Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care

Countries count on their early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies, from birth to primary education, to provide more equal opportunities to children. Over recent decades, ECEC policies have evolved substantially with the expansion of children’s enrolment in ECEC, the increased focus put on both care and education, higher public spending and efforts to regulate the sector to strengthen its quality. However, there are still many gaps and immense potential to do more for children at an early age and better compensate for inequalities that families face and that affect children from before birth. With the developments of neurosciences over recent decades, research highlighting the importance of early experiences has proliferated, and the topic has also seen increased interest from economists, sociologists and psychologists. Yet, inequalities persist in the early years and later in life, and ECEC policies often reflect a patchwork of different interests and funding streams.

Building on a methodology that aims to translate research into policies, this report investigates how ECEC policies can be designed to better support equity and inclusion. This chapter summarises the main findings of the Translating Research into Policies for Quality and Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care project that spanned over 2023-2024 and presents a policy roadmap with country examples that can inform other countries’ design of ECEC policies (see Table 1.3 at the end of this Chapter).

The first years of life are unique, with very rapid development in multiple areas stimulated by multiple factors. Inequalities between children start during the prenatal period and are evident in multiple domains of early development of young children (see Chapter 3). From the early years, some children face higher exposure to family stress, poorer environmental and neighbourhood conditions, and lower access to health services, among others, all of which can limit opportunities for warm and responsive interactions between parents and children. These unfavourable conditions for early development and learning often concentrate and lead to cumulative disadvantage in some families. While poverty is not destiny, research in multiple disciplines consistently shows that children from low socio-economic backgrounds are particularly at risk of facing these conditions. At the other end of the spectrum, high-income and well-educated families are more likely to invest in their children’s early development, learning and well-being in multiple ways, accessing a wide range of supports from the prenatal period.

Inequalities of opportunities that start in the early years continue throughout childhood. On average across OECD countries, 12.4% of children lived in relative income poverty in 2021, but rates differ considerably from country to country (Figure 1.1). Between 2011 and 2021, child poverty rates have decreased slightly on average in OECD countries. The cost of childhood disadvantage to the economy in the form of weaker adult outcomes (e.g. labour market) and poor health varies across countries but has been estimated to represent 3.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) annually on average in OECD European countries and 4% in the United States, or 5.4% when other categories such as participation in crime are considered (Clarke et al., 2022[1]). Mitigating childhood disadvantage through a range of policies is therefore a key priority for governments.

ECEC policies are well positioned to reduce inequalities:

• Participation in high-quality ECEC has been shown to improve children’s cognitive and socio-emotional skills in the short- to long-term, while also leading to a range of positive education, labour market and social outcomes later in life, with these effects being stronger for more vulnerable children (see Chapter 8).

• Research indicates that interventions during the first years of life can offset the effects of trauma and deprivation on children’s brain development while interventions later in life tend to have a more limited effectiveness (see Chapter 3). This means that the opportunity cost of not investing in ECEC can be large.

• By supporting the development of foundational skills (a combination of cognitive and social-emotional skills, as well as executive function, which support learning across domains) that children need to succeed in subsequent levels of education, ECEC policies set the groundwork for more efficient public investment in education later on and limit the risks for vulnerable children to fall behind in their education pathways (see Chapter 8).

• ECEC policies can support parents’ labour market participation and income, and thereby mitigate the risks of poverty, with benefits for children through higher quality of home environments.

• The economic and social returns of investments in ECEC can be reaped over a longer period of time than those of interventions targeting inequalities later in life.

ECEC policies are not only efficient economic and social investments. From an ethical and child’s rights perspective, countries also value child well-being in itself and aim to support all young children in enjoying safe, healthy and happy childhoods.

While there is evidence that ECEC can mitigate inequalities, positive effects are not found systematically, as they depend on the context and features of ECEC policies (see Chapter 8). The goal of this report is to discuss how countries can design their ECEC policies to better support equity and inclusion. This chapter presents a policy roadmap towards ECEC with a lasting impact on equity and inclusion. This policy roadmap is underpinned by three guiding and transversal principles that can inform the design of ECEC policies, and identifies five key policy areas central to mitigating inequalities in the early years (Figure 1.2). The policy roadmap is discussed throughout this chapter and presented in concise form at its end, together with references to concrete policy examples taken from other sections of the report.

