This chapter examines the time early childhood education and care (ECEC) staff spend working in their ECEC in settings. It considers the time staff spend in direct contact with children, as well as the amount of time they allocate to additional work tasks, such as planning and preparing activities or documenting children’s development. The chapter then turns to the different practices staff use in their work to support children’s development, learning and well-being as well as to adapt to individual children’s needs and interests. The chapter also discusses associations between the time spent on different work tasks and staff practices with children.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
Working longer hours does not always translate into more time spent in direct contact with children. Working hours of full-time staff vary widely across ECEC systems, with the majority of time spent in direct contact with children. Staff in pre-primary settings in Denmark and in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) report working among the fewest total hours yet also spend a relatively great number of hours in direct contact with children. In several systems, staff who work long hours tend to spend more time planning and preparing alone, which suggests that completing such tasks contributes to staff working additional hours.
Multitasking while in contact with children is common in all systems. In all systems, most staff report carrying out a range of tasks while in contact with children; planning or preparing activities are the most common.
Across all practices staff use to support children’s development, those that can be more complicated to implement and may require more specific intention to support children’s development are often less frequently used. More reactive strategies such as responding positively to invitations from children to play or comforting upset children are more common than approaches that actively involve children, which can require more time, preparation or training, such as involving children in making plans for the day or helping children understand their feelings.
Overall, practices to support children’s social and emotional development are very common across systems, while those to support children’s literacy, and particularly numeracy, development tend to be less frequently used. Notably, literacy and numeracy practices that can be easily integrated into daily rhythms such as reading books and verbalising maths concepts in daily routines tend to be more common.
Among approaches to adapt practice to children’s individual needs, strengths and interests, giving children different activities to suit their interests is common in all systems. Recognising children’s individual interests regardless of gender and providing different activities to suit different levels of development are also common, reflecting that these are core staff practices in ECEC settings.
In some systems, spending more time documenting children’s development is associated with greater use of practices to support their development. This positive association is seen across practices but is particularly common for those that support early literacy development and adaptive pedagogical practices.
Staff in a leader or teacher role, compared to assistants or staff in other roles, report greater use of practices to support children’s development in several systems. However, these associations are less common for adaptive pedagogical practices and behaviour support practices.
The interactions and experiences children have in ECEC settings, known as process quality, directly influence their learning, development and well-being. Children in settings with more positive interactions between staff and children, or where staff provide higher quality developmental and educational activities, have higher levels of emerging literacy and numeracy skills and better behavioural and social skills (OECD, 2018[1]). Providing planned, age-appropriate activities that cover all important domains of development within a child-centred, holistic programme can be particularly effective in the short and long terms (Bleses et al., 2021[2]; Duncan et al., 2023[3]; Jenkins et al., 2018[4]; Rege et al., 2024[5]).
Understanding how ECEC staff time is used, including the extent to which they engage in meaningful interactions with children and use evidence-based practices can, therefore, help ECEC systems identify their strengths with regard to the quality of provision that children experience in ECEC. To explore this, this chapter uses data from the Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) 2024 to answer the following questions:
How much time do ECEC staff spend in direct contact with children? What other tasks are most time-intensive for staff? What tasks do staff carry out while they are responsible for supervising children?
What practices do ECEC staff use with children to support early language, literacy, numeracy, social and emotional skills development? How do ECEC staff support children’s play and exploration?
Do ECEC staff adapt their practices to children’s individual interests and needs? How do staff support children’s behaviour?
How do staff practices differ according to staff and setting characteristics?
Working in ECEC settings involves constant multitasking: balancing direct interactions with children, communication with families, and a range of planning and administrative tasks. Given these competing demands, how staff spend their time is central to supporting quality practices, as well as ensuring that their workload is not a major source of stress (see Chapter 8). Dedicating staff time to tasks such as planning activities, preparing curriculum implementation and meetings with colleagues allows staff to reflect on which practices can best support children and how to adapt approaches to children’s individual needs and interests. Likewise, taking time to record children’s development can help staff identify children who need additional supports and recognise milestones in development. However, when these tasks are excessive or their purpose is not clear, this can limit staff opportunities for meaningful engagement with children. Staff time, therefore, needs to be carefully allocated to achieve a balance that supports good process quality.
This section explores how staff use their time differently between and within countries, including the amount of time spent in contact and without contact with children. The section also discusses on which tasks (e.g. planning, documenting children’s development and participating in meetings) staff spend the most time, as well as whether staff carry out these tasks while they are responsible for supervising children.
