This chapter explores areas for strengthening the capacity of early childhood education and care (ECEC) to respond to complex and shifting demands. It discusses ECEC settings’ and staff’s engagement in co‑operating with other actors and services, professional collaboration and monitoring practices, and their digital preparedness and strategies to cope with unexpected disruptions. It concludes with pointers to unlock potential to increase preparedness for future challenges among ECEC settings and staff.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
ECEC settings’ engagement with other sectors as well as with primary schools is limited. Co-operation with other services (e.g. health, family or social) can support an ECEC system’s capacity to adapt to changes in demands but is not frequent in the majority of settings. Countries and subnational entities with relatively high levels of such types of co-operation include Chile, Colombia, Denmark and the Flemish Community of Belgium at the pre-primary level and Germany in settings for children under age 3.
Staff’s engagement in professional collaborative practices is the most consistent predictor of their adoption of a child-centred approach to structuring and facilitating learning and of daily adaptive pedagogical practices. Staff collaboration is frequent within ECEC settings, but less for assistants than for teachers in pre-primary settings.
Leadership practices can promote staff collaborative practices within ECEC settings. Staff engagement in collaborative activities is associated with leaders providing greater support for staff’s pedagogical learning and adopting a distributed leadership approach. These associations are visible in Chile, Germany, Morocco and Sweden at the pre-primary level and in Ireland and Israel in settings for children under age 3.
External monitoring in ECEC settings mainly focuses on structural aspects of quality. External inspections carried out yearly or more frequently tend to focus on structural quality features such as child-adult ratios, group size or staff qualification levels, as well as on the adequacy of facilities or financial records, but less often on aspects of process quality. The internal monitoring of staff’s interactions with children is widespread but follow-up feedback from setting leaders to staff is less prevalent. This holds at the pre-primary level and in settings for children under age 3.
More regular quality monitoring is associated with change processes in ECEC settings. Pre‑primary setting leaders are more likely to adjust their setting’s policies and practices based on monitoring results when external and internal monitoring activities take place more frequently. This applies most consistently in Morocco and Spain.
Staff feel better prepared to use digital tools in their work with children in countries where digitalisation is more regularly integrated into workforce preparation programmes. In most countries and subnational entities, and at both levels of ECEC, two-thirds or more of staff have received training on the use of digital technologies at some point in their careers. There is a strong system-level association between the share of staff who received this training in both initial education and recent ongoing professional development activities and the share of staff with a high sense of self-efficacy for using digital tools when working with children.
The digital infrastructure of ECEC settings is rarely perceived as a barrier to quality. In all participating countries and subnational entities except Colombia and Morocco, less than half of setting leaders see inadequacies of digital resources as hindering capacity to provide quality environments for children. However, in some countries, more adequate digital infrastructure is reported in private settings than in public ones. Staff who feel more confident using digital tools hold more favourable views about investing in digital infrastructure.
Crises are a source of stress for a sizable share of ECEC professionals. At least one in five staff and setting leaders in most participating countries and subnational entities report stress from adapting to unexpected disruptions. In more cases, setting leaders report more stress from shocks than staff, but the opposite holds in some other countries and subnational entities too. Staff who are generally more satisfied with their setting leadership are less likely to experience this type of stress, while staff more engaged in collaborative practices are more exposed to it.
A defining feature of a strong ECEC system is its capacity to respond to complex and shifting demands and to shocks. These demands include adapting to the growing diversity of children, to the marketisation and privatisation of ECEC services, and to families’ and society’s heightened expectations on quality (see Chapter 1). Central to this capacity are the social and institutional networks of ECEC settings and a culture of collaborative learning and knowledge-sharing among ECEC professionals (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). Connections with communities and other sectors and internal collaborative practices give ECEC systems opportunities to draw on extended resources and collective intelligence when responding to unanticipated challenges. Embracing a culture of evaluation for continuous improvement (OECD, 2015[2]; 2022[3]), and being open to innovation (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]) also better prepares ECEC systems for change. Retaining staff and ensuring their well-being and adequate working conditions for them are also essential to the capacity of ECEC systems to deliver high-quality services during change processes, including in times of crisis (OECD, 2020[4]). Untapped potential across these dimensions means there are opportunities to strengthen the capacity of ECEC to meet a growing range of quality and equity challenges (OECD, 2025[5]).
The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024 provides unique insights into some of the factors related to preparedness for change in the ECEC sector across the participating countries and subnational entities (Figure 9.1). Questions on ECEC settings’ engagement with families, primary schools and other sectors capture connections between ECEC and other key actors in the early years. The survey also explores collaboration within settings, which illustrates a vector for collaborative learning. Information on the monitoring of settings speaks to evaluation and improvement processes. Questions on settings’ digital infrastructure and on staff’s training experiences and self-efficacy for using digital tools shed light on the technological dimension of innovation. Further, the survey provides information on some of the factors that can help ECEC professionals cope with disruptions. This chapter draws on ECEC staff’s and setting leaders’ views on these topics to distil policy pointers that could help ECEC systems increase their readiness to respond to future, unforeseen challenges and shifting demands on the ECEC workforce.
This chapter addresses the following questions:
How often do ECEC settings and staff collaborate with external actors? What is the extent of collaborative work within settings and how do leaders support it?
What aspects of the quality of ECEC are monitored in ECEC settings and at what frequency? Is monitoring associated with changes in settings’ policies and practices?
Do ECEC staff feel prepared to use digital technologies to facilitate their work with children? Is the existing digital infrastructure in ECEC settings a hindrance to quality provision?
To what extent is adapting to unexpected disruptions a source of stress for ECEC staff and setting leaders, and what characteristics of settings can protect staff and leaders against it?
Strong ECEC systems are characterised by a marked community orientation, reflected in outreach to families and local communities and inter-sectoral collaboration for integrated service provision (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). This follows from the recognition that a child’s developmental process forms a continuum from the pre-natal period throughout early childhood, thus calling for an alignment of ECEC with other early years policies such as in the health, family and social sectors (OECD, 2025[5]). In turn, local connections with schools can help bridge potential discontinuities in children’s learning and developmental experiences as they transition from ECEC to primary education (Garner, Nicholas and Rouse, 2021[6]).