When discussing the potential of ECEC to achieve greater equity and inclusion in society, this report builds on the following key concepts (OECD, 2023[2]):

• Diversity refers to children’ differences as perceived by themselves and/or by others, which may relate to their socio-economic and immigration status, language, mental and physical ability (the main characteristics specifically considered in this report) as well as race, ethnicity, gender, culture and religion. There is no inferred assumption about whether these different characteristics in themselves represent advantages or disadvantages for children – in some cases they can be associated with a relative lack of resources but in other contexts, they may be seen as an asset that can lead to greater resilience, more knowledge of and openness to other cultures. However, children with these differences or from minority backgrounds are generally more vulnerable since they are at risk of disadvantage in education and in life more generally, and hence are the target of equitable and inclusive policies and practices.

• Equity is understood to mean the goal that all children can achieve their potential regardless of their personal or social circumstances. It recognises that all children do not start from the same place and that policies can mitigate these imbalances. The report also refers to equal opportunity as everyone having the same chance to thrive, regardless of variations in the circumstances into which they are born. Therefore, an equitable ECEC system is one that supports all children to flourish in their learning, development and well-being, including by providing some children with additional support to compensate for an uneven distribution of resources and experiences related to their backgrounds.

• Inclusion or inclusive education encompasses the principles of equity while broadening the focus to recognise and address the different experiences, needs and challenges of diverse and vulnerable groups, and remove barriers to access to quality education for all children. Therefore, an inclusive ECEC system is understood as one that offers quality for all children while respecting their diversity (which includes their families and communities) and responding to their varying needs and strengths. Inclusion is about adapting the system to fit the child, rather than the other way round. Inclusion is therefore closely associated with individual and collective identities, and with fostering a sense of belonging among children.

Research evidence from many disciplines provides important insights into how policies can tackle inequalities in the early years. For instance, neuroscience and psychology have led to a better understanding of how children develop and learn and the role of their environment, while health and nutrition science have highlighted the connections between children’s well-being and their cognitive and socio-emotional development. Sociology and economics have analysed the determinants and costs of intergenerational cycles of poverty. Education sciences are also central to the discussion on supporting equity and inclusion in and through ECEC, placing a particular focus on policy levers such as pedagogy, curriculum design, and the organisation and leadership of educational settings. This report builds on research from all of these disciplines.

Translating research into policies is a more ambitious task than a literature review. The idea that education policies should build on robust scientific evidence has gained prominence among policymakers, and is already broadly subscribed to in ECEC, building on the widespread attention gained by research on children’s early development. However, new evidence often leads to new questions, and the variety of countries’ contexts, histories and institutions, as well as their resource constraints, means that translating research into policies involves many context-specific adjustments and trade-offs.

Over two years, from 2023-2024, a group of representatives from OECD member and non-member countries in charge of ECEC policies and a group of experts from multiple disciplines met to discuss how ECEC policies can be updated with recent research evidence to better address the challenges of supporting equity and inclusion through their policies (see Chapter 2 and Infographic 2). This theme emerged after a consultation of OECD member and partner countries in the beginning of 2023 on their ECEC policy priorities. Discussions between the two groups involved presentations of latest findings by experts and of concrete policy initiatives from country representatives. Mirroring this process, this report discusses how some of the most recent research findings from various disciplines can inform ECEC policies, taking into account countries’ and ECEC sectors’ characteristics. It presents research evidence, statistical indicators and a selection of concrete policy examples.

Countries can promote equity and inclusion by adopting a policy mix inspired by the “proportionate universalism” principle, in which actions have a universal reach but are applied with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage (Marmot et al., 2010[3]).