Overall working hours vary widely across systems, as does the number of hours in contact with children
Staff were asked how many hours they spent on tasks related to their job at the ECEC setting during the most recent calendar week, including any work in the evening, on weekends or other out of settings hours, and how much time was spent with and without direct contact with children. The analysis in this section is limited to full-time staff working in a single ECEC setting, to maximise comparability between systems (Table D.4.1).
Average total weekly working hours for full-time staff vary between systems, ranging from 35-38 hours a week in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Morocco and Türkiye and in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) and up to 46-47 hours a week in pre-primary settings in Colombia and Japan and in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada) (Figure 4.2). There is also much variation in the amount of this time staff spend in direct contact with children, ranging from 25 hours per week in pre-primary settings in Colombia and Spain to 37 hours per week in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium.
Longer working hours do not always translate into more time spent with children, such as in pre-primary settings in Denmark, where staff report working fewer hours a week than in most other systems yet spend most of that time in direct contact with children. At the other extreme, staff in pre-primary settings in Colombia have some of the least contact hours with children compared to other systems, but among the highest number of overall working hours. However, in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), working hours and time with children are more closely linked: staff in both systems have among the longest working hours across countries and subnational entities, as well as the most time in direct contact with children.
In almost all systems, staff spend more time planning and preparing activities than on other tasks, aside from their work directly with children
Considering all staff, regardless of the number of hours they work, time in direct contact with children accounts for the majority of staff working time in their ECEC settings. Staff in pre-primary settings in Colombia report spending the smallest share of their work time when they are at their ECEC setting with children (68%). In contrast, this is largest (90%) in pre-primary settings in Denmark (Table D.4.2).
Average total hours spent on tasks related to the job at this ECEC setting, including outside setting hours, and in direct contact with children, during the most recent complete calendar week, according to full-time staff
* 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: Only staff who reported working full time in a single ECEC setting and a total time spent on work-related tasks of at least 15 hours per week are included.
Total staff time includes tasks that took place in the evening, on weekends or other out of classroom/playgroup/group/ECEC setting hours (including at home). Staff time spent in direct contact with children includes time when staff were responsible, alone or with colleagues, for children in the same room at the setting.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the number of hours spent in direct contact with children.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.1.
Staff were also asked how much time they spent planning or preparing activities (alone or with other staff); documenting children’s development; engaging with parents or guardians; participating in administrative or management tasks; and on routine tasks such as laundry or food preparation during the most recent work week. These activities could overlap with time spent in direct contact with children. Among these activities, staff spend the most time on planning or preparing learning activities in most systems (Table 4.1). Across countries and subnational entities, time spent on planning or preparing activities alone is the work‑related task that is the most consistently associated with staff reporting working more hours during the most recent work week (Table D.4.4). Some staff may therefore work additional hours to have sufficient time for planning and preparation. These findings underscore the importance of policies that shape the allocation of protected time for work tasks to be done without children (Box 4.1).
Average percentage of total time at this ECEC setting spent on the following activities during the most recent complete calendar week, according to staff
* 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 percentage of time for each activity is calculated out of the total time staff spend working at their ECEC setting, which is the sum of time spent in contact and without contact with children. Each activity can overlap with time spent in direct contact with children and can also take place during weekends, evenings or other hours outside the ECEC setting, including at home. The percentage of time spent planning or preparing play and/or learning activities is the sum of time spent on this task alone and with other staff.
The shading of the cells applies horizontally to the ranking of tasks within countries and subnational entities. Within each country and subnational entity, the most frequently reported tasks are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently endorsed practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff report spending time on the task during the most recent calendar week are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.3.
Finland gives early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers, but not assistants, protected time for a wide range of tasks outside their work with children, such as documenting children’s development, well-being and learning and participating in setting management and administrative tasks. However, neither teachers nor assistants receive protected time for tasks such as laundry, tidying-up, cleaning, shopping or cooking. This may be related to the fact that the Finnish ECEC curriculum outlines that food education should help children familiarise themselves with foods through the use of different senses and exploration (Kähkönen et al., 2018[6]): ECEC staff eat with children and this is considered a pedagogical activity. The food is typically provided by central kitchens in support of this pedagogical moment around meals. In contrast, in Türkiye, teachers are given protected time for the full range of activities without children covered in Finland, plus protected time for laundry, tidying-up, cleaning, shopping and cooking (OECD, 2021[7]).
In Norway, the national curriculum (Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens) (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017[8]) requires ECEC staff to spend time reflecting on their work and how this is practically applied in the setting (OECD, 2020[9]). Each ECEC centre is also required to develop an annual plan outlining, among other things, the way the learning areas are adapted to educational activities. ECEC centres, with few exceptions, have set aside five planning days per year for professional and pedagogical development for all staff where the setting is closed to children. The planning days are regulated by the main agreement between employers and employees’ organisations, both in the public and private sectors.
