This chapter discusses the capacity of the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector to attract and retain a high-quality workforce. It presents a comprehensive set of indicators of ECEC staff professional working conditions, job satisfaction, and emotional and physical well-being. It analyses some of the complex relationships between work demands and aspects of working conditions that help staff meet these demands to better understand their levels of stress and its link with consideration for leaving the role.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
A large majority of ECEC staff and leaders are satisfied with their work at their ECEC setting, with the profession overall and feel valued by parents and children. In addition, in all systems, a large majority of staff would still choose to work as an ECEC staff if they could decide again.
Lower percentages of ECEC staff report feeling valued by society although the perceived social recognition is often higher amongst ECEC staff than in other levels of education. However, a majority of staff are dissatisfied with their salary. Other aspects of contractual arrangements and their autonomy to shape their practice are sources of job satisfaction for staff.
Among various types of resource shortages, ECEC leaders consider insufficient human resources to be the main hindrance to the quality of the ECEC environment. Staff absences hinder the provision of quality ECEC in more than 50% of settings in Denmark (pre‑primary settings), Germany and Norway (both levels of ECEC), and Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada) (settings for children under age 3).
Staff’s levels of stress vary widely across countries, but in most systems only a small majority of staff consider that the job leaves time for their personal life, particularly in countries where staff report long working hours. Physical health consequences of the job are reported slightly more than mental health ones, but the two are highly correlated.
Among the main broad categories of ECEC staff stress, lack of capacity, resources and time has the strongest link with staff’s levels of stress. Having too many tasks to perform at the same time is one of the most common sources of stress reported by staff in all countries and subnational entities while having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff is a frequent source of stress in settings for children under age 3. Accommodating children with special education needs is a major source of stress for pre-primary staff but somewhat less so for staff working with children under age 3.
Attending to family responsibilities and working in a different job not in the ECEC sector are the most likely reasons for staff to consider leaving their role in most countries and subnational entities. Attending to family responsibilities highlights the likelihood of temporary absences among ECEC staff, while working in a different job in another sector reflects considerations for leaving the sector permanently. Resolving physical or mental health issues are also likely reasons to consider leaving the profession. The small percentage of staff indicating that becoming an ECEC setting leader is a likely reason to leave the ECEC staff role might reflect a lack of career progression opportunities.
Staff who experience more stress are more likely to consider leaving their ECEC staff role, particularly for mental health issues, but also for physical ones. Staff who report lower levels of stress and greater satisfaction with work at the ECEC setting, and to some extent with their salary, are less likely to consider leaving their role.
Feelings of stress emerge from imbalances between job demands, resources to address them and rewards for effort. Autonomy and satisfaction with salary and leadership are key resources that buffer staff from stress. Collaborative practices do not appear to be a key buffer, which suggests that they are not sufficiently developed or targeted. However, multitasking and a higher share of vulnerable children in the group are linked to higher levels of staff stress in several systems, even after accounting for a range of job resources. These findings suggest that job demands are too high, or job resources insufficient, to buffer against stress in these systems.
Attracting and retaining motivated and competent staff is central to building strong ECEC systems. Well‑resourced ECEC systems contribute to reducing work overload and preventing sick leave among staff while meeting the demand for places in ECEC settings (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). High staff turnover can harm the quality of ECEC children receive by undermining safe attachments and organisational stability (Hamre and Pianta, 2005[2]). A lack of qualified staff makes it difficult to maintain adequate staff‑to-child ratios that support individualised and rich interactions between staff and children and can lead to safety concerns. However, staff shortages are one of the main challenges of the ECEC sector in most OECD countries (OECD, 2019[3]; European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, 2023[4]). Trying to limit staff shortages through the recruitment of less qualified staff or of temporary staff can lower the quality of the learning environment. Addressing staff shortages, therefore, requires addressing the sources of these shortages.
Working conditions and well-being as well as the status of the ECEC profession are key determinants of the sector’s capacity to attract and retain good candidates and deliver high-quality education and care (OECD, 2020[5]; Cumming, 2016[6]). There are deep and interactive relationships between job demands and resources, employees’ stress, physical and emotional health, and individuals’ motivations to leave the profession (OECD, 2020[5]; Heilala et al., 2021[7]).
The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024 offers unique information on a comprehensive set of indicators of the job satisfaction and emotional and physical well-being of ECEC professionals in the participating countries and subnational entities. It includes information on many aspects of the ECEC workforce’s working conditions as well as on what leaders perceive to be hindrances to providing high-quality environments, various sources of work-related stress and possible reasons for staff to leave their role. This chapter presents an overview of these indicators to draw an overall picture of the capacity of ECEC systems to attract and retain a high-quality workforce. It also analyses some of the complex relationships between work demands and aspects of working conditions that help staff meet these demands to better understand their levels of stress and its link with consideration for leaving the role.
The chapter addresses the following questions:
To what extent do ECEC setting leaders perceive staff shortages as being a hindrance to the quality of the ECEC environment?
Which aspects of the ECEC profession lead to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? What are the main sources of stress?
What are the main reasons for staff to potentially leave the role? How do these reasons relate to working conditions and stress?
