This chapter synthesises findings from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) presented in the subsequent chapters of this volume, drawing them together around three main areas to strengthen early childhood education and care: 1) activities and supports for children and their families; 2) staff’s work environment and attracting and retaining a high-quality workforce; and 3) the governance, oversight and structure of the sector that enables access to high-quality services for all children, supporting adaptability in the face of global challenges. The chapter presents key indicators and examples from countries and subnational entities to summarise the findings around these three themes.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) has the potential to address a range of goals, from supporting young children’s well-being to closing opportunity gaps and enabling parents to participate in the labour force. These outcomes for children and families are at the centre of ECEC policies. Yet delivering on the potential of ECEC requires a workforce that is equipped and motivated to meet the unique demands of facilitating young children’s development, learning and well-being. In this respect, ECEC policies also need to focus on the sector as a work environment, attracting professionals to the field and encouraging them to stay.
In the context of rapid global change, ECEC remains inherently local, with interactions between children and ECEC staff at the heart of high-quality services. Still, ECEC staff must meet the challenges associated with responding to increasingly diverse populations of children, protecting them in times of crises and uncertainty, and preparing them for the unknown challenges of the future. This scope of work requires the support of ECEC leadership and governance structures that enable strong and stable connections between staff and children and their families.
TALIS Starting Strong is the first international survey focusing on staff and leaders in ECEC. Data collection first took place in 2018 and the survey was repeated and extended to more countries in 2024; this more recent data collection is the focus of the current volume.
TALIS Starting Strong offers unique insight into the strengths and challenges of the ECEC sector directly from the perspective of those who are engaged in work with children on a daily basis. These voices from the field go beyond what can be understood from administrative data, giving perspective on multiple aspects of ECEC, including:
the types of activities and supports that children in ECEC experience every day, as well as the profiles of the staff with whom they interact and the ways families can engage with ECEC settings
the aspects of working in ECEC that staff appreciate, their opportunities for career progression and sources of work-related stress
the governance, oversight and structure of job opportunities in the sector that enable access to high-quality ECEC for all children and support adaptability in the face of global challenges.
Together, these different dimensions on which staff and leaders report about their work describe an overall ECEC system (Figure 1.1). This report presents the results of the survey, taking a forward-looking approach: the TALIS Starting Strong data collected in 2024 are used to inform strategies for strengthening ECEC systems in the face of shifting demands on the sector and short-term crises, better equipping these systems to realise the benefits of ECEC for the future. This chapter highlights selected indicators to address these goals, while the remainder of the report goes into greater detail and uses a wider range of information collected through the survey.
A central goal of ECEC is to support children and families to thrive, closing opportunity gaps across different population groups in the process. Abundant evidence highlights the potential for ECEC to achieve this goal, but positive outcomes depend on the context and features of ECEC policies (Leseman and Slot, 2025[1]; OECD, 2025[2]). Importantly, the benefits of ECEC are contingent on its quality, and staff practices with children, particularly their interactions with children and families and the supports they provide for children to interact with one another, with materials and with their communities, are at the heart of quality (OECD, 2018[3]). The interactions that ECEC staff foster are more than intuitive reactions to children’s behaviour or families’ requests; rather, high-quality interactions in ECEC settings depend on a workforce that is knowledgeable about the goals of ECEC and strategies to support children’s development, learning and well-being, as well as how to meaningfully engage with families around these goals.
Yet the breadth of areas that ECEC staff are responsible for cultivating in young children poses its own challenges as they work to address specific goals in their classrooms/playgroups (OECD, 2021[4]). Staff participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 report on how important they believe it is to develop 12 areas of skills or traits in children to prepare them for life in the future, among the many aspects of their work that are important. An overwhelming majority of staff across countries and subnational entities assigns high levels of importance across these 12 areas (see Table D.1.1 for the complete list included in the questionnaire). Nonetheless, a few skills or traits stand out as being among the top three in all countries and subnational entities, for both levels of ECEC: 1) self-care skills (e.g. feeding themselves, hygiene, dressing); 2) the ability to communicate and co-operate with others; and 3) the ability to understand and manage one’s own emotions.