Professional development activities can prepare the ECEC workforce to learn from and collaborate with each other as well as with other stakeholders, placing an intentional focus on the levers and benefits of collaboration with families, other settings and primary schools, and community services. Meanwhile, ECEC professionals can learn from their peers when working together and engaging in collaborative reflection on their practice (Liu, Hedges and Cooper, 2023[7]). Collaboration with colleagues generally involves the sharing of contextualised information, which can amplify the benefits of formal training (Cramer et al., 2021[8]), and ECEC staff welcome approaches to professional development that combine formal components with observations, discussion and feedback from peers (Yodogawa, Nozawa and Akita, 2022[9]). Leadership practices can also support effective collaboration and knowledge sharing within ECEC settings by building relational trust among staff and encouraging reflective practices (Thornton, 2023[10]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 offers a distinctive lens on the dynamics of professional collaboration and learning in the ECEC sector. It asks ECEC setting leaders about the types and frequency of their setting’s engagement in collaboration with families, with other settings and primary schools, and with other sectors and services. Both setting leaders and staff provide information on the format and focus of recent professional development activities, including those that involve collaborative practices. Staff also report on their engagement in collaborative activities within settings, while leaders report on the ways in which they support staff in their professional learning and collaboration.
Communication with families and peers are common forms of external engagement for ECEC settings while co-operation with other services and home-visits are less frequent
In most participating countries and subnational entities, large shares of setting leaders at both levels of ECEC report frequent informal communication with parents (e.g. conversations on children’s activities), while formal communication channels (e.g. parent-staff meetings) are highly used in pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia, Denmark and Japan (Table 9.1). In many systems, staff spend over two hours of their working time every week in exchanges with parents and guardians (Table Staff.28; see also Chapter 4).
Particularly when taking an institutional character, ECEC settings’ engagement with external actors takes different forms across countries (Table 9.1). Frequent communication with staff and leaders from other ECEC settings is among the most commonly reported forms of external engagement in most countries and subnational entities, being most prevalent in pre-primary settings in the four Nordic countries and Israel as well as in settings for children under age 3 in Norway. Meanwhile, contact with primary schools is most common in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain, the two systems where pre-primary settings are most often co-located with primary schools (Table Leader.15). At the pre-primary level, consultations with child development specialists (e.g. speech therapists, psychologists) and co-operation with child, family or social services (e.g. child protection agency, family support services) are most frequently reported in Denmark, New Zealand** and Spain, but also relatively frequent in Chile and the Flemish Community of Belgium. In settings for children under age 3, these two forms of external engagement are most common in Germany, Israel, New Zealand** and Norway. In turn, collaboration with health-related services (e.g. providing screening and health support for children or families) and home-visits to help parents or guardians reinforce children’s well-being, development and learning are relatively common practices in pre-primary settings in Chile and Colombia (see also Chapter 5). These results illustrate a variety of strategies to integrate early years services that can facilitate access to a range of support for diverse families while helping ECEC settings and staff navigate challenges in their work.
Results also reveal a broadly similar pattern of engagement with external actors between publicly managed and privately managed ECEC settings. Nonetheless, at the pre-primary level, private settings appear to be more active in communicating with families in countries such as Colombia, Finland, Morocco, Norway, Spain and Türkiye, while engagement with staff and leaders in other ECEC settings and primary schools is more frequent among public settings in countries such as Japan or Sweden (Table D.9.1). This appears consistent with a commodification trend in private ECEC, with parents seen as consumers and increasing pressure on settings and staff to be responsive to them (Vandenbroeck, Lehrer and Mitchell, 2022[11]).
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report engaging at least monthly in the following co-operation and communication activities with external actors
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: The shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of practices to engage with external actors within countries and subnational entities. Within each country and subnational entity, the most frequently endorsed practices for engaging with external actors are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently endorsed practices are indicated in white. Practices with intermediate percentages are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
a: The question was not administered in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Activities are presented in order of the least to the most common, on average, across countries and subnational entities.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.9.1.
Higher percentages of leaders than of staff participate in professional development activities enabling peer learning and collaboration
At the pre-primary level, fewer than half of leaders in all participating countries and subnational entities except Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Japan report having taken part in planned visits to other ECEC settings as part of their professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey. Recent participation in either formal or informal networks for the purpose of professional learning is somewhat more common, with more than half of pre-primary setting leaders in ten countries and subnational entities reporting this, similar to participation in ECEC research conferences in eight cases. Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Norway are among the countries and subnational entities where pre‑primary setting leaders report these activities more commonly, while in Colombia, Ireland and Morocco they were less often part of leaders’ recent professional development. In settings for children under age 3, visits to other settings are generally less frequently integrated into leaders’ professional development activities than at the pre-primary level, while participation in conferences and professional networks is equally common, and particularly high in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Norway (Table D.9.2; see also Chapter 7).
Relative to staff, in nearly all participating countries and subnational entities a larger percentage of leaders report participating in visits to other settings or to classrooms/playrooms within their settings, as well as in professional conferences or networks. This is particularly the case in countries and subnational entities where leaders’ levels of participation in these types of activities are relatively high, such as Denmark and Japan at the pre-primary level, or at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Norway (Table D.9.3; see also Chapters 6 and 7). Differences between staff and leaders may be somewhat less pronounced in countries and subnational entities where there are higher shares of leaders with staff duties (i.e. those who regularly work directly with children), including Germany, Israel and New Zealand** for both levels of ECEC. Notably, however, Denmark also has many leaders with staff duties in comparison to other countries and subnational entities; thus, in Denmark, like staff, leaders with staff duties are less likely than their colleagues who are leaders without regular responsibilities directly with children to participate in visits to other settings or classrooms/playrooms.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 also asks setting leaders who do not have regular staff duties whether their professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey included topics with an explicit focus on promoting collaboration. In all countries and subnational entities except one, more than half of pre-primary leaders report those topics were included in their recent professional development. This includes over two-thirds of pre-primary leaders reporting training on collaborating with parents or guardians in Chile, Colombia, Ireland, Japan, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye; training on collaborating with other settings or primary schools in Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan and Norway; and training on collaborating with community services (e.g. health services, social services) in Colombia, Norway and Spain. A majority of leaders of settings for children under age 3 in many of the countries and subnational entities also report having covered these topics in recent training activities, with somewhat more emphasis on collaborating with parents or guardians compared to other types of collaboration (Table D.9.2).
Overall, results suggest that opportunities for learning and collaboration with peers and other actors within and outside ECEC settings are common in ECEC professional development offerings in most countries and subnational entities that took part in TALIS Starting Strong 2024. At the same time, participation in these activities tends to be higher among setting leaders than among staff and is, in both cases, far from universal.