Which factors can exacerbate stress or buffer against high demands in ECEC jobs?
Addressing staff shortages by raising the attractiveness of careers in the ECEC sector is a key priority. The prestige or social status of the ECEC profession plays an important role in attracting new candidates to the profession (Hughes et al., 2024[8]). This partly relates to the level of public investment in the sector, which reflects the extent to which societies perceive ECEC, and therefore its staff, as contributing to the public good (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]). In addition, the social status and decisions to enter the sector are closely related to education requirements to enter the profession and working conditions such as salaries, other terms of the employment contract, level of autonomy and opportunities for career progression. While working with young children and families can provide intrinsic rewards, the ECEC sector is generally known to propose relatively low salaries compared to higher levels of education or jobs requiring a similar level of education and training (OECD, 2025[9]; 2024[10]).
While TALIS Starting Strong 2024 does not directly measure staff shortages, it asks ECEC setting leaders about the factors that hinder the capacity to provide a quality environment for children’s development, well‑being and learning. This provides information on the extent to which different types of staff shortages represent structural barriers to ECEC quality. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 also asks ECEC staff and leaders their views on a range of factors that are closely related to the attractiveness of the profession. This section presents leaders’ views about staff shortages as well as staff’s and leaders’ perceptions of the social status of their profession; their job satisfaction; and their views on major aspects of their working conditions such as salary, other terms of the employment contract, autonomy in job practices and the quality of the working environment at their ECEC settings.
Staff absences and lack of staff working with children with special education needs are generally perceived as hindering the provision of high-quality environments for children
Leaders generally consider different types of staff shortages (Table 8.1) to be the main hinderance to their settings providing a high-quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning (Table Leader.42). Staff absences hinder the provision of quality ECEC in more than 50% of settings in Denmark (pre-primary settings), Germany and Norway (at both levels of ECEC) and in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada) (in settings for children under age 3) (Table D.8.1). Shortages of qualified staff or an insufficient number of staff for the number of children enrolled hinder the provision of quality ECEC in more than 50% of settings for both levels of ECEC in Germany and for children under age 3 in Ireland, Norway and Quebec (Canada) (Table D.8.1). In contrast, fewer setting leaders report staff shortages in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and in pre-primary settings in Spain. In addition to staff shortages, leaders also widely report other challenges, such as changes in available funding, in many systems.
Among the various types of inadequacies of human resources, staff absences are the most prevalent in almost all countries and subnational entities, particularly in settings for children under age 3 (Table 8.1). A shortage of staff with competencies in working with children with special education needs is the main staff shortage concern in Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan and Morocco at the pre-primary level. A shortage of qualified staff is the main staff shortage concern in Israel and Ireland at both levels of ECEC; in Türkiye in pre-primary settings; and in Quebec (Canada) in settings for children under age 3.
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report that the following issues hinder their ECEC setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for the development, well-being and learning of children
* 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:
Home-based settings are not included.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
The shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of staff shortages hindering ECEC settings’ capacity to provide a quality environment for children. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently areas of staff shortages reported by leaders to hinder the quality of the environment are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported areas of shortages are indicated in white. Areas of staff shortages reported by intermediate percentages of leaders are indicated in intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.1.
ECEC staff feel highly valued by parents and children but less so by society
For both levels of ECEC, more than 80% of ECEC staff in all countries except Japan feel valued by parents or guardians (Figure 8.2). Likewise, except in Japan, close to 100% of staff feel valued by children (Table D.8.2). The percentages of staff who feel valued by society are lower, reaching less than a third of staff in pre-primary settings in Chile, Japan, Norway and Sweden as well as in Ireland for both levels of ECEC. ECEC staff who feel less valued by society tend to have more than three years of experience (Table D.8.3) and higher educational qualifications (Table D.8.4). Leaders’ views on ECEC staff being valued by society align with the staff’s views (Table Leader.43). These findings point towards a mixed perception of the social status of the profession by staff themselves, with staff feeling valued by the users of ECEC services but less so by society as a whole, which might deter new candidates from joining the profession. There are, however, exceptions: more than 70% of staff in pre-primary settings in Colombia and Morocco and at both levels of ECEC in Israel feel valued by society. In settings for children under 3 in New Brunswick (Canada), this is the case for more than 60% of staff. Furthermore, in most ECEC systems, the percentages of ECEC staff who feel valued by society are much higher than amongst staff working in other levels of education (OECD, 2025[11]).
Percentage of ECEC staff who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements
* 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 percentage of staff who feel valued in society.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.2.
A large majority of ECEC staff and leaders are satisfied with the profession and their work at their ECEC setting
Overall job satisfaction is high, with more than 80% of staff and leaders agreeing with the statement “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” in all countries and subnational entities except Ireland (both levels of ECEC) and Japan (pre-primary settings). Staff with higher levels of education are less satisfied with the job in pre‑primary settings in Chile, Denmark, Germany and Sweden and in settings for children under age 3 in Ireland (Table D.8.4). Consistent with overall high satisfaction with the job, large majorities of staff report that if they could decide again, they would still choose to work as an ECEC staff (Figure 8.3), particularly for assistants and staff with lower levels of education and less experience.