This approach aims to combine the benefits of both universal and targeted approaches while limiting their disadvantages and can be adapted to countries’ contexts, recognising that currently most OECD countries face tight public budget constraints:

• Programmes targeted to specific groups enable concentrating some resources for vulnerable children, but have limited impact at the aggregate level. In addition, this approach can lead to the risks of stigmatisation and accumulation of disadvantages, for instance if labelling related to programme eligibility leads to children being treated differently in later stages of education, or when recruiting staff becomes more difficult because targeted programmes are perceived as challenging work environments. In contrast, larger shares of children benefit from universal programmes, enhancing the opportunities that these children have to learn from each other and creating positive spill-over effects for vulnerable children. However, universal eligibility means that resources are less concentrated on children who need more support.

• Targeted policies can face challenges in identifying vulnerable children as there is not a one-to-one relationship between the characteristics of children and families that are used for the targeting (e.g. socio-economic status, immigration background) and the risk of vulnerability. These policies might overlook some vulnerable children while possibly profiting children and families who are not their intended beneficiaries. In addition, social policies targeting specific groups can involve non-take-up problems, with individuals not applying for a benefit or service they are eligible for, which limits the reach of welfare and social protection systems. Universal ECEC covering large percentages of children from a certain age can be combined with specific measures to support the enrolment of vulnerable children.

• A policy mix that provides high-quality ECEC to the benefit of all children, as well as additional support for children growing up with more limited resources and opportunities can support equity while helping to achieve cost-efficiency in a context of limited resources and structural difficulties to expand the sector while maintaining quality, existing in many OECD countries.

In 2022, the enrolment of children in education at age 5 was almost universal in most OECD countries, but enrolment rates were lower at younger ages and varied markedly between countries (Figure 1.3). With evidence showing that the early years play a key role in children’s learning and development trajectories, and that learning opportunities in family environments vary widely between children (see Chapter 3), extended participation in ECEC beyond the almost universal year before primary education is a key policy direction to address early inequalities.

Internationally comparative data on ECEC participation by children’s characteristics (e.g. younger ages and socio-economic backgrounds) are limited. Available evidence shows that gaps in ECEC participation persist based on children’s socio-economic backgrounds and other characteristics:

• Data from OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, which reflect participation in ECEC about a decade ago but cover all OECD countries, indicate a gap of 12 percentage points in participation in more than two years of ECEC between children from high and low socio-economic backgrounds.

• Recent data for OECD European countries (Eurostat, European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)) show that, despite common legal entitlements for ECEC access and compulsory pre-primary years, in 2023, on average across countries, 3-5-year-old children from low-income families continued to participate less in regulated ECEC services (86%) than their peers from high-income families (91%) (see Chapter 5). For children aged 0-2, the gap in participation in regulated centre-based and home-based ECEC was even larger at 19 percentage points (51% versus 32%, respectively).

Overall participation rates in ECEC expanded over recent decades in most OECD countries, sometimes helped by the decreasing size of cohorts of children due to demographic decline, but trends in socio-economic gaps in participation have not evolved in the same direction in all countries (Figure 1.4). At around age 4, available international data show that the gap in participation between children from high and low socio-economic backgrounds decreased in 12 countries, remained stable in 8 other countries and increased in 8 other countries. This applies to 2010-23 in European OECD countries, and 2005-15 in non-European OECD countries, leaving aside 11 countries with close to universal enrolment at this age. For children under the age of 2, socio-economic gaps in participation in ECEC increased in more than half of European OECD countries between 2010 and 2023 (see Chapter 5).

In countries with an increasing gap, the growth in enrolment rates was mainly driven by children from high socio-economic backgrounds. This is particularly the case in some countries with large increases in overall ECEC participation rates (e.g. Brazil, Chile and Türkiye) and is in line with evidence that families from high socio-economic status are better equipped to take advantage of opportunities for their children. This is the so-called “Matthew effect” in social policies, according to which some of these policies tend to disproportionally benefit more advantaged social groups. Other countries managed to increase average enrolment and simultaneously reduce participation gaps, whereas in countries with a stable gap, all socio-economic groups increased their participation in ECEC to a proportionate extent. Overall, though, the varied evolution of socio-economic gaps in participation across countries in a shared context of expanding overall enrollment rates indicates that policy design has a major role to play in shaping these gaps. The available evidence suggests that, over the last two decades, countries like Ireland, Korea, Latvia and Poland were successful in increasing total ECEC enrolment rates while also reducing socio-economic differentials in participation.