Assistants are generally less involved in collaborative activities than teachers
Staff engagement in collaborative activities in ECEC settings, such as exchanging materials with colleagues or co-designing activities, is high across all countries and subnational entities; however, not all staff roles engage in collaborative practices to the same extent. At the pre-primary level, assistants are less involved in these practices across countries and subnational entities (Figure 9.2), which may reflect somewhat lower expectations of their involvement in tasks such as pedagogical planning. With the exception of joint activities across groups of children, smaller percentages of assistants than of teachers working in pre-primary settings tend to report frequent engagement in collaboration with colleagues. By contrast, there is generally more similar engagement in collaborative activities between teachers and assistants working in settings for children under age 3 (Table D.9.4). When the comparison is made between staff identifying as a teacher or a leader relative to all other staff roles (i.e. assistants as well as other types of staff working directly with children), and other staff and setting characteristics are taken into account to better isolate the effect of the role, a similar pattern of more intense engagement in collaboration by staff with more pedagogical responsibilities is also observed at the pre-primary level in Chile, Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain (Table D.9.5, Model 4).
Average percentage of pre-primary staff engaging at least monthly in collaborative practices in their ECEC setting, by staff role
Notes: Averages include Chile, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Norway and Sweden, where substantive comparisons between teachers and assistants can be made, and exclude the other participating countries and subnational entities.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Practices are ranked in descending order of the average percentage teachers who reported engaging at least monthly in each one.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.9.4.
Despite these differences by role, around two-thirds or more of staff at both levels of ECEC report engaging in discussions regarding children’s development and needs and their evaluation and in co-designing activities for children at least monthly, and typically either weekly or daily. Exchanging materials and carrying out joint activities across groups of children, and particularly providing feedback to other staff about their practices, are relatively less frequent, yet over half of staff report engaging in these activities at least monthly in most countries and subnational entities (Table Staff.42). The pedagogical dimension of most of these activities is then reflected in staff’s interactions with children: staff engagement in professional collaborative practices is the most consistent predictor of them adopting a child-centred approach to structuring and facilitating learning and of daily adaptive pedagogical practices (Table D.5.3; Table D.5.4; see also Chapter 4).
Across activities, staff in New Zealand** and Norway at both levels of ECEC report consistently high levels of collaboration, while pre-primary staff in Colombia and Morocco and staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel at both levels of ECEC report relatively low levels (Table D.9.4). In all countries and subnational entities, however, staff spend more time planning or preparing play and/or learning activities on their own than together with other staff: in cases like the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain at the pre-primary level and Quebec (Canada) in settings for children under age 3, more than twice such preparation time is individual rather than collaborative work (Table Staff.28; see also Chapter 4).
In some countries, distributed leadership and leaders’ support for staff’s pedagogical learning are associated with greater staff engagement in collaborative activities
Staff tend to hold very positive views on leaders’ contributions to knowledge sharing within settings, with over three-quarters of staff in all participating countries and subnational entities, and at both levels of ECEC, subscribing to the statement that their setting leader promotes a culture of shared professional learning (Table Staff.44). This highlights one of the ways in which setting leaders can play a critical guiding and supporting role for ECEC staff in different aspects of their work (see Chapter 7).
Leaders’ support for developing their staff’s pedagogical competencies as well as their use of distributed leadership practices (see Chapter 7) are also positively associated with staff engagement in collaborative activities in some participating countries and subnational entities (Figure 9.3). In Germany and Morocco at the pre-primary level and in Ireland in settings for children under age 3, greater leader support for staff pedagogical learning is related to more frequent staff collaboration. In turn, the positive association with distributed leadership holds in Chile and Sweden at the primary level and in Israel in settings for children under age 3. By contrast, leaders’ engagement in innovation is generally unrelated to levels of staff collaboration, except in Japan, where this relationship is positive. These results are robust to the consideration of the three types of leadership practices simultaneously as well as to the inclusion of other staff and setting-level characteristics that can be associated with staff’s collaborative practices (Table D.9.5). Notably, the size of the setting also bears a positive association with staff’s levels of collaboration in some countries and subnational entities, namely the Flemish Community of Belgium (at both levels of ECEC), Morocco and Türkiye (at the pre-primary level), and New Brunswick (Canada) (in settings for children under age 3) (Table D.9.5). This may point to cases where the organisation of work in larger settings creates more opportunities for peer collaboration and/or rests to a greater extent on it; conversely, smaller settings, and especially single-person settings, may provide less such opportunities.
Overall, results suggest a potential to increase staff’s levels of engagement in collaborative activities in many of the participating countries and subnational entities. Moreover, a greater focus on the quality of professional collaboration within ECEC settings may bring benefits such as contributing to reducing staff’s levels of stress, an expectation not yet met in the majority of ECEC systems (see Chapter 8).
Change in the scale of staff engagement in collaborative practices associated with a one-unit change in the scale of leader support for staff pedagogical learning and 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 single multivariable linear regression model. Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour. 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 engagement in collaborative practices and distributed leadership.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.9.5.
Strong ECEC systems monitor a broad set of outcomes in striving to improve the quality of services for young children and families (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). The systematic tracking of multiple areas of performance can inform improvement processes by promoting a shared understanding of quality standards and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of ECEC services, particularly when complemented with effective setting-level support (OECD, 2022[3]). Governments face challenges in ensuring the scope of inspections in ECEC aligns with holistic notions of quality and child development (Castro-Kemp and Kemp, 2025[12]) and in adapting the training and professional roles of inspectors when regulations switch their focus from structural to process aspects of quality (Moshel, 2024[13]). In higher levels of schooling, inspections are common and tend to be more effective in fulfilling policy enforcement functions than in driving improvement processes, with their impact depending critically on perceptions of accountability pressure and the quality of the inspections (Hofer, Holzberger and Reiss, 2020[14]). Meanwhile, increasing attention is being paid to the notion that promoting a culture of continuous improvement in ECEC can fruitfully combine “top-down” mechanisms, such as inspections and external evaluations, with “bottom-up” practices, such as internal monitoring and quality self-assessments, at the setting level (OECD, 2022[3]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks leaders about the frequency and focal areas of external monitoring in their settings, their own observations and discussions of staff practices, and changes in policies or practices based on monitoring results and external evaluations. These questions can provide insights on monitoring approaches and their contribution to quality improvement processes in ECEC.
External evaluators less frequently monitor process aspects of quality than structural features of quality
In Colombia, Denmark, Israel and Türkiye, 60% or more of pre-primary setting leaders report that staff practices related to process quality (e.g. quality of interactions with children, content of activities) are externally monitored by trained observers at least once every year in their settings (Table 9.2). In contrast, in Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Norway and Sweden, less than 30% of leaders report this is the case. Differences are greater in settings for children under age 3, as more than 90% of leaders in Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) and less than 30% of leaders in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Norway report yearly or more frequent monitoring of staff practices.
