This chapter examines leadership in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. It analyses how leaders are prepared and supported, including participation in professional development and whether training aligns with their needs. It explores variations in leadership functions and autonomy and how these shape leaders’ perceived influence and reliance on public support. The chapter also analyses how resources, structural conditions and access to professional development relate to leadership practices that distribute responsibilities, support staff’s pedagogical learning and foster innovation. The chapter highlights the critical role of leadership in strengthening system quality and workforce stability and provides policy pointers to build leadership capacity for high-quality, equitable ECEC systems.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Abstract
Strong leadership practices, including distributed leadership, support for staff’s pedagogical learning and innovative practices, are closely associated with staff satisfaction with leadership. In most ECEC systems, distributed leadership is linked to greater satisfaction with the setting’s leadership, which in turn contributes to staff’s pedagogical practices with children. Coaching and targeted professional development are associated with greater uptake of strong leadership practices.
Most leaders engage in professional development, yet some of the more impactful activities are less common. While participation in training is high, coaching is less common, with fewer than 20% of leaders engaging in this type of professional development in pre-primary settings in Sweden and Türkiye, in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada), and in both levels of ECEC in Norway.
Leaders indicate professional needs in key leadership areas which were not systematically covered in recent training activities. Theoretical and system-level aspects of leadership are top areas for professional needs and were unequally covered in recent training activities. Promoting staff well-being and providing effective feedback are other key professional development needs despite having broad coverage, while human resource and financial management were less consistently addressed in recent training activities. In contrast, leaders report low professional development needs in collaborating with other ECEC settings or primary schools, parents or guardians, and to some extent with community services, despite these areas being key to supporting children’s development, learning and well-being.
Leaders’ autonomy varies across governance contexts and setting types. Pedagogical responsibilities are more often shared with staff, while administrative and financial tasks more frequently involve external actors. Leaders in pre-primary settings in Ireland, Japan and Sweden often hold full responsibility for these areas, compared to boards or governments in Chile, Colombia, Morocco and Türkiye. Autonomy tends to be greater in privately managed or chain‑affiliated settings and in settings for children under age 3. Where autonomy is limited, leaders are more likely to report less influence over important decisions.
In most countries and subnational entities, a majority of leaders report needing greater support from local, regional or national institutions. These figures exceed 80% in pre‑primary settings in Colombia, Japan, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye and 70% in Ireland and Israel for leaders in settings for children under age 3.
Distributed leadership is a common feature across ECEC systems, reflecting strong collaboration between leaders and staff; parents’ engagement is less widespread. Distributed leadership is less prevalent in settings facing staff shortages. In settings for children under age 3, it may arise more frequently as on-site staff assume greater responsibility in response to the specific operational demands of provision for younger children, where leaders supervise multiple settings.
Engagement in standard pedagogical leadership practices is widespread, but less so for more strategic practices. Most leaders collaborate with staff more than once a week to improve how children play together and to observe staff practices and interactions with children. By contrast, more strategic practices to support long-term planning and organisational coherence are less frequent, with most leaders reporting that they develop or communicate a vision for the setting no more than once a month.
Leadership is a key driver of quality in ECEC. Leaders shape how ECEC settings operate; navigate challenges; and implement improvements that benefit children, families and staff, ultimately contributing to a well-functioning and resilient sector (Douglass, 2019[1]; Kirby et al., 2021[2]). This reflects the multifaceted nature of leadership, which extends beyond administrative oversight to include fostering collaboration, supporting staff development, engaging families and creating learning environments that meet the diverse needs of young children.
Governance frameworks and organisational models shape how leadership is organised and practiced across countries and institutional contexts (OECD, 2020[3]). Well-designed governance structures provide ECEC leaders with clear guidance, adequate resources and a shared strategic vision, supporting them in managing complex responsibilities (Douglass, 2019[1]). At the same time, these governance structures can enhance leader autonomy by enabling flexibility in decision making, allowing leaders to tailor strategies to the needs of their settings and local communities. These contextual factors can influence how leadership responsibilities and decision-making processes are structured within ECEC settings. While different leadership models can be effective, their success in practice depends on the context as well as the availability of setting-level resources, institutional mechanisms, and leaders’ education and access to professional development opportunities, which support them to operate effectively within their respective structures (Douglass, 2019[1]; Kirby et al., 2021[2]). With these supports in place, leaders can adopt practices that enhance staff practices, improve the quality of interactions with children and foster positive work environments that mitigate stress among ECEC staff caused by heavy workloads, which are essential for retaining a qualified workforce and sustaining high-quality ECEC systems (Figure 7.1) (see Chapter 8).
This chapter examines how leadership is enacted across countries and systems participating in the Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024, focusing on the factors that shape variations in leadership structures and practices. Specifically, the chapter addresses the following questions:
What types of professional development opportunities are available to ECEC leaders, and what are their main professional development needs?
How does leaders’ autonomy vary within and across systems, and how does this relate to their decision-making and support needs?
In what ways do setting and leader characteristics shape how distributed leadership, leaders’ support for staff’s pedagogical learning and innovations in the setting are enacted?
How are leadership structures and practices associated with staff satisfaction with leadership?