The importance that ECEC staff assign to these skills is reflected in the fact that in all systems, practices to facilitate children’s social and emotional development are among those that staff use most often, particularly compared with practices to support early literacy or numeracy (see Chapter 4). Physical and motor skills as well as joy for exploration and learning also tend to be strongly endorsed by nearly all staff in most countries and subnational entities as important to develop in young children. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 sheds light on the many ways that staff deliver strong ECEC services to children and families, supporting children’s development across the breadth of areas they view as important to their work and, more generally, promoting children’s well-being.
ECEC staff spend most of their time in direct contact with children and often perform a range of other tasks, including planning and preparing activities, at the same time
In all systems, staff spend at least 68% of their work time in direct contact with children, and engaging in other tasks while in contact with children is common in all systems (see Chapter 4). In addition to their work with children, planning or preparing activities for children takes the most amount of ECEC staff’s time, often taking place at the same time as work with children. In pre-primary settings in Spain and Türkiye, settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Zealand**, and at both levels of ECEC in Ireland and Norway, large percentages of staff – more than three-quarters – indicate that they adapt daily activities to children’s natural rhythms on at least a daily basis, highlighting that simultaneously planning and working with children is at the core of ECEC staff’s work (Table 1.1, Indicator 1.1). On the other hand, 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.
ECEC staff need flexibility and resources to adapt activities in the moment in response to children’s levels of engagement, interests and varying levels of development. This type of flexibility is often recognised as reflecting high-quality ECEC for children under age 3, but is also an important tool for supporting children in pre-primary settings, where staff in some contexts may feel too constrained by programme or curricular requirements to implement such responsive practices (Pereira et al., 2025[5]). Although ECEC staff must be flexible to plan and adapt activities during their work with children, being prepared for this type of dynamic working requires that staff also have time to reflect and plan outside of their work with children. The prevalence of planning while in direct contact with children and longer working hours among staff who spend more time planning and preparing on their own, may reflect that not all staff have adequate paid planning time (see Chapter 4).
Post-secondary education among ECEC staff ensures broader coverage of topics relevant to work with children, but is not guaranteed in most systems
Many countries and subnational entities have a mix of teachers and assistants working directly with children in ECEC settings, whereas other countries and subnational entities rely primarily on teachers with limited use of support staff or formal role differentiation within settings (see Chapter 2). Teachers and assistants often have different education and training requirements, creating mixed profiles of preparation to work with children within countries and subnational entities. Ireland and Spain are examples of systems with very different approaches to ECEC provision and staff training, but nonetheless both have staff who are well prepared through their initial education and training programmes. Ireland’s workforce (for both pre‑primary and settings for children under age 3) is a mix of teachers and assistants, as well as a mix of levels of staff education. In contrast, Spain’s pre-primary workforce is composed primarily of teachers, staff for individual children and staff for special tasks, nearly all (99%) of whom have at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent (ISCED level 6 and above). Despite the different roles and education profiles, in both Ireland and Spain, over 98% of staff had training specifically to work with children before beginning their jobs as ECEC staff that almost universally (over 90%) included a practical component. Importantly, in both Ireland and Spain, the number of ECEC staff who report their highest level of education is above secondary schooling (ISCED level 4 or higher) is among the highest across all countries and subnational entities represented in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 (Table 1.1, Indicator 1.2).
Countries and subnational entities need to ensure all ECEC staff are prepared for their jobs through post-secondary training that includes a practical component and opportunities for professional development. Staff who have completed post-secondary education have covered a greater breadth of topics relevant for working with children. This greater exposure to relevant content is associated with higher levels of self-efficacy, which, in turn, is associated with lower levels of work-related stress (see Chapters 6 and 8). In addition, practical training is critical for developing ECEC staff capacity to engage in high-quality interactions with children and allows them to see how the skills they are learning can apply in practice (OECD, 2021[4]). Beyond initial education, professional development helps staff remain up-to-date on new developments and bridge gaps in knowledge and skills, which benefits children and families: Staff engagement in collaborative practices and participation in job-embedded training and collaborative learning are consistent predictors of staff’s practices with children that are central to supporting their development, learning and well-being (see Chapters 6 and 9). Ultimately, strong preparation for future ECEC staff together with opportunities for professional development for existing staff can increase their commitment to the field, as more educated staff also tend to have more years of experience in the ECEC sector (see Chapter 2).