External monitoring of structural quality features is more frequent across countries, albeit variation exists particularly in settings for children under age 3 (Table 9.2). Aspects of quality such as child-adult ratios, group size or staff qualifications are reported to be externally monitored at least once a year by more than half of pre-primary setting leaders in all participating countries, except in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland and Sweden. In settings for children under age 3, this type and frequency of monitoring is also the highest in Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), as reported by over 90% of leaders, and lowest in the Flemish Community of Belgium, as reported by only 11% of leaders. A broadly similar pattern is observed for the external inspection or monitoring of facilities for meeting health, safety and infrastructure requirements, which is reported as occurring at least once a year or more often by a majority of leaders of pre-primary settings in all participating countries but Finland, Ireland and Norway. The monitoring of financial records (e.g. financial audits) is also common across countries, with a majority of pre-primary leaders reporting their settings receive this type of inspection at least yearly in 10 out of 15 countries and subnational entities participating at this level, as do a majority of leaders of settings for children under age 3 in 5 out of 8 countries and subnational entities (Table D.9.6).
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report receiving different types of external monitoring or inspections at least yearly and where setting leaders observe staff practices at least weekly
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes:
The shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of the frequency of monitoring practices within countries and subnational entities. Within each country and subnational entity, the most frequent monitoring practices are indicated in darker shades. The least frequent practices are indicated in white. Practices with intermediate frequencies are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Activities are presented in order of the least to the most common, on average, across countries and subnational entities.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.9.6 and Table Leader.32.
It is important to note that there is no a priori optimal frequency of external monitoring in ECEC settings. Countries can choose to monitor certain dimensions of quality less often on average across the system while focusing efforts on specific settings (e.g. risk-based monitoring). However, results suggests that certain aspects of quality are not externally monitored in sizable percentages of settings. For instance, in six countries and subnational entities, 25% or more of pre-primary settings leaders report never being inspected on structural features (e.g. child-adult ratio, group size, staff qualification levels), and the same holds for the monitoring of staff practices (e.g. quality of interaction with children, content of activities); Morocco, Spain and Sweden are included in both groups. Similarly, more than 25% of pre-primary setting leaders in six countries and of leaders of settings for children under age 3 in another five countries and subnational entities report a lack of external inspections or monitoring of their setting’s financial records, including Germany and Israel at both levels (Table Leader.34). This suggests that countries are setting different priorities in their monitoring policies, and that inspections focused on process quality can, in some cases, occur in the absence of structural quality or financial inspections.
In some countries, external monitoring is more frequent in private than in public settings
Monitoring is also an important tool to ensure equity goals and steer public investment, for instance by enabling comparisons of quality and inclusion indicators between different types of settings. At the pre‑primary level, privately managed settings are more frequently subject to external monitoring practices than publicly managed ones in several participating countries and subnational entities. This is most visible regarding inspections of financial records, which private pre-primary settings receive with greater regularity in 5 out of 11 countries and subnational entities where this comparison can be made (Table D.9.7). In addition, in three of these same countries, various aspects of quality are also more frequently monitored in privately managed settings: in Türkiye regarding requirements on facilities, structural quality features (e.g. child-adult ratios) and staff interactions with children; in Spain regarding facilities and structural quality; and in Finland regarding structural quality. Meanwhile, minimal differences exist in the frequency of external monitoring between public and private settings for children under age 3 (Table D.9.7). These results indicate that, at least at the pre-primary level, more intense external monitoring exists for privately than for publicly managed settings in several countries, particularly with regard to their finances, and presumably in line with accountability demands for public subsidies and quality standards.
Internal monitoring of staff practices by setting leaders is widespread but follow-up feedback exchanges are less prevalent
In 11 out of 15 countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and 7 out of 8 of those participating with settings for children under age 3, more than 50% of setting leaders report having observed staff practices and staff-child interactions weekly or more often over the 12 months prior to the survey. In Israel, this reaches more than 80% of leaders at both levels of ECEC, as is the case in Ireland, Japan and New Zealand** at the pre-primary level and in New Brunswick (Canada) in settings for children under age 3 (Table 9.2). While this shows that internal monitoring is a common practice in many ECEC systems, the percentage of settings where leaders report no or less than monthly observations of staff interactions with children remains above 30% in Colombia, Norway and Sweden at the pre-primary level, and at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium (Table Leader.32).
Sharing feedback with staff is, generally, less prevalent than observations of professional practices. In 6 out of 15 countries and subnational jurisdictions at the pre-primary level and 5 out of 8 for settings for children under age 3, more than 50% of setting leaders report providing feedback to staff based on their observations with a weekly or higher frequency over the 12 months prior to the survey; in Israel for settings for children under age 3 this applies to more than two-thirds of settings. Meanwhile, in Morocco, Norway, Spain and Sweden in pre-primary settings, as well as in the Flemish Community of Belgium at both levels of ECEC, more than 30% of leaders report more infrequent (i.e. less than a monthly basis) or no feedback exchanges with staff based on observations of their practice (Table Leader.32).
Overall, results point to a relatively underdeveloped culture of internal quality monitoring in ECEC in many of the participating countries and subnational entities, with leaders’ observations of staff’s professional activities being widespread but insufficiently matched by follow-up feedback exchanges, as both elements are necessary to spark improvement processes in setting-level practices. Internal monitoring practices also need to be considered in light of setting leaders’ responsibilities for guiding staff’s professional development and the assessment and monitoring of children’s outcomes. The provision of effective feedback to staff is indeed one of the areas where setting leaders tend to report a strong need for additional professional development (Table Leader.11).
Leaders make changes to ECEC setting policies and practices based on monitoring results in several countries
The percentage of setting leaders who report frequent changes (i.e. at least monthly over the 12 months prior to the survey) to policies and practices in their ECEC settings based on the results of monitoring and external evaluation varies notably across countries. This applies to around 20% of pre-primary settings in Denmark, Germany and Japan and around 10% of settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, compared to around 70% of settings in Israel and New Zealand** at both levels of ECEC (Table D.9.8).
