This chapter presents findings from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) on the characteristics of early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. It describes management and funding arrangements, the geographical location of settings and their surrounding neighbourhoods, organisational structures and setting size. The chapter also outlines operational challenges, including the presence of vulnerable children; waiting lists; and workforce aspects, such as short- and long-term staff absences. Finally, it examines how these structural features are linked to the type of management of ECEC settings, distinguishing between public and private provision.
Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024
Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care
Abstract
Most ECEC systems combine public and private ECEC provision. In countries and subnational entities providing ECEC for children under age 3, a majority of settings are privately managed, and in some, large percentages of settings are private for-profit. Pre-primary settings also have a mix of public and private provision, with a greater reliance on public settings compared to the sector serving children under age 3.
To some extent, funding sources align with management types, with direct payments by governments being more common in publicly managed settings and fees paid by parents being more common in privately managed ones. However, in several ECEC systems, both public and private, including ones for-profit, settings receive funding from the government. This reflects countries’ approaches that build on private provision to expand enrolment in ECEC.
Public ECEC provision is more common than private provision in rural areas and small towns, as well as in lower quality neighbourhoods. The geographical distribution of ECEC settings and features of the quality of the neighbourhood reflect overall structural differences across countries and subnational entities.
Physical indoor and outdoor spaces seem generally adequate but background noise level, limited ventilation and a lack of shaded outdoor areas are a concern in some countries and subnational entities. The adequacy of physical spaces is better in privately managed settings. Co-location with a primary school is more common for pre‑primary settings than those serving children under age 3 and in systems where pre-primary education is under the Ministry of Education. Publicly managed settings are more often co‑located with primary schools.
In most ECEC systems, vulnerable children are concentrated in relatively small percentages of ECEC settings. Public ECEC settings are more likely than private ones to serve large shares of vulnerable children.
Some systems combine public and private ECEC provision in ways that may not exacerbate inequalities between children. Although there are disparities in many countries and subnational entities, there are no apparent differences in the geographical distribution and structural features of quality between publicly and privately managed settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium (both levels of ECEC), pre-primary in Norway, and settings for children under age 3 in Germany and Quebec (Canada). In addition, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany (both levels of ECEC), no differences are found in the shares of vulnerable children in public and private ECEC settings.
The size of ECEC settings in terms of child enrolment varies widely but tends to be smaller for settings that serve children under age 3. Most ECEC systems typically have two or three staff members for every ten children in a setting, but these numbers vary across systems.
The number of staff per child tends to become less favourable as the size of the centre increases, indicating that having more children (regardless of whether they attend full time or part time) is not proportionally matched with a greater number of staff (regardless of their role and full-time or part-time work).
Average percentages of new staff and absent staff in ECEC settings are high in several countries and subnational entities. In approximately half of the countries and subnational entities, unmet demand within settings is a significant challenge, especially in settings for children under age 3.
Structural characteristics of ECEC settings set the conditions for rich interactions between ECEC staff and children, which is what matters the most for children’s development. These characteristics are diverse, ranging from the location of ECEC settings to the quality of physical spaces and the number of staff and children enrolled. While often less proximal to children than staff practices with children, many of these structural features of quality can be changed by policies. At the same time, budget constraints, difficulties in attracting and retaining staff, and a growing variety of children’s needs driven by increased diversity of populations all pose challenges for prioritising policies to strengthen ECEC systems.
The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) covers different types of ECEC settings (Box 3.1). The data from the survey characterise ECEC settings along multiple dimensions and highlight variations across and within participating countries and subnational entities. This chapter presents and discusses variation in several structural features of ECEC settings that are known to support the quality of staff interactions with children, or process quality, as well as families’ access to ECEC (Figure 3.1). Findings from this chapter also help contextualise analyses presented in subsequent chapters of this report. This chapter addresses the following questions:
Are ECEC systems characterised by settings that are mainly publicly managed, privately managed or is there a mix of both types of provision? What types of funding sources do settings receive?
To what extent are ECEC settings concentrated in rural or urban areas and how do leaders perceive the quality of the neighbourhoods around their ECEC settings? What is the quality of the physical space in ECEC settings like?
What is the size and organisation of ECEC settings in terms of the number of children and staff? What are the demographic characteristics of children? How much turnover and absences do leaders report among their staff? Are there waiting lists for places in ECEC settings?
Do these various structural features of quality vary depending on the type of setting management?
All officially registered (i.e. under the jurisdiction of an appropriate government authority or regulatory body) centre-based pre-primary programmes and all officially registered, centre- and home-based programmes serving children under age 3 in each participating country and subnational entity were considered in-scope for the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 sample. However, some countries and subnational entities did not collect data on home-based settings for children under age 3 [see OECD (forthcoming[1])]. Home-based settings were not part of the population targeted by the survey at the pre-primary level (ISCED 02), reflecting the important role of home-based early childhood education and care (ECEC) for the segment of the sector serving children under age 3, although in many countries and subnational entities, older children may also attend home-based ECEC settings.
Home-based settings typically involve a single staff member providing care in their own home to a small group of children, although there is wide variation in how this type of ECEC is organised, regulated and delivered to families. Centre-based settings refer to organised ECEC delivered in facilities designed for group-based care, such as early learning centres, crèches, kindergartens, preschools or schools.