Staff need more support to work with children along different dimensions of diversity, particularly those with special education needs
In all countries and subnational entities, a majority of ECEC staff report working with at least one child whose home language is different from the main language used in the ECEC setting, highlighting the diversity of families with whom ECEC staff work (see Chapter 5). Leaders in most pre-primary systems report that they make efforts to employ ECEC staff that are representative of the diverse backgrounds of the children and families served (Table 1.1, Indicator 1.3); however, there is generally no link between the use of practices to engage families in ECEC settings and the prevalence of children with diverse characteristics in the setting, in terms of languages spoken at home, socio-economic status or children’s special education needs. This may be related to the fact that working with children from diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds or whose home language is different from the main language used in the ECEC setting are not among professional development topics staff typically covered in the year prior to the survey (see Chapter 6). These are areas that were also generally less covered in staff’s initial education but rank high among the areas where staff report a need for ongoing training. Notably, staff report particular needs for more financial and training resources to support children with special education needs (see Table D.1.2 and Chapters 5 and 6). Working with parents or guardians is somewhat more common, both as a topic of recent professional development and in initial education, particularly among staff in settings for children under age 3; ongoing training in this area is not among staff’s or leaders’ priorities in most systems.
Tailoring family engagement strategies can better support the needs of more diverse children and families in ECEC settings. Engagement with families is an important tool for promoting equity, helping all children to benefit from high-quality interactions between their ECEC and home settings for smoother transitions and continuity of supports between these two contexts. In many ways, ECEC staff are at the forefront of demographic change within countries, with important responsibility for working with families and children from a range of socio-economic, migration and language backgrounds. Staff and leaders in Chile report the use of a wide range of practices to engage with families, from encouraging play and learning activities at home (Table 1.1, Indicator 1.4) to visiting families at home and offering workshops for parents. This range of engagement with families can help ECEC staff identify and support emerging educational needs for young children, ensuring they receive targeted support before the start of primary school. In addition, in Chile nearly three-quarters of staff received recent training on working with children with special education needs (Table 1.1, Indicator 1.5). The fact that ECEC staff and settings are neither doing more to engage with families when they serve more children with a different home language, from socio-economically disadvantaged homes or with special education needs, nor are they doing less to engage with families in contexts of greater diversity can be a missed opportunity for ECEC to support vulnerable children through stronger links with families in contexts of greater diversity (see Chapter 5).
Stronger co-operation between ECEC settings, schools and social services can better support children’s development in multiple areas
In just 5 of the 15 pre-primary systems and 2 of 8 systems for children under age 3 do a majority of ECEC setting leaders report that consultation with child development specialists (e.g. speech therapists, psychologists) takes place at least monthly (Table 1.1, Indicator 1.6; see Chapter 9). These types of consultations, which can support staff in their work with children and engage families around their children’s specific needs, are more prevalent in pre-primary settings in Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain. Contact with primary schools is also highest in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain, the two systems where pre-primary settings are most often co-located with primary schools (see Chapter 3). Notably, systems seem to prioritise either staff and leader work directly with families, such as in Chile, or leaders’ co-operation with other institutions and services, but not both engagement with families and co-operation with other stakeholders simultaneously.
Co-ordinated policies across ECEC and other sectors can situate ECEC at the centre of aligned efforts to support families and children in their early years, thereby enhancing investments across these areas. Co-operation between ECEC settings and other services (e.g. health, family or social) can support children’s development and well-being through multiple channels, including facilitating families’ access to networks of co-ordinated services (OECD, 2025[2]). Likewise, building a clear continuum of services to support children as they transition from ECEC to primary school (as well as from one ECEC setting to another, particularly in split systems; see Annex A) can be vital to improving services at both levels and facilitate transitions for the most vulnerable children. ECEC staff report widespread use of practices to support children’s social and emotional development, but more limited practices to support children’s early literacy and particularly numeracy skills (see Chapter 4). Co-ordination with primary schools can help ECEC staff better integrate these types of learning opportunities into their practices in ways that are well adapted to young children. Although these different means of co-operating with schools and other sectors cannot replace engagement between families and ECEC settings, they can be an important complement that is not widely developed in many systems.
* 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: Within each indicator, the percentages indicating the most favourable outcomes across countries and subnational entities (with the exception of New Zealand**) within each level of ECEC are indicated in darker shades and the percentages indicating the least favourable outcomes are indicated in white. Intermediate percentages are indicated in intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.2.6, D.4.7, D.5.7, D.5.13, D.9.1 and Staff.16.