A wide range of factors influence children’s participation in ECEC services, shaped by the broader system characteristics and policy environment (see Chapter 5). While some barriers to participation are direct, relating to the availability, accessibility and affordability of ECEC services, others are indirect and reduce the effectiveness of policies aimed at overcoming these direct obstacles. Indirect barriers hinder access to otherwise available services, making them less appealing or harder to navigate for families. These stem from challenges such as limited access to information about available services and provisions, the complexity of administrative requirements, lack of awareness of ECEC benefits or a low level of trust in the quality of services offered. Both types of barriers are multi-faceted and disproportionately affect vulnerable families and children.

Addressing direct and indirect barriers for improving participation rates among vulnerable and hard-to-reach families requires layered policy strategies. Legal entitlements convey strong messages about the importance of child development early in life, and can also be used to drive expansion in supply and demand for ECEC. Universal free access is an important policy objective to work towards, but with limited public funds and strong reliance on private sources, fee structures or subsidies need to be carefully designed to reduce financial barriers to ECEC access for low-income children. Adequate funding together with better co-ordinated ECEC network planning and quality assurance mechanisms is critical for infrastructure expansion and ensuring high-quality ECEC services reach the most vulnerable children. Flexible or alternative forms of provision can accommodate families with irregular work schedules and ensure some provision in remote areas, and thereby reduce gaps in participation.

Co-ordinated services that effectively convey comprehensive and clear information to families are essential in extending the reach of policies for improving ECEC accessibility, especially for families facing multiple barriers to participation (see Chapters 4 and 5). Policies that focus on raising family awareness of the importance of ECEC for child development can help change attitudes about ECEC services, particularly among immigrant families. Early childhood services that serve as the first point of contact for families (e.g. health, social services) can guide parents through the application and enrolment processes for ECEC, thereby reducing the administrative burden. Evidence suggests that involving local community members in these services can significantly enhance their effectiveness, as they are integral to the information networks that many families rely on for support.

In addition to broader participation, the quality of ECEC also matters for levelling the playing field among children. Not enrolling children who would benefit from ECEC is a missed opportunity but evidence also suggests that enrolling children in poor-quality ECEC can be detrimental to their social and emotional development and overall well-being at an age when they are highly vulnerable (Britto, Yoshikawa and Boller, 2011[4]). In contrast, participation in high-quality ECEC yields multiple benefits for children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds (see Chapter 8). Increasing participation while maintaining or raising the quality of ECEC is challenging, as it requires adequate funding as well as features of ECEC (e.g. curriculum and pedagogy, workforce competencies and profiles, monitoring frameworks) that are adapted to a more diverse population of children and families (see Chapter 7). At the same time, raising the quality of ECEC can help convince families of the benefits of ECEC and help address some of the indirect barriers to ECEC participation.

The quality of ECEC is a complex and multi-dimensional concept that is difficult to assess, particularly at the system level. Notwithstanding its limitations, the association between participation in ECEC and children’ outcomes in the early years of primary education is a possible way to approximate some aspects of the quality of ECEC systems. This can be estimated using the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRLS) surveys, which monitor student achievement in mathematics, science and reading in the fourth grade (corresponding broadly to children aged 9-10 years). Differences in this association can be considered to signal differences in the system-level quality of ECEC between countries, but might also reflect different political goals for ECEC, including the weight put on school preparedness. Further, this particular measure concentrates on only one area of the potential short-term effects of ECEC, neglecting other areas such as socio-emotional development. Nonetheless, changes over time in the association between participation in ECEC and test scores can reflect changes in some of the dimensions of the quality of ECEC.