As for staff, professional development is a key lever for strengthening leaders’ roles in ECEC systems, but its effectiveness depends on its quality, structure and accessibility. High engagement among leaders across systems may reflect a shared recognition of its value. Collaborative formats, such as mentoring, peer learning and coaching, are linked to improved leadership practices and greater confidence and self-efficacy (Kirby et al., 2021[2]). Beyond enhancing administrative and instructional capacity, professional development that supports strategic planning and collaboration can foster continuous improvement within ECEC settings (Douglass and Kirby, 2022[4]). However, availability, frequency and accessibility have been shown to vary widely across countries and setting types, influenced by governance models, institutional resources and policy priorities (Douglass, 2019[1]; Kirby et al., 2021[2]; Leseman and Slot, 2025[5]). These contextual factors affect not only the types of opportunities offered but also the extent to which participation is supported, through time, funding or incentives, potentially limiting leaders’ ability to develop a broad range of competencies (Leseman and Slot, 2025[5]).
As part of TALIS Starting Strong 2024, leaders report the types of professional development activities they participated in over the 12 months prior to the survey, the topics covered and needs for further training for 15 topics. This section presents findings based on these recent experiences; it, therefore, does not reflect leaders’ full professional development history.
Leaders widely engage in professional development, but some more impactful activities are less common
Participation in professional development is high in most systems, with around or over 90% of leaders reporting engaging in at least one professional development activity (Table Leader.9). However, participation is lower in Chile, Colombia and Morocco at the pre-primary level and in Quebec (Canada) for settings for children under age 3, where 65-85% of leaders report engagement. Traditional formats such as courses, seminars and workshops are the most common (Figure 7.2), though access modes differ: nearly half of leaders in settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada) report accessing courses online only, compared to fewer than 5% in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium (Table Leader.9).
Engagement in collaborative learning formats is common, with participation in professional networks ranking as the second most prevalent type of activity. This is a positive finding, as collaboration is an important feature of future-oriented systems (see Chapter 9). However, there is variation across systems (Table D.7.1). Participation in professional networks exceeds 80% among pre-primary leaders in Denmark and at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Norway, but is less than 40% in Colombia and Morocco in pre-primary settings. On a more negative note, coaching, which is an impactful form of training, is the least widespread format among collaborative professional development (Figure 7.2). In many systems, fewer than 40% of leaders engage in coaching, with participation below 20% in pre-primary settings in Sweden and Türkiye, in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada), and in both levels of ECEC in Norway. By contrast, over 40% of pre-primary leaders in Germany and Japan and over 60% in Chile report receiving coaching as part of their professional development. Planned visits to other ECEC settings are common in pre-primary settings in Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Japan, where more than half of pre-primary leaders report engaging in this activity. Such visits are, however, less common in settings for children under age 3, where participation is below 50% across all systems.
Participation in induction programmes, which are used for preparing novice leaders, is relatively limited across many systems (Table D.7.2). Fewer than 15% of leaders engaged in such programmes at both levels of ECEC provision in Germany and Norway, at the pre-primary level in Spain, and in New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) in settings for children under age 3. Participation in qualification programmes is below 40% in most systems at both levels of ECEC, except in Türkiye, where more than half of pre-primary leaders report participation.
Average percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders participated in each type of professional development activity in the 12 months prior to the survey
Notes: Estimates include leaders who responded “yes, in person”, “yes, virtual or online”, or “yes, in person and virtual/online”.
Averages for pre-primary settings exclude New Zealand. Averages for settings for children under age 3 exclude Israel and New Zealand.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Activities are ranked in descending order of the average percentage of pre-primary leaders who reported participation in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.7.1.
Theoretical and system-level aspects of leadership and promoting staff well-being are top areas for professional needs, but were unequally covered in recent training
The darker shadings in Table 7.1 highlight the most frequently reported areas for further training within each system. Percentages in bold italics indicate topics for which the percentage of leaders who received recent training on that topic was less than the country or subnational entity average for training across all topics. Darker shading without a percentage in bold italics therefore shows alignment between professional need and coverage in recent training while darker shading with a percentage in bold italics shows great professional need and lack of coverage in recent training. There are similarities across systems in the professional needs leaders considered to be a priority, or not.
Theoretical and system-level aspects of leadership (knowledge and understanding of new developments in leadership research and of current national/local policies on ECEC) are top areas for professional needs in most countries and subnational entities. Staff-focused areas, including supporting staff well-being and providing effective feedback, are also frequently prioritised, yet coverage in recent training is uneven. In 9 out of 15 systems at the pre-primary level and 2 out of 8 systems for children under age 3, training on providing effective feedback is offered to fewer leaders than the respective country or subnational entity average across all topics. By contrast, supporting staff well-being is covered at above-average levels in many systems, but is a common area of reported need. Receiving training in a given area may not only reduce the perceived need for further professional development by strengthening leaders’ professional self-efficacy, it may also stimulate it, as leaders become more aware of the depth of their knowledge and skills and the positive effects of professional development on their practices, a pattern which is also reflected in ECEC staff reports (OECD, 2020[3]) (see Chapter 6).