Home-based settings represent a significant proportion of the ECEC settings for children under age 3 in the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data among the countries and subnational entities that collected data in this type of ECEC setting (Table D.3.1). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and Quebec (Canada), over 50% of settings for children under age 3 in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 are home-based, although there are differences in how these settings are reflected in the data. For example, in the case of the Flemish Community of Belgium, leaders outside of the settings often oversee a network of home‑based ECEC. In contrast, in Quebec (Canada), home-based staff tend to work more independently. Data from home-based settings are also available for New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**.
Although data for pre-primary settings in TALIS Starting Strong 2024 are all officially regulated as centre-based settings, some pre-primary leaders report that their ECEC settings are located in their own or in another home (Table Leader.15). This is especially prevalent in Colombia, Ireland and Morocco. In Colombia, for instance, 33% of pre-primary leaders report their ECEC setting is in a home. These settings are nonetheless considered equivalent to centres in the Colombian context, even when staff work largely independently. In contrast, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Spain, more than 75% of pre-primary settings are co-located with primary schools, whereas in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Germany and Japan and both levels of ECEC in New Zealand** and Norway, ECEC settings are most often located in stand-alone buildings, reflecting various regulations or public support across countries and subnational entities.
Compared to other levels of education, the ECEC sector is known to have both a higher share of private provision and of private funding, particularly among services for the youngest children (OECD, 2025[2]). These characteristics shape the sector’s capacity to provide high-quality education and care to all children: inadequate public funding may limit the enrolment of children who have the most to gain from participating in ECEC while the combination of privately and publicly managed settings can contribute to variation in the quality of ECEC provision. The balance of public, private non-profit and for-profit providers as well as the share of public funding reflect policy choices; well-managed and regulated mixed systems in some countries demonstrate that diverse providers can create effective and fair ECEC offerings (Leseman and Slot, 2025[3]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 provides information on the type of management and profit status of ECEC settings (Box 3.2). It also includes information on the types of funding sources, including government payments, fees or charges paid by families, and payments by parents’ employers, received by ECEC settings.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 describes early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings’ type of management, profit status and chain/franchise/network status as follows:
Publicly managed: ECEC settings that are managed by a public education authority, government agency or municipality.
Privately managed: ECEC settings that are managed by a non-governmental organisation, e.g. a church/synagogue/mosque, trade union, business, other private institution or person.
For-profit: ECEC setting aims to make more money than its costs (a profit).
Non-profit: ECEC setting does not aim to make a profit, or all profits are reinvested into the ECEC setting.
Chain: An ECEC setting that is part of a chain/franchise/network is one that is centrally managed by a single, non-governmental organisation that manages multiple ECEC settings. This can be a chain, franchise or network. It may receive public funding.
Information on ECEC settings’ type of management and profit status is collected from leaders’ responses and can therefore differ from administrative data. In Ireland and New Zealand at both levels of ECEC, all ECEC settings are officially privately managed.
Most ECEC systems combine public and private provision, with private non-profit and for-profit provision being more prevalent for children under age 3
At least 60% of pre-primary settings are publicly managed in Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye and privately managed in Germany, Ireland, Japan and New Zealand** (Figure 3.2). The Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco and Norway have a more balanced mix of public and private pre-primary settings. Privately managed provision for children under age 3 is more prevalent in most participating countries and subnational entities, with more than half of settings being privately managed in all cases (Table D.3.2). In Germany, Ireland and Norway, the mix of types of settings for the under age 3 sector is similar to that of the pre-primary level, reflecting the integration of the overall ECEC system (see Annex A).
Among privately managed pre-primary settings, most operate on a non-profit basis except in Ireland, where for-profit privately managed settings dominate (Figure 3.2). The prevalence of for-profit private settings is more pronounced in ECEC for children under age 3. In Ireland, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada) and New Zealand**, more than 40% of settings are privately managed for-profit.
Percentage of publicly and privately managed, for-profit and non-profit ECEC settings, according to leaders
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: ECEC settings in Ireland and New Zealand are technically all privately managed, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of publicly managed ECEC settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.3.
Pre-primary settings are generally part of a chain, franchise or network in the Flemish Community of Belgium and to some extent in Chile, Colombia, Japan and Morocco while the prevalence of these types of settings is below 30% in the other countries and subnational entities (Table D.3.2). Concerning the under age 3 sector, settings that are part of a chain, franchise or network are common in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, and to some extent in Germany, New Zealand**, Norway and Quebec (Canada).
Most ECEC settings, whether they are publicly or privately managed, receive a combination of sources of funding
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 sheds light on the variety of funding sources received by ECEC settings, but additional system-level data are necessary to grasp the size of the contribution of each type of funding to ECEC total funding (see Annex A). In 2022, on average, across OECD countries, the share of private expenditure in total ECEC expenditure amounted to 14% for pre-primary education and 22% for early childhood educational development (the part of ECEC for children under age 3 meeting criteria to be included in the International Standard Classification of Education), with many missing data for this level of ECEC (OECD, 2025[4]). Among countries and subnational entities participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2024, the share of private funding was above the OECD average in Chile, Denmark, Japan and Türkiye for pre-primary education, and in Israel for early childhood educational development (OECD, 2025[2]). No data were available for Canada, Colombia, Morocco or New Zealand**, and the share of private funding was below the OECD average in the remaining participating countries and subnational entities.