Table 1.1 combines indicators of the evolution of socio-economic gaps in participation in ECEC (at age 4 and above) and of the change in the association between participation and children’s mathematics and reading performance at age 9-10 (interpreted as changes in some dimensions of the system-level quality of ECEC). A combination of narrowing participation gaps or very high (i.e. over 90%) overall participation rates together with increasing levels of ECEC quality can be expected to have the largest influence in mitigating inequalities. On average across OECD countries with available data, the overall picture suggests stable average system-level quality of ECEC over this period (approximately 2005 to 2015) alongside stable gaps in ECEC participation rates: participation rates in ECEC increased over this period while the socio-economic gap in participation and the proxy of system-level quality of ECEC remained stable. According to available data, Ireland and the Netherlands have combined positive trends in both participation gaps and system-level quality of ECEC over this time period while Spain and Sweden have maintained overall high participation rates (above 90%), and therefore contained participation gaps, also combined with increasing system-level quality of ECEC. Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy and Poland also succeeded in reducing ECEC participation gaps (or maintained them at low levels) while the association between ECEC participation and test scores remained stable. In the Slovak Republic, the association became stronger while participation gaps remained stable. On a positive note, in none of the countries with available data did participation gaps increase while the measure of ECEC quality deteriorated.

While there are signals that some dimensions of the quality of ECEC have improved in a number of countries (Table 1.1), a large body of evidence documents variability in the quality of ECEC between and within types of ECEC. Furthermore, some groups of children, particularly those who would benefit the most from ECEC, recurrently experience lower levels of quality than others (see Chapter 6). When vulnerable children are enrolled in settings that provide lower-quality ECEC, there is a risk of exacerbating inequalities rather than reducing them.

Particularly in systems with a variety of types of provision, participation in more regulated and intense forms of ECEC tends to be lower among children from disadvantaged and minority backgrounds, often making them experience lower levels of process quality (i.e. the quality of their interactions with others within ECEC settings), which matters the most for their development, well-being and learning. Promoting equity through ECEC involves providing high levels of quality across different types of settings and services, so that all children benefit, as well as providing additional support for children growing up with more limited resources and opportunities (see Chapter 6). This policy mix involves establishing consistent quality frameworks that activate multiple policy levers, including curriculum, workforce preparation, standards on ratios, and monitoring, while also implementing targeted measures to identify children with additional needs and provide them with proportionally resourced services.

Child-centred curriculum frameworks informed by child development science should cover all age groups and types of ECEC settings. As children learn through play and develop in multiple areas (including cognitive and socio-emotional ones, see Chapter 3), curriculum models can maintain a holistic and play-based approach to early development while embedding opportunities for more intentional interactions focused on specific skills aligned with children’s stages of development.

The workforce is at the core of the interactions that children experience in ECEC settings. Initial preparation programmes providing training specifically to work with children, including practical experience and covering a broad range of areas, should be a standard for all staff roles. Building on pre-service training, staff should also have opportunities to participate in active and centre-embedded continuous professional development (CPD) with a strong individualised feedback component. Targeted supports can be provided for staff working in more challenging settings to receive CPD with strong evidence of enhancing the quality of practices. In the presence of staff shortages, they should not disproportionally affect ECEC settings with large shares of vulnerable children.

Research suggests that only modest benefits would result from improving child-staff ratios and group sizes alone in contexts where they are already adequate. However, these system-wide standards remain important, as they shape the capacity of ECEC staff to establish positive relationships with children. They can therefore be adapted to provide more staff or support multi-professional teams and other forms of targeted staffing in ECEC settings or groups where children’s needs call for additional or more specialised resources.

Research also indicates that both the quantity and quality of ECEC matter for achieving long-term effects on inequalities, and are interrelated. Early (i.e. below age 2) and more intensive (i.e. more hours per day) enrolment in ECEC can have positive effects on children from low socio-economic backgrounds, especially for cognitive development, provided that ECEC services are of high quality, and can therefore be targeted to these children. The curriculum framework and preparation of the ECEC staff, as well as their working conditions (e.g. time in contact with children, and time to prepare activities), need to be adapted to the starting age and intensity of programmes.