There are also similarities in the topics that are less often prioritised for training. This is the case for collaborating with other ECEC settings or primary schools, with parents or guardians, and to some extent with community services, except in Colombia, Japan and Morocco in pre-primary settings. Promoting equity and diversity is also not perceived as a top priority area for professional needs in most systems except Chile for pre-primary settings. In many countries and subnational entities, the proportion of leaders who received training in these areas is below the national or subnational entity average across all professional development topics. These topics, however, are important, as providing a multisectoral approach to children’s development and embedding practices that promote equity and diversity in the early years are crucial strategies to mitigate inequalities before they widen (OECD, 2025[6]) (see Chapter 5).
Some needs vary widely in how frequently they are perceived as a priority across countries, particularly in financial and human resource management. For example, in Ireland, financial management is among the top professional development needs reported by leaders at both levels of ECEC. This is potentially related to the high prevalence of private and for-profit providers, as leaders in such settings may have more managerial responsibilities and therefore need professional development in these areas (Leseman and Slot, 2025[5]) (see Chapter 3). Despite this, financial management was not frequently covered in recent training activities and novice leaders are more likely to report needs in areas concerning setting management, underscoring the importance of targeted induction and support (Table D.7.4).
Designing the ECEC setting’s goals for children’s development, well-being and learning has high training coverage in most systems, except in Türkiye, where it is among the top priority needs. Needs for training on using data for quality improvement vary, potentially reflecting differences in resources to implement changes. Access to digital tools and Internet connectivity can also influence these needs, as such resources enable leaders to use data effectively to improve processes (OECD, 2023[7]) (see Chapter 9).
In response to ECEC leaders’ professional development needs, several countries and subnational entities have recently implemented targeted initiatives to strengthen leadership development in ECEC, recognising its role in driving quality improvement and building institutional capacity (Box 7.1).
Percentage of ECEC leaders who report a “high” or “moderate” level of need for professional development in the following 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 reported professional development needs. In each country, topics most frequently identified by leaders as areas of high or moderate need are shown in darker shades. Topics reported less frequently appear in lighter shades, with white indicating the least frequently reported needs. Intermediate shades represent mid-range frequencies. Grey cells indicate low survey coverage. Percentages are displayed in bold italics when the share of leaders who received recent training on that topic is lower than the country or subnational entity average across all professional development topics. Darker shading without the percentage in bold italics shows alignment between the professional need and coverage in recent training.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Leader.10 and Table D.7.3.
Finland’s Towards Evolving Leadership (Kohti kehittyvää johtajuutta – VEPO 2035) initiative, commissioned by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and implemented by the University of Helsinki (2021‑2023), aims to establish a long-term strategic framework for leadership development across early childhood, pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education through to 2035 (Heikonen et al., 2023[8]). The project pursued three core objectives: 1) developing a national leadership vision; 2) designing a common leadership curriculum for teacher education institutions; and 3) proposing a sustainable financing model and legal reforms for qualification requirements. Informed by a review of national and international evidence, the project identified four core domains of leadership development: 1) pedagogical leadership; 2) collective leadership; 3) leadership for social justice; and 4) strategic and operational leadership. One of the initiative’s key outcomes is the proposal to introduce a nationally co‑ordinated initial training framework for early childhood education and care leaders, built on research-informed modules delivered at the university level.
Ireland’s Nurturing Skills: The Workforce Plan for Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare (2022‑2028) sets out a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the ongoing process of professionalisation and the professional recognition of those working in the sector (Ireland's Department of Children, Disability and Equality, 2025[9]). The plan embeds leadership development within a national career framework and expands professional development opportunities to support both staff and leaders in assuming leadership responsibilities. Building on existing leadership responsibilities, such as the Inclusion Co-ordinator under the Access and Inclusion Model, the plan promotes the creation of new designated leadership roles focused on pedagogy, family and community engagement, and mentoring. Recognising the diverse organisational structures of settings, the plan emphasises flexible leadership models adapted to both small and large settings. Leadership development is further supported through accessible education pathways, career progression opportunities, targeted funding for graduate leaders, and supporting improved pay and conditions through the “Together for Better” funding programme.
New Brunswick’s (Canada) Early Childhood Educator Workforce Strategy (2021-2022) recognises that strong leadership is key to sustaining high-quality early learning environments and aims to build leadership capacity within the sector (Government of New Brunswick, 2021[10]). Through the Emergent Leadership Institute, it offers two development streams: one on pedagogical leadership, supporting educators to deepen curriculum expertise and mentor peers; the other on administrative leadership, strengthening competencies in human resources, financial management and facility operations, with training grounded in relevant legislation. This training is available to both English- and French-speaking sectors. These initiatives are part of a broader effort to professionalise the early childhood workforce, promote leadership from within the sector and create clear pathways for career progression. They laid the groundwork for New Brunswick’s Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Action Plan (2021‑2026) (Government of New Brunswick, 2024[11]; Government of New Brunswick, 2022[12]).