Average percentage of staff and leaders who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements:
Notes:
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Averages exclude New Zealand.
Staff responses are from the staff questionnaire and from leaders with staff duties and in one-person settings. Leader responses are from leaders without staff duties, with staff duties and in one-person settings. Answers from leaders with staff duties and in one-person settings are, therefore, included in both Panels A and B. Not all items were asked to both staff and leaders.
Statements are ranked in descending order of the average percentage of pre-primary staff who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.8.2 and Leader.43.
The day-to-day working environment that staff experience in their ECEC setting also matters for their job satisfaction and well-being. On average across countries and subnational entities for both levels of ECEC, more than 80% of staff report that they enjoy working at their ECEC setting and would recommend their ECEC setting as a good place to work (see Figure 8.3). Leaders also report high satisfaction with working at the ECEC setting. However, more than 20% of staff report that they would like to change ECEC setting if it was possible in Chile, Colombia, Japan, Morocco and Türkiye at the pre-primary level and in Ireland and New Brunswick (Canada) in settings for children under age 3. This is also more likely to be the case among pre-primary staff with higher levels of education (ISCED 6 and above) compared to staff with lower levels of education (ISCED 3 or below) in Chile, Denmark and Germany (Table D.8.4).
A majority of staff are dissatisfied with their salary but satisfied with other contractual terms and autonomy in practice
In all countries and subnational entities except Colombia (pre-primary settings) and the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Zealand** (at both levels of ECEC), a majority of ECEC staff report being dissatisfied with their salary (Table 8.4). Teachers and assistants are equally likely to report dissatisfaction with their salary, except in pre-primary settings in Denmark, where assistants are more satisfied, and in pre-primary settings in Sweden and settings for children under age 3 in Israel, where teachers are more satisfied. Dissatisfaction with salary tends to grow with experience and level of education (Tables D.8.3 and D.8.4), suggesting a lack of career and salary progression in many ECEC systems. However, in a couple of countries and subnational entities, mostly for pre-primary education, the private sector seems to better align salaries with expectations, with staff being more satisfied with their salary in this part of the sector (Table D.8.5).
Percentage of staff who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who are satisfied with their salary.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.2.
Salary is only one aspect of the working conditions. Other contractual terms determine job security, which is another important reward for staff’s work. In all countries and subnational entities except for staff in pre‑primary settings in Türkiye, a majority of ECEC staff are satisfied with the other terms of their contract. Assistants tend to be equally or more satisfied with the other terms of their contract than teachers (Table D.8.2). As with satisfaction with their salary, less experienced and less qualified staff also tend to be more satisfied with the terms of their contract (Tables D.8.3 and D.8.4). In pre-primary settings in Denmark, Morocco, Sweden and Türkiye and settings for children under age 3 in Israel, a larger proportion of staff in the private sector (non-profit and for-profit) are satisfied with the terms of their contract than staff in the public sector (Table D.8.5). These are also systems where staff in the private sector are more satisfied with their salary than staff in the public sector. Pre-primary staff in Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain and those in settings for children under age 3 in Israel who voluntarily work part time are more satisfied with other terms of their contract than those working involuntarily part time (Table D.8.6).
Having some autonomy at work and control over decisions is important to face demanding situations and a heavy workload and can promote job satisfaction. Across countries and subnational entities, a large majority of staff are satisfied with the level of autonomy they have to shape their practices (Table 8.4). This is consistent with leaders indicating that pedagogical responsibilities such as decision making on daily activities, choosing which materials/toys are used, and planning assessments and monitoring children’s development are frequently shared between leaders and staff or managed by staff only (see Chapter 7).
Staff who are satisfied with their working conditions are more likely to feel valued by society
In most countries and subnational entities and for both pre-primary settings and settings for children under age 3, ECEC staff who are satisfied with their salary, with the terms of their contract and, to some extent, with their level of autonomy are more likely to feel valued by society (Table D.8.7). Salaries, contractual terms and autonomy in staff practices are aspects of working conditions that relate to the organisation and governance of the ECEC sector and can therefore contribute to the social status of the profession. They are also factors that can be changed by policies. Among the countries where percentages of staff perceiving a low prestige of the profession are the highest (Chile, Ireland, Japan, Norway and Sweden), staff who are more satisfied with their salary are also more likely to feel valued by society (in Norway this holds for settings for children under age 3 only), while in Japan and Sweden for pre-primary settings and Norway for settings for children under the age of 3, there is also a positive relationship with satisfaction with the level of autonomy. In several systems, the perceived prestige of the profession is higher when there are more staff per child in the target group, suggesting staff may feel more valued when they have sufficient resources to support their work with children.
Lack of physical resources adds to insufficient staff resources
Changes in available funding is another main hinderance to providing a quality environment for children, according to leaders in many systems (Table Leader.42). In some countries (Chile, Colombia and Türkiye for pre-primary), a lack or inadequacy of physical resources such as play and learning materials, indoor and outdoor spaces, and utilities further add to the lack of human resources in settings’ capacity to provide high-quality ECEC. In pre-primary settings in Morocco, inadequate physical resources is a bigger impediment to the provision of high-quality ECEC than inadequate human resources. In other countries and subnational entities, the lack or inadequacy of physical resources is a more limited issue.