Policies for ensuring consistently high levels of quality and promoting equity within an ECEC system can be particularly difficult to implement in contexts where the ECEC sector has fragmented governance, involves multiple types of provision or is challenged by financial constraints and staff shortages. System-level monitoring can contribute to high quality across the sector by establishing a shared understanding of quality standards (with the quality of practices with children being at the centre) and clear expectations for all types of providers, by setting incentives that reward high quality, and by integrating guidance and support for providers for improving their services.

Today, growing shares of socio-economically disadvantaged and multilingual children participate in ECEC, and most children with special education needs attend mainstream ECEC settings (see Chapter 7). Increasing social and cultural diversity requires ECEC systems to respond to a broader range of needs from children and families, while also bringing opportunities to build on a wider range of experiences and resources. ECEC can support inclusion by focusing on the strengths that come with diversity, leaving behind deficit views on the capacities and potential of children from disadvantaged or minority backgrounds. Building an inclusive ECEC system means offering quality for all children while valuing their diversity and responding meaningfully to their needs and strengths. These strengths-based approaches align ECEC organisational and pedagogical practices with children’s experiences and cultural contexts.

As with equity, universal and targeted approaches can be combined to promote inclusion in ECEC, in line with tiered models of support for young children. Effective inclusive practices build on foundations that benefit all children, regardless of their background or development trajectory. Improving the quality of interactions for all children reduces the need and increases the effectiveness of more targeted supports.

Diversity should be valued and sustained across all settings within an ECEC system, and not only in settings serving large shares of disadvantaged or minority children. An inclusive ECEC curriculum – i.e. culturally and linguistically sustaining, with guidance on supporting children with special education needs, and promoting engagement with families from diverse backgrounds – is a major building block for elevating diversity as a value in all ECEC settings. Flexibility is then required for adapting curriculum delivery to local contexts where diversity takes different forms.

The workforce is at the core of inclusive ECEC policies. CPD is key to support ECEC staff and leaders in developing more inclusive practices. Transversal competencies and attitudes (e.g. addressing biases, valuing diversity) are a foundation for more specific skills (e.g. supporting home languages). CPD models should favour team-level, guided reflection and practical responses to diversity in local contexts. In addition, matching staff with children can also support inclusion. Attracting and retaining a more diverse ECEC workforce can increase awareness of the needs and strengths of diverse children and families and facilitate more responsive approaches within settings.

In turn, system- and setting-level monitoring and assessment can help to better understand and identify variability in children’s needs and strengths, and to assess the quality of the targeted supports provided to children, as a complement to the monitoring of more general aspects of quality in ECEC.

Together with other policies, ECEC policies shape opportunities for development, learning and well-being throughout childhood (short-term effects) but also have implications for children’s future education and labour market outcomes, as well as on life more generally (long-term effects) (see Chapter 8). ECEC can lead to positive long-term effects by helping children to develop in multiple areas and acquire a broad range of early skills that are foundational for their life-long learning. Through these mechanisms children may be better prepared for the education journey and life more generally, thus investments in ECEC can maximise the effect of additional, later educational investments and lead to dynamic complementarities.

Data from PISA shed light on the association between participation in ECEC and students’ outcomes at age 15 and its evolution over time. In most countries, this association is positive, meaning that children who have attended ECEC for more than two years have higher performance scores in mathematics at age 15 (Figure 1.5). On average across OECD countries, this association remained stable between 2015 and 2022, although it increased in some countries including Brazil, Chile, Colombia and the Slovak Republic. The trend is broadly consistent with the findings coming from TIMSS data of a stable link with mathematics at age 9-10. Without indicating a causal effect, these results suggest that ECEC participation is associated with higher test scores in the medium- and longer-term, while this proxy of some aspects of the system-level quality of ECEC has on average remained stable over time, with variations between countries.