Aligned with these system-level data, in all countries and subnational entities, a majority of settings receive direct payments from the government except in Colombia and Morocco for pre-primary and in Israel for settings for children under age 3 (Figure 3.3). A majority of pre-primary settings receive fees or charges paid directly or indirectly by parents or guardians in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand**, Norway and Türkiye and in all countries and subnational entities in settings for children under age 3. These data reveal that it is common for ECEC settings to receive this type of private funding together with public funding, even though the share of private funding according to system‑level data is low in some of the participating countries and subnational entities (see Annex A). The combination of various sources of funding is particularly frequent in settings for children under age 3.
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report that their setting received funding from the following sources in the 12 months prior to the survey
* 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: Direct payments to ECEC setting by government include entities at any level of government.
The figure only shows valid data. Values that are not shown are those based on too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of direct payments to ECEC by government.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Leader.18.
Percentage of publicly managed and privately managed, for-profit and non-profit settings whose leaders report that their setting received funding from the following sources in the 12 months prior to survey
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
Notes: New Zealand and Quebec (Canada) are excluded due to small sample sizes.
The figure only shows valid data. Values are not shown because the questions were not administered, or the data were excluded for technical reasons or were based on too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order by the percentage of sources of funding for publicly managed settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.4.
The role of employers in the financing of ECEC has developed in some countries, particularly for ECEC for children under age 3, as a way to support employees’ return to work after the end of maternity leave (OECD, 2025[2]). This is reflected in this second type of private funding being somewhat more common for settings for children under age 3 than for pre-primary education, although only a small share of settings receive this type of funding regardless of the level of ECEC. In most countries and subnational entities, less than 30% of pre-primary setting leaders report that their settings receive funding from other non‑governmental sources (e.g. from religious institutions, fundraising or subsidies through non-profit ECEC providers; Table D.3.4). Exceptions include Germany at both levels of ECEC, where this applies to a large majority of settings, and pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, where about half of settings receive this type of funding.
To some extent, funding sources align with management types and profit status with differences in how public and private provisions are financed (Figure 3.4). Fees or charges paid directly or indirectly by parents or guardians are more common in privately managed settings at both levels of ECEC. A similar pattern is observed for direct payments from parents’ or guardians’ employers. However, in several ECEC systems, publicly and privately managed settings are equally likely to receive funding from the government; while the share of public funding received by ECEC settings might vary by type of management, the survey does not capture this. In Ireland (both levels of ECEC) and settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada) and Israel, almost half or more of for-profit private settings receive direct funding from the government. These findings highlight the importance for governments to design policies to support ECEC equity and quality that cover the entire system, including its privately managed part, considering the investments that are made across the system.
The geographical coverage of ECEC services defines their accessibility, but location is also a driver of quality. Urban areas generally offer more ECEC options with better infrastructure and more diverse programmes, though they may also face overcrowding and high costs (Hulpia et al., 2024[5]). In comparison, rural communities often struggle with limited availability, longer travel distances and difficulties in staffing, contributing to lower participation rates and possibly lower quality (Lee, 2025[6]). Socio‑economic status further compounds these disparities, as low-income neighbourhoods – whether urban or rural – tend to lack high-quality ECEC provision (Baxter and Hand, 2013[7]; OECD, 2025[2]). The co-location of ECEC settings with primary schools is another dimension of ECEC settings’ physical features that can be a strength for ECEC quality by facilitating collaboration of staff around curriculum and pedagogical methods as well as children’s transitions to primary school (OECD, 2017[8]; Pianta et al., 2005[9]). However, when shared spaces contribute to a more academic focus in ECEC than would otherwise be the case, the advantages of co-location can be eroded. The physical characteristics of ECEC settings also shape the quality of the learning environment (Matthews and Lippman, 2020[10]). For instance, the size and structure of indoor and outdoor environments have been found to relate to children’s social and cognitive development (Kiviranta et al., 2024[11]; van Liempd, Oudgenoeg-Paz and Leseman, 2020[12]). Features of the physical space like air quality gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and are becoming increasingly relevant as ECEC settings adapt to shifting climates and to the environmental conditions needed to keep young children safe in extreme weather, particularly heat.
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 gathers information on the geographical location of ECEC settings and on leaders’ perceptions of the quality of the neighbourhood environment around the setting. In addition, the survey asks leaders about key features of the ECEC setting’s physical infrastructure to assess their quality. These various types of information are used to describe differences between and within countries and subnational entities and identify gaps in the accessibility and quality of ECEC settings.
The geographical distribution of ECEC settings and features of the quality of the neighbourhood reflect structural differences across countries and subnational entities
How ECEC settings are spread across rural and urban areas varies widely across participating countries and subnational entities, which reflects differences in the regional distribution of countries’ populations more generally (Table Leader.13). In pre-primary settings in Colombia and Morocco, settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, and both levels of ECEC in Ireland and Norway, leaders report that more than half of ECEC settings are in rural areas or small towns compared to larger towns or cities. A plurality of pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Spain and Sweden; settings for children under age 3 in New Brunswick (Canada); and settings at both levels of ECEC in Germany are also in rural areas or small towns. In contrast, in pre-primary settings in Chile and Japan and both levels of ECEC in New Zealand**, more than half of settings are in cities. This is also true for a plurality of pre-primary settings in Türkiye. Pre-primary settings in Denmark and settings for children under age 3 in Israel are most often in moderately populated towns, rather rural areas or cities. Pre-primary settings in Finland and Israel and settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada) are more evenly distributed across rural areas/small towns, towns and cities.