In Germany, through the Act on Good Early Childhood Education and Care (2019-2022) and its successor, the Childcare Quality Act (2023-2025), half of the 16 federal states in Germany have opted for government-funded measures to strengthen leadership in childcare centres (Strehmel and Viernickel, 2022[10]). Having a designated centre leader is mandatory across the federal states but the specific support measures vary, and many designated leaders also have regular duties working directly with children (see the Reader’s Guide). One focus is on expanding time resources for management and leadership tasks – for example, through mandatory minimum time budgets for these tasks (e.g. between five and seven hours per week). In some federal states, additional funding has also been invested in leadership training programmes and support for administrative duties (e.g. additional administrative staff).
Multitasking, particularly planning activities while in contact with children, is common in all systems
Staff were also asked whether they engaged in different tasks (planning activities, engaging with parents, management and administrative tasks, and routine tasks such as tidying) while in direct contact with the group of children they worked with the most on their last working day (the target group). Overall, it is common for staff to perform a variety of such tasks while in contact with children (Table Staff.38). In all systems, most staff say they plan or prepare activities alone while in direct contact with children, while most staff also report doing so with other ECEC staff in all systems except in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada). Engaging with parents or guardians while working with children is also common, with half or more staff saying they did this in nearly all systems.
The greatest variation across systems is whether staff performed routine tasks (such as laundry and food preparation) while in direct contact with children. In some systems, most notably pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia, Spain and Türkiye, this was the least common of the tasks carried out while with children. But in almost half of systems, it was the most common. In most systems, a minority of staff report conducting administrative or management tasks while with children. However, this is more common in some systems, including pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia and Türkiye. These results may reflect different approaches to incorporating such tasks into children’s learning and experiences. For example, children may benefit from observing staff carrying out everyday tasks such as cooking or tidying or participating in such tasks themselves (Box 4.1).
Young children grow and learn through play, exploration and connection with others, and thrive in environments that make space for this (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2008[11]). Through the provision of rich, enjoyable interactions and experiences, high-quality ECEC settings can support children’s well-being, development and social integration. These early years also offer a key opportunity to support more equitable long-term outcomes in all areas of children’s development – including social and emotional development, as well as early language, literacy and numeracy skills – before primary school begins (OECD, 2025[12]). There is a need to support all these areas from an early age, yet approaches to support children’s early development vary and a greater focus is placed on some areas of development compared to others across ECEC systems.
This section discusses staff reports of the different approaches and activities they use during their work week to facilitate children’s social and emotional and early literacy and numeracy development. It also captures practices to support early language development in the context of a specific group of children (the target group). TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data build a rich picture of how staff and, by extension, the children they work with, spend their time in ECEC settings.
Staff in most systems report using practices to support children’s social and emotional development more often than those to support literacy and numeracy development
Practices to support children’s social and emotional development, such as encouraging them to help each other and express their feelings, are very common in ECEC settings (Table 4.2). Across all the practices staff use during the work week in the domains of social and emotional development, play and exploration, and literacy and numeracy development, in all systems at least four of five of those most commonly used are those that support children’s social and emotional development (Tables D.4.5, D.4.6, D.4.7, D.4.8 and D.4.9). Practices to support literacy and numeracy development tend to be less common, particularly numeracy. Activities such as singing songs with numbers and playing number games tend to be among the least commonly used of all practices across participating countries and subnational entities.
Children’s social and emotional development is often prioritised in the early years as it can be foundational for other areas of learning (Denham and Zinsser, 2014[13]; Zins et al., 2007[14]). For example, children who can regulate their emotions and take turns can more easily engage with learning and build positive relationships. In addition, while social and emotional development can be influenced by experiences and environments throughout one’s life, early experiences can have the most long-term impact. At the same time, it is important that primary and secondary education build on what children have learnt during the early years. This is increasingly recognised, with such skills often included in primary and secondary curricula (OECD, 2024[15]).
Encouraging children if they help each other, encouraging sharing and comforting upset children are typically the most common social and emotional development practices
Staff were asked how often during their work week they used four different practices to support children’s social development and four to support their emotional development. Overall, supporting children’s social and emotional development is very common, with around half or more staff in all systems saying they did each of these eight practices at least daily (Table 4.2). These are also areas that staff view as among the most important for children to prepare them for life in the future (Table Staff.25).