When the various hindrances to providing quality ECEC are combined to look at these two main categories – the inadequacies of human and physical resources – in nearly all pre-primary systems, the greater the inadequacy of physical resources, the greater the inadequacy of human resources (Table D.8.8; due to data availability, this analysis cannot be done for settings for children under age 3). This finding points to the accumulation of insufficient resources in some ECEC settings and the need to consider staff shortages and their implications on the capacity of ECEC settings to provide high-quality experiences to the children they serve, not in isolation, but together with broader resource issues. Some countries have developed public funding schemes that put a particular focus on better aligning salaries with qualifications to attract and retain high-quality staff as part of a broader funding package for quality and equity in ECEC (Box 8.1).
Developing consistent policies to raise the status of the early childhood education and care (ECEC) profession can be particularly difficult when many responsibilities are at the subnational level of government or when a large share of settings are privately managed and the government has limited levers to influence wages.
In Germany, where ECEC responsibilities lie with the federal states, the national government has introduced a law including bilateral agreements with states for measures subsidised by the national government to initiate a common quality framework in ECEC, with a mandatory focus on workforce issues. In particular, states have strengthened the practical component in the vocational education and training programme to become an ECEC teacher by almost equalising training and lessons hours. The practical component takes place in ECEC centres, is remunerated, and includes supervision and coaching to support skills development. As part of the bilateral agreements, states can also receive national funding to develop additional training for existing and already trained ECEC staff (German Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, n.d.[12]).
In New Zealand, ECEC settings are privately managed. There used to be large variations across settings in staff and leaders’ salaries and qualifications. Now, the Ministry of Education allocates funding to ECEC settings with a rate for the subsidy that depends on a range of criteria, including the percentage of certificated teachers, their levels of qualification and the adoption of the “certificated teacher pay levels”. The certificated teacher pay levels are minimum salary scales and salary progressions for teachers; applying these scales gives ECEC settings the right to receive funding from the ministry. Salary scales depend on the qualification, roles and experience of staff and leaders. The policy has led to a better alignment of wages with experience, qualifications and roles, while also raising the share of certificated teachers in ECEC settings (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2024[13]).
Working in ECEC is generally considered to be intrinsically rewarding, as reflected by high levels of job satisfaction in all participating countries and subnational entities, but to also be emotionally and physically demanding (Heilala et al., 2021[7]). Physical demands in the ECEC job are known to be frequent, particularly for staff working with the youngest children, including, for instance, lifting and carrying children. Low emotional well-being such as stress and mental health issues and physical health problems related to work are of particular concern, as they can lead to disengagement with the work and lower quality interactions with children.
TALIS Starting Strong provides a rich set of indicators on emotional and physical well-being, including the level of stress that staff and leaders experience in their work, whether the job negatively impacts their mental and physical health, and which aspects of the job are sources of stress. This section presents this information.
Staff’s levels of stress vary widely across systems, but only a small majority of staff consider that the job leaves time for their personal life
Across systems, percentages of staff who report experiencing stress in their work are the lowest in pre‑primary settings in Colombia and Israel (with less than 20%), the highest in Germany for both levels of ECEC (more than 75%), and around 40% in several countries and subnational entities (Figure 8.5). In most countries and subnational entities, large percentages of leaders also report experiencing stress at work, ranging again from around 20% in Colombia (pre-primary) to more than 80% in Germany (both levels of ECEC) (Table Leader.44). There are also large variations in the percentages of staff reporting that their job leaves them time for their personal life, but in some countries and subnational entities, this is the case for a minority of staff. In pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia and Japan, and in those for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), large percentages of staff indicate not having time for their personal life while average working hours are long (see Chapter 4). In several countries and subnational entities, staff who work part time are more likely than those working full time to report that the job leaves time for their personal life and less likely to report experiencing stress (Table D.8.9). However, countries and subnational entities with high shares of staff reporting that their job leaves time for their personal life are not necessarily those that have low shares of staff who experience stress in their work. For instance, Germany has the highest percentages of staff reporting stress in both levels of ECEC, but also among the highest percentages of staff reporting having time for their personal life, which underlies that the number of working hours is only one of the drivers of stress.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 also asks ECEC staff whether their job negatively impacts their mental and physical health. In one group of countries and subnational entities, less than 20% of staff report adverse impacts on health, but percentages are above 30% in Denmark (pre-primary) and Germany (both levels of ECEC), as well as in Ireland for the impact on their mental health in settings for children under age 3. Reporting physical health consequences is slightly more common than reporting mental health consequences but the two are highly correlated (Table D.8.10). This is consistent with evidence that ECEC staff tend to experience challenges in both psychological and physical well-being simultaneously (Kwon et al., 2021[14]).
Percentage of ECEC staff who report that the following statements apply “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.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentages of staff who report that the job leaves time for personal life “quite a bit” or “a lot”.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.11.