Leaders’ autonomy over key dimensions of management shapes the organisation and operation of their settings (OECD, 2020[3]). Two dimensions of autonomy help understand ECEC setting leaders’ responsibilities: 1) the level of autonomy for an existing task, which can be full, partial or non-existent; and 2) the scope of autonomy or the extent to which leaders have full autonomy for a range of tasks. Leaders’ levels and scopes of autonomy are highly shaped by institutions (Leseman and Slot, 2025[5]). At one end of the spectrum, leaders in centralised systems may have limited or no autonomy on a range of tasks, with curriculum, staffing and budgeting decisions governed externally. At the other end of the spectrum, leaders in decentralised or independently managed settings can have full decision-making authority across multiple domains. Between these models lie intermediate arrangements, where leaders can participate in decision making through shared governance or full responsibility in some areas but not others. Shared governance can be effective when public authorities, who retain formal responsibility, provide support that helps leaders align changes with available resources and drive coherent improvement efforts (Douglass, 2019[1]). As such, meaningful autonomy relies not only on the delegation of formal responsibilities but also on the presence of enabling conditions, such as sufficient resources, clear guidance and access to professional development opportunities, to ensure leaders are well equipped to implement changes (Lunneblad and Garvis, 2017[13]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 gathers data on leaders’ responsibilities for core ECEC tasks, their perceived level of decision-making autonomy and the support they need from public authorities. This section explores patterns of leadership autonomy across countries, and different management types between private and public provision, highlighting how institutional features influence leaders’ ability to act independently or in collaboration with other actors. It also examines how varying levels of autonomy relate to leaders’ reported needs for support from local or national authorities.
Pedagogical decisions are more commonly shared by leaders and staff while administrative and financial planning often involve external actors
The distribution of leadership responsibilities across governance domains varies across countries, reflecting different institutional designs (Table D.7.5). In pre-primary settings, over 50% of leaders in 7 out of 15 countries and subnational entities report full responsibility for hiring staff. This pattern aligns with budget planning responsibilities in some countries: more than half of leaders in Ireland and Sweden report full responsibility for budgeting as well (Figure 7.3). In contrast, in systems such as Chile, Colombia, Israel, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, over 60% of leaders report no involvement in hiring staff, and around or more than 50% indicate that budgeting is managed by external actors that involve governing boards or other authorities. Full responsibility for both staffing and budgeting is more frequently reported in settings for children under age 3, where more than 40% of leaders indicate full responsibility for budget planning in Ireland, Israel, and New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada). This may reflect not only the more decentralised nature of governance for this age group but also the smaller size of these settings in many systems (see Chapter 3), which may result in broader administrative or financial roles for leaders. Nonetheless, shared governance models are still widespread across both ECEC levels. In Germany, for example, more than 60% of leaders at both levels of ECEC report that administrative decisions, such as staff hiring, involve governing boards or other authorities.
Pedagogical responsibilities, including decision making on daily activities, choosing which materials/toys are used, planning assessments and monitoring children’s development are more frequently shared between leaders and staff or managed solely by staff (Figure 7.3). More than 30% of leaders report that staff alone decide on daily activities for children in 9 out of 15 countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level, and in 6 out of 8 in settings for children under age 3. In systems such as Chile, Colombia and Morocco, external actors play a stronger role, where more than 30% of pre-primary leaders report that governing boards or other authorities are responsible for assessment planning and monitoring. In pre-primary settings in Colombia and Morocco, the same applies to decisions on daily activities. Responsibilities for establishing the curriculum framework vary widely across systems, with several systems where this is mostly decided by governing boards or other authorities (Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye for pre-primary education) and others where this is often a shared responsibility between leaders and staff or leaders’ full responsibility.
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report the following people or groups have significant responsibility for the following tasks 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: “Significant responsibility” is one where an active role is played in decision making. The “Leader with other entities” category includes cases where the leader reports holding responsibility in addition to an “ECEC setting governing board” and/or a “local, municipality/regional, state or national/federal authority”. The “Other entities” category includes cases where the leader reports responsibility is solely with an “ECEC setting governing board” or a “local, municipality/regional, state or national/federal authority”, either alone or in addition to “other members of the staff”, but without the involvement of the leader.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the average percentage of leaders who reported having full responsibility over a task.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.7.5.
Leaders’ autonomy tends to be greater in privately managed ECEC settings
The distribution of leadership responsibilities varies by setting characteristics, such as public or private management, funding source, institutional affiliation, and organisational structure. In pre-primary settings in Colombia, Japan, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, leaders in privately managed pre-primary settings tend to report greater autonomy in at least one area among administrative, financial and pedagogical responsibilities (Table D.7.6). In Israel, leaders in private settings for children under age 3 report greater autonomy in financial responsibilities. Differences in autonomy also emerge by funding source in a limited number of systems, where some settings receive no government funding. In pre-primary settings in Chile, Morocco and Türkiye and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel, leaders of settings that do not receive government funding report greater autonomy in at least one area of leadership responsibilities than those that receive some form of government funding (Table D.7.7). Furthermore, in Japan, Spain and Türkiye, leaders in chain or network-affiliated pre-primary settings report greater responsibility in appointing or hiring staff, potentially reflecting overlaps with private management structures (Table D.7.8). These differences in the distribution of responsibilities are thus observed in countries where publicly managed settings prevail (Colombia, Spain and Türkiye for pre‑primary) but also in those where privately managed settings prevail (Japan for pre-primary and Israel for settings for children under age 3).
