This chapter examines the capacity of early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems to develop staff expertise through initial education and professional development opportunities. It examines the role of initial education in preparing staff for their work with children, patterns of staff participation in professional development and the barriers they face when seeking to engage in ongoing training. The chapter focuses on how ECEC systems can support staff participation in job-embedded professional development.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
Initial educational attainment beyond upper-secondary levels enables staff to cover more topics that are relevant for their work with children and thereby enhance their self-efficacy. Higher initial qualifications tend to be associated with greater breadth of content at both ECEC levels. Staff who have covered more topics in their initial education and professional development report higher levels of self-efficacy in their work with children.
Professional development often takes the form of courses and seminars rather than job‑embedded training and collaborative learning approaches (for example coaching or induction) that can support staff’s use of child-centred and adaptive pedagogical practices. Chile, Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan, Morocco and Sweden (at the pre-primary level); and Israel and New Zealand** (at both levels of ECEC) stand out for strong uptake of job‑embedded professional development activities. Participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities is a positive predictor of staff’s adoption of high-quality practices with children, including child-centred approaches to structuring and facilitating learning and daily adaptive pedagogical practices in several ECEC systems.
In-person professional development remains common while participation in online courses is associated with lower perceived impact of professional development than in‑person or hybrid participation in some systems. In six countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and two for settings for children under age 3, staff who participated in online courses are less likely to perceive their general participation in professional development as impactful relative to those who participated in in‑person or hybrid formats.
A lack of staff to fill-in for absences is a major barrier to staff participation in professional development. In most ECEC systems, barriers to participation in professional development relate to the support for professional development rather than staff’s skills or qualifications. Lack of replacement staff is a key barrier in most systems, together with the high cost of professional development and a lack of time.
ECEC staff receive limited support to participate in professional development, although support can alleviate barriers to participation and enhance participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning. Materials needed for activities and release from work with children during regular working hours are the most common types of support received, but less than 45% of staff (at both levels of ECEC) benefit from them. Providing support is associated with higher participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities in most countries and subnational entities.
Staff report a widespread need for training in some areas, particularly in working with children with special education needs and those whose home language is different than the language of the ECEC setting, topics that have been less covered in staff’s recent training. In most countries and subnational entities, staff’s professional development needs in these areas stem more from access-related barriers to participating in professional development than a lack of training opportunities on these topics.
ECEC staff who work in environments that are attractive and rich in professional learning opportunities that support them to grow as professionals are the foundation of strong ECEC systems (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). Developing the workforce’s skills and knowledge through initial education and continuous professional development is central to quality interactions that can enhance children’s learning, development and well-being. Initial education and training programmes can underpin a shared definition of effective practices across ECEC staff (OECD, 2019[2]). In turn, quality continuous professional development enables staff to critically reflect on their practices, keep up to date on new developments, and bridge gaps in knowledge and skills (OECD, 2025[3]). Opportunities to build and sustain expertise in the workforce are at the core of ECEC systems’ abilities to attract and retain staff, particularly since they can support career progression and job satisfaction (OECD, 2025[3]; 2020[4]).
The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024 asks staff about the content and qualification levels of their initial education or training programmes, enabling insights into how ECEC systems can develop staff expertise (Figure 6.1). The survey also contains information about staff’s participation in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey, including the type, content and mode of delivery. It collects evidence on the barriers staff face when seeking to engage in professional development, the support they receive to participate in training and their ongoing professional development needs. The analysis in this chapter on professional development activities and topics includes both staff and leaders with staff duties, that is, those leaders who regularly work directly with children in a pedagogical way (see the Reader’s Guide for more information). While leaders with staff duties likely have specific professional development needs given the complexity of their roles, their work with children means that their ongoing training opportunities should encompass the topics available to staff.
This chapter aims to address the following questions:
What thematic areas do staff cover in their initial education and training to work with children?
How do staff engage in professional development and what barriers hinder their participation?
How are novice staff supported to adapt to their roles?
How do initial education and professional development support staff self-efficacy? What professional development needs do staff report?
Coherent initial education and professional development opportunities are critical to ensure staff can acquire and develop skills at all stages of their careers, in alignment with their background, needs and roles (OECD, 2020[4]). The content and qualification level of staff’s initial education, including whether they received training specifically to work with young children, influence the quality of the ECEC provided (OECD, 2025[3]). Initial education is also a strong building block for further engagement in professional development. While there is no single recipe for quality professional development, research has identified several characteristics that tend to lead to effective professional development experiences, including a focus on staff strategies associated with specific curriculum content, active learning, sustained duration, embeddedness in collective practice, coherence with staff’s knowledge and experience (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[5]; Minea-Pic, 2020[6]; OECD, 2024[7]). Digital technologies have increasingly permeated education and training systems and can support staff professional development, when the above-mentioned features that shape effective professional development experiences are also addressed.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects rich evidence on the content and type of initial education and professional development activities staff engage in. This section builds on the profiles of ECEC staff described in Chapter 2 and examines staff reports of the content areas covered in their initial education or training programme that prepared them to work with children; the types, content and delivery modes of professional development activities they participated in during the 12 months prior to the survey; and their perceived impact of recent participation in professional development on their work with children.