Across all social and emotional practices, encouraging children to help each other was the most common, while more intentional strategies to support children’s emotion regulation – talking with children about feelings or helping them understand their feelings – were less common in most systems. These approaches can help children identify and understand their emotions, yet may be more time-consuming and require specific training or expertise to implement (Harrington et al., 2020[16]; Thümmler, Engel and Bartz, 2022[17]). In pre-primary settings in Colombia and Israel, staff report using all practices to support social development more often than those to support emotional development.
Among practices to support social development, encouraging children to help each other and to share are more common than encouraging them to include others or to comfort each other in many systems, particularly in pre-primary settings in Japan and Sweden, settings for children under age 3 in Germany, and in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium. ECEC has a central role in supporting young children’s opportunities to socialise outside their home contexts, with opportunities to practice prosocial skills with similar-age peers. Encouraging children to share and help one another contributes to a positive climate in ECEC settings that is likely self-reinforcing, as both staff and children benefit from this type of atmosphere. Encouraging children to include and comfort one another may be somewhat more complex to implement as frequently, although these are important strategies to foster children’s development of empathy. In terms of emotional development, staff report comforting upset children more often than talking about and helping them to understand their feelings, most notably in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany (at both levels of ECEC).
Practices to support early language development are common, particularly asking children questions to help them express their ideas
Creating environments that support children’s early language development is particularly important. Language development takes place earlier than many other domains and is foundational for high-order skills, from forging social relationships to understanding numeracy concepts. ECEC staff were asked how often they use six different practices to support children’s early language development in the target group.
Almost all staff in both levels of ECEC regularly engage in practices to support children’s language development (Table 4.3). Asking children questions to help them express their ideas was very common in all pre-primary systems and the most frequent practice in all these systems except in Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Norway. Using new words or phrasing was the least common practice in most pre-primary systems as well as in settings for children under age 3.
Encouraging children to lead conversations and asking supportive questions to encourage longer explanations were also common practices in almost all pre-primary systems. Notable exceptions are Finland and Germany, where over half of staff said they encourage children to lead conversations only occasionally or less often. In Japan, the same was true for asking supportive questions. In countries and subnational entities with data for both levels of ECEC, staff in settings for children under age 3 report encouraging children to lead conversations and asking supportive questions less often than pre-primary staff, with particularly pronounced differences in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Norway. Such differences likely reflect the less developed language skills of children under age 3 compared to children of pre-primary age and the appropriate adaptations staff make in their practices for different age groups.
Approaches to support play and exploration that intentionally build children’s agency are used less often than more reactive or observational strategies
Staff were asked how often during their work week they use three different practices to support children’s play and four practices related to child-centred planning. Across these practices, those that facilitate play are more commonly used than child-centred planning practices, particularly involving children in making plans for the day and planning activities that allow children to take the initiative (Table 4.4). These practices emphasise children’s agency and autonomy, but they may also be more time-consuming or demanding for staff to implement than more reactive or observational strategies that facilitate play. However, in pre‑primary settings in Colombia and the Flemish Community of Belgium, activities that allow children to take the initiative are among the most common, while this is the case for involving children in plans for the day in Morocco.
Responding positively to non-verbal invitations to play was one of the three most common practices in all systems except pre-primary settings in Israel and Morocco. This is particularly common in settings for children under age 3. Letting a child play alone when they are deeply engaged in play is also common in most systems, although it is among the three least common practices in pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Norway, Spain and Türkiye. This likely reflects the different role that independent play is given both culturally and in different curricula.
Practices to support literacy development tend to be used more often than those to support numeracy development
Staff were asked how often in their work week they use eight different practices to support literacy development, such as reading books or singing songs, and six practices to support numeracy development, such as playing number games and helping children to count.
Across these 14 different practices, those that support literacy development are typically used more frequently than those that support numeracy development (Table 4.5 and Table 4.6). Singing songs with children is the most common practice in all systems at both levels of ECEC, except in Finland and Sweden. Reading books is among the top three practices in around half of pre-primary systems and all systems for children under age 3, while asking questions while reading books is also common in many systems.
On the other hand, several practices to support numeracy development were among the least used practices in over half of systems: encouraging children to measure items, playing number games, singing songs with numbers, and sorting activities by shape or number. These practices may be less frequent by nature, as they are less easily integrated into daily rhythms and can require planning or use of certain equipment. Indeed, most staff in all pre-primary systems and most systems for children under age 3 say they play number games and do sorting activities by shape or number at least once a week; these activities are more likely to require specific materials. Numeracy practices that can be more easily integrated into daily activities, verbalising maths concepts in everyday routines, and helping children to use numbers or to count, tend to be more common.