A safe environment where children can play and families can access a range of services is crucial for children’s development and well-being. In all countries and subnational entities, a majority of settings at both levels of ECEC are in neighbourhoods with safe public spaces where children can play, according to their leaders, although this is less frequently the case for pre-primary settings in Chile, Morocco and Türkiye (Table D.3.5). At least 80% of ECEC setting leaders in a majority of systems report their settings are located close to family support services (e.g. health services, social services). These percentages are lower for pre-primary settings in Colombia, Morocco and Türkiye and in Ireland for both levels of ECEC.
Across countries and subnational entities, leaders have different perceptions of the extent to which ECEC centres are likely to be in unfavourable neighbourhoods (Table D.3.5). For instance, large percentages of pre-primary leaders in Chile and to some extent Colombia report drug-related issues, litter lying around, vandalism, or people from diverse backgrounds facing insults or attacks. Such neighbourhood issues are a widespread national concern in these countries (OECD, 2025[13]). In contrast, small percentages of pre-primary leaders in Japan report these issues. In other countries and subnational entities, leaders in general report low levels of neighbourhood difficulties, yet some report specific problems such as drug-related issues in Ireland and Norway (both levels of ECEC); the Flemish Community of Belgium, New Zealand** and Sweden (pre-primary); and New Brunswick (Canada) (settings for children under age 3).
Public ECEC provision is more common than private provision in rural areas and small towns, and in some countries in lower quality neighbourhoods
In several countries and subnational entities with available data, publicly managed pre-primary settings are more often found in small towns or rural areas than privately managed settings (Table 3.1). This is the case for pre-primary settings in Germany, Morocco, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye, as well as for settings for children under age 3 in Israel.
Similarly, when various aspects of the characteristics of the neighbourhood around ECEC settings are combined to capture its overall quality as perceived by leaders, privately managed pre-primary ECEC settings are more likely to be in areas that leaders perceive to have higher quality neighbourhoods than their publicly managed counterparts in Chile, Morocco and Türkiye (Table 3.1).
While governments have often relied on private ECEC provision to expand the ECEC supply, these findings highlight that private provision is less likely to develop in rural areas, and to some extent in unfavourable
Statistically significant differences in percentages of ECEC settings whose leaders report that their setting has the following characteristics between privately and publicly managed 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: As higher scores on the “quality of neighbourhood environment” scale indicate lower neighbourhood quality, differences (and the colour scheme) have been reversed in this table to facilitate visual comparison with the scale of “adequacy of physical space”. For more information about the scales, see Annex C.
“Primary school” refers to ISCED level 1 (ISCED 2011).
Missing values are due to having too few observations to ensure reliability or because all ECEC settings are officially privately managed (see Box 3.2).
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
For more information on statistically significant values, see Annex C.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.6.
neighbourhoods. This can be the consequence of a deliberate choice of governments to target public ECEC towards these areas, or signal inequalities in the supply of ECEC places, with the possibility for private ECEC provision to target more densely populated and favourable areas.
Indoor and outdoor spaces are generally adequate, but background noise level, limited ventilation and a lack of shaded outdoor areas can be concerns
Overall, in all countries and subnational entities, large majorities of ECEC setting leaders consider that the physical spaces and equipment, both indoor (e.g. amount of furniture, condition of ceilings, walls and floors) and outdoor (e.g. spaces where children can easily move) are adequate (Table D.3.7). This is, however, somewhat less the case for background noise levels in indoor spaces, with more than 40% of leaders disagreeing with “background noise level in the classroom/playgroup/group does not interfere with interactions” in pre-primary settings in Denmark, Finland and Norway and at both levels of ECEC in Germany. In addition, in pre-primary settings in Denmark and Finland, both levels of ECEC in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany, and in settings for children under age 3 in Norway, around a quarter or more of leaders disagree that ventilation is adequate for healthy airflow. Along the same lines, more than 30% of pre-primary leaders in Finland, Morocco and Türkiye report that outdoor spaces lack shaded areas. These findings point to challenges related to air quality and climate change implications, and to areas for attention to support children’s and ECEC staff’s well-being in ECEC settings.
Publicly managed settings are more often co-located with primary schools while the adequacy of physical spaces is stronger in privately managed settings
When features of the physical space captured in the survey (e.g. adequate ventilation, background noise level) are combined to give an overall picture of the adequacy of the physical space, in several countries and subnational entities with available data, privately managed settings have more adequate physical spaces than publicly managed ones. This holds in pre-primary settings in Colombia, Finland, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye, and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel and Norway (see Table 3.1). This may reflect the growth in the private sector in many places, with perhaps newer buildings or more recently renovated spaces available for private ECEC providers entering the sector.
Co-location with primary schools generally reflects how countries’ and subnational entities’ ECEC systems are designed and governed more broadly (see Annex A). Unsurprisingly, co-location with a primary school is more frequent for pre-primary settings than for settings for children under age 3 (Table Leader.15). Furthermore, in systems where pre-primary education is under the Ministry of Education and mostly governed together with primary education, co-location is more frequent. This is the case for pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco, Spain and Türkiye. In several countries and subnational entities, pre-primary publicly managed settings are more likely than privately managed ones to be co-located with primary schools (see Table 3.1). This is because primary schools in most of these countries and subnational entities are mostly public (OECD, 2025[4]).