In some countries and subnational entities, pre-primary setting leaders are more likely to report adjustments in policies and practices when their settings receive external inspections in some areas at least once a year. This applies most consistently to Spain, where the frequency of inspections, be it of facilities, structural quality features, staff practices or financial records, is in all cases associated with a higher likelihood of leaders reporting changes in their settings. More frequent inspections of facilities are related to leaders adapting policies and practices in Germany, Morocco and Sweden, while more frequent financial audits are related to changes in Ireland and Morocco and the external monitoring of staff practices is associated with changes in Türkiye (Table D.9.8). Further, a higher frequency of leaders observing staff practices and staff-child interactions is also associated with a higher likelihood of changes to policies and practices in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Finland and Morocco. However, no significant differences are observed in the likelihood of changes based on the frequency of any of the areas of external or internal monitoring in settings for children under age 3 (Table D.9.8).
Overall, the direction of the differences is, in all cases, consistent with the notion that settings’ policies and practices are more often adjusted based on the results of monitoring and evaluation activities when such activities, whether conducted by external inspectors or by setting leaders internally, take place more frequently, albeit this association is not statistically significant across all participating countries and subnational entities.
A growing number of countries have introduced policies to ensure safe and meaningful uses of digital technologies in ECEC, with goals that include developing children’s early digital literacy, enhancing professional development opportunities for ECEC staff or promoting engagement with families, with protecting children from digital risks centre stage (OECD, 2023[15]; Eurydice, 2025[16]). An OECD policy survey conducted in 2022 shows that preparing ECEC staff to use digital technologies safely and effectively in their pedagogical work with children, particularly at the pre-primary level, was a high priority for most of the participating countries and subnational entities, but also that digital content is unevenly integrated into initial education and in-service training programmes for ECEC teachers (OECD, 2023[15]). ECEC professionals are increasingly confronted with complex questions on whether and how to incorporate digital technologies into their work, especially when interacting with children, and at the same time asked to develop their own digital competencies to implement guiding frameworks (Wilson et al., 2023[17]; Zabatiero et al., 2018[18]). However, the implications of introducing digital devices into ECEC and educational settings at large remain an open debate, as evidence exists of both positive experiences and unintended drawbacks (OECD, 2025[19]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 provides information on how ECEC staff and setting leaders engage with digital technologies for various purposes. This chapter focuses on staff preparedness (i.e. initial training, ongoing professional development, perceived need for further professional development and self‑efficacy) to use technology specifically to facilitate working with children, as well as on the adequacy of settings’ digital infrastructure and staff’s views on the need for additional investment. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the use of digital tools for professional development and management purposes. Chapter 7 also explores other dimensions of innovation in ECEC settings.
A majority of staff have received training on the use of digital technologies to facilitate working with children
According to staff, initial education or training programmes that included content on the use of digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children are particularly common in Chile, Colombia and Türkiye at the pre-primary level and in New Brunswick (Canada) in settings for children under age 3. In other countries and subnational entities, 40-70% of staff report this kind of training (in pre-primary settings and in settings for children under age 3), except in Japan, where just 25% of staff report having covered uses of digital technology as part of their initial preparation programme (Table D.9.9). To some extent, these patterns may reflect the recentness of initial training in the ECEC workforce: Colombia, New Brunswick (Canada) and Türkiye have relatively high shares of novice staff (with three years of experience or less), whereas staff in Japan are among the most experienced (Table D.2.10).
In the majority of participating countries and subnational entities, and at both levels of ECEC, a smaller proportion of staff report that using digital solutions to facilitate working with children was included in their professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey compared to their initial training. Nonetheless, this percentage is over 50% in eight countries and subnational entities across the two levels of ECEC (Table D.9.9).
Combining information on staff’s initial preparation programmes and recent training sheds light on the extent to which digital preparedness has become a target for professional development policies in ECEC internationally (Figure 9.4). In 10 out of 15 systems at the pre-primary level and in 5 out of 8 systems in settings for children under age 3, at least 65% of staff have received training on the use of digital tools to facilitate working with children, either in their initial education, ongoing professional development in the 12 months prior to the survey or both (Table D.9.9). By contrast, in Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Japan and New Zealand** at the pre-primary level and in the Flemish Community (Belgium), Germany and Israel in settings for children under age 3, 35% or more of staff report that neither their initial preparation programmes nor their recent professional development activities included such content.
Percentage of staff having covered content on the use of digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children at different stages of their professional development trajectories
* 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: Continuous professional development refers to activities in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who covered the use of digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children in both their initial training and continuous professional development.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.9.9.
Staff who covered the use of digital tools with children in both their initial education and recent professional development have a higher sense of self-efficacy in this area
ECEC staff’s self-efficacy for using digital technologies to facilitate working with children is generally the area of work about which staff express the least confidence among the areas captured by TALIS Starting Strong 2024, although there are great differences across the participating countries and subnational entities. At the pre-primary level, more than 70% of staff in Morocco, Spain and Türkiye feel they can use these technologies to facilitate working with children “quite a bit” or “a lot” while in Finland, Germany, Japan and Norway this is the case for less than 40% of staff, which mirrors differences across countries in other areas of perceived self-efficacy (Table Staff.24). Confidence for using digital technologies tends to be lower among staff working in settings for children under age 3, with between a third and half of staff reporting strong self-efficacy in this area in all countries and subnational entities except New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada), where the percentages are around two-thirds of staff (Table D.9.10).
Staff reports about further professional development needs for incorporating digital tools into their work with children provide a complementary perspective. At the pre-primary level, in two-thirds of the participating countries and subnational entities, more than 50% of staff report a “moderate” or “high” level of need in this area. In contrast, this level of need is only reported by staff working in settings for children under age 3 in Norway, where staff typically work in settings with pre-primary aged children as well as children under age 3 (Table D.9.10). Staff’s sense of self-efficacy as well as their views on their need for further professional development likely reflect expectations set in curriculum frameworks regarding the use of digital tools in ECEC, which can partly explain differences between countries and subnational entities as well as between staff at different levels of ECEC. Indeed, in the case of Norway, the curriculum framework (Norwegian Framework Plan for ECEC) encompasses the whole 0-5 age group and emphasises digital practices (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017[20]).
Across participating countries and subnational entities, there is a strong positive system-level association between the percentage of staff who report a high level of confidence in their ability to use digital tools to facilitate working with children and the percentage of staff having covered training content in this area in both their initial and recent ongoing training, both at the pre-primary level and in settings for children under age 3 (Figure 9.5). This suggests that countries and subnational entities where digitalisation is more consistently addressed in professional development programmes tend to have an ECEC workforce that feels better prepared to integrate digital tools into their work in ECEC settings.