Main sources of stress relate to lack of capacity, resources and time as well as aspects of the work that are specific to children’s development, well‐being and learning
Lack of capacity, resources and time is an important source of stress. In all participating countries and subnational entities except Colombia, Morocco and New Zealand** in pre-primary settings and Israel for both levels of ECEC, having too many tasks to do at the same time is among the most frequently reported sources of stress by ECEC staff (Table 8.2). In settings for children under age 3, having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff is a main source of stress except in Israel. At the pre-primary level, this is also the case in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Having too much work related to documenting children’s development or too much administrative work are also highly frequent sources of stress. These findings point towards heavy workloads and multitasking being stressful working conditions. As staff who spend more time on documenting children’s development are also more likely to frequently engage in practices that support children’s development (see Chapter 4 and Tables D.5.3 and D.5.4), reserving time for these activities seems important, particularly for teachers who are more likely than assistants to report this task being a source of stress (Table D.8.12).
Several aspects of the work specific to children’s development, well‐being and learning are also major sources of stress. Accommodating children with special education needs is a widely reported source of stress for pre-primary staff in most countries, but somewhat less so for staff working with children under age 3, except in Quebec (Canada). Managing classroom/playgroup/group behaviour is also a frequent source of stress for large percentages of staff in most countries and subnational entities. Having too many children in the group is the main source of stress in Norway (both levels of ECEC) and Sweden (pre-primary).
Percentage of staff who report that the following is “quite a bit” or “a lot” a source of stress
* 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.
Within each country and subnational entity, areas of sources of stress reported by the largest percentages of staff are indicated in darker shades and those reported by the smallest percentages of staff are indicated in white. Sources of stress reported by intermediate percentages of staff are indicated in intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.12.
Lack of resources and time strongly relates to staff’s level of stress and its impact on their well‑being
In all countries and subnational entities and for both levels of ECEC, the two categories of sources of stress (lack of capacity, resources and time and aspects related to children’s development, well-being and learning) relate to the level of stress and its impact on well-being, with the relationship being particularly strong for aspects related to capacity, resources and time (Figure 8.6). In addition, in several countries and subnational entities, staff with less than ten years of experience are more likely than staff with more experience to report overall stress and impact on their well-being, independently from being particularly affected by these two main categories of stress (Table D.8.13).
Change in the scale of level of stress and its impact on staff’s well‐being associated with a one-unit change in each of the two scales of the two main categories of sources of work stress
* 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 of the scale of level of stress and its impact on staff’s well‐being in the two categories of sources of stress. 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 the scale of the level of stress and the scale of “sources of stress: aspects related to capacity, resources and time”.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.13.
Retaining staff in the sector is a key lever to address staff shortages. Staff shortages increase the workload for existing staff, which can be a source of stress and affect staff health, leading to absences that in turn exacerbate the initial problem (Hale-Jinks, Knopf and Knopf, 2006[15]). Retaining staff allows them to gain experience and develop skills, which can lead to richer interactions with children (see Chapter 4). In addition, high staff turnover that generally accompanies staff shortages disrupts children’s attachment to ECEC staff (Howes and Hamilton, 1992[16]). Research shows that dissatisfaction with working conditions, such as low salary, responsibilities and weak relationships with colleagues at the workplace can be key reasons staff leave their jobs (Wells, 2015[17]).
TALIS Starting Strong asks ECEC staff about the factors that can cause them to consider leaving the ECEC staff role in the next five years. This section presents that information and discusses the relationship between considerations for leaving their role, temporarily or permanently, and satisfaction with working conditions and level of stress.
Attending to family responsibilities and working in a job not in the ECEC sector are the most likely reasons for staff to leave their role
In a majority of countries and subnational entities and at both levels of ECEC, attending to family responsibilities is among the reasons to leave the ECEC staff role reported by the largest percentages of staff, particularly among those younger than 49 years old (Table 8.3). This might reflect the high likelihood of maternity leave, as well as other types of leave related to caring for family members linked to a highly feminised workforce and suggests that ECEC staff consider leaving their role only temporarily rather than permanently, which is a positive signal that aligns with generally high levels of job satisfaction. However, it can also translate into a high risk of absences in the sector due to family reasons.
On a more negative note, working in a different job not in the ECEC sector is another main possible reason to leave the profession across participating countries and subnational entities, except for pre-primary staff in Colombia, Morocco and Spain and to some extent Germany for both levels of ECEC. In these first three countries, becoming a teacher in a primary school or above is a likely reason to leave the role, as it is also for staff in settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada). Becoming an ECEC setting leader is not a highly likely reason to leave the staff role in any of the systems, although this is more likely for teachers than assistants in several systems (Table D.8.14). These findings might suggest that clear career pathways to stay in the ECEC sector are not well established in at least some of the participating countries and subnational entities (see also Chapter 2). Resolving mental or physical health-related issues is another likely reason to leave the staff role in many countries and subnational entities, particularly for staff at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany. In settings for children under age 3, attending to family reasons or solving health issues are the most likely reasons to leave the job, except in Norway and Quebec (Canada), which relates to the above finding that, having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff is a main source of stress, as these likely reasons to leave the job can create temporary absences.