The size of ECEC settings in terms of the numbers of children attending and staff working directly with children affects children’s every day learning experiences and staff’s professional collaboration opportunities. The number of staff relative to the number of children at the ECEC setting level shapes the degree of flexibility for settings to organise the work (Bowne et al., 2017[14]; OECD, 2025[2]). Higher staff‑to-child ratios enable caregivers to supervise more effectively, reduce the risk of accidents and experience lower stress levels (Perlman et al., 2017[15]). They also facilitate individualised interactions, which are essential for fostering secure emotional attachments and enhancing developmental outcomes (Howard et al., 2024[16]).
Compared to higher levels of education, where children are mostly in fixed class groups, ECEC settings can use more flexible group organisation. Allowing children to move freely between groups or spaces has gained prominence as a way to support child-centred and play-oriented activities, as it also allows children to engage more freely with their environment and explore their interests (Collins, Jones and Tonge, 2022[17]). However, smaller, stable groups can encourage calmer environments and more responsive interactions, depending on how these different approaches are implemented and the ages of the children involved (Dalgaard, Bondebjerg and Svinth, 2023[18]; Dalgaard et al., 2022[19]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 data provide information from leaders on the number of children enrolled and the number of ECEC staff working at ECEC settings. The survey also asks leaders how staff’s work with children is organised at their setting, either in a “closed/core group” or in an “open group/free-flow environment”. These various types of information help to understand features of ECEC settings that shape staff’s practices with children.
The size of ECEC settings varies across and within countries and subnational entities but tends to be smaller for settings that serve children under age 3
In Colombia (pre-primary) and Israel (both levels), as well as in the Flemish Community of Belgium, New Brunswick (Canada) and Quebec (Canada) (settings for children under age 3), the average setting size is around 30 children or below while it is close to 80 children or above at the pre-primary level in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan and Spain (Figure 3.5). There is substantial variation within countries and subnational entities, particularly in Morocco and Spain for pre-primary education. Settings for children under age 3 tend, on average, to be smaller than pre-primary ones and with less variation within countries and subnational entities.
The number of staff in ECEC settings also varies widely across and within systems (Figure 3.5). ECEC settings have, on average, small numbers of staff and leaders in Israel, at both levels but particularly in settings for children under age 3 where it is common to have only one staff member; in pre-primary settings in Morocco and Türkiye; and in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium. Numbers of staff are higher on average in Denmark and Finland for pre-primary education, Norway in both levels of education, and in settings for children under age 3 in Quebec (Canada). Within countries, variation is large in Colombia, Finland and Japan for pre-primary education.
Number of children enrolled and number of staff working at ECEC settings, according to leaders
* 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 national quarter values were derived by calculating percentiles within each country and subnational entity sample. The bottom quarter refers to the 25% of ECEC settings with the fewest number of children enrolled or of all staff and leaders within each country or subnational entity sample. The top quarter refers to the 25% of ECEC settings with the highest number of children enrolled or of all staff and leaders within each country or subnational entity.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order by the mean of the number of staff or the number of children at ECEC settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables Leader.22 and Leader.25.
In most ECEC systems, there are typically two or three staff members for every ten children in settings, but these numbers vary and tend to be higher in small settings
The survey allows calculating the total number of leaders and staff in the ECEC setting – including all staff roles and irrespective of their working hours – divided by the number of enrolled children, as reported by setting leaders. This is called the “number of staff per child”. To facilitate comparisons, the ratio is expressed as the number of staff per ten children in the ECEC setting, given its typically small value. Unlike administrative data or regulatory standards, this measure does not distinguish between part-time and full-time staff, or children who attend on a part-time or full-time basis and is done for the entire setting rather than at the group or class/playroom level. Yet the indicator provides insight into the average human resources available to support children’s learning, development and well-being within a setting.
Average number of staff per ten children by setting size tertiles, according to leaders
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
Notes: Data show setting-level averages. Regulations regarding the number of staff and children in a group often differ depending on the specific ages of children, which can create important differences between the data shown here and group-level data, particularly in age-integrated settings (see Annex A).
The national tertile values were derived by calculating tertiles within each country and subnational entity. The bottom tertile refers to the 33% of ECEC settings with the fewest number of children within each country and subnational entity. The top tertile refers to the 33% of ECEC settings with the highest number of children within each country and subnational entity.
New Zealand is excluded due to small sample sizes.
The figure only shows valid data. Values are not shown because the data were excluded for technical reasons or were based on too few observations to ensure reliability.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order of the average of the number of staff per ten children in ECEC settings.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.8.
In most participating countries and subnational entities, the number of staff per ten children at both ECEC levels typically ranges between two and three (see Figure 3.6). But there are notable differences across ECEC systems. For example, this number is more than four in pre-primary settings in Chile, Colombia and Denmark. There are less than two staff for ten children in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco and Türkiye and in settings for children under age 3 in Israel.
The larger the size of the setting in terms of children enrolled, the lower the number of staff per child. This may imply that increases in child enrolment are not proportionally matched by staffing levels. Moreover, in larger settings, certain staff members – such as leaders – may serve roles that span the entire setting, resulting in a lower overall number of staff working directly with children. Finally, in home-based settings for children under age 3, it is common for one staff to work with a small number of children (see Box 3.1).