Percentage of staff who feel they can use digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children, and percentage of staff having covered content in this area in both their initial training and recent 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: Staff who feel they can use digital resources and tools to facilitate working with children are those who reported “quite a bit” or “a lot”, compared with those who reported “not at all” or “to some extent”. Initial training refers to education and training that prepared staff to work with children, and recent professional development refers to activities in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.9.9 and D.9.10.
Individual-level associations corroborate results at the system level: in many participating countries and subnational entities, staff who covered the use of digital technologies in both their initial education and recent training are more likely to report a strong sense of self-efficacy (Table D.9.11). These staff with training on digital technologies in both initial and recent training are also less likely to express a need for additional training on this topic (Table D.9.12). The relationship with self-efficacy is weaker when staff covered digitalisation-related training content in their initial preparation programmes or in recent training activities only. This points to high levels of confidence for the use of digital tools in ECEC resulting from more regular exposure to these topics throughout staff professional trajectories, rather than from recent training experiences or the imprint of initial education solely. Given the pace of change in digitalisation and young children’s exposure to new technologies, ongoing training at regular intervals is likely particularly important for building on foundational knowledge in this area.
Few leaders perceive their setting’s digital infrastructure as a barrier to providing a quality environment for children
At the pre-primary level, less than one in six setting leaders in Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan, New Zealand** and Sweden report that shortages or inadequacies of digital resources hinder their setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning. This concern is somewhat higher in other countries and only shared among most leaders in Colombia and Morocco (Table D.9.13). Leaders’ reports about insufficient connectivity being a hindrance to a quality environment closely mirror those on the availability of other digital resources and tools, suggesting the need to address both types of inadequacies in concert. In most of the countries and subnational entities participating at the level of settings for children under age 3, smaller percentages of leaders report challenges due to poor digital infrastructure, which may reflect lower expectations on the need to use digital tools and the Internet to provide quality environments for children under age 3 (Table Leader.42).
Within countries and subnational entities, differences in the reported adequacy of digital resources and connectivity tend to favour private over public settings in the countries where such gaps exist, such as Chile, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco, Norway and Türkiye at the pre-primary level, or Germany at both levels of ECEC (Table D.9.13). Little differences are observed in the adequacy of digital infrastructure depending on the setting’s location, although more leaders of settings in small towns or rural areas than in cities report having poor infrastructure in Colombia and Morocco (Table D.9.14). Similarly, the size of the setting appears to be unrelated to the adequacy of digital technology in most participating countries and subnational entities, with the exception of Morocco (Table D.9.15).
When asked about the priority of investing in digital resources if the budget for the ECEC sector as a whole were to increase by 5%, more than half of pre-primary staff in the majority of participating countries and subnational entities consider such investments to be of “somewhat high” or “very high” importance, whereas in Denmark, Finland, Germany, New Zealand**, Norway and Sweden, around a third or less of staff in pre-primary settings share this view (Table D.9.16). Across countries, and both at the pre‑primary level and in settings for children under age 3, staff perceptions about the importance of investments in digital equipment appear to be moderately correlated with their reported professional needs or sense of self-efficacy: staff more in favour of such investments tend to also report a higher sense of self-efficacy in this area, potentially reflecting more positive attitudes about extending the use of digital tools in ECEC settings among staff who feel better prepared to use such tools with children. Staff who give greater importance to investments in digital resources also tend to express a greater need for additional professional development in this area, highlighting that availability of or resources for this type of ongoing training may be a perceived barrier to participation for many staff.
Situations of sudden and significant upheaval, such as natural disasters or public health emergencies, put the adaptative capacity of ECEC systems to the test. Ensuring the continuity and quality of ECEC provision in adverse circumstances requires retaining and supporting ECEC professionals so they can cope with disruptions and continue their work with young children and families (OECD, 2025[21]). Educational settings, including at the ECEC level, can play an important role in supporting children’s emotional recovery post-disaster (Le Brocque et al., 2016[22]) but adapting to these situations can be highly stressful for ECEC staff as well (Aydos et al., 2025[23]). This became visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, which introduced or magnified a range of stressors for the ECEC workforce, with negative effects on their mental health and well-being (Atiles et al., 2021[24]; Rodriguez et al., 2022[25]). Protecting ECEC professionals in the event of sudden crises is a concern, as increases in levels of stress and feelings of burnout tend to be associated with plans to leave the sector (Reinke et al., 2025[26]) (see Chapter 8).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 provides information on the work climate and well-being of ECEC staff and setting leaders. This section looks at staff and leader reports on the extent to which having to adapt their practices to unexpected disruptions (e.g. natural disasters, public health emergencies/pandemics, humanitarian crises) is a source of stress in their work, and how this varies across different types of ECEC settings (see Chapter 8 for a broader discussion on staff well-being and other sources of stress).
Adapting to unexpected disruptions is more often a source of stress for setting leaders than for staff
Unsurprisingly given their rarer occurrence, unexpected disruptions are less often reported as a source of stress by staff and leaders than most other potential stressors covered in the survey (Tables Staff.47 and Leader.45; see also Chapter 8). Nonetheless, at least 20% of staff in 7 out of 15 participating countries and subnational entities at the pre-primary level and in 3 out of 8 at the level of settings for children under age 3 report that adapting to unexpected disruptions represents “quite a bit” or “a lot” a source of stress in their work. This holds also for setting leaders in a higher number of systems at both levels of ECEC.
The proportion of staff and setting leaders reporting disruption-induced stress is positively correlated across participating countries and subnational entities, which may reflect the relative frequency of these events and ECEC professionals’ levels of preparedness, but also country-specific patterns of response regarding stress factors (see Chapter 8). In a majority of cases, more setting leaders than staff tend to report these disruptions as highly stressful situations. This is most visibly the case in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Japan and Norway at the pre-primary level, and in Norway and Quebec (Canada) in settings for children under age 3 (Table D.9.17). A more pronounced impact of disruptions on the stress levels of setting leaders, compared to staff, may reflect the particular dilemmas that leaders face during a crisis, when choices have to be made between competing demands regarding the organisation of ECEC settings (Rørstad Welle and Gunnulfsen, 2025[27]). Nonetheless, in other countries such as Colombia, Denmark or Türkiye, more staff than leaders report high levels of stress related to unexpected disruptions, perhaps related to staff autonomy or aspects of distributed leadership in these systems (see Chapter 7).