Another key feature of strong ECEC is to attract and retain a highly qualified and motivated workforce. The connections children and families have with ECEC staff and leaders hinge on having a sufficient pool of skilled, motivated and consistent personnel in ECEC settings. As in most sectors, motivation to join and stay relies on a complex balance between interest in the job; personal, financial and societal rewards; and opportunities for skills development and career progression on the one hand and job demands such as workload and other aspects of the job that can lead to stress and low physical and emotional well-being on the other. The context in the field of ECEC is somewhat tilted toward strong commitment and intrinsic rewards as opposed to high external rewards.
However, similar to the overall education sector and other social and health services, the ECEC sector faces difficulties in securing the needed workforce. The combination of strong job satisfaction alongside challenges for the functioning of the ECEC sector related to staff shortages are key and consistent messages emerging from both leaders and staff participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024. ECEC staff absences and staff shortages are key hindrances to the quality of the ECEC environment according to leaders (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.1). By creating extra duties, particularly in settings for children under age 3, staff absences are a source of stress for large percentages of staff and leaders (see Chapter 8). Insufficient staff to fill in for absent staff is also the main barrier for participating in professional development in almost all countries and subnational entities and for both levels of ECEC (see Chapter 6). Lowering entry requirements to some jobs in the ECEC sector is not a solution for addressing staff shortages. Staff in a leader or teacher role, compared to those who are assistants or in other roles, report greater use of practices to support children’s development in several systems (see Chapter 4), illustrating the importance of a high-skilled workforce to support children’s development. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 sheds light on directions to better attract and retain a qualified ECEC workforce.
While job satisfaction is high and staff feel valued by parents and children, staff who are considering leaving their role are likely to leave the ECEC sector entirely
Most ECEC staff and leaders are satisfied with their jobs (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.2) and feel valued by parents and children. Feeling valued by society is less common, although the perceived prestige of the profession is generally higher than for other levels of education (see Chapter 8). The social prestige of the profession is hindered by dissatisfaction with salary, but supported by other contractual arrangements and the level of autonomy staff have to shape their practices. Dissatisfaction with salary and lower perceived prestige of the profession are greater among staff with more experience and education. When asked about the possible reasons to leave their role, in most countries and subnational entities, staff indicate leaving the ECEC sector as one of the main reasons, particularly in settings for children under age 3, while becoming an ECEC leader is not a likely reason. These results suggest that opportunities for career progression are not well established in many countries and subnational entities, pointing to a risk of ECEC staff, particularly the most educated ones, leaving their role.
Organising career pathways is a key strategy to better attract and retain staff but needs to account for differences in the organisation and structure of ECEC sectors. In systems that rely mainly on teachers, rather than a mix of staff categories (e.g. assistants, specialised staff), the teacher role can be developed to include different levels of responsibilities. Shared decision making is associated with stronger satisfaction with leadership; teachers can benefit from more opportunities to take on aspects of leadership themselves as they advance in their careers (see Chapter 7). In systems with a mix of teachers and assistants, establishing career pathways for assistants is also important.
The age structure of staff also matters. At the pre-primary level in Japan, Morocco and Türkiye; in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada); and in both levels of ECEC in Germany and Ireland, where there are higher shares of staff under age 30, retaining staff through a stable and stimulating working environment, as well as clear career pathways, is a key policy area (see Chapter 2). In systems where 25% or more of staff are aged 50 or older, such as at the pre-primary level in Colombia, Denmark, Finland, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Spain and Sweden; settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand**; and both levels of ECEC in Israel and Norway, efforts need to simultaneously focus on attracting new staff through competitive contract terms and encouraging more experienced staff to stay in the sector through ongoing opportunities to develop in their careers and buffering against high levels of work-related stress. In pre-primary settings in Colombia and in both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Zealand**, most staff are satisfied with their salary, highlighting that it is possible to make the profession attractive. However, attention is also needed to ensure that satisfaction with salaries is not driven by a prevalence of staff with low qualifications, who tend to have lower salary expectations.