Higher initial educational attainment tends to be associated with greater breadth of content
Initial education or training programmes that prepared staff to work with children span a broad range of thematic areas (Figure 6.2, Table Staff.14). In almost all ECEC systems, at both levels, on average, over 80% of staff received initial training in promoting play and peer interaction; supporting children’s social and emotional development; early learning of content areas; monitoring/documenting child development, well-being and learning; and in child health, personal care and safety. In settings for children under age 3, working with parents or guardians/families is part of initial education for over 80% of staff, on average in almost all countries and subnational entities. In contrast, working with children from diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds or whose home language is different from the language of the ECEC setting are typically underrepresented topics in initial education for staff, although bridging equity gaps is a concern in many ECEC systems.
Average percentage of staff whose initial education or training programmes covered the following content areas
Notes: Only staff who indicated they received training to work with children received this question. Averages exclude New Zealand.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.14.
Some content areas are covered to similar extents across countries and subnational entities, suggesting they are considered to be at the core of staff’s initial education to work with children, while others are included in initial training to different degrees (Figure 6.2). Supporting children's interest to care for the environment is almost universally covered in the initial education of pre-primary staff in Colombia, Japan, Morocco and Türkiye and of staff in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada). However, only around half of pre-primary staff in Denmark and Germany and of staff in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany report this type of initial education or training programme.
Initial educational attainment beyond upper secondary enables staff to cover more topics that are relevant for their work. Higher initial educational attainment tends to be associated with greater breadth of content at both levels, in countries and subnational entities where it is possible to compare different staff education profiles (Table D.6.1; see also Chapter 2). In most countries and subnational entities at both ECEC levels, staff with a bachelor’s degree covered more topics in their initial education or training programme than those whose highest educational attainment is upper secondary.
Some ECEC systems, such as Ireland, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) for settings for children under age 3 rely on post-secondary vocational and short-cycle tertiary education (ISCED levels 4 and 5; see Chapter 2). In these countries and subnational entities, staff having some post‑secondary education (ISCED level 4 and above) have also covered more thematic areas in their initial education than those with lower qualification levels.
Professional development often takes the form of courses and seminars rather than job‑embedded training and collaborative learning that can support staff adaptive pedagogy and child-centred planning
In all countries and subnational entities at both levels of ECEC, more than 80% of staff participated in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey (Figure 6.3, Table D.6.2). High professional development uptake can result from mandatory participation requirements but can also reflect staff’s intrinsic motivation to engage in training and supports for professional development participation. Notably, in all countries and subnational entities, participation in courses, seminars or workshops is the most prevalent type of ongoing ECEC staff training. This may reflect a higher availability and offer of such professional development activities, but also the facility to engage in them through in-person, hybrid or virtual formats (Table Staff.15).
Percentage of staff who participated in each type of professional development activity in the 12 months prior to the survey
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes:
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
PD: professional development.
Panel A: Averages exclude New Zealand.
Panel B: Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who participated in any professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.6.2 and D.6.3.
While participation in professional development has often consisted of individual engagement in one-off sessions (e.g. courses, conferences), job-embedded and collaborative approaches to training have increasingly emerged as more impactful and cost-effective (Egert, Fukkink and Eckhardt, 2018[8]; Markussen-Brown et al., 2017[9]; OECD, 2020[4]; 2025[3]). Participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities is a positive predictor of staff’s adoption of child-centred approaches to structuring and facilitating learning and of daily adaptive pedagogical practices in several ECEC systems, even when a set of other staff and setting-level characteristics are accounted for (Tables D.5.3 and D.5.4; see Chapter 4). Staff engagement in professional collaborative practices is indeed the most consistent predictor of their adoption of pedagogical approaches and practices with children (see Chapter 9).
Job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities are less widespread across ECEC systems than participation in courses or seminars (Figure 6.3, Panel A). Fewer ECEC staff engage in coaching, induction programmes, planned visits to other ECEC settings or to other classrooms/playgroups/groups at their own setting to inform their practice than in courses or seminars. While this pattern holds across all countries and subnational entities at both ECEC levels, some systems combine high overall participation in professional development with strong uptake of job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities. This is the case in Chile, Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan, Morocco and Sweden at the pre‑primary level; and Israel and New Zealand** at both levels of ECEC (Figure 6.3, Panel B).
When specific job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities are considered separately, a few countries stand out for staff participation in such activities (Table D.6.2). Around two‑thirds of staff working in settings for children under age 3 in Israel and half of pre-primary staff in Israel and Morocco participated in coaching programmes. Pre-primary staff in Colombia, Israel and Morocco are also numerous to engage in induction or orientation programmes, likely related to the relatively high shares of less experienced staff, particularly in Colombia and Morocco (see Chapter 2). In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Japan, around one in two ECEC staff in pre-primary settings have visited other groups at their setting to inform their practice. More than half of pre-primary setting staff in Chile, New Zealand** and Sweden engage in professional learning networks.