However, for ECEC to mitigate inequalities, the effects of participating in ECEC need to be positive and lasting, but also to be larger for more vulnerable children than for less vulnerable ones (see Chapter 8). While there is evidence that some ECEC programmes have mitigated socio-economic inequalities in education, labour market and social outcomes, these findings have not been consistent nor widely documented. Methodological challenges explain the limitations of available evidence. Data are often lacking to assess the impact on a larger range of outcomes beyond cognitive and academic test scores (e.g. on socio-emotional skills). Furthermore, identifying causal effects is difficult due to the presence of confounding factors and the lack of control groups for universal ECEC programmes. Additionally, variations in the features of ECEC programmes across countries add to inconsistencies in the evidence base.

Evidence from TIMSS and PIRLS (at around age 10) and PISA (at age 15) indicates that in all OECD countries, test scores are higher for children from high socio-economic backgrounds than for their disadvantaged peers (Mullis et al., 2023[5])). In addition, these performance gaps have increased in a majority of countries over the last decade (Table 1.2). These trends can be attributed to a range of factors, with ECEC being one of them. The analyses in this chapter present simple trends and not causal relationships, and therefore cannot provide conclusive explanations of these findings. However, the combination of i) persistent socio-economic gaps in participation in ECEC (Figure 1.4); ii) signals of stable quality levels of ECEC on average in OECD countries (Table 1.1); and iii) evidence of lower-quality ECEC for children from lower socio-economic backgrounds (see Chapter 6), is consistent with persistent socio-economic gaps in test scores in middle childhood and adolescence. These findings indicate that ECEC policies, together with other early years policies, need to be revised to deliver stronger and lasting positive effects on the reduction of inequalities.

ECEC policies are just one – albeit an important – piece of the social inequality puzzle. The persistence of socio-economic gaps in educational outcomes and subsequent labour market and social outcomes (e.g. health, criminal behaviour, civic engagement) is a consequence of the complex interplay between multiples factors and policies, which include early education policies as well as policies in other sectors. Leaving aside factors and policies outside the scope of this report, a whole-of-government approach for the early years that includes high-quality ECEC, co-ordination with other services related to families and children, and smart funding and governance is critical to mitigate social inequalities.

Policies can rethink the boundaries of ECEC by considering broadly the role ECEC can play for children of a wider age range, families and communities, rather than focusing on ECEC as a single institution (or a multiplicity of uncoordinated programmes) serving only children in their early years. ECEC has the potential to be at the centre of integrated and co-ordinated policy and service efforts, given its close connection to families and its critical role for supporting children’s development, learning and well-being in its own right. This role can be further enhanced through intentional connections with complementary policies and services for families (see Chapters 4 and 10).

The co-ordination and combination of ECEC policies with policies targeting parents and families can launch vulnerable children on more favourable trajectories (see Chapter 8). Intentionally developing ECEC programmes that support parents in fostering children’s well-being and early learning, especially programmes that integrate well into parents’ habits and do not add to existing stress burden, can amplify children’s positive experiences in ECEC and lead to sustained effects over time (see Chapter 10).

National quality frameworks that are shared across sectors serving early childhood can provide mechanisms for prioritising co-ordination as well as a common language for programmes to better communicate with each other. Integrated service hubs operating under the umbrella of a quality framework can be a meaningful strategy to promote awareness and use of ECEC, as well as to connect families who already participate in ECEC with a range of other services. This approach can help ensure families and children receive the support they need in multiple areas, setting the foundations for children’s development, learning and well-being.