Job-embedded training and collaborative learning can support career progression and strong practices with children but are less common than traditional forms of learning
Ongoing training and collaboration can play a role in keeping knowledge up-to-date and preparing for career advancement. While engagement in ongoing training is widespread, job-embedded training that is directly tied to everyday work in ECEC settings such as coaching, induction programmes and planned visits to other ECEC settings are less common than traditional forms of training (e.g. courses). Collaborative practices between leaders and staff are common (see Chapter 7). Job-embedded training and collaborative learning are also well aligned with features of ongoing professional development that are particularly effective, such as active learning and coherence with staff’s knowledge and experience (see Chapter 6). However, collaborative practices around pedagogical aspects of staff’s work do not appear to be a key resource that buffer staff from stress, which suggests that they are not sufficiently developed or targeted (see Chapter 8). The Flemish Community of Belgium and Sweden at the pre-primary level and New Zealand** for both levels of ECEC have high percentages of staff that participate in job-embedded training and collaborative learning (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.3), and regularly co-design activities or content for children with colleagues (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.4). These findings indicate a strong culture of on-the-job and collaborative learning among staff.
Staff and children would both benefit from greater supports for job-embedded training and for strengthening collaborative practices. As a lack of staff to fill in for absences is a major barrier for staff to participate in professional development (see Chapter 6), job-embedded training and collaborative learning are a promising avenue for developing staff competencies in the context of staff constraints since they can be flexibly integrated into staff’s daily routines and can sometimes happen when staff are working with children. Nonetheless, collaboration between leaders and staff is less common in settings facing staff shortages (see Chapter 9), indicating that although they are more flexible, these practices require time and resources. These results point to the importance of supporting collaborative and on-the-job learning practices through innovative leadership practices (see below) together with adequate staffing in settings and dedicated time for activities without children, including in teams. In Germany and New Zealand** (both levels of ECEC) as well as in Japan (pre-primary), a majority of staff receive release from work with children during regular working hours to participate in professional development (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.5).
Staff who experience more stress are more likely to consider leaving the ECEC staff role for mental or physical health issues
In all countries and subnational entities, staff who experience more stress are more likely to consider leaving the ECEC staff role for mental or physical health issues, but also for a job outside the ECEC sector (see Chapter 8). Furthermore, analyses presented in this report find a positive link between staff stress and the use of child-centred approaches to planning for activities with children in some countries and subnational entities, suggesting that staff who invest more in fostering children’s development also face a heavy emotional burden. The main sources of stress reported by staff include: having too many tasks to do at the same time; having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff, particularly in settings for children under age 3; and accommodating children with special education needs, particularly in pre-primary settings. More than 60% of staff report that having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff is a source of stress in pre-primary settings in Denmark and in settings for both levels of ECEC in Germany and Norway while this is reported by less than 20% of staff in pre-primary settings in Colombia and Spain (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.6).
Addressing ECEC staff stress is crucial to retain staff in the sector, particularly those who do a lot to enhance their work with children. Multitasking and a higher share of vulnerable children (i.e. with special education needs or from low socio-economic backgrounds) in the group are particularly linked to higher staff stress in several systems, even after accounting for a range of job resources (see Chapter 8). Satisfaction with salary, with the autonomy to shape their practices and leadership are key resources that buffer staff from stress. These results point to approaches that aim to develop professional development, collaborative practices and leadership (see below) together with improved working conditions, particularly for ECEC settings or staff who work in challenging environments. For instance, with growing concerns about children’s mental health and increased recognition of the vital role of early interventions, combining strategies to buffer ECEC staff from stress can help them better navigate inclusive practices for children with special education needs in ECEC settings.
* 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:
Within each indicator, the percentages indicating the most favourable outcomes across countries and subnational entities (with the exception of New Zealand**) within each level of ECEC are indicated in darker shades and the percentages indicating the least favourable outcomes are indicated in white. Intermediate percentages are indicated in intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.6.3, D.6.10, D.8.1, D.8.2, D.8.12, D.9.4.
ECEC takes place across a wide range of settings; with a mix of public and private management; various sources of funding; settings located in homes, schools and dedicated ECEC centres; and oversight from different levels of governance (see Chapter 3). These complexities require tailored approaches to define and monitor quality, as well as to support ongoing quality improvement and preparedness for the future.