Recent professional development activities cover play and theories on the development, well-being and learning of children but less frequently working with vulnerable children
ECEC staff across participating countries and subnational entities covered similar areas in professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table Staff.16 and Table 6.1). For both levels of ECEC, theories on the development, well-being and learning of young children; promoting play and peer interaction; and supporting children’s social and emotional development are the most frequent content areas where staff report ongoing training. A range of other areas, including working with children from diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds or whose home language is different from the main language used in the setting do not rank high among recent professional development topics. These are areas that are also generally less covered in initial education or training for staff working with children, and also among the areas where staff report a high need for training (see Table 6.3).
Percentage of staff who report each content area was covered in recent professional development activities
* 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 reflects the within-country ranking of content areas covered by professional development. In each country, the most frequently reported content areas covered by professional development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported content areas covered by professional development are indicated in white. Content areas reported by intermediate percentages of staff are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey cells indicate low survey coverage.
a: The question was not administered in pre-primary settings in Israel, Morrocco and Türkiye, and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel.
ECEC: early childhood education and care. Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.16
The contents of recent staff professional development activities tend to overlap with those included in their initial education. The variation between countries and subnational entities in the number of areas covered in both initial education and professional development generally reflects the variation in the number of areas covered in professional development activities only (Table D.6.4). This pattern may result from broad initial training and potentially limited professional development topic offerings, leading staff to participate in professional development mainly to refresh their knowledge or fill skills gaps rather than explore new themes.
In-person professional development remains common while participation in online courses is associated with lower perceived impact of professional development
On average, ECEC staff attended 2-4 professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey (Table D.6.5). While a majority of pre-primary staff participate in professional development activities in person, staff in some countries and subnational entities also have relatively high engagement in hybrid forms of professional development (Table D.6.6). Around 40% of pre-primary staff in New Zealand**, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye participated in at least one hybrid professional development activity – that is, activities delivered both in person and virtually/online – in contrast to fewer than 20% in Colombia, Denmark and Germany. Ireland, New Zealand**, Spain and Türkiye combine relatively high levels of hybrid and online participation. Staff working in settings for children under age 3 also preponderantly participate in in-person professional development. New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) stand out as exceptions, with more staff training online than in person.
Staff report their perceptions about the impact of their recent participation in professional development in general, rather than related to specific activities. In six countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and two in settings for children under age 3, fewer staff who participate in online courses perceived their general participation in professional development as impactful compared with those offered in person or in hybrid formats (Figure 6.4). Pre-primary staff in Chile, Denmark and Morocco are exceptions, with a high average perceived impact of participation in professional development among staff who engaged in courses, seminars or workshops in person and online.
Percentage of staff who report that their participation in professional development activities had a positive impact on their work with children “quite a bit” or “a lot”, by participation mode in courses/seminars/workshops
* 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.
+ indicates that the difference between the two participation modes is statistically significant.
Notes: Staff were asked about the positive impact of their participation in professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey in general, not about the impact of specific professional development activities.
The figure only shows valid data. Values that are not shown were based on too few observations to ensure reliability.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who reported that their participation in professional development activities had a positive impact on their work with children among those who participate in courses/seminars/workshops at least partly in person.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.6.7.
The delivery mode of professional development only appears to relate to perceived impact insofar as staff engage in courses, seminars or workshops. For other types of professional development opportunities – conferences, qualification programmes, coaching, induction programmes and professional networks – there are generally no statistically significant differences in most countries and subnational entities (where it is possible to compare across delivery modes) in perceived impact between staff who engaged online in professional development activities and those who attended in-person or hybrid formats at both ECEC levels.
The effectiveness of professional development experiences hinges on the extent to which ECEC staff can participate in them. A range of obstacles related to time, relevance or cost can hinder access to professional development. Having sufficient time is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition, for professional development participation. Engaging in professional development can also entail direct and indirect costs for staff (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[5]; OECD, 2019[2]). While digital technologies can enhance professional development accessibility, online or hybrid professional development also requires a range of pre-conditions for staff engagement, including access to technology and staff digital skills (Minea-Pic, 2020[6]). Professional development experiences delivered online may take place at times when staff have other commitments or responsibilities, thereby decreasing their incentives to participate. Barriers to professional development participation may also be more pronounced for some categories of staff than for others. Adequate time, funding and specialised resources (i.e. materials, specialised expertise) are critical for the design of impactful professional development experiences that effectively engage staff (Campbell, DeLuca and LaPointe-McEwan, 2022[10]; OECD, 2024[7]).
This section investigates inequalities in professional development participation over the 12 months prior to the survey based on staff’s roles and background and barriers hindering their engagement in professional development. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 also gathers data on the supports ECEC staff receive to participate in professional development. It also asks leaders in centre-based settings about the adequacy of staffing in their centres as a barrier to the provision of a quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning; for pre-primary settings, this aspect of ECEC setting human resources is examined as a factor that contributes to the barriers staff experience in accessing ongoing professional development.