Most practices to support numeracy development were much more common in pre-primary settings than in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, which aligns with the fact that there are different curriculum frameworks for the two levels of ECEC in these systems (see Annex A). These two systems are also split, such that children under age 2.5 or 3 are not in the same settings or groups as their older ECEC-age peers. As such, staff may engage less frequently in practices that involve some level of autonomy from children, such as measuring or sorting.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice once a day or more during the most recent complete calendar week
* 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 support both social and emotional development within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices for supporting social and emotional development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice once a day or more are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.4.5 and D.4.6.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice “often” or “always” with the target group
* 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 support language development within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices for supporting language development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice “often” or “always” are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.10.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice once a day or more during the most recent complete calendar week
* 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 support play and exploration within countries and subnational entities. Within each country and subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices to facilitate play and child-centred planning are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice once a day or more are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.7.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice once a day or more during the most recent complete calendar week
* 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 support early literacy development within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices for early literacy development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice once a day or more are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.8.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice once a day or more during the most recent complete calendar week
* 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 support early numeracy development within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices for early numeracy development are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice once a day or more are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.9.
Focusing and responding to the strengths and needs of children has the potential to improve the quality of ECEC experiences for all children (OECD, 2025[18]). Staff use of adaptive practices, such as offering different activities to suit children’s interests, can make ECEC settings more inclusive of children’s diverse needs, backgrounds and stages of development. Staff also need to support children to learn to play together in a group setting and support them to regulate their behaviour in accordance with group expectations.
This section discusses staff approaches to adapt their practices and support children’s behaviour while in direct contact with the group of children they worked with the most on their last working day (the target group). Results are also presented from questions which asked staff how they would typically respond in scenarios that require them to balance individual children’s interests or behaviours with planned activities or expectations for the group of children as a whole.
In all systems, most staff propose different activities to suit children’s interests while explaining how activities relate to their lives is less common in some systems
ECEC staff were asked how often they use six different approaches to adapt their practice to children’s needs and interests in the target group. Two of these approaches include how often staff explain how a new activity relates to children’s lives and provide different activities to suit children’s interests in the context of the target group. This type of intentional pedagogy is viewed as a key marker of high-quality practice in ECEC as it requires staff to blend their knowledge of child development and curricular goals with their understanding of individual children in the classroom or playgroup context (OECD, 2025[19]). In all systems at both levels of ECEC, most staff say they often or always give children different activities to suit their interests (Table 4.7). There is greater variation in whether staff explain how new activities relate to children’s lives. In most systems, a much smaller share of staff report doing this compared to giving activities to suit children’s interests. This was most notable in pre-primary settings in Denmark; settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada); and for both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, New Zealand** and Norway.
The other practices include how often staff adapted their practice to aspects of diversity among children in the target group, specifically children’s level of development, cultural or linguistic background, and gender. Use of such practices is linked with staff practices to promote awareness and acceptance of diversity among children (see Chapter 5). However, recognising children’s individual interests regardless of gender and providing different activities to suit different levels of development are often more common than adaptions for children’s cultural and linguistic background, which may reflect that the former are core practices in ECEC settings, as they apply to almost any group of children. In contrast, culturally and linguistically homogenous groups still prevail, despite increasing diversity among children in ECEC, leading to less need for staff in such contexts to adapt their practices in these areas. In addition, staff tend to report a high level of need for ongoing professional development on working with children whose home language is different than the language of the ECEC setting (see Chapter 6), suggesting staff may need more support to adapt their practices in this area.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice “often” or “always” with the target group
* 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 adaptive practices within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently used adaptive practices are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported adaptive practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice “often” or “always” are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
The “target group” refers to the group of children with whom staff worked the most on their last working day before the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.11.
ECEC staff report often showing appreciation to children behaving well, explaining rules to children and explaining why they should stop when behaviour is disruptive
ECEC staff were asked how often they use different strategies to support children’s behaviour in the target group setting. In all pre-primary systems, a large share of staff (over 70%) say they often or always show appreciation to children that behave well, explain rules to children before an activity, and explain why they should stop when their behaviour is disruptive (Table 4.8). Staff appear to adapt their strategies when working with younger children. While showing appreciation is very common in all systems for children under age 3, both explaining rules and why behaviour should stop are often used less frequently compared to settings for older children.
Dividing materials to avoid conflicts and redirecting children when they disturb other children are the least commonly used behaviour support strategies in most, but not all, systems (Table 4.8). These strategies do not directly respond to behaviours that may be challenging in a group setting. Staff may rely on them less if they feel indirect or preventative approaches are less effective in supporting children to learn how to play together. Helping children understand consequences when they do not follow rules is also less common than most other strategies in some systems, notably pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland and Sweden and in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Ireland. In Chile and Spain, however, there is little to no difference in the use of this strategy compared to showing appreciation to children who are behaving well. Colombia is the only system where helping children understand the consequences when they do not follow the rules is used more frequently than showing appreciation. These differential approaches to supporting children’s behaviour may reflect specific pedagogical approaches or beliefs about how children learn to self-regulate in group settings, versus a broader effort to support children’s behaviour using all the available strategies.