After staff absences and shortages, according to leaders, changes in funding are considered to be one of the main hindrances to an ECEC setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for children (Table D.1.3 and Chapter 8). Average expenditure on ECEC has increased in OECD countries in the last decade; however, both the changes in and levels of expenditures are highly variable across countries (OECD, 2025[2]). While increased government support for ECEC is positive overall, evolving investments and priorities can create challenges for the sector to adapt and build sustainable strategies to deliver high‑quality ECEC for children and their families, as well as for attracting and retaining a high-quality workforce (Farquharson, 2025[6]).
In addition, a strong foundation for ECEC for children, families and the workforce relies on more than just funding: Building a structure that is robust enough to promote equitable access and quality across different parts of the system while remaining responsive to local needs, changing demographics, and sudden shocks and crises is a central challenge across levels of ECEC governance. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 gives insight into features of ECEC system organisation from the perspective of leaders, as well as aspects of leadership that underpin high-quality, equitable services for children and families. The survey also offers insight into the staffing structures and challenges for the ECEC sector, with a workforce that lacks gender parity, reflecting historic views of childcare as women’s work.
Public and private ECEC settings differ in the children and locations served, and in some aspects of quality
In all countries and subnational entities, ECEC leaders report a mix of public and private setting management (see Chapter 3). These different types of settings are not equally distributed, with more public than private settings in rural areas and in neighbourhoods rated as less favourable by leaders in several countries and subnational entities. Leaders in public settings in many systems also report less adequate physical space (e.g. ventilation, background noise) for their ECEC settings compared with their colleagues in private settings. In a few countries and subnational entities, leaders in public settings also report less communication with families than their colleagues in private settings (see Chapter 9). In addition, in many systems, public ECEC settings serve higher shares of vulnerable children, for example children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes (Table 1.3, Indicator 3.1), from migrant backgrounds, whose home language is different from the language used at the ECEC setting and those with special education needs. On the other hand, leaders in public and private settings generally report similar levels of external monitoring, such as to ensure facilities meet health and safety requirements, regulations are being followed, and to assess the quality of interactions with children (i.e. process quality; Table 1.3, Indicator 3.2). An exception in some countries and subnational entities is financial monitoring (e.g. audits), which is more common for private ECEC settings than for public ones, reflecting their different funding profiles and, in some cases, profit goals (see Chapters 3 and 9).
Countries and subnational entities need to ensure quality and equal access to ECEC in the presence of private provision and allocate sufficient resources to public settings given their greater share of vulnerable children. Private ECEC provision can be essential to expand the ECEC supply, allowing more children to participate in these programmes; however, policies need to be designed to ensure that the combination of private and public provision does not lead to inequality in access to or the quality of ECEC. This is particularly important as, in several ECEC systems, both public and private settings, including for-profit ones, receive funding from the government (see Chapter 3), reflecting that governments build on both types of provision to achieve equity and quality goals. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 findings echo those of other studies, highlighting that public and private provision are often operating in very different contexts within the same systems. However, in the Flemish Community of Belgium for both levels of ECEC, pre-primary settings in Norway, and settings for children under age 3 in Germany and Quebec (Canada), there are no apparent differences in the geographical distribution and structural features of quality between publicly and privately managed settings. In addition, at both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany, no differences are found in the shares of vulnerable children in these two types of ECEC settings. In other countries where publicly managed settings enrol higher shares of vulnerable children, policies can focus on ensuring that these settings have sufficient and targeted resources to provide quality ECEC through adequate staffing levels with a well-trained workforce; stronger co-operation between ECEC settings and health, family and social services; and good engagement with families, as discussed in previous sections.
Leaders support staff’s high-quality practices with children and mitigate their stress, yet need more support themselves, including through streamlined administrative processes and regulations
Both staff satisfaction with leadership and their engagement in professional collaborative practices, which are shaped by their collaboration with leaders, are associated with staff’s use of more high-quality practices with children (see Chapters 7 and 9). Satisfaction with leadership is also a key resource that buffers staff from stress (see Chapter 8). Yet there is wide variation across countries and subnational entities in the proportion of leaders who regularly provide feedback to staff (Table 1.3, Indicator 3.3), which could act as a driver of internal quality improvement practices. This type of leadership responsibility likely benefits from specific training to implement, but initial training on human resource management is only relatively common in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Morocco, Sweden and Türkiye, where about 75% or more of leaders report having covered this topic. Furthermore, in most countries and subnational entities, participation in collaborative forms of professional development, such as coaching, is limited among leaders. At the same time, a majority of leaders report needing greater support from local, regional or national authorities (Table 1.3, Indicator 3.4), and high percentages of them report that having too much administrative work to do and keeping up with changing requirements from authorities as main sources of stress. These findings indicate that governance features of the ECEC sector create challenges for leaders.