Exceptions highlight the complexity of governance arrangements. In Sweden, pre-primary leaders in publicly managed settings report more autonomy over administrative and financial tasks (Table D.7.6). Similarly, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, leaders in settings for children under age 3 report more autonomy over establishing assessment and monitoring plans for children in publicly managed settings. In Morocco, leaders in independent pre-primary settings report greater autonomy than their peers in chain-affiliated settings across all domains (Table D.7.8). In Germany, as in other systems, chain-affiliated leaders report greater autonomy in administrative areas in pre-primary settings, but not in pedagogical ones.
Leaders report a greater need for public support and less influence on important decisions when responsibilities are externally governed
Beyond questions on the distribution of key responsibilities, TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks leaders whether they consider that they can influence decisions that are important for their work. In 8 out of 15 countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and 3 out of 8 countries and subnational entities in settings for children under age 3, more than 25% of leaders report limited influence over decisions important to their work. At the same time, in 10 out of 15 countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and 5 out of 8 countries and subnational entities in settings for children under age 3, 60% or more leaders report needing greater support from local, regional or national governments; this figure exceeds 80% in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Japan, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye (Table D.7.9). A pattern emerges in systems where it is possible to compare across different allocations of responsibility: leaders who have less autonomy also report less influence over decisions that are important for their work (Table D.7.10). This pattern is particularly evident in some contexts where administrative, financial or pedagogical responsibilities are held externally, such as in Colombia, Morocco and Türkiye, where pre-primary leaders are significantly less likely to report having influence over decisions when any of the core leadership responsibilities are held by other entities. Similarly, in settings for children under age 3, leaders in Israel report less influence over decisions that are important for their work when budgetary responsibilities are held externally, as do leaders in the Flemish Community of Belgium when they are not responsible for deciding on activities for children.
In systems where governance structures consistently involve leaders in decision making, some nonetheless report lacking influence, suggesting that even within shared governance arrangements, institutional or structural barriers may constrain their ability to drive change. For example, in pre-primary settings in Ireland and Sweden, although most leaders hold significant responsibility in appointing or hiring staff, more than 30% report feeling unable to influence decisions (Table D.7.10). Moreover, over 70% of leaders in Ireland (at both levels of ECEC) and in Israel in settings for children under age 3 indicate a need for greater support from public authorities (Table D.7.9). By contrast, in pre-primary settings in Denmark, where leaders hold significant responsibility across core areas, very few leaders report lacking such influence.
Distributed leadership plays an important role in fostering collaboration and shared responsibility in ECEC settings as well as in staff autonomy to shape their practice, all of which can support staff motivation and engagement, ultimately contributing to improved quality in ECEC settings (Douglass et al., 2022[14]). It involves shared decision making across domains, often through collective goal setting, knowledge exchange, and communication with staff and families. While this approach can strengthen collaboration and empower staff, its effective implementation hinges on leaders’ capacity to support staff in their pedagogical learning and daily practice (Douglass and Kirby, 2022[4]). Without sufficient support, increased autonomy and responsibility may place additional demands on staff and can lead to stress or work overload (Sims et al., 2014[15]). Structural barriers, such as staff shortages, centralised governance or limited organisational capacity, can further constrain the leader’s ability to delegate responsibility and the staff’s capacity to engage in leadership roles (Andersen et al., 2017[16]; Leseman and Slot, 2025[5]; OECD, 2020[3]). In this context, professional development opportunities designed to strengthen distributed leadership capacity particularly among leaders are essential. When combined with structural conditions and adequate resources that support leaders’ time and ability to help their staff, these opportunities can play an important role in embedding and sustaining distributed leadership practices. In turn, such practices can improve staff working conditions, supporting morale and satisfaction with leadership, all of which contribute to the quality of pedagogical practices in ECEC settings (Kirby et al., 2021[2]) (see Chapter 8).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects data on whether staff, families and children participate in decision making; whether the setting promotes a culture of mutual support; and whether staff are encouraged to contribute to setting initiatives. This section examines how leadership culture varies across systems and settings. It highlights the role of structural factors such as physical resources (e.g. availability of learning materials, indoor and outdoor space) and human resources (e.g. staff shortages, availability of staff for special tasks), captured through a scale of barriers to structural quality. Organisational characteristics, including setting type and affiliation with a chain or network, are also considered in relation to their capacity to support distributed leadership models. The section further explores how access to professional development opportunities and leader characteristics contribute to shaping distributed leadership practices. Finally, this section examines associations between distributed leadership practices and staff experiences, particularly their satisfaction with the setting’s leadership.
Staff have opportunities to participate in decision making, but the involvement of families is more limited
Distributed leadership practices, particularly through collaboration between leaders and staff, are common in ECEC settings across participating countries and subnational entities (Table Leader.41). In nearly all systems, more than 70% of leaders in pre-primary settings report working in a collaborative ECEC setting culture which is characterised by mutual support and where staff are encouraged to lead new initiatives. Similarly, more than 60% of leaders indicate that ECEC staff have frequent opportunities to actively engage in decision making, except in settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) (Figure 7.4). In most countries and subnational entities, relatively few leaders report making important decisions on their own, although in Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Japan, more than 50% of pre-primary leaders report doing so, an exception that also applies to settings for children under age 3 in Israel. These findings are consistent with large majorities of staff indicating that leaders encourage all staff to have a say in important decisions (Table Staff.44).