Percentage of staff who indicate the following as a “likely” or “highly likely” factor to leave the ECEC staff role in the next five years
* 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 question was not administered in Sweden.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
The shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of reasons to leave the ECEC staff role. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported reasons to leave the ECEC staff role are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported reasons to leave the ECEC staff role are indicated in white. Reasons to leave the ECEC staff role reported by intermediate percentages of staff are indicated in intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.15.
Staff who experience more stress are more likely to consider leaving the role for physical and mental health issues
In almost all ECEC systems, staff who report a higher level of stress are more likely to report that resolving physical and mental health-related issues is a reason to leave the role in the next five years, even after accounting for other individual and setting-level characteristics (Figure 8.7). This is particularly the case for leaving to resolve mental health issues. In addition, staff who report more stress are also more likely to consider leaving the role for a different job not in the ECEC sector (Table D.8.16). Other studies have found that ECEC teachers’ higher reports of stress and emotional exhaustion are associated with their intention to leave the sector rather than stay (Grant, Jeon and Buettner, 2019[18]). These findings highlight feedback loops through stress that can exacerbate staff shortages: staff shortages are a source of stress which have an impact on the level of stress, while staff who are more stressed are more likely to consider leaving the sector for health issues. Policies to mitigate ECEC staff stress, which are discussed at the end of this chapter, are, therefore, crucial.
Odds of staff considering it “likely” or “very likely” to leave the ECEC staff role for mental or physical health issues, associated with a one-unit change in the scale of the level of stress and its impact on well-being
* 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 two multivariable logistic regression models linking: 1) staff reporting it is “likely” or “very likely” they would leave the ECEC staff role to resolve mental health-related issues; and 2) staff reporting it is “likely” or “very likely” they would leave the ECEC staff role for physical health-related issues to the scale of the level of stress and its impact on well-being. Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour. For more information, see Annex C.
The question on reasons to leave the staff role was not administered in Sweden.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between the scale of the level of stress and considering leaving the profession for mental health issues.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.8.17 and D.8.18.
ECEC staff who are satisfied with their work at the ECEC setting are less likely to consider leaving the role for a different job not in the ECEC sector
In a majority of countries and subnational entities and for both levels of ECEC, ECEC staff who are satisfied with their work at the ECEC setting are less likely to consider leaving the role for a different job not in the ECEC sector (Table D.8.16). This aligns with evidence from the United States of teacher-reported poor working conditions predicting intentions to move or leave the ECEC field (Grant, Jeon and Buettner, 2019[18]). At the pre-primary level in Denmark and New Zealand**, in settings for children under age 3 in Germany and in settings for both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff who are satisfied with their salary are also less likely to consider leaving the role for a job outside the ECEC sector. The lack of relationship between satisfaction with salary and intention to leave in other systems might suggest that, for current staff, satisfaction with the working environment at the ECEC setting might, to some extent, prevail over satisfaction with salary in the decision to stay in the job.
ECEC staff who have four to nine years of experience, and to some extent novice staff, are more likely to consider leaving the role for a different job not in the ECEC sector compared to staff with more experience. This finding, which might not be specific to the ECEC sector, suggests that efforts to retain ECEC staff need to pay particular attention to early- and mid-career ECEC staff.
Various components of working conditions can be thought of as either generating demands on staff (workload, multitasking, addressing children’s diverse needs) or resources and rewards (autonomy, experience, salary) to meet these demands. Job demands require sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are, therefore, associated with certain costs for individual staff while job resources enable workers to achieve goals and deal with or face job demands (Demerouti et al., 2001[19]). According to the “Job Demands and Resources” model, a lack of reciprocity between effort and reward or resource can lead to stress. This model can help understand why similar job demands translate into different levels of stress across workers depending on other job demands and differences in resources or rewards workers may have to perform their jobs. Therefore, this model can inform policies that aim to mitigate stress and support well-being among ECEC staff (OECD, 2020[5]; Heilala et al., 2021[7]).
TALIS Starting Strong is well-suited to analyse staff’s well-being through the “Job Demands and Resources” approach as it includes information on job demands, resources and rewards as well as on the level of stress. This section discusses how various aspects of job demands and resources relate to ECEC staff stress and identifies aspects of working conditions that create demands or resources that tend to buffer against or exacerbate stress. It points to directions to mitigate stress, which relates to some of the reasons for considering leaving the staff role as discussed in the previous section.