Providing leaders with high-quality professional development opportunities and effective administrative processes and regulations can help them attend to all aspects of their job. Training on key leadership areas can build their capacity to provide feedback and guide pedagogical practices among staff, ultimately improving quality for children and families. Leaders in pre-primary settings in Chile and Japan and at both levels of ECEC in Germany are particularly likely to have had recent access to coaching (Table 1.3, Indicator 3.5). Links between leadership practices and staff engagement in collaborative practices are also particularly evident in pre-primary settings in both Chile and Germany, highlighting the potential for support for leaders to contribute to positive practices among staff (see Chapter 9).
The structure of the workforce contributes to high rates of staff absences while part-time work can enable staff to balance work and family life
The highly gendered ECEC workforce (more than 85% of staff are women in all countries and subnational entities) likely contributes to the high rates of staff absences reported by ECEC leaders (see Chapter 3): Women tend to bear more responsibilities for family care needs, particularly when working in low-wage jobs (ILO, Statistics Department, 2024[7]; OECD, 2023[8]). Short-term absences related to family responsibilities can compound with longer term planned absences, such as for maternity leave, to create staffing instability that hinders ECEC settings’ capacity to provide high-quality ECEC and contributes to staff stress, as discussed above (see also Chapter 8). Indeed, in a majority of countries and subnational entities, attending to family responsibilities is among the top reasons to leave the ECEC staff role in the next five years (Table 1.3, Indicator 3.6), underscoring the impact care responsibilities have on the ECEC workforce. Nonetheless, there is substantial variability across countries and subnational entities, with fewer staff endorsing this reason to leave their roles in pre-primary settings in Denmark and the Flemish Community of Belgium. Also in these two systems, there are relatively high rates of part-time work among ECEC staff, who further indicate they work part time because they were only looking for part-time work (e.g. due to health reasons, family commitments or further education). This finding suggests that in some contexts, a preference for part-time employment in the ECEC sector may be compatible with balancing the different demands of employment and care obligations at home.
Building pools of replacement staff and a better or more flexible allocation of human resources across settings can alleviate the burden that planned and unplanned absences place on ECEC settings. The gendered structure of the ECEC workforce, coupled with relatively low pay, means there will be frequent absences that require systematic planning to address. While larger businesses are well‑equipped to navigate care leaves (OECD, 2023[8]), the small nature of ECEC settings in many countries and subnational entities (see Chapter 3) can create unmanageable levels of instability if not addressed through support from wider networks of ECEC services with planning and oversight from responsible government authorities. In Japan and Spain, less than 20% of pre-primary leaders indicate staff absences as a hindrance to the quality of the ECEC environment (Table 1.2, Indicator 2.1). 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 (see Chapter 8).
* 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: Negative values for Indicator 3.1 indicate that more public settings than private settings within the country or subnational entity have 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes; positive values indicate more private settings than public settings have 10% or more of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Within each indicator, the percentages indicating the most favourable outcomes across countries and subnational entities (with the exception of New Zealand**) within each level of ECEC are indicated in darker shades and the percentages indicating the least favourable outcomes are indicated in white. Intermediate percentages are indicated in intermediate shades. Grey indicates low survey coverage or missing data. Missing values are due to the question not being administered, having too few observations to ensure reliability or because all ECEC settings are officially privately managed (see Box 3.2).
For Indicator 3.1, the smallest gaps between public and private settings (whether positive or negative) are indicated in darker shades and largest gaps are indicated in white.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.3.18, D.7.1, D.7.9, D.8.15, Leader.32 and Leader.34.
References
[6] Farquharson, C. (2025), “A response to the government’s Best Start in Life strategy [Comment]”, Institute for Fiscal Studies, https://ifs.org.uk/articles/response-governments-best-start-life-strategy (accessed on 8 September 2025).
[7] 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.
[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.
[2] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[8] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding Us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.
[4] 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.
[3] 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.
[5] Pereira, M. et al. (2025), “Time and routines organization in early childhood education and care: Participation, opportunities, and constraints”, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2025.2461545.