Staff with more positive views on their setting leadership are less likely to experience stress from unexpected disruptions while staff more engaged in collaboration are more likely to find disruptions stressful
Among the factors associated with staff experiencing stress from adapting their practice to unexpected disruptions are their overall satisfaction with their setting leadership and their engagement in collaborative practices within their settings (Figure 9.6) However, these associations run in opposite directions. Staff who hold more positive views about their setting leaders are less likely to report higher levels of stress from these situations when working in pre-primary settings in Chile, Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Spain and Sweden, although the opposite is true in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium. By contrast, staff more frequently engaged in collaborative practices within their settings are more likely to cite disruptions as highly stressful in Chile, Denmark, Israel and Spain at the pre-primary level and in Ireland in settings for children under age 3. This may reflect stress related to disruptions in usual collaborative practices during times of crisis, or that staff anticipate having a greater role to play in addressing disruptions due to the collaborative nature of their work; in the latter case, collaboration may feel more like a job demand in times of crisis than a resource (see Chapter 8).
Further, in some cases, other individual-level characteristics appear to be associated with this form of stress among staff. For instance, staff who identify as a teacher or leader, relative to other categories of staff, are more likely to report disruptions as a substantial source of stress in Japan at the pre-primary level, and in Germany, Ireland and Quebec (Canada) in settings for children under age 3 (Table D.9.18).
Overall, results suggest that positive work relationships with setting leaders can be a major buffer to staff’s levels of stress in the event of unexpected crises, but also that staff who engage in peer collaboration more regularly and to some extent tend to have greater responsibilities within settings are more likely to confront stressful decisions when severe disruptions occur. This is in line with findings about overall levels of stress and workload increasing with staff’s work responsibilities and about setting leadership acting as a protective resource (see Chapter 8).
Likelihood of staff experiencing stress from adapting to unexpected disruptions associated with a one-unit change in the scale of satisfaction with setting leadership and a one-unit change in the scale of engagement in collaborative practices
* 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 the scale of staff engagement in collaborative practices and the scale of staff satisfaction with setting leadership to staff reporting having to adapt their practices with children due to unexpected disruptions (e.g. natural disasters, public health emergencies/pandemics or humanitarian crises) is a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”. 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.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between staff engagement in collaborative practices and stress from unexpected disruptions.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.9.18.
Several OECD countries are adopting strategies for ECEC services to respond to crises, including through the development of setting-level action plans and training and practical resources to improve staff preparedness and resilience to stress (Box 9.1).
Ireland: Responding to critical incidents in ECEC services
In Ireland, the Quality and Regulatory Framework of the Tusla Child and Family Agency, responsible for the Early Years Inspectorate, requires all early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings to have a level plan to respond to critical incidents. These include events such as severe weather, public health emergencies, significant damage to facilities or criminal attacks, but also incidents during outings or the death of a child enrolled in the service. In 2023, a national working group developed a practical guide to assist ECEC settings in establishing those plans (Critical Incident National Working Group with Barnardos, 2024[28]).
Guidance emphasises reducing the effects of stress and minimising the risk of further problems as key rationales for early and systematic responses to critical incidents. Setting-level plans outline actions to be taken at a time of heightened feelings and anxiety; these actions should be communicated to and understood by staff before crises occur. Critical incident plans cover four key stages: 1) prevention (identifying and managing risks); 2) preparing (identifying appropriate actions); 3) responding (implementing immediate, secondary and follow-up actions); and 4) reviewing (reflecting on the experience as a team and with families and revising the plan). The guide also includes checklists, sample plans, communication templates and other resources to help settings plan for each stage.
City and county childcare committees run training aligned with this guidance and provide support to implement suggested actions. In turn, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality holds responsibility for co-ordinating a national response to critical incidents in ECEC. This involves an exchange of information between local and national levels; local support for ECEC settings and staff; force majeure payments for service closure; and sustainability funding for longer support, including extra staffing and therapeutic interventions.
New Zealand: Disaster preparedness in ECEC
In New Zealand, all ECEC services are required to have an emergency management plan in place. These plans must be regularly reviewed and include procedures for emergencies, evacuations, contacting emergency services, and providing medical treatment and assistance (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2024[29]). Given New Zealand’s diverse natural hazard profile, including earthquakes, floods, landslides, storms, tsunamis and volcanic activity, ECEC services tailor their plans to local risks.
To support rapid communication during emergencies, the Ministry of Education uses a contact tool called Mataara, which enables swift outreach to ECEC settings. Additionally, the National Emergency Management Agency provides resources specifically designed for ECEC settings, including guidance on preparing children for emergencies and advice on how to talk to children about natural hazards. One widely adopted practice is Turtle Safe, a child-friendly version of the “Drop, Cover, and Hold” earthquake drill, which teaches children to respond like a turtle retreating into its shell (Get Ready, n.d.[30]).
Regional emergency management offices also hold community trainings for ECEC staff. These sessions use short videos, interactive activities and presentations to cover a range of topics, including parent-child reunification procedures and business continuity planning. Emergency preparedness in ECEC is supported through alignment with New Zealand’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy and co‑ordination with regional civil defence emergency management groups. The ministry’s guidance on managing traumatic incidents highlights the importance of structured support for staff well-being, recommending measures such as buddy systems, relief staffing, regular debriefs, and ongoing monitoring to reduce stress and prevent compassion fatigue.
Strengthen engagement with families and co-operation with other sectors. Social and institutional connections help ECEC settings to attend to children’s needs within their family and community contexts and in synergy with other services, but gaps in communication with families between public and private settings and limited engagement with other sectors and primary schools limit this capacity in many countries. Policies can support ECEC settings’ local connections by providing resources for supporting family engagement, particularly in publicly managed settings, and by fostering co-operation with other early years services, independent of the setting’s proximity to other institutions. Chile and Colombia, for collaboration with health-related services and home-visits; the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain, for co-operation with primary schools; and Denmark, Germany and New Zealand, for co-operation across settings and with other support services for young children, illustrate strategies to strengthen institutional connections in ECEC settings.
Promote collaborative work practices for all staff within ECEC settings. Job-embedded peer collaboration is a major avenue for effective professional learning and a consistent predictor of staff’s adoption of child-centred and adaptive pedagogical approaches. Policies can support collaborative practices within ECEC settings to provide protected staff time for group work and feedback exchanges, leadership that supports pedagogical learning, staff agency and collaboration among staff, as well as by ensuring that all staff roles (not only teachers) have opportunities to collaborate meaningfully. Staff in New Zealand and Norway strongly engage in multiple collaborative activities. In Chile, Germany, Morocco and Sweden at the pre-primary level, and Ireland and Israel in settings for children under age 3, leadership practices promote staff collaboration.