Throughout education, vulnerable children should be exposed to enlarged and ambitious content. Areas of development targeted by ECEC, and therefore curriculum frameworks, are central to the achievement of long-term effects (see Chapter 8). ECEC curricula that are designed to build broad or “unconstrained” cognitive skills (e.g. vocabulary rather than narrow school-readiness skills such as identifying letters), social-emotional skills, as well as skills that support learning across domains (e.g. executive function) can be expected to produce longer-lasting positive effects for vulnerable children. However, as many skills can be developed later in education or at home, this feature of ECEC alone does not guarantee achieving long-term effects: strong investments in ECEC and positive outcomes from participation are unlikely to be sustained in the face of low-quality primary schools or redundancies in learning content. Co-ordination within ECEC and between ECEC and the next stages of the education sector are therefore critical to avoid curricular redundancy and support the continuity of pedagogical approaches. In particular, since play is essential to children’s development, and given that children’s play time has decreased in some OECD countries (see Chapter 3), education policies need to foster pedagogical practices that promote the role of play in the first years of primary education.

ECEC settings and their staff are key levers to provide information and support to parents regarding home interactions with their children, to co-ordinate with other professionals working with families, and to engage with schools to facilitate transitions, especially for more vulnerable children. Staff and leaders need to be trained for these roles and supported to co-operate with other professionals, for instance by allocating time for work without children and by recognising their status though salaries aligned with their roles. While not all ECEC staff (and leaders) need to engage in these extended tasks, those who do should have explicit recognition in their role and status.

A policy mix that aims to increase ECEC enrolment, ensure all children benefit from quality services, and provide enhanced support proportionate to children and families’ needs requires more substantial, equitable and efficient funding (see Chapter 9). In 2021, on average across OECD countries, total expenditure on ECEC (i.e. early childhood education development and ECEC) amounted to 0.9% of GDP compared to 1.4% for primary education, with large variation between countries (OECD, 2024[6]). Furthermore, private expenditure plays a stronger role in funding education and care for children under age 3 (26% of total expenditure) and pre-primary education (14%), relative to primary (5%) and secondary education (7%). In some countries, public under-investment amplifies reliance on family contributions to cover the costs of ECEC, potentially discouraging enrolment among those who stand the most to gain from participating in it. At the same time, most OECD countries currently operate under strong budgetary pressures that limit their capacity to expand or strengthen the public ECEC sector. More efficient public investment that balances universal and targeted approaches can reduce aggregate spending and allocate resources where they have the largest impact, thus helping to achieve the dual objective of lowering participation gaps in ECEC and raising the quality of the services catering to vulnerable children.

How resources are distributed and to whom is critical for ensuring accessible, affordable and high-quality ECEC for all children. When ECEC responsibilities lie mainly at the local level, as is the case in many OECD countries, equalisation systems between local authorities are needed to ensure that local entities with higher shares of socio-economically disadvantaged populations can provide high-quality ECEC to children. The distribution of capital investments in the system plays a key role in ensuring equitable ECEC access. Adequate capital spending, effective network planning and support measures for ECEC providers to access capital funding can facilitate infrastructure investments that support ECEC sector expansions and benefit children most in need. High-quality data and its effective use is needed to steer the system towards efficient spending and effectively target the most vulnerable children and settings.

Some countries have relied on private provision to expand ECEC services, often partially financed by public spending, thus leading to the development of a mixed economy of ECEC where public, private-for-profit and private not-for-profit providers operate together. While competition in provision can support quality and faster adaptation to demand, marketised ECEC systems also entail a range of risks. These include higher costs for families and the exclusion of low-income children as well as lower service quality, which is detrimental to children and means that investments (both public and private) are partially lost. Quality monitoring, regulation of private providers (with particular attention to for-profit players), funding conditionality and measures to limit family costs – are several policy levers that can help mitigate the risks that can emerge in mixed ECEC systems and ensure the efficiency of public and private investments.

Quality ECEC provision for all children hinges on a qualified workforce, which is one of the main sources of ECEC expenditure. General funding mechanisms that ensure wages are in line with staff roles and responsibilities need to be complemented by additional funding that recognises the challenging working conditions that staff can experience in disadvantaged settings. In mixed ECEC systems, where central authorities may have more limited leverage over staff compensation, funding conditionality can help ensure that dedicated grants are used by ECEC providers to enhance workforce quality.

Placing ECEC policies as part of a broader and more effective landscape of policies to reduce inequalities requires aligning funding and governