bolsters these curriculum requirements by also noting the responsibility of ECEC centres to work in partnership with children’s homes (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2025[17]).
In Türkiye, family education and engagement are also recognised as an essential component of the preschool curriculum framework. The curriculum emphasises family and community involvement activities, guided by tools designed to assess family needs, identify their priorities and evaluate the outcomes of their engagement. This approach aims to foster trust and collaboration between families and educators, positioning families as active and informed participants in supporting children’s holistic development (Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education, 2024[18]).
In Japan, the National Curriculum Standards place an emphasis on the importance of broadening children’s learning through interactions with families and the local community, encouraging ECEC staff to foster opportunities for children to engage with people and places beyond the ECEC setting (OECD, 2021[10]).
Not all ECEC systems include this type of formal focus on engagement with families, however. The curriculum for pre-primary settings in Israel, for instance, does not explicitly discuss the role of families (OECD, 2021[10]). Nonetheless, the Ministry of Education in Israel provides guidance on supporting parents’ roles within ECEC settings.
This section focuses on how ECEC staff engage with families, including how this varies by child characteristics in settings. This section considers three main ways ECEC staff report engaging with parents and guardians in TALIS Starting Strong 2024: 1) informing them about activities taking place at the setting, their children’s participation in these activities and their children’s progress; 2) encouraging or guiding families in their own interactions with their children; and 3) involving families in the organisation of the ECEC setting, such as by contributing to decision making.
Keeping parents informed is common for ECEC staff and less consistent among leaders
Keeping parents or guardians informed about daily activities is a frequent practice among staff across systems and, in many, almost all staff (more than 90%) agree this takes place in their setting (Table 5.1). Using a digital platform for communication with parents is also commonplace.
Yet the frequency of communication with parents and guardians, as reported by ECEC leaders, varies considerably between and within systems (Table D.5.14). In most systems, leaders indicate that informal communication, such as having conversations about children’s development or activities, is more common than formal communication, such as parent-staff meetings. Similar to staff reports, this informal communication from leaders’ perspectives tends to take place regularly, on at least a monthly or weekly basis in most systems. In Denmark (in pre-primary settings) and in Ireland and New Zealand** (at both levels of ECEC), informal communication with parents and guardians is particularly common, with almost all leaders (over 95%) reporting this takes place at least monthly, while over three-quarters of leaders in these countries say it takes place at least weekly (Table Leader.33).
However, a sizeable minority of leaders report less frequent contact in some systems. Leaders reporting less frequent informal communication with families compared to staff may reflect the different roles of leaders. For instance, leaders in some contexts have more responsibility for administrative tasks, or responsibilities spread across multiple settings or levels of education, all of which can limit opportunities for regular contact with families (see Chapters 2 and 7).
Percentage of staff who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements as applied to their ECEC setting
* 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: The shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of practices to facilitate parent/guardian engagement within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently endorsed practices for facilitating parent/guardian engagement are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently endorsed practices are indicated in white. Practices which intermediate percentages of staff endorse are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.5.13.
Staff encourage families to engage in play and learning at home but the use of home visits and workshops for parents is more variable
Encouraging parents to do play and learning activities at home is one of the family engagement strategies the most often reported by ECEC staff (Table 5.1). In pre-primary settings in Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, it is even more common than keeping parents informed about children’s daily activities. Practices that support the quality of the home environment are particularly relevant for addressing disparities, as families from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to spend less time on interactions and activities that promote children’s development (Ronfani et al., 2015[19]). While sharing information can help parents support their child’s development, some parents may not know how or when to use such information. Providing more explicit information, such as encouraging parents to engage in specific activities at home, can be one strategy to support children in both their ECEC settings and in their home environments.
Home visits can be an important strategy to build connections between home and ECEC environments for children, as well as to connect with parents (OECD, 2025[1]). This type of interaction between ECEC staff or leaders and families is a feature of ECEC provision in some countries and subnational entities but is beyond ECEC’s purview in others. These different system-level expectations are reflected in the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data, with more than 90% of leaders saying home visits never take place in pre‑primary settings in Denmark, New Zealand** and Sweden; in settings for children under age 3 in the two Canadian provinces; and at both levels of ECEC in Ireland and Norway (Table Leader.33). However, a majority of leaders in pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia and Türkiye report that home visits take place at least occasionally.
Another way ECEC settings can support children’s home environments is through the provision of workshops or courses on child rearing or child development. However, with the exception of pre-primary settings in Chile, where over 85% of leaders indicate these take place at least once per year, workshops or courses for parents and guardians are not widely offered (Table D.5.15). In many other systems, around half of setting leaders say these are provided at least once a year. But at both levels of ECEC in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada), only around one-quarter of setting leaders say workshops or courses are offered for parents or guardians at least once a year. There may be a missed opportunity to mitigate disparities if some parents do not have access to such information and support, or it is not appropriately targeted.
Encouraging families to participate in decisions and activities at ECEC settings is often less widespread
Practices that involve families more actively, or place more responsibility on families, tend to be less common in ECEC settings than other types of engagement. Encouraging parents to contribute to classroom or playgroup decisions and providing opportunities for families to participate in decision making at the ECEC setting or take on setting-level tasks are among the practices that staff are least likely to say take place in their setting (Table 5.1). Still, there are substantial differences across ECEC systems in how much staff agree these less common practices are employed in their settings. For instance, only around one-third or fewer staff report that parents are encouraged to contribute to classroom/playgroup decisions in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Japan and at both levels of ECEC in Germany. Yet more than three-quarters of pre-primary staff in several systems agree this practice applies to their ECEC settings. These types of parental engagement can provide meaningful opportunities for families to participate in their children’s ECEC settings, but they can also be demanding on ECEC staff and families. Contributing to classroom/playgroup decisions or activities potentially requires time commitments that conflict with parents’ work schedules or require ECEC staff to be available to work with parents outside of their own usual working hours, or in addition to their time with children.
Staff perspectives on parental engagement in their settings are not shaped by the prevalence of diverse characteristics among the children they serve
When staff agreement about the use of different strategies to engage families in the ECEC setting are combined to give an overall picture of staff practices in the setting, there is no link between these practices and the characteristics of the children in the setting in most countries and subnational entities (Table D.5.16). This finding suggests that ECEC staff and settings are neither making a particular effort to engage with families when they serve more children with a different home language, who are from socio-economically disadvantaged homes or with special education needs, nor are they doing less to engage with families in contexts with greater diversity. While it is encouraging that families in more diverse ECEC settings are not systematically less engaged than their counterparts in less diverse settings, this can be a missed opportunity for ECEC to support vulnerable children through stronger links with families in contexts with greater diversity (González-Sancho et al., 2023[3]). In addition, this does not mean that within a setting, families from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds are equally likely to engage with staff, which cannot be captured by TALIS Starting Strong 2024.
Develop staff capacity to use practices that build awareness and acceptance of diversity, and in particular staff self-efficacy, for stimulating children’s interest in different cultures. As societies become increasingly diverse, ECEC can be a foundation for building openness to differences among young children: staff need to be prepared to support this through a range of activities and materials in their daily work with children. Policies can support the ECEC workforce in these efforts by ensuring there are opportunities for staff learning and practice to build their self‑efficacy to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity among children (see Chapters 6 and 7). Likewise, policies can encourage ECEC setting-level strategies to support diversity, which are associated with staff practices in this area. Staff in pre-primary settings in Colombia, at both levels of ECEC in Ireland, and in settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada) report the most consistent use of a variety of practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity among children.
Ensure that more diverse ECEC settings are adequately resourced according to their specific needs. ECEC can be a valuable tool for addressing vulnerabilities and mitigating early inequities among children; however, to successfully meet this objective, additional resources may be needed in settings with greater diversity. Resources can be used to build family engagement practices in these contexts and support the recruitment of staff who are prepared to work with children with different language backgrounds. Ensuring that staff language profiles reflect the profiles of children and families, and that staff have training to support young children’s language development in multilingual contexts regardless of their own backgrounds are key strategies (see Chapter 6). Pre‑primary settings in Spain and settings for children under age 3 in New Zealand** and Norway have around 40% or more of ECEC settings with higher concentrations of children with different home languages, yet few differences in perceptions of the need for more budgetary resources to support these children among staff working in settings with higher versus lower concentrations of these children. In these systems, resources may be well targeted or universal enough to support staff in their work with children from diverse language backgrounds.