ECEC staff generally work with children using a mix of closed groups and free-flow environments
Work organisation in ECEC settings – shaped in part by the size of the setting – can affect staff roles, daily routines and the overall quality of provision. According to leaders without regular responsibilities directly with children (i.e. staff duties), more than one-third of settings are arranged for staff to work in closed groups but occasionally use open group/free-flow environments in a majority of countries and subnational entities (Figure 3.7). Exceptions to this are Chile, Finland, Morocco and Türkiye, where it is more common for settings to be arranged for staff to work exclusively in closed/core groups, and in the Flemish Community of Belgium in settings for children under age 3, where settings more often operate as either closed groups or free-flow groups, rather than occasionally using the free-flow option. In no system are open groups the most common configuration in settings. However, in most systems, there is variation across settings in the organisation of staff’s work with children, with some settings using all three types of organisation. Free-flow environments typically require greater numbers of staff per children, strong collaboration among these staff and specific training for staff on working in this manner (Collins, Jones and Tonge, 2022[17]).
Percentage of ECEC settings where staff work in open group/free-flow environments or in closed/core groups, according to leaders without staff duties
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
Notes: Israel and New Zealand are excluded due to small sample sizes.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of settings in which staff work mostly in open group/free‑flow environments.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.9.
Addressing the needs of all children is a key challenge for ECEC systems at a time when demographic diversity is rising in most countries (González-Sancho et al., 2023[20]; OECD, 2025[2]). Diversity refers to children’s characteristics as perceived by themselves and/or by others, which may relate to their socio‑economic and immigration status; language; mental and physical ability; or race, ethnicity, gender, culture or religion. While these differences can, in themselves, represent advantages for individual children in some cases, research has consistently identified these characteristics as predictors that put children at a higher risk of disadvantage in education and in life more generally (OECD, 2023[21]). The enrolment of vulnerable children in ECEC is a first step for mitigating inequalities in the early years as these children have the most to gain from high-quality early years learning and development opportunities. However, there is broad evidence that even when enrolled in ECEC, children with these characteristics recurrently experience lower levels of quality than other children (OECD, 2025[2]).
ECEC settings face staff shortages and turnover that disrupt stable staff-child relationships, which are critical for optimally supporting children’s development (Hall et al., 2024[22]; Herman, Dearth-Wesley and Whitaker, 2023[23]). Staff absences and shortages also limit possibilities to expand the number of ECEC places (European Commission, 2023[24]). At the same time, lack of ECEC places, or unmet demand, forces families onto long waiting lists, and is more likely to affect children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (Andreella et al., 2024[25]; OECD, 2025[2]).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 asks leaders about the number of children in their settings from a range of backgrounds (Box 3.3). Recognising that even when enrolled in an ECEC setting, children with these characteristics can be more vulnerable, the concentration of children with these characteristics within ECEC settings can be an important indicator of the resources settings need to support all children. The survey also asks leaders about the number of staff who, in the 12 months prior to the survey began working at the ECEC setting, permanently left it or temporarily did not work at it (e.g. for parental leave) as well as about staff who were absent due to sick leave on the most recent Tuesday that the ECEC setting was in session. These data provide unique information on staff turnover and absences. Finally, the survey asks leaders about whether some demand for places for children was unmet in their settings. This section presents the prevalence of these key challenges across and within participating countries and subnational entities while subsequent chapters examine how staff perspectives are shaped by the characteristics of the children with whom they work (see Chapters 5 and 8).
TALIS Starting Strong 2024 collects the following information about children’s characteristics in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings:
Children with a different home language(s) are children whose home language(s) is/are different from the language(s) used in their ECEC setting.
Children with special education needs are those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they have mental, physical or emotional challenges.
Children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are those for whom their homes lack the basic necessities or advantages of life, such as adequate housing, nutrition or medical care.
Children who are immigrants are those who were born outside the country. A “child with a migrant background” has parents who were both born outside the country.
Children who are refugees are those who, regardless of legal status, have fled to another country to seek refuge from war, political oppression, persecution or a natural disaster, or who were born while their parents were travelling to the destination or shortly after the parents’ arrival.
Children belonging to ethnic/national minorities or indigenous communities refer to groups that are a result of historical dynamics and/or shared characteristics that correspond to geographical location and ancestral origins, cultural traditions, religious beliefs, social norms, shared heritage and language, and/or immigrant status and nationality of origin.
In most ECEC systems, vulnerable children are concentrated in a relatively small percentage of ECEC settings
There are large differences across systems in the percentages of enrolled children who face some of these vulnerabilities, which relates to cross-country differences in the socio-economic and immigrant composition of the overall population as well as differences in inclusion and identification policies regarding children with special education needs (Table D.3.10). For instance, large percentages of enrolled children have a different home language than the one used at the setting in pre-primary settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium and to some extent in Sweden. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and in Colombia, large percentages of children enrolled in pre-primary settings are from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Special education needs are most prevalent among enrolled children in pre-primary settings in Chile, and to a lesser extent in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Spain.
However, while the percentages of vulnerable children enrolled in ECEC settings vary across systems, in almost all systems, these children are concentrated in some ECEC settings (Figure 3.8). This is, for instance, reflected in the combination of large percentages of ECEC settings with no children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes together with significant percentages of settings with more than 50% of their children from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is the case in pre-primary education in Chile and Colombia. A similar pattern holds for pre-primary education in Spain and Türkiye, where relatively large percentages of settings have less than 10% of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and large percentages of settings have more than 10% of these children. Findings are similar for children with different home language(s) and for children with an immigrant or refugee background (Tables D.3.15 and D.3.16), and children from ethnic/national minorities or indigenous communities (Table D.3.17).