Percentage of staff who report using each practice “often” or “always” with the target group
* 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 support children’s behaviour within countries and subnational entities. Within each country or subnational entity, the most frequently reported practices for supporting children’s behaviour are indicated in darker shades. The least frequently reported practices are indicated in white. Practices for which intermediate percentages of staff reported using the practice “often” or “always” are indicated by intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
The “target group” refers to the group of children with whom staff worked the most on their last working day before the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.4.12.
When confronted with concrete scenarios, at both levels of ECEC, most staff say they would adjust their activity or plans to respond to children’s needs or interests
To better understand how ECEC staff may adapt their practices in response to children’s initiatives, they were given two concrete scenarios they might encounter when working with children in their setting and asked how likely they would be to use each of four different response strategies (Box 4.2). The discussion in this section focuses on the share of staff who said they would “probably do” or “definitely do” each option (Tables Staff.21 and Staff.22).
Scenario 1 describes a situation where, while the staff member reads a book with a group of children, a child stands up to say she can make a noise like the animal in the story. In all systems, staff are least likely to respond to this scenario with strategy 3, which asks the child to sit down and reminds the children to listen quietly (Table Staff.21). At the same time, there is much variation between systems in the consistency of this choice among staff. In Chile, Colombia, Israel, Japan, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, a broadly similar share of staff say they would use this approach as that which say they would not. Staff most consistently say they would not choose this option in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, both levels of ECEC in Germany and in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada).
The remaining options (1, 2 and 4) each acknowledge the child’s engagement with the story in different ways. Strategy 1 proposes pausing the reading activity to positively engage with the child’s interjection. Strategies 2 and 4 both continue the reading activity, suggesting they see what else the animal does in the story or pretend to be animals once it is finished, respectively. While strategy 2 tends to be the most popular choice overall, in many systems there is relatively little difference in the share of staff who say they would use each one. Notable exceptions include pre-primary settings in Japan, where strategy 1 is a less popular choice than both 2 and 4, while the opposite is seen in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium. In both levels of ECEC in Germany, strategy 4 is less popular than strategies 1 and 2.
Scenario 2 describes a shy child who enthusiastically shows the staff member a book on a topic different from that planned for the day, which he wants to share with the group. Strategy 4, which suggests reading the book later that day even though this does not fit with the plans, is often the most popular choice, with over 85% of staff saying they would do this in all systems (Table Staff.22). These responses highlight high levels of ECEC staff sensitivity and regard for children’s perspectives, key components of good quality, across the ECEC sector in participating countries and subnational entities. In all systems, a higher share of staff say they would use strategy 4 compared to strategies 1 and 3, which involve having the child put the book somewhere safe so it is not lost and suggesting to read it tomorrow, respectively. In most systems, strategy 4 is also more popular than strategy 2, which suggests reading the book the same day during a free-play activity. However, in pre-primary settings in Finland, Japan, Morocco and Türkiye and at both levels of ECEC in Germany, a similarly high share of staff say they would respond in this way compared to strategy 4.
Staff were presented with two concrete scenarios they might encounter while interacting with children in their work and asked how likely they would be to respond to each with four different response strategies. As this choice could depend on factors not covered in the scenarios, staff could say they would (or would not) do multiple strategies. Table 4.9 provides the full text of the scenarios and response strategies. These questions were not administered in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Norway and Sweden nor in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Norway.
The two scenarios and accompanying response strategies are adapted from the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, La Paro and Hamre, 2008[20]). Given the complexity of situations encountered by early childhood education and care (ECEC) staff, these scenarios and responses are intended to provide insight into staff beliefs and attitudes, complementing more traditional survey items and drawing on specific dimensions of the CLASS framework. Key CLASS dimensions reflected in these items include: sensitivity, regard for child perspective, behaviour management, concept development, quality of feedback and language modelling. Differences across ECEC systems in staff endorsement of the various strategies can reflect the relative weight placed on these different CLASS dimensions as well as differences in curricular and socialisation goals.