In contrast, opportunities for families and children to participate in decision making are limited across many systems. In pre-primary settings, fewer than 30% of leaders in Finland, Israel, Japan and Sweden report that parents or guardians have frequent opportunities to contribute to decisions at the setting level (Figure 7.4). By contrast, more than 60% of leaders in Denmark, Norway and Türkiye report involving families frequently. A similar pattern is evident in settings for children under age 3: fewer than 30% of leaders in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel, and New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) report more opportunities for family involvement, compared to over 50% in Germany and over 70% in New Zealand** and Norway. These findings are also consistent with staff reports on family engagement, which show wide variation across countries and subnational entities (see Chapter 5). Children’s participation in decision making is more frequently reported in many systems, although with large variations across countries and subnational entities.
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report the following statements hold “quite a bit” or “a lot”
* 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.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the average percentage of leaders who reported ECEC staff have opportunities to actively participate in ECEC setting decisions.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Leader.41.
Well-resourced settings and targeted professional development can support distributed leadership when aligned with structural conditions
Distributed leadership practices are shaped by governance models, organisational structures and setting size across systems (Table D.7.11). It is more common in publicly managed pre‑primary settings in Chile, Denmark, Germany, Spain and Türkiye and in privately managed settings in Sweden, indicating that both public and private governance models can support distributed leadership under different conditions. There are no differences in distributed leadership practices between settings with different management types among settings for children under age 3, potentially because working with younger children may require more frequent collaboration between leaders and staff regardless of the management type.
Staff shortages are associated with lower levels of distributed leadership practices in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Ireland and Norway (Table D.7.11). Distributed leadership is less common in larger pre-primary settings in Germany and Japan, and in larger settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland. In settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Ireland, having fewer staff per child is associated with greater reported distributed leadership. This may reflect the specific context of provision for younger children: such settings are generally smaller and operate with fewer staff than pre-primary settings (see Chapter 3). In some systems, such as the Flemish Community of Belgium, leaders may supervise multiple small settings, where distributed leadership may arise as a practical response to operational demands, with on-site staff assuming greater responsibility, even in the context of limited staffing.
Targeted pedagogical development activities, such as training on new developments in leadership, collaboration with parents or guardians, and providing feedback, are generally associated with stronger distributed leadership, though patterns vary across setting levels and systems (Table D.7.11). Training on new developments in leadership is positively linked to distributed leadership practices among pre-primary leaders in Morocco and Spain while training on collaborating with parents and guardians shows positive associations in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Ireland and Sweden, and in settings for children under age 3 in Norway. Training on providing effective feedback is also linked to stronger distributed leadership in pre-primary settings in Chile and Denmark.
Distributed leadership enhances staff satisfaction with setting leadership and can support broader setting quality
In most systems, distributed leadership practices are associated with higher levels of staff satisfaction with setting leadership (Figure 7.5). This pattern is observed in 8 out of 15 systems at the pre-primary level and in 4 out of 8 systems for children under age 3 (Table D.7.12). Satisfaction with setting leadership can act as a buffer against work-related stress experienced by staff, which is in turn associated with their intentions to leave the sector for physical and mental health issues (see Chapter 8). These findings suggest that distributed leadership may help mitigate stress among staff, thereby supporting staff well-being and contributing to staff retention.
Distributed leadership can also support broader setting quality indirectly by strengthening staff autonomy and well-being. In Colombia, Finland, Israel, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye at the pre-primary level, staff satisfaction with leadership is linked to more frequent engagement in daily adaptive pedagogical practices (Table D.5.4). These practices can enhance the quality of staff-child interactions and foster inclusion by adapting to diverse needs (see Chapter 5). They are also closely related to staff participation in collaborative practices, which can be further strengthened through distributed leadership and leaders’ support for pedagogical learning (see Chapter 9).
Change in the scale of staff satisfaction with setting leadership associated with a one-unit change in the scale of distributed leadership
* 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. Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour, except for New Zealand. For more information, see Annex C.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between staff satisfaction with setting leadership and distributed leadership.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.7.12.
ECEC leadership encompasses two main broad functions: administrative and pedagogical. While administrative leadership refers, among others, to tasks related to the management of operations, strategic planning and staff management, pedagogical leadership is the leadership needed to support pedagogical processes through tasks such as promoting the implementation of curriculum and assessment, creating trusting relationships, and supporting the professional growth of staff (Douglass, 2019[1]). Both types of leadership are important for ECEC quality, although the way in which they work to support quality is contingent upon the context of specific settings and the characteristics of the leaders themselves (OECD, 2020[3]). For instance, in larger for-profit or corporate chain settings, operational and financial oversight may be prioritised, potentially limiting leaders’ focus on pedagogical improvement (Leseman and Slot, 2025[5]). Likewise, in systems where leaders have limited autonomy, their ability to introduce innovative practices by developing a vision that guides new initiatives and practices at the setting level may be constrained. Higher levels of education and targeted training are associated with stronger engagement in staff support, pedagogical guidance and quality improvement. Limited access to professional learning can hinder such practices (Douglass, 2019[1]; Kirby et al., 2021[2]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects data on leadership practices that can be grouped into two main dimensions of strong leadership: support for staff’s pedagogical learning and efforts to foster innovation within ECEC settings. This section presents how such practices vary across different types of settings and leader profiles. It explores how factors such as provider type (e.g. public or private), institutional structure (e.g. affiliation with a chain or network), setting size, and availability of physical (e.g. access to learning materials, indoor and outdoor space) and human resources (e.g. staff shortages, availability of staff for specialised tasks) relate to leadership practices.
Engagement in standard pedagogical leadership practices is widespread, but less so for more strategic practices
Practices that enable leaders to supervise pedagogical practices are widespread across countries and subnational entities (Figure 7.6). In many systems at both levels of ECEC, more than half of leaders report collaborating with staff more than weekly to improve how children play together and observe staff practices and interactions with children, practices that are often linked to pedagogical quality and positive child outcomes (Siraj et al., 2023[17]) (Table Leader.32). However, there are variations across systems. For instance, fewer than 50% of leaders report observing staff more than weekly in Norway, Sweden and Türkiye at the pre-primary level and in the Flemish Community of Belgium at both levels of ECEC.
Leadership practices that can help staff improve their practices are less consistently embedded in daily or even weekly routines across ECEC systems (Table Leader.32). For instance, providing feedback based on observations is done less frequently in 6 out of 15 countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level, and in 2 out of 8 systems for settings for children under age 3, with less than 40% of leaders reporting engaging in this activity weekly or more often (see also Chapter 9). This practice is particularly widespread in Denmark and Israel at the pre-primary level, and in Israel for settings for children under age 3, but less so in the Flemish Community of Belgium at both levels of ECEC and in pre-primary settings in Sweden. Supporting staff collaboration to develop new pedagogical approaches is also reported less frequently across systems, with less than 40% reporting doing so at least weekly in 10 out of 15 countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and in 5 out of 8 systems for settings for children under age 3. Exceptions include Denmark (pre-primary), New Zealand** (settings for children under age 3) and Israel (both levels of ECEC).
Engagement in innovative leadership tasks, such as developing or communicating a vision for the ECEC setting, varies across countries and subnational entities. In most systems, more than half of leaders report doing so only monthly or less frequently (Table Leader.32). Higher levels of weekly engagement are observed at the pre-primary level in Chile, Colombia and Spain, in New Zealand** and Quebec (Canada) for settings for children under age 3, and in Israel at both levels of ECEC. In contrast, in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, more frequent engagement in vision-setting is relatively limited, with less than 10% of leaders reporting weekly or more frequent involvement in this area. While strategic planning for innovative practices may not be implemented daily as long-term planning requires reflection and evaluation of the existing practices, their regular implementation is important. Setting a vision can promote a shared understanding of educational goals, fostering staff commitment and enhancing organisational coherence, all of which contribute to the quality of the pedagogical practices in place (Kirby et al., 2021[2]).
Average percentage of leaders reporting how frequently they engage in the following activities as part of their leadership practice
Notes: Averages for pre-primary settings exclude New Zealand. Averages for settings for children under age 3 exclude Israel and New Zealand.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Activities are ranked in descending order of the average percentage of pre-primary leaders who reported engaging in a leadership activity weekly or daily.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Leader.32.
Professional development that fosters leaders’ peer learning and reflective practices is linked to stronger leadership practices
Professional development plays a key role in both dimensions of strong leadership – pedagogical support for staff and efforts to foster innovation (Table D.7.13 and Table D.7.14). Training activities that foster leaders’ peer learning and reflective practice are linked to stronger leadership. Planned visits to other settings are associated with greater pedagogical support in pre-primary settings in Japan, Spain and Sweden, and with more innovative practices in pre-primary settings in Spain and in settings for children under age 3 in Germany. In pre-primary settings, participation in professional networks is linked to stronger staff support in Germany, Norway and Türkiye, and to more frequent innovative practices in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Ireland. Coaching is also a key enabler, showing positive links to support for staff in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Finland and Spain; in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland and the Flemish Community of Belgium; and at both levels of ECEC in Norway. It is also associated with more frequent innovative leadership practices in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Ireland and Japan.
In terms of topics covered in ongoing training, those that target key leadership practices relate to leaders’ support for staff and their drive for innovation within ECEC settings (Table D.7.13 and Table D.7.14). For example, training in staff observation is positively linked to pedagogical support in pre‑primary settings in Chile, Ireland and Spain, and in settings for children under age 3 in Germany. Similarly, training on providing feedback to staff shows positive associations with support for staff in pre‑primary settings in Morocco and settings for children under age 3 in Ireland. Training on using data for quality improvement is linked to innovation in pre-primary settings in Germany and Japan, while training on setting goals is associated with innovative practices in Chile, Finland and Morocco at the pre-primary level and in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium. Similarly, training on pedagogical theories supports innovation in Morocco at the pre-primary level, and training on equity and diversity is linked to innovation in Spain at the pre-primary level and at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium.