Assistants and staff with lower initial qualification levels participate less in training, though some job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities enable more staff to participate
While engagement in professional development tends to be widespread among ECEC staff, there are differences in participation associated with staff roles and background. In pre-primary settings, teachers are significantly more likely to have participated in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey than assistants in 6 countries and subnational entities (Table D.6.8). Differences in participation between teachers and assistants are also observed among staff working in settings for children under age 3 in Germany, Israel and Norway. At both ECEC levels, staff who hold higher levels of initial education participate more in professional development (Table D.6.3). Israel stands out for relatively large gaps in participation by the initial education and training of staff across all professional development activities at both levels of ECEC.
Countries and subnational entities with inequalities in overall participation in professional development tend to exhibit gaps in participation across most types of professional development activities (Table D.6.8). These patterns likely reflect different entitlements to professional development for teachers and assistants, but also differential supports received for ongoing training. At both ECEC levels, gaps in participation are most noteworthy for participation in courses, seminars and workshops; conferences for ECEC staff; qualification programmes; planned visits to other ECEC settings; and formal or informal staff networks for the purpose of professional learning.
Despite the overall patterns, there are a range of nuances in the types of professional development activities in which staff participate (Table D.6.8). Assistants are as likely and sometimes even more so to engage in some types of job-embedded training and collaborative learning forms of professional development at both ECEC levels – planned visits to other classrooms/playgroups/groups at the ECEC setting and induction programmes. In addition, in Chile, Morocco and Norway, a range of professional development activities – including conferences for ECEC staff, qualification programmes, planned visits to ECEC settings (other or one’s own) or coaching programmes – include a similar share of pre-primary staff with different initial education levels (Table D.6.3). Planned visits to ECEC settings (other or one’s own), coaching programmes and induction programmes are also equally attended by staff working in settings for children under age 3 with varying levels of education in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Norway. Such job-embedded approaches to professional development that enable staff to engage in learning in their job contexts may be by design more likely to engage a wider variety of staff, irrespective of their background or level of education.
A lack of staff to fill-in for absences is a major barrier to participating in professional development
ECEC staff across participating countries and subnational entities report similar barriers to professional development participation (Table 6.2 and Staff.20). Barriers concentrate around the lack of support received by staff for engagement rather than staff background or skills. Lack of replacement staff, the high cost of professional development and a lack of time (either due to other commitments or responsibilities or to conflicts with work schedules) are top obstacles to professional development across most systems for both ECEC levels. In contrast, obstacles related to staff members’ own skills or qualifications to engage are less prevalent. For instance, pre-requisites for participation are not identified as a key issue for participation in professional development in most countries and subnational entities. Access to digital resources and necessary skills for using technology are perceived as a barrier to participation in pre‑primary settings in Colombia, Japan and Morocco, as well as in both levels of ECEC in Israel.
Insufficient staff to fill-in for absences stands out as the main obstacle to staff participation in nine countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and in all systems at the level of settings for children under age 3. Likewise, leader reports of the adequacy of staffing as a barrier to quality in centre-based pre‑primary settings are linked with reports of insufficient staff being a barrier to their participation in professional development. Less adequate staffing at the setting level increases the likelihood that pre‑primary staff report a lack of replacement staff as a barrier to professional development in Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco, Norway and Sweden (Table D.6.9). In these contexts, staff likely rely on colleagues from their own setting to cover absences during training, making inadequate staffing a key obstacle to participating in professional development. In contrast, in other systems, inadequate staffing is not associated with an increased likelihood of staff reporting insufficient replacement staff as a barrier to training participation. In these systems, more centralised replacement opportunities that enable staff replacements from other centres when participating in professional development or job‑embedded opportunities or other types of support (e.g. training activities organised outside opening hours) may support staff participation in professional development even when centre-level staffing is inadequate.
Staff reports of a lack of replacement staff as a barrier to their professional development activities do not appear to be related to other setting-level characteristics (location, setting size, management type) in most ECEC systems. In contrast, some individual-level characteristics do matter: novice staff (with three years or less of experience), staff working part time or staff without a permanent contract are less likely to report a lack of replacement staff as a barrier in several ECEC systems.
Percentage of staff who report that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that the following are barriers to professional development
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: The shading of the cells reflects the within-country ranking of barriers to professional development. In each country, the most frequently reported barriers to professional development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported barriers to professional development are indicated in white. Barriers to professional development with which intermediate percentages of staff “agree” or “strongly agree” are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey cells indicate low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.20.
ECEC staff receive limited support to engage in professional development, although support can alleviate barriers to participation
Among staff who participated in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey, receiving support for participation in professional development is not widespread (Table D.6.10). Materials needed for activities (for example office supplies) and release from working with children during regular working hours are the most recurrent types of support received, but they each cover a relatively limited share of staff (Figure 6.5). Monetary support in the form of reimbursement of professional development costs or of out-of-pocket costs are the next most common types of support provided to staff. Like reimbursement of costs, few pre-primary staff benefit from increased salary or supplements for time spent outside working hours to engage in professional development.
In most countries, efforts to support participation tend to be concentrated around two or three areas of support, with few countries providing comprehensive support to staff. Germany (at both ECEC levels), Japan (at the pre-primary level) and New Zealand** (at both ECEC levels) stand out with a relatively higher share of staff benefiting from release from working with children, reimbursement of costs and materials for professional development activities. ECEC systems are adopting strategies to facilitate staff participation in qualification programmes while working by partly covering the financial costs of qualifications or recognising prior learning (Box 6.1).
Average percentage of staff who received the following supports for participation in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Note: Averages exclude New Zealand.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff in pre-primary settings who reported they received different types of support for their participation in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.6.10.
In Ireland, the Nurturing Skills Learner Fund is supporting the professional development of early childhood education and care (ECEC) staff with the objective of raising educational attainment in the workforce (Irish Department of Children, Disability and Equality, 2025[11]). The scheme covers 90% of the fees incurred by staff working in the sector who engage in a government-approved ECEC qualification. The fund also aids the recruitment and retention of early years staff, by supporting career pathways and reducing the upfront financial costs faced by ECEC staff who wish to upskill. By the end of 2025, the fund had funded 700 ECEC staff, with the first graduates expected in 2026. To reduce the administrative burden on staff, higher education institutions receive the funding directly. The Nurturing Skills Learner Fund is co-funded by the European Union through the European Social Fund+ and by the government of Ireland through the Employment, Inclusion, Skills and Training programme 2021-27.
Quebec (Canada) has implemented two initiatives to support staff seeking to obtain a qualification while working. The Early Childhood Work-Study Pathway is designed for novice staff who are paid to attend foundational training three days per week. The remaining two days are spent working in an ECEC setting. The Recognition of Acquired Competencies initiative targets experienced staff seeking to obtain a recognised diploma without returning to full-time studies. Post-secondary institutions oversee the process that allows staff to demonstrate the skills they have developed through professional and personal experience. Competencies are assessed through interviews and workplace observations. Tailored learning strategies (for example, small-group training, targeted readings) address identified gaps. To support this process, the government of Quebec has provided funding to employers to release and compensate staff for up to 96 hours during this process. The two government-funded initiatives, led by a single co-ordinating body, were developed through collaboration between a wide range of stakeholders.
Support for professional development participation can break down barriers to participation. For instance, professional development costs and limited replacement staff are major barriers to participation in most countries and subnational entities, while staff receive limited support in these areas. This is the case in Spain, where only 9% of staff in pre-primary education report benefiting from release from working with children when they engage in professional development and lack of replacement staff ranks high among the barriers to professional development. In contrast, in Japan (for pre-primary settings), reimbursements or payments of professional development costs tend to be widespread while the cost of professional development is not a major barrier to participation.
Participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning tends to be higher where non‑monetary support is available, with staff in some systems benefiting from a combination of supports
Non-monetary support in the form of materials needed for the activities, non-monetary rewards (for example classroom/group resources, book vouchers) or non-monetary professional benefits (i.e. fulfilling professional development requirements, improving promotion opportunities) is associated with higher participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning in most countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and in two countries and subnational entities in settings for children under age 3 (Figure 6.6 and Table D.6.11). These results are robust to the consideration of the three types of support for professional development participation jointly – non‑monetary support, monetary support and staff releases from working with children – and of staff, leader and setting-level characteristics that can be related to staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning. These types of non‑monetary rewards and benefits may be provided following participation in professional development and are not necessarily the reason that staff engage in specific types of professional development activities. Nonetheless, providing such supports can encourage staff to decide to engage in professional development or leaders to create more opportunities for staff to make use of ongoing training opportunities.
In some countries and subnational entities, a combination of support types is associated with enhanced participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning. Along with non-monetary support, monetary support is also positively related to staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning in Sweden (at the pre-primary level). In Spain (at the pre-primary level), staff are also more likely to participate in job-embedded training and collaborative learning when they benefit from non-monetary support and release from working with children during regular working hours, whereas in Norway (in settings for children under age 3) monetary support and release from working with children are positively associated with participation.
Likelihood of staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning associated with different types of support for participation in professional development
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: Results show odds ratios from a single multivariable logistic regression model linking staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning to three different types of support provided for professional development participation (release from working with children and monetary and non-monetary support). Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour. For more information, see Annex C.
Results do not include New Zealand due to small sample sizes.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning and staff being released from working with children during regular working hours.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.6.11.
In addition, leaders’ frequent (monthly or weekly) communication with staff and/or leaders from other ECEC settings is associated with higher staff engagement in job-embedded training and collaborative learning in the Flemish Community of Belgium (at both levels of ECEC), Ireland (at the pre-primary level) and Norway (in settings for children under age 3). Some job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities, including professional networks or planned visits to other groups in the setting or other ECEC settings, are likely to be more easily developed and implemented when leaders exchange often with staff and/or leaders from other ECEC settings. Leader support for staff pedagogical learning is also related to higher pre‑primary staff participation in planned visits to other classrooms/playgroups/groups at the same ECEC setting in Colombia, Germany, Morocco and New Zealand** (Table D.6.12) and to higher pre-primary staff participation in induction programmes in Finland, Norway and Spain (Table D.6.13).
Novice staff are critical for addressing workforce shortages. These staff can bring fresh energy and ways of thinking to ECEC centres, but they are, by definition, new to their jobs. The nature of work in ECEC settings requires staff to multi-task and shift frequently between different job demands (see Chapters 4 and 5). It is, therefore, essential to support novice staff to navigate these many aspects of their work. Staff training needs vary depending on factors such as their career stage, work context and the needs of children in their group, and novice staff are likely to have different professional development needs than their more experienced colleagues. In this context, a one-size-fits-all approach to professional development is neither appropriate nor effective (Campbell et al., 2017[12]; OECD, 2024[7]). Induction/orientation programmes can support staff integration in new settings and the profession, fostering commitment and potential interest for further engagement in professional development (OECD, 2020[4]).
TALIS Starting Strong data allow comparisons of professional development indicators between novice staff (with three years of experience or less) and more experienced staff. This section examines participation of novice staff in professional development, focusing on induction and coaching programmes. It also investigates barriers experienced by novice staff as they seek to engage in professional development and the support novice staff receive to participate in professional development.
Participation in professional development activities is overall similar for novice and experienced staff, though novice staff tend to engage more in induction programmes
In most ECEC systems, novice and more experienced (with more than three years of experience) staff display similar levels of participation in professional development (Table D.6.2). In Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye (at the pre-primary level) and in Israel and Quebec (Canada) (in settings for children under age 3), fewer novice than experienced staff report participating in any professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey. Only in Japan do novice pre-primary staff participate more in ongoing training than more experienced staff.
When a range of staff, setting and leader-level characteristics are accounted for, novice staff are more likely to participate in induction/orientation programmes than their more experienced colleagues (ten years of experience or more) in five countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and in one country for settings for children under age 3 (Table D.6.13). Induction activities may target not only staff who are new to the profession but also those who recently joined the setting. As reported by leaders of novice staff, in most ECEC systems at both levels, induction activities in the setting tend to focus on supervision by the ECEC setting leader/experienced staff, working in a team with experienced ECEC staff and general/administrative induction (Table D.6.14) – activities which may also benefit staff new to an ECEC setting irrespective of their level of experience.
Participation in coaching is not widespread among novice staff. Only in Morocco (at the pre-primary level) and Israel (in settings for children under age 3) do more than half of novice staff report participation in a coaching programme (Table D.6.2). These are also systems with relatively high shares of novice staff whose leaders report that coaching is part of induction activities available at the ECEC setting (Table D.6.14). In most systems, novice and more experienced staff are equally likely to engage in structured coaching programmes (Table D.6.15). In Sweden (at the pre-primary level) and in Norway (in settings for children under age 3), novice staff are more likely to participate in coaching, whereas the opposite is true in Denmark and Spain (at the pre-primary level) and in Germany and Israel (in settings for children under age 3). These variations in participation patterns are likely linked to differences in programme design whereby, in some countries, coaching may be part of induction for novice staff whereas in others it is used more to refine practice among those with more experience.
In some systems, novice staff receive less support to participate in professional development
Novice and experienced staff at both ECEC levels tend to face similar barriers to professional development participation when a range of staff and setting-level characteristics are accounted for (Tables D.6.9, D.6.16, D.6.17, D.6.18 and D.6.19). However, in a range of ECEC systems, more experienced staff tend to benefit more from some types of professional development support (Table D.6.20). In six countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and in four for settings for children under age 3, more experienced staff are more likely to receive reimbursements or payments of professional development costs than novice staff. Release from working with children during regular working hours is also more recurrent among experienced staff in Colombia and Finland (at the pre-primary level) and Germany (at both levels of ECEC). In settings for children under age 3, monetary supplements for time spent outside working hours also benefit experienced staff more in Germany, Ireland, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada).
Novice staff may require more tailored support measures to address emerging needs as they enter the profession and a new setting, and they receive this support in some countries and subnational entities. In Türkiye (at the pre-primary level) and in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland (in settings for children under age 3), novice staff are more likely to report a range of supports for their professional development participation than more experienced staff (Table D.6.20).
Staff self-efficacy refers to the degree to which ECEC staff feel comfortable and confident about their capacity to plan and implement job-specific tasks and to promote children’s development, learning and well-being. Positive self-efficacy can promote greater job satisfaction and work engagement while reducing stress (see Chapter 8), which in turn supports staff retention and encourages the use of practices that foster enhanced interactions with children (OECD, 2020[4]; 2025[3]). Staff’s confidence in their ability to perform tasks effectively can also shape their likelihood of remaining in the profession. Quality initial education and continuous professional development that meet staff professional development needs can support staff self-efficacy (Cadima et al., 2024[13]; OECD, 2020[4]; Tanaka et al., 2020[14]).