As discussed earlier, the practices staff use to support children’s development vary across and within systems. A key question is to better understand factors that shape these practices and can be affected by policies. To shed light on this question, this section discusses how the share of staff time spent on different tasks – preparing activities, documenting children’s development and collaborating with parents – as well as staff and setting characteristics, are associated with the use of these various practices. To synthesise the full range of practices staff use with children covered by the survey, items within each domain (social, emotional, language, play and exploration, child-centred approaches, literacy, numeracy, adaptive practices, and behaviour supports) are combined into a single indicator (or scale, see Annex C) for each of these nine domains of practices (Tables D.4.13, D.4.14, D.4.15, D.4.16, D.4.17, D.4.18, D.4.19, D.4.20 and D.4.21).
Spending a greater share of time documenting children’s development is often associated with greater use of practices, particularly those to support early literacy development and adaptive pedagogical practices
Among tasks on which staff can spend their time considered in this analysis (preparing activities alone, preparing activities with colleagues, documenting children’s development, and collaborating or speaking with parents), spending a greater share of time documenting children’s development is most often associated with greater use of different practices, as measured by the scales for each of the nine domains. This positive association with time documenting children’s development is seen in at least five systems in each of the nine domains of practices, but most commonly for early literacy development and adaptive pedagogical practices (Figure 4.3). Across all nine domains of practices, these positive associations are most consistently seen in pre-primary settings in Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, while spending more time documenting children’s development is neither positively nor negatively associated with any domains in pre-primary settings in Ireland and Sweden.
Change in the scales of staff practices to facilitate early literacy development and use of adaptive pedagogical practices associated with being in the top tertile of time spent documenting children’s development, well-being and learning
* 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 two multivariable linear regression models for staff in the top tertile within their country or subnational entity of time spent on documenting children’s development, well-being and learning compared to staff in the bottom tertile of time spent on this activity linked with: 1) the scale of practices to facilitate early literacy development; and 2) the scale of adaptive pedagogical practices. Statistically significant results are indicated in a darker colour, except for New Zealand. For more information, see Annex C.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of the strength of the association between spending a greater proportion of time documenting children’s development, well-being and learning and practices to facilitate early literacy development.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.4.17 and D.4.20.
Spending a greater share of time on planning and preparing learning activities is also associated with greater use of certain practices in some systems. Overall, planning and preparing learning activities with colleagues is more often associated with greater use of practices than doing so alone, but this varies across systems and domains of practices. In pre-primary systems in Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Spain and settings for children under age 3 in Israel, planning and preparing with colleagues is exclusively or more commonly associated with a greater use of practices than doing so alone, while the opposite is seen in Japan and settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium. In pre-primary settings in Norway, this varies across practices. On the other hand, spending a greater share of time on planning is associated with less frequent use of practices for one or two systems for each domain, highlighting that other factors (e.g. how this time is spent and whether sufficient time remains for other tasks) also matter.
Speaking or collaborating with parents is also associated with a greater use of practices in some systems. This is most common in Japan, where such positive associations are seen for almost all domains of practices, and for at least four domains of practices in pre-primary settings in Sweden and Türkiye and in settings for children under age 3 in Norway.
Greater staff experience is associated with more or less use of certain practices to support children’s development
The number of years staff have spent working in ECEC settings is associated with their use of practices to support children’s development in many systems. However, the direction of this relationship often varies across practices and systems. These differences may reflect variation in education and training over time, as well as what staff have learnt while working in ECEC settings.
Overall, having less than ten years of experience working in ECEC tends to be associated with greater use of behaviour support and language development practices, yet less use of practices to support early literacy, numeracy and emotional development. The direction of relationships between staff experience and use of practices is often consistent within systems. In Japan, having less than ten years of experience is associated with greater use of most practices. In other systems, notably pre-primary settings in Colombia, Denmark, Ireland and New Zealand**, more experience tends to be associated with more use of such practices. Ongoing professional development, whether it is to foster the use of more of such practices among staff with more experience or to have these staff share their expertise with their less experienced colleagues, has a key role to play in ensuring staff are supporting children across developmental domains throughout their careers (see Chapter 6).
Staff in a leader or teacher role report greater use of all practices compared to those in other roles in several systems, except around supporting children’s behaviour
ECEC staff who describe their role in the ECEC setting as a leader or teacher often report using more practices to support children’s development than staff who identify in other roles, including as an assistant or a member of staff responsible for specific children. This is particularly common in pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Spain and Türkiye, where being a leader or teacher is associated with greater use of at least four domains of practices. Notably, the use of adaptive pedagogical practices and practices to support children’s behaviour have the fewest associations with having a leader or teacher role. This variation may reflect differences in training provided to staff within different roles, as well as differences in the responsibilities associated with their roles.