Teachers and more educated staff are more likely to report stress, suggesting that stress increases with responsibilities
In several ECEC systems, particularly for pre-primary settings, larger percentages of teachers than assistants report being stressed in their work, that their jobs negatively impact their mental health and, to a lesser extent, their physical health (Table D.8.10). Teachers are also less likely than assistants to report that their jobs leave time for their personal life. In the same way, more highly educated staff are more likely to report stress and less likely to report having time for their personal life than less educated staff in several systems (Table D.8.19). Similar findings hold for full-time staff, who report more stress than those working part time in a number of countries and subnational entities, although in pre-primary settings in Colombia, part-time staff, particularly those who would prefer to work full time, are more likely to report stress (Table D.8.9). By contrast, few differences exist in levels of stress according to the staff’s number of years of experience (Table D.8.11). This could be the result of compensating effects: on the one hand, novice staff might be more stressed as they do not have experience to help them face job demands, on the other hand, they might have less responsibilities than more experienced staff. Overall, these findings point to stress and workload increasing with roles, educational attainment and number of working hours, which are all likely to relate to increasing responsibilities at work.
These results resonate with those that indicate that in some countries and subnational entities, staff who report a higher level of stress also report more frequent use of child-centred approaches to structuring and facilitating learning (Table D.5.3) and engagement in daily adaptive pedagogical practices (Table D.5.4). Together they suggest that some staff engage more in planning for activities with a group of children and have more responsibility to attend to a variety of children’s needs. That is, teachers, in particular, may be doing more to engage in high-quality interactions with children but are also more likely to feel stressed by the scope of these job demands. Importantly, it does not seem that staff who report higher levels of stress engage in fewer high-quality practices with children; however, given that results indicate that staff who are more stressed are more likely to consider leaving the ECEC staff role for physical and mental health‑related issues or leave the ECEC sector entirely, it is important to consider the toll on staff who have more responsibilities (Tables D.8.16, D.8.17 and D.8.18).
Multitasking and having a higher share of vulnerable children in the group are linked to higher stress in several countries, even after accounting for a range of job resources
As stress can be expected to increase with work responsibilities, it is important to understand whether the resources and rewards that ECEC staff get for and from their work counterbalance the demands related to their responsibilities. Analyses in this section consider four types of job demands: 1) multitasking; 2) having more than 10% of children with special education needs in the target group; 3) having more than 10% of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group; and 4) setting size (Table 8.4). The analysis also accounts for a large range of resources such as self-efficacy, satisfaction with the level of autonomy and with leadership that can help ECEC staff perform their work, and job rewards such as satisfaction with salary, all of which can buffer the effect of job demands against stress.
In several ECEC systems, the four types of demands are positively associated with the level of stress and its impact on well-being (Table 8.4). For instance, more multitasking is associated with higher stress and impact on well-being for staff in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway and in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium. In some countries and subnational entities (Japan, Spain and Sweden in pre-primary settings and the Flemish Community of Belgium in settings for children under age 3), the size of the ECEC setting relates positively to stress, which might capture additional workload linked to bigger settings, such as more complex administrative tasks and the fact that the number of staff per child tends to become less favourable as the size of the setting increases (see Chapter 3). Having a higher share of children with special education needs is associated with higher stress in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Ireland and Spain, and in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada). Likewise, having more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the target group is associated with higher stress in pre-primary settings in Finland and New Zealand**, in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada), and in Norway for both levels of ECEC.
Statistically significant associations between the scale of the level of stress and its impact on staff’s well‐being and job demands and resources
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only include respondents in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Note: Results show the direction of associations from a single multivariable linear regression model of the scale of the level of stress and its impact on staff’s well‐being and the list of variables indicated in the table together with additional control variables. For more information, see Annex C.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.20
Satisfaction with salary, autonomy and leadership are key resources that act as a buffer of stress
In almost all ECEC systems, satisfaction with salary, autonomy and leadership are key resources that act as a buffer of stress (Table 8.4). Self-efficacy also relates negatively to stress in many systems, particularly in settings for children under age 3, while more staff per child in the target group also acts as a buffer of stress, although only in a limited number of systems for pre-primary settings. Engagement in collaborative practices acts as a buffer only in Norway for both levels of ECEC and the Flemish Community of Belgium for settings for children under age 3. According to research, collaborative practices are, however, an important driver of work performance and they also relate to staff practices with children (see Chapter 9). The limited number of associations found in the analysis suggests that collaborative practices may often not be sufficiently developed or targeted to act as a buffer of stress. Finally, spending 10% or more of the working hours without children acts as a buffer of stress only in pre-primary settings in New Zealand**. This general lack of association might come from the fact that when dedicated time for tasks that are more easily completed without children does not exist or is too limited, staff tend to work extra hours to create time without children (see Chapter 4), which does not buffer against stress. Dedicated and paid time without children to address these tasks might be a better resource against stress but is not captured by TALIS Starting Strong 2024.
While most of the job resources considered in the analysis act as buffers of stress, as reflected in the significant negative association with the level of stress, in some countries and subnational entities, at least one of the four types of job demands remains positively associated with the level of stress when taking into account a large range of resources. This means that the resources considered in the analysis are not sufficient or not targeted enough towards staff with higher demands to fully buffer against the effect of job demands on stress.