Percentage of ECEC settings by share of children with the following characteristics, according to leaders
* 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: Responses reflect ECEC setting leaders’ personal perceptions of children’s background and may be based on rough estimates.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in descending order by no children with the characteristic at the ECEC setting.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.3.12, D.3.13 and D.3.14.
Children with special education needs are also concentrated in some settings, although this is less the case than for children with other sources of vulnerabilities (Figure 3.8). This is because this type of vulnerability is overall less frequent, particularly for young children who are rapidly developing and changing and may not have opportunities to be formally diagnosed with a special education need outside of their participation in ECEC.
In most ECEC systems, public ECEC settings are more likely than private ones to serve large shares of vulnerable children
In many ECEC systems, there are smaller percentages of private pre-primary ECEC settings with more than 10% of vulnerable children than there are public ECEC settings with this characteristic (Table 3.2). This is particularly the case for children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, children with different home language(s) and children with an immigrant background, which are categories that to some extent overlap. For other types of vulnerabilities, differences in the percentages of private and public settings with large shares of vulnerable children exist only in a small number of systems. For settings for children under age 3, differences between private and public settings are less common, with the difference even going in the opposite direction in Quebec (Canada), where there are larger percentages of private settings with large shares of children who have an immigrant background compared to public settings. These results partly come from the high prevalence of private provision in settings for children under age 3.
Average percentages of new staff and absent staff in ECEC settings are high in several countries and subnational entities
In all systems, the percentages of staff who began working in ECEC settings in the 12 months prior to the survey exceed the percentages of staff who permanently left, except in Japan at the pre-primary level, where the two percentages are almost equal (Figure 3.9). Percentages of new staff are particularly high in pre-primary settings in Morocco and in both levels of ECEC in Israel, accounting for more than half of staff. These high rates of staff joining ECEC settings highlight the importance of induction practices (see Chapter 6). In Israel, staff turnover in settings for children under age 3 is relatively high. This likely reflects the large share of very small settings participating in the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 survey, where just one or two staff leaving within a year creates very high rates of turnover.
Differences in the percentages of ECEC settings whose leaders report that there are 10% or more of children with the following characteristics between privately and publicly managed 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: Responses reflect ECEC setting leaders’ personal perceptions of children’s background and may be based on rough estimates.
Missing values are due to having too few observations to ensure reliability or because all ECEC settings are officially privately managed (see Box 3.2).
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
For more information on statistically significant values, see Annex C.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.18.
Percentage of ECEC setting staff who are new, permanently left or were temporarily absent, according to leaders
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex B.
Notes: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand, are ranked in ascending order of staff who permanently left or who temporarily did not work at their ECEC settings in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.19.
Percentages of long‑term absences, such as extended leave, sabbatical and parental leave, are the highest in Japan for pre-primary settings and in Israel for settings for children under age 3. In these systems, short‑term absences (staff who were absent due to sick leave on the most recent Tuesday the setting was in session) are also above 10%, adding to the longer terms ones. Short-term absences are also around 10% or more in pre-primary settings in Chile and Sweden, and at both levels of ECEC in Germany and Norway (Table D.3.19). In Chile and Sweden for pre-primary settings and Germany for both levels of ECEC, leaders report that staff absences are one of the main hindrances to the provision of a quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning (see Chapter 8).
These numbers might be influenced by the number of settings that opened in the 12 months prior to the survey, which would require a fully new team of staff. However, when considered in the context of the relatively small size of ECEC settings compared to higher levels of education, especially for settings for children under age 3, plus the need for ECEC settings to generally meet stricter child-to-staff ratios, they point towards possible challenges for the organisation of ECEC provision linked to staff turnover and absences.
In approximately half of the countries and subnational entities, unmet demand within settings is a significant challenge, especially in settings for children under age 3
In most countries and subnational entities, leaders report that some children could not enrol in their ECEC setting because of a lack of places (Figure 3.10). Percentages of settings with unmet demand are particularly high in pre-primary settings in Germany, Ireland, Norway and in all systems for children under age 3. Germany, Ireland and Norway have high enrolment rates for children aged 3-5 (close to or above 90%; see Annex A), and thus some children may already be enrolled in another ECEC setting. In these countries, high unmet demand may also reflect the integrated nature of ECEC, where settings for children aged 3-5 can also serve younger children. As a result, unmet demand can exist at the setting level even if it is not specific to children of pre-primary age. In contrast, in ECEC settings for children under age 3, the unmet demand at the setting level is more likely to reflect a lack of any opportunity for an ECEC place.
Leaders indicate that children are generally put on a waiting list when there is not an available place, although this is less the case in settings for children under age 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium. In addition, in several systems, at least 20% of ECEC settings have children who were placed on a waiting list and later enrolled. For families, even if the enrolment difficulties are solved in the end, whether in the same or another ECEC setting, this situation creates uncertainty that can limit parents’ ability to make other commitments or return to work on a planned schedule. For ECEC leaders, this situation also contributes to instability in settings where staffing needs and financial demands depend on the precise number and ages of children enrolled at any given moment. Publicly and privately managed ECEC settings are generally equally affected by a lack of available places and the need for waiting lists (Table D.3.20).
Percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders report the following applied in the 12 months prior to the survey
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
Notes: New Zealand is excluded due to small sample sizes.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities are ranked in descending order by the sum of children who were placed on a waiting list and are still waiting for a place and children who wanted to enrol but were not placed on a waiting list.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.20.