Leadership practices that support staff’s pedagogical learning and promote innovation support greater staff satisfaction with setting leadership
Leadership practices that support staff’s pedagogical learning and promote innovation are positively associated with staff satisfaction with setting leadership in several systems (Table D.7.12). In pre-primary settings in Finland and Germany, leaders who provide regular support for staff’s pedagogical learning are linked with more favourable staff perceptions of leadership. Similarly, in Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Sweden, staff in pre-primary settings report higher satisfaction with leadership when leaders frequently introduce innovations within the setting. These effects often occur in the context of distributed leadership, suggesting that a combination of collaborative leadership culture and strong, supportive leadership can improve staff experiences and foster greater commitment to their work and the sector overall.
Support strong leadership through impactful and job-embedded professional development opportunities. Provide leaders with high-quality, needs-based training that builds capacity to give feedback, guide pedagogical practices and foster innovation. In many systems, frequent participation in professional learning is associated with stronger leadership practices that support staff and improve quality. Collaborative formats such as coaching, peer mentoring and professional networks are particularly effective, with coaching showing positive links to leaders’ support for staff’s pedagogical learning in several systems, including pre-primary settings in Colombia, Finland and Spain; in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland and the Flemish Community of Belgium; and at both levels of ECEC in Norway.
Align leaders’ level and scope of autonomy with adequate resources. In systems where responsibilities are mostly externally governed, leaders report less influence on important decisions and a greater need for public support. Aligning decision-making authority with sufficient resources, training, guidance and opportunities for collaboration with public authorities can help leaders translate responsibilities into meaningful influence over improvement efforts. When this alignment is in place, leaders’ formal responsibilities can extend across a greater range of core areas, such as staffing, budgeting and pedagogy, as in Denmark, where broad responsibility is accompanied by relatively few pre-primary leaders reporting a perceived lack of influence over key decisions.
Promote distributed leadership to strengthen staff satisfaction and setting quality. Encourage leadership models that involve staff in decision making and create dedicated roles to support shared responsibilities, adapting strategies to different contexts, including settings for children under age 3, where distributed leadership often emerges in response to organisational structures such as multi-site supervision or smaller teams. Strengthen these practices through targeted professional development on collaboration, feedback and family engagement, tailored to the characteristics of the settings. Evidence from the Flemish Community of Belgium at the pre‑primary level shows that distributed leadership is linked to greater staff satisfaction with leadership, which in turn is associated with staff’s child-centred approach to structuring and facilitating learning.
Recognise leadership as a key driver of ECEC quality and embed it within broader improvement strategies. Ensure leadership is systematically supported as part of sector-wide efforts to enhance quality and equity for children and the sustainability of the ECEC workforce. Embed leadership development as a core component of quality assurance, inclusion and workforce strategies that prioritise staff well-being and retention. Focus on building leaders’ capacity to foster system-level collaboration and family engagement that strengthens continuity between ECEC settings and home environments and helps mitigate inequalities before they widen. Examples include Finland, Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada), which have introduced professional development models to build leadership capacity for collaboration and system improvement.
References
[16] Andersen, L. et al. (2017), “Achieving high quality through transformational leadership: A qualitative multilevel analysis of transformational leadership and perceived professional quality”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 47/1, pp. 51-72, https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017747270.
[1] Douglass, A. (2019), “Leadership for quality early childhood education and care”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 211, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e563bae-en.
[14] Douglass, A. et al. (2022), Recognizing and Supporting Early Childhood Educators and Program Administrators as Agents of Change: An Exploration of Distributed Leadership in Early Care and Education, OPRE Report # 2022-74, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, https://acf.gov/opre/report/recognizing-and-supporting-early-childhood-educators-and-program-administrators-agents.
[4] Douglass, A. and G. Kirby (2022), Evaluating Leadership Development in Early Care and Education, OPRE Report, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, https://www.mathematica.org/publications/evaluating-leadership-development-in-early-care-and-education.
[11] Government of New Brunswick (2024), Canada-New Brunswick Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement: New Brunswick Action Plan 2023-2026, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/ChildCareActionPlan2023-2026-en.pdf.
[12] Government of New Brunswick (2022), Canada-New Brunswick Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement New Brunswick Action Plan 2021-2023, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/action-plan-2021-2023.pdf.
[10] Government of New Brunswick (2021), Early Childhood Educator Workforce Strategy 2021-2022, New Brunswick’s Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/early-childhood-educator-workforce-strategy.pdf.
[8] Heikonen, L. et al. (2023), Kohti kehittyvää johtajuutta. Varhaiskasvatuksen sekä esi- ja perusopetuksen johtajuushankkeen (VEPO 2035) loppuraportti, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/164596/OKM_2023_7.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[9] Ireland’s Department of Children, Disability and Equality (2025), Nurturing Skills website, https://www.nurturingskills.ie/.
[2] Kirby, G. et al. (2021), Understanding Leadership in Early Care and Education: A Literature Review, OPRE Report, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, https://acf.gov/opre/report/understanding-leadership-early-care-and-education-literature-review.
[5] 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] Lunneblad, J. and S. Garvis (2017), “A study of Swedish preschool directors’ perspectives on leadership and organization”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 189/6, pp. 938-945, https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1354855.
[6] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[7] OECD (2023), Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en.
[3] 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.
[15] Sims, M. et al. (2014), “Conceptions of early childhood leadership: Driving new professionalism?”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 18/2, pp. 149-166, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.962101.