Larger target group sizes are associated with greater use of practices to support children’s early language development and behaviour in some systems
The extent to which ECEC staff report using different practices is associated with the size of the setting, or the size of the target group, in several systems. Working with a larger target group is associated with the use of more practices to support early language development in pre-primary settings in Germany, Morocco, New Zealand** and Sweden and in settings for children under age 3 in Germany, Ireland, Israel and Norway. It is also associated with more use of practices to support children’s behaviour in pre-primary settings in Germany, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand** and Sweden and in settings for children under age 3 in Germany, Ireland and Norway. Working with larger groups of children may provide staff with more opportunities to use these practices, with more varied opportunities for supporting language development and a greater need to support behaviours that are consistent with group expectations. Notably, this association exists even when accounting for the number of staff per children in the target group, which is itself favourably associated with supports for children’s language and behaviour in some systems, although less consistently than group size.
Support staff to effectively balance their time between working directly with children and dedicating time to necessary tasks that support process quality. In many systems, spending more time on tasks such as documenting children’s development and planning activities is associated with a greater use of practices to support children’s development, suggesting that dedicating time to these activities can have a positive impact on staff practice. At the same time, staff working long hours often spend a greater share of their work time on planning, indicating that such tasks can contribute to long working hours if they are excessive. Strategies such as providing dedicated time and encouraging collaboration among staff in planning can support staff to balance their time effectively.
Support staff to intentionally use effective practices that support all domains of children’s development. Across domains of practices, some areas receive more focus than others. Practices to support social and emotional development are typically the most common practices, with those that support early literacy and numeracy development, particularly numeracy, the least common. In addition, across all domains, practices that promote children’s agency and more intentionally focus on skill development tend to be less frequently used. Removing barriers to the implementation of intentional practices, which may require more staff time or are more complicated to prepare and/or implement, or providing training for staff on implementing these types of practices, can support staff to use effective practices that target all areas of development.
Provide training opportunities for new and established staff that support them to offer children rich interactions and experiences. In many systems, the length of time staff have spent working in ECEC settings is associated with their use of practices to support children’s development. However, whether the use of these practices is more common among new or more established staff varies across practices and systems. Education and training opportunities should be available to staff of all levels of experience, ensuring that more experienced staff remain up to date with the latest research and best practices while newer staff can build the knowledge and skills needed to develop quickly into their roles as early childhood professionals.
References
[2] Bleses, D. et al. (2021), “Implementing toddler interventions at scale: The case of “We learn together””, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, pp. 12-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.04.008.
[13] Denham, S. and K. Zinsser (2014), “Social and emotional learning during early childhood”, in Encyclopedia of Primary Prevention and Health Promotion, Springer US, Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5999-6_144.
[3] Duncan, G. et al. (2023), “Investing in early childhood development in preschool and at home”, Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 6, pp. 1-91, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesedu.2022.11.005.
[16] Harrington, E. et al. (2020), “Emotion regulation in early childhood: Implications for socioemotional and academic components of school readiness”, Emotion, Vol. 20/1, pp. 48-53, https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000667.
[11] Hirsh-Pasek, K. et al. (2008), A Mandate for Playful Learning in Preschool, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382716.001.0001.
[4] Jenkins, J. et al. (2018), “Boosting school readiness: Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child?”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 65, pp. 107-125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.001.
[6] Kähkönen, K. et al. (2018), “Sensory-based food education in early childhood education and care, willingness to choose and eat fruit and vegetables, and the moderating role of maternal education and food neophobia”, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 21/13, pp. 2443-2453, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018001106.
[8] 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 (accessed on 19 November 2025).
[18] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[12] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[19] OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f49228be-en.
[15] OECD (2024), Social and Emotional Skills for Better Lives: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35ca7b7c-en.
[7] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
[9] 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.
[1] OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.
[20] Pianta, R., K. La Paro and B. Hamre (2008), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Manual, Pre-K, Teachstone.
[5] Rege, M. et al. (2024), “The effects of a structured curriculum on preschool effectiveness: A field experiment”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 59/2, pp. 576-603, https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.0220-10749R3.
[10] Strehmel, P. and S. Viernickel (2022), Bundesweite Standards zur Betreuungsrelation in der Kindertagesbetreuung: Expertise im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, https://www.fruehe-chancen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-Dateien/AG_Fr%C3%BChe_Bildung_Bericht/Expertise_Betreuungsrelation_Strehmel___Viernickel_2023_BF.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2025).
[17] Thümmler, R., E. Engel and J. Bartz (2022), “Strengthening emotional development and emotion regulation in childhood: As a key task in early childhood education”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19/7, p. 3978, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073978.
[14] Zins, J. et al. (2007), “The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Vol. 17/2-3, pp. 191-210, https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413145.