To capture their self-efficacy, TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks ECEC staff about the extent to which they feel they can do a range of activities or practices. This section explores links between staff self-efficacy across these areas and the breadth of initial education and ongoing professional development content. It also examines ongoing staff needs in terms of professional development content.
Staff who have covered more topics in their initial education and professional development report higher self-efficacy levels
ECEC staff at both levels display a rather strong sense of self-efficacy across most areas of their work with children. In almost all countries and subnational entities, around 90% of staff report feeling they are able to provide children with a feeling of security, help children to interact with each other and show good social behaviour, and help children develop creativity and problem solving with “a lot” or “quite a bit” of ease (Table Staff.24). Staff report a lower sense of confidence in their ability to use digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children, stimulating children’s interest in cultural differences and commonalities, and supporting the development of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, with wide cross-country variations in reported self-efficacy in these areas.
The breadth of training content is positively associated with staff’s sense of overall self-efficacy for their work with children (Tables D.6.21, D.6.22 and D.6.23). In nearly all countries and subnational entities at both ECEC levels, staff who covered more topics in their initial education or training programmes that prepared them to work with children or those who covered more topics during their recent professional development activities report higher self-efficacy (Tables D.6.21 and D.6.22). Cumulative training in a range of topics, whereby staff have covered topics in both their initial education or training programme and in their recent professional development participation, is also positively linked with their sense of self‑efficacy. While these results account for a range of staff and setting-level characteristics, the level of support staff receive in their work may also shape their perceived sense of self-efficacy.
The relationship between training breadth and staff self-efficacy can work both ways. Staff who cover more areas in their training are more likely to feel self-confident about their ability to perform a variety of job‑related tasks. At the same time, staff who are more comfortable about their capacity to carry out their activities may also be more inclined to explore job-specific topics through professional development or feel sufficiently at ease in their work to make time for professional development.
Novice staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Sweden (at the pre-primary level) and Israel (in settings for children under age 3) have a lower sense of self-efficacy than more experienced staff when the breadth of training content in initial education and professional development is accounted for (Table D.6.23). This suggests that additional support levers are needed to make novice staff in these countries and subnational entity increase their confidence in their ability to perform a range of job-specific tasks.
Staff report a widespread need for training in supporting children with special education needs, an area little covered in recent training
Staff at both levels share similar professional development needs across ECEC systems. Working with children with special education needs is the main area where staff report a high need for professional development, followed by working with children whose home language is different from that of the ECEC setting (Table 6.3 and Table Staff.19). Other strong professional development needs relate to supporting children’s social and emotional development (at pre-primary level), using digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children (at pre-primary level), and working with children from disadvantaged backgrounds (at both ECEC levels).
Staff who have focused on working with children with a different home language or children with special education needs as part of their initial education or training programme that prepared them to work with children are less likely to report training needs in these areas (Tables D.6.24 and D.6.25). In contrast, participation in professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey does not appear to make a difference in staff’s expressed needs on these topics in most countries and subnational entities. Staff who have recently attended training may have done so in other content areas than working with children who have a different home language or children with special education needs. Indeed, despite the widespread need for ongoing training on working with children with special education needs or those with a different home language, these areas rank high among the contents most commonly covered in recent staff training only in very few countries and subnational entities (see Table 6.1).
Staff professional development needs in working with children with a different home language or children with special education needs tend to be associated more with access-related barriers to professional development participation rather than the absence of a training offer on these topics. In several countries and subnational entities at both ECEC levels, staff who report limited professional development accessibility (due to cost, distance or lack of technology), lack of staff skills (digital or language) or pre‑requisites to attend professional development (qualifications or experience) as barriers to professional development participation are more likely to report training needs in working with children whose home language is different from that of the ECEC setting or with children with special education needs. Reports of lack of ECEC setting leader support and insufficient staff to fill-in for staff absences as barriers to participation are also associated with staff reports of professional development needs in working with children with special education needs in several systems. In contrast, in most systems, staff professional development needs do not appear to reflect a lack of a training offer in these areas nor a lack of incentives to participate.
Staff who work with more children whose home language is different from the language of the ECEC setting tend to report more professional development needs in this area, although this is less the case for working with children with special education needs, which is generally an area of high need. These findings align with results showing that staff who work in settings with greater concentrations of children with a different home language also view the need for greater support for these children in the ECEC sector budget (see Chapter 5) and underscore the need for targeted professional development support for staff in these contexts.
Percentage of staff who report a “high” level of need for professional development in the following content areas
* 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 reflects the within-country ranking of areas for professional development. In each country, the most frequently reported areas for professional development needs are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported areas for professional development needs are indicated in white. Areas for professional development needs for which intermediate percentages of staff reported having a high need are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey cells indicate low survey coverage.
a: The question was not administered in pre-primary settings in Israel, Morocco and Türkiye, and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel. ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.19.