Raise the status and incentives of the profession by ensuring that staff’s salaries are aligned with their responsibilities and better define career progressions in the ECEC sector. While job satisfaction is high, the relatively low perceived social status of the profession and the reasons selected by staff for considering leaving the profession point towards salaries and career progression being important levers for addressing staff shortages. In the presence of budget constraints, policies can aim to better define a variety of staff roles with salaries, autonomy and responsibilities increasing as staff gain experience and competencies. In Colombia, Morocco and Spain for pre-primary and to some extent New Brunswick (Canada) for settings for children under age 3, leaving the ECEC sector is not much considered a likely reason to leave the ECEC staff role while staff envisage to leave to become a leader or a primary teacher in Spain. In these countries and subnational entities, feeling valued by society is also more widespread than in others.
Ensure that staff absences do not hinder the functioning of ECEC settings. Staff absences are a major source of staff’s stress by creating extra duties and a key hindrance to the provision of a quality environment for children according to leaders, particularly in settings for children under age 3. Structural features of the ECEC sector might translate into more challenging and widespread absences than in some other sectors of activity: ECEC settings often include only a small number of staff but need to meet mandatory staff-to-child ratios and face a heavy workload; a highly feminised workforce, with women tending to bear more responsibilities for family care needs in addition to maternity leaves, might translate into more absences, particularly when working in low‑wage jobs (ILO, Statistics Department, 2024[20]; OECD, 2023[21]). Economy-wide policies that give fathers non-transferable rights to parental leave can lead to men spending more time caring for their children and thereby could reduce leave and absences among women after the arrival of children (OECD, 2025[22]). In addition, policies can ensure that absences do not disrupt work by, for instance, developing pools of replacement staff and a better or more flexible allocation of human resources across settings. In Japan and Spain where ECEC staff are predominantly women (as in other countries and subnational entities; see Chapter 2), less than 20% of pre-primary leaders indicate staff absences being a hindrance to the quality of the ECEC environment. These are also countries where having extra duties due to absent staff is not among the major sources of stress, in contrast with many other systems.
Ensure that good working conditions can balance the most demanding parts of ECEC jobs and help mitigate stress. Multitasking, having too much work related to documenting children’s development and accommodating children with special education needs are key aspects of the ECEC job but closely relate to stress. Strong leadership (see Chapter 7), enhanced collaborative practices (see Chapter 9) and increased salaries can help staff face the more demanding parts of their work and can, therefore, be targeted to settings or staff facing more complex job demands.
References
[6] Cumming, T. (2016), “Early childhood educators’ well-being: An updated review of the literature”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 45/5, pp. 583-593, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0818-6.
[19] Demerouti, E. et al. (2001), “The job demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86/3, pp. 499-512, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.
[4] European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (2023), Staff Shortages in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) – Policy Brief, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels, https://doi.org/10.2766/385.
[12] German Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (n.d.), “Federal programme “Skills Offensive” for childcare in daycare centers and all-day schools”, web page, https://www.fruehe-chancen.de/en/themen/fachkraefte-und-qualifizierung/rueckschau-bundesprogramm-fachkraefteoffensive-laufzeit-2019-bis-2022 (accessed on 1 September 2025).
[18] Grant, A., L. Jeon and C. Buettner (2019), “Relating early childhood teachers’ working conditions and well-being to their turnover intentions”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 39/3, pp. 294-312, https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856.
[15] Hale-Jinks, C., H. Knopf and H. Knopf (2006), “Tackling teacher turnover in child care: Understanding causes and consequences, identifying solutions”, Childhood Education, Vol. 82/4, pp. 219-226, https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2006.10522826.
[2] Hamre, B. and R. Pianta (2005), “Can instructional and emotional support in the first‐grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?”, Child Development, Vol. 76/5, pp. 949-967, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x.
[7] Heilala, C. et al. (2021), “Work demands and work resources: Testing a model of factors predicting turnover intentions in early childhood education”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 50/3, pp. 399-409, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01166-5.
[16] Howes, C. and C. Hamilton (1992), “Children’s relationships with child care teachers: Stability and concordance with parental attachments”, Child Development, Vol. 63/4, pp. 867-878, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01667.x.
[8] Hughes, B. et al. (2024), “Occupational prestige: The status component of socioeconomic status”, Collabra: Psychology, Vol. 10/1, https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.92882.
[20] ILO, Statistics Department (2024), The Impact of Care Responsibilities on Women’s Labour Force Participation, International Labour Organization, Geneva, https://doi.org/10.54394/lptt5569.
[14] Kwon, K. et al. (2021), “Testing a holistic conceptual framework for early childhood teacher well-being”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 178-197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.006.
[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.
[13] New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024), “9-6 Attestation of certificated teachers’ salaries”, in ECE Funding Handbook, Ministry of Education, Wellington, https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/early-learning/funding-and-financials/ece-funding-handbook/chapter-9-completing-the-rs7-return/9-6-attestation-of-certificated-teachers-salaries (accessed on 1 September 2025).
[22] OECD (2025), Paid leave for fathers: Recent OECD policy trends, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1111/JOMF.12507;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
[9] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[11] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en.
[10] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[21] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding Us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.
[5] 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.
[3] OECD (2019), Good Practice for Good Jobs in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/64562be6-en.
[17] Wells, M. (2015), “Predicting preschool teacher retention and turnover in newly hired Head Start teachers across the first half of the school year”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 152-159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.10.003.