Expand the scope and, where needed, the frequency of quality monitoring activities in support of improvement processes. Effective monitoring can stimulate quality improvement in ECEC and help ensure equitable access to quality services. Across countries, however, external inspections more often focus on structural aspects than on process quality, while frequent internal monitoring of staff-child interactions is not always followed by guidance to staff. Monitoring policies can give greater attention to process quality alongside structural aspects and focus on quality improvement over accountability, with concrete support for setting leaders, such as making feedback exchanges with staff an integral component of internal monitoring activities. Morocco and Spain are examples of countries where policies and practices in pre-primary settings are more often adjusted based on the results of quality monitoring activities, according to setting leaders.
Provide regular training opportunities on the use of digital technology in ECEC settings. While countries need not necessarily expand digital infrastructure in ECEC settings, the rapid pace of digitalisation makes it critical to ensure staff has up-to-date knowledge on the potential risks and benefits of digital tools for young children and can take informed decisions about integrating them (or not) into their work. Staff’s sense of self-efficacy for using digital tools in interactions with children is higher when they have covered this area in both their initial education and ongoing professional development activities, which points to training policies that address digitalisation with a consistent approach. Colombia, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye at the pre-primary level, and New Brunswick (Canada) in settings for children under age 3, are systems where higher shares of staff have received training in this area both during their initial preparation and recently.
Invest in crisis preparedness, including in measures to protect the well-being of ECEC professionals. Adapting work practices to unexpected disruptions is a substantial source of stress for ECEC staff and setting leaders, with potential negative effects on retention. With the incidence of extreme climate and other events predicted to increase in the near future, policies can aim to improve the preparedness of ECEC settings and staff to respond to crises through training and resources that clarify procedures and responsibilities in adverse circumstances. Ireland and New Zealand provide examples of national strategies to anticipate and improve response to disaster events in ECEC, including requirements for detailed setting-level action plans, training for staff and measures to support the continuity of services (Box 9.1).
References
[24] Atiles, J. et al. (2021), “International responses to COVID-19: Challenges faced by early childhood professionals”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 29/1, pp. 66-78, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2021.1872674.
[23] Aydos, E. et al. (2025), “From crisis to classroom: Preschool teachers’ post-earthquake experiences”, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04504-9.
[12] Castro-Kemp, S. and P. Kemp (2025), “Ofsted inspection reports in early childhood education settings narrowly focussed: A corpus and sentiment analysis”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 23/2, pp. 197-211, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x241306859.
[8] Cramer, T. et al. (2021), “Knowledge dissemination among early childhood staff members: A promising pathway for professional learning”, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Vol. 43/4, pp. 554-567, https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1954567.
[28] Critical Incident National Working Group with Barnardos (2024), Critical Incidents in Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare Services: Planning and Responding, Barnados, Dublin, http://www.nurturingskills.ie/resources/critical-incidents-in-early-learning-and-care-and-school-age-childcare-services (accessed on 21 August 2025).
[16] Eurydice (2025), Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe 2025, Publications Office of the European Union, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/key-data-early-childhood-education-and-care-europe-2025.
[6] Garner, R., M. Nicholas and E. Rouse (2021), “Cross-sector early years teacher collaboration: Using professional learning workshops as boundary objects for professional boundary crossing”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 29/5, pp. 764-779, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2021.1968462.
[30] Get Ready (n.d.), “Resources for early childhood centres”, web page, https://getready.govt.nz/prepared/school/teach/early-childhood-centres (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[14] Hofer, S., D. Holzberger and K. Reiss (2020), “Evaluating school inspection effectiveness: A systematic research synthesis on 30 years of international research”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 65, p. 100864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100864.
[22] Le Brocque, R. et al. (2016), “Schools and natural disaster recovery: The unique and vital role that teachers and education professionals play in ensuring the mental health of students following natural disasters”, Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, Vol. 27/1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2016.17.
[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.
[7] Liu, M., H. Hedges and M. Cooper (2023), “Effective collaborative learning for early childhood teachers: Structural, motivational and sustainable features”, Professional Development in Education, Vol. 50/2, pp. 420-438, https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2235578.
[13] Moshel, S. (2024), “Reforming inspection of childcare provision: Lessons from Israel”, International Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 57/1, pp. 93-114, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-024-00390-5.
[29] New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024), “Prepare for an emergency or traumatic incident in early learning”, web page, https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/early-learning/health-and-safety/prepare-emergency-or-traumatic-incident-early-learning (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[20] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2017), Framework Plan for Kindergartens, https://www.udir.no/contentassets/7c4387bb50314f33b828789ed767329e/framework-plan-for-kindergartens--rammeplan-engelsk-pdf.pdf.
[19] OECD (2025), How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en.
[5] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[21] OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f49228be-en.
[15] OECD (2023), Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en.
[3] OECD (2022), “Quality assurance and improvement in the early education and care sector”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/774688bf-en.
[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 (2015), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en.
[26] Reinke, W. et al. (2025), “Teacher stress, coping, burnout, and plans to leave the field: A post-pandemic survey”, School Mental Health, Vol. 17/1, pp. 32-44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-024-09738-7.
[25] Rodriguez, V. et al. (2022), “Silent expectations: An exploration of women pre-Kindergarten teachers’ mental health and wellness during Covid-19 and beyond”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, pp. 80-95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.12.006.
[27] Rørstad Welle, K. and A. Gunnulfsen (2025), “School leadership: Dilemmas in dealing with crises”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432251325099.
[10] Thornton, K. (2023), “Leadership in professional learning communities: A review of literature”, in International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development, Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care through Leadership and Organizational Learning, Springer International Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39419-5_11.
[11] Vandenbroeck, M., J. Lehrer and L. Mitchell (2022), The Decommodification of Early Childhood Education and Care. Resisting Neoliberalism, Routledge, London, http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01GT92CHWTM46H8GAZZWJ60F84.
[17] Wilson, S. et al. (2023), “Digital technologies and the early childhood sector: Are we fostering digital capabilities and agency in young children?”, The Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 51/4, pp. 1425-1443, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00647-3.
[9] Yodogawa, Y., S. Nozawa and K. Akita (2022), “Supporting self-organised professional development in the Japanese context through the Early Childhood Education Quality (ECEQ) initiative”, Early Years, Vol. 42/1, pp. 71-87, https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.2017858.
[18] Zabatiero, J. et al. (2018), “Young children and digital technology: Australian early childhood education and care sector adults’ perspectives”, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 43/2, pp. 14-22, https://doi.org/10.23965/ajec.43.2.02.