Support the development of and participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning. Professional development is often delivered through courses rather than job‑embedded and collaborative learning approaches, despite evidence that job-embedded and collaborative approaches are more impactful for staff learning and linked with enhanced staff practices with children. Policies can enhance staff participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning by designing effective support systems for staff participation (for example reimbursement of costs, non-monetary supports), equipping leaders to strengthen staff pedagogical learning and foster within- and cross-setting professional learning communities (see Chapter 7), and creating mechanisms to recognise and reward diverse professional learning activities beyond courses or seminars. Chile, Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan, Morocco and Sweden (at the pre-primary level) and Israel and New Zealand** (at both levels of ECEC) combine high overall participation in professional development with strong uptake of job-embedded training and collaborative learning activities.
Allocate resources for professional development to support more equal access. The high cost of professional development and lack of replacement staff hinder participation in professional development. Beyond material support for staff professional development, introducing centralised pools of replacement staff can go hand-in-hand with more innovative, targeted funding strategies to steer the development of job-embedded training and collaborative learning approaches that support setting-wide professional learning and respond to local priorities and needs. Certain job‑embedded professional development activities (i.e. coaching) can take place while working with children, helping to minimise challenges related to staff replacement. Policies to attract and retain staff (see Chapter 8) can help address the more structural reasons underlying the lack of replacement staff in the sector.
Make time for professional development. Time is a central issue in many ECEC systems. Making time for professional development often requires tackling the issue of staff to fill in for absences, which can be challenging in a context of staff shortages. Regulations regarding working time can provide alternative solutions, by securing time for professional development in staff members’ annual working time, integrating time for collaborative learning in their planning, and ensuring requirements and/or entitlements cover all categories of staff in similar ways.
Better leverage digital technologies for professional development to ensure impactful learning. Participation in online courses is associated with lower perceived impact of professional development than in-person or hybrid participation in some systems. To enhance the impact of digital learning experiences, the principles of effective in-person professional development need to be embedded in digital formats. Pre-primary staff in Denmark and Morocco report a high perceived impact from professional development, regardless of whether they participated in courses, seminars or workshops delivered in person or online. Developing standards for high-quality professional learning across delivery modes can be combined with the design of mechanisms to approve, certify and monitor training in digital environments for quality.
Support novice staff to evolve in the sector. Novice staff participate more in induction programmes but face similar barriers to professional development participation as more experienced colleagues and in some systems, they benefit from less support to participate. Sustained and tailored support for novice staff participation in ongoing training, accompanied by investments in leaders and mentors through adequate training and protected time to support novice staff can enhance the development of novice staff in their roles. Mechanisms that clarify how novice staff can progress professionally combined with tailored supports and training opportunities to fill gaps at different career stages can further enhance staff engagement and retention.
References
[5] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.
[13] Cadima, J. et al. (2024), “Does support for professional development in early childhood and care settings matter? A study in four countries”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 53/4, pp. 1181-1193, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10643-024-01669-X/TABLES/6.
[10] Campbell, C., C. DeLuca and D. LaPointe-McEwan (2022), Teacher-led Learning Circles: Developing Teacher Leadership and Teaching Practice for the Use of Formative Assessment to Improve Students’ Learning, Education International, Brussels, https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/27004:teacher-led-learning-circles-developing-teacher-leadership-and-teaching-practice-for-the-use-of-formative-assessment-to-improve-students-learning (accessed on 31 January 2024).
[12] Campbell, C. et al. (2017), The State of Educators’ Professional Learning in Canada: Final Research Report, Learning Forward, Oxford, OH, https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/state-of-educators-professional-learning-in-canada.pdf.
[8] Egert, F., R. Fukkink and A. Eckhardt (2018), “Impact of in-service professional development programs for early childhood teachers on quality ratings and child outcomes: A meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88/3, pp. 401-433, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751918.
[11] Irish Department of Children, Disability and Equality (2025), “Minister Foley announces the opening of applications for a new fund to upskill early years staff”, press release, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-children-disability-and-equality/press-releases/minister-foley-announces-the-opening-of-applications-for-a-new-fund-to-upskill-early-years-staff (accessed on 25 August 2025).
[1] Leseman, P. and P. Slot (2025), “Strong early childhood education and care systems for the future: A conceptual framework for thematic analyses”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 329, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d0a97f-en.
[9] Markussen-Brown, J. et al. (2017), “The effects of language- and literacy-focused professional development on early educators and children: A best-evidence meta-analysis”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 97-115, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECRESQ.2016.07.002.
[6] Minea-Pic, A. (2020), “Innovating teachers’ professional learning through digital technologies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 237, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3329fae9-en.
[3] OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f49228be-en.
[7] OECD (2024), Cultiver l’excellence dans l’apprentissage et le développement professionnel des personnels de l’éducation: Renforcer l’impact des écoles académiques de la formation continue en France, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cd020f15-fr.
[4] OECD (2020), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.
[2] 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.
[14] Tanaka, N. et al. (2020), “Improving early care and education professionals’ teaching self-efficacy and well-being: A mixed methods exploratory study”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 31/7, pp. 1089-1111, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1794246.