Ensure that the combination of private and public provision promotes equitable access and quality of ECEC. Most countries and subnational entities build on private ECEC provision to expand enrolment, particularly for children under age 3, which results in a combination of public and private ECEC provision. TALIS Starting Strong 2024 shows that in several systems, public ECEC provision is more common in rural areas and unfavourable neighbourhoods. This can reflect intentional development of public provision in these areas, but it can also lead to a less developed ECEC network, creating barriers for children to be enrolled.
Related to this, publicly managed settings are more likely to enrol high shares of vulnerable children. At the same time, results from the survey indicate higher structural quality in privately managed settings in some systems, which can contribute to a more favourable learning and well‑being environment in these settings. Taken together, these results indicate risks that more vulnerable children, who have the most to gain from ECEC, might face more barriers to enrol, or if enrolled, may experience lower quality ECEC.
With most ECEC settings, even privately managed, for-profit ones in some systems, benefiting from public funding, it is important to ensure that the entire ECEC system is covered by quality regulations and monitoring policies (see Chapter 9). Furthermore, resources can be allocated in a way that leads to more funding to public settings in disadvantaged areas to ensure that these settings can offer similar or even higher quality ECEC than in other areas. In some systems, the combination of public and private ECEC provision does not seem to be associated with inequalities. This is the case in the Flemish Community of Belgium (both levels of ECEC), pre-primary settings in Norway, and settings for children under age 3 in Germany and Quebec (Canada), where there are no apparent differences in the geographical distribution and structural features of quality between publicly and privately managed settings. In addition, in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany (both levels of ECEC), no differences are found in the shares of vulnerable children in these two types of ECEC settings.
Develop policies to better attract and retain ECEC staff. This chapter indicates high percentages of new staff and absent staff in ECEC settings in several countries and subnational entities. This suggests high turnover and absenteeism, which can be a key impediment to the functioning of the sector. Chapter 8 discusses directions to better attract and retain ECEC staff and thereby reduce turnover. This chapter suggests that particular attention needs to be placed on large ECEC settings, as having more children (regardless of whether they attend full time or part time) is not proportionally matched with a greater number of staff.
References
[25] Andreella, A. et al. (2024), A Two-step Model to Study the Inclusivity’s Distribution of Italian Early Childhood Education and Care Services, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.15610 (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[7] Baxter, J. and K. Hand (2013), Access to Early Childhood Education in Australia, Research Report No. 24, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-reports/access-early-childhood-education-australia (accessed on 6 June 2025).
[14] Bowne, J. et al. (2017), “A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socioemotional outcomes?”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 39/3, pp. 407-428, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716689489.
[17] Collins, T., R. Jones and K. Tonge (2022), “Educator perceptions of free-flowing routines in early childhood education and care”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 21/2, pp. 147-161, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x221145476.
[19] Dalgaard, N. et al. (2022), “Adult/child ratio and group size in early childhood education or care to promote the development of children aged 0-5 years: A systematic review”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 18/2, https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.1239.
[18] Dalgaard, N., A. Bondebjerg and L. Svinth (2023), “Caregiver/child ratio and group size in Scandinavian early childhood education and care (ECEC): A systematic review of qualitative research – Scandinavian research in early childhood education and care”, Nordic Psychology, Vol. 75/4, pp. 397-428, https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2022.2137567.
[24] European Commission (2023), Staff Shortages in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): Policy Brief, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2766/385 (accessed on 14 August 2025).
[20] González-Sancho, C. et al. (2023), “Levelling the playing field in ECEC: Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2018”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 305, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/757e4fea-en.
[22] Hall, T. et al. (2024), “Compensation and staffing challenges in child care: Statewide evidence from pandemic relief applications”, Education Finance and Policy, Vol. 19/3, pp. 524-537, https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_A_00410.
[23] Herman, A., T. Dearth-Wesley and R. Whitaker (2023), “The association between work as a calling and turnover among early childhood education professionals”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 52/3, pp. 481-491, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10643-023-01450-6.
[16] Howard, S. et al. (2024), “Measuring the quality of adult-child interactions in the context of ECEC: A systematic review on the relationship with developmental and educational outcomes”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 36/6, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-023-09832-3.
[5] Hulpia, H. et al. (2024), Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): State of Play in the EU Member States Based on the European Quality Framework – Analytical Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2766/932337.
[11] Kiviranta, L. et al. (2024), “Outdoor learning in early childhood education: Exploring benefits and challenges”, Educational Research, Vol. 66/1, pp. 102-119, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2023.2285762.
[6] Lee, K. (2025), “The racial disparity of access to early childhood education and care by geographical locations among children in poverty”, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894251318137.
[3] 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.
[10] Matthews, E. and P. Lippman (2020), “The design and evaluation of the physical environment of young children’s learning settings”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 48/2, pp. 171-180, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10643-019-00993-X/TABLES/1.
[4] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[13] OECD (2025), OECD Better Life Index, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/tools/oecd-better-life-index.html (accessed on 11 September 2025).
[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.
[21] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.
[8] OECD (2017), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en.
[1] OECD (forthcoming), TALIS 2024 Technical Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
[15] Perlman, M. et al. (2017), “Child-staff ratios in early childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0170256.
[9] Pianta, R. et al. (2005), “Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions?”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 9/3, pp. 144-159, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2.
[12] van Liempd, I., O. Oudgenoeg-Paz and P. Leseman (2020), “Do spatial characteristics influence behavior and development in early childhood education and care?”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 67, p. 101385, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2019.101385.