Strengthen connections between home and ECEC. In addition to providing resources to enhance family engagement practices in settings with more vulnerable children, ECEC systems can do more to build connections between home and ECEC for all families. Home visits are one strategy, and one in which staff and leaders need training and time to effectively engage in this work outside of the ECEC setting. Strong co-ordination with external partners (e.g. child, family, social or health services) can also facilitate more connections with children’s homes, such as by taking responsibility for arranging home visits and collaborating with ECEC teams to organise services in a family-centred way (see Chapter 9). The specific strategies that ECEC settings use to engage with families reflects the structure of the overall systems (e.g. the roles of leaders, the role of families in setting governance or the integration of different types of services alongside ECEC) and specific policies must reflect these contexts. Nonetheless, Chile stands out as a system where ECEC settings actively engage with families through home visits and the regular provision of courses or workshops for parents and guardians.
References
[7] Espinosa, L. (2020), “Addressing equity in the ECE classroom: Equal access and high quality for dual language learners”, in Getting it Right: Using Implementation Research to Improve Outcomes in Early Care and Education, Foundation for Child Development.
[11] Eurofound (2025), Working for Children Matters: An Overview of Service Delivery and Workforce in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/working-children-matters-overview-service-delivery-and-workforce-europe (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[3] González-Sancho, C. et al. (2023), “Levelling the playing field in ECEC: Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2018”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 305, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/757e4fea-en.
[12] Iruka, I., N. Cabrera and M. Páez (2022), “Supporting and engaging with diverse families during the early years: Emerging approaches that matter for children and families”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, pp. 390-393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.04.001.
[15] Kind & Gezin (2014), Een pedagogisch raamwerk voor de kinderopvang van baby’s en peuters [A Pedagogical Framework for Childcare for Babies and Toddlers], Kind & Gezin, https://www.vcok.be/media/docs/pedagogische-raamwerk.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[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.
[13] National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2024), Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, Government of Ireland, https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/1e9e4eff-5d44-4950-bfa6-a28f43895d3f/Aistear-FW-ENG.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[14] National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009), Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework Guidelines for Good Practice, Government of Ireland, https://ncca.ie/media/6306/guidelines-for-good-practice.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[16] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2017), Framework Plan for Kindergartens, Government of Norway, https://www.udir.no/contentassets/7c4387bb50314f33b828789ed767329e/framework-plan-for-kindergartens--rammeplan-engelsk-pdf.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[17] Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2025), Kindergarten Act, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-64 (accessed on 21 August 2025).
[1] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[9] OECD (2024), “Engaging parents and guardians in early childhood education and care centres”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 110, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d05dd1cf-en.
[4] OECD (2024), Nurturing Social and Emotional Learning Across the Globe: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32b647d0-en.
[5] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.
[10] 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.
[6] Pianta, R., K. La Paro and B. Hamre (2008), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Manual, Pre-K, Teachstone.
[18] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education (2024), Türkiye Yüzyılı Maaarif Modeli Okul Öncesi Eğitim Programı [The Century of Türkiye Education Model’s Early Childhood Education Programme], https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/program/2024programokuloncesiOnayli.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[19] Ronfani, L. et al. (2015), “The complex interaction between home environment, socioeconomic status, maternal IQ and early child neurocognitive development: A multivariate analysis of data collected in a newborn cohort study”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 10/5, p. e0127052, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127052.
[8] Yurtsever, A., J. Anderson and J. Grundy (2023), “Bilingual children outperform monolingual children on executive function tasks far more often than chance: An updated quantitative analysis”, Developmental Review, Vol. 69, p. 101084, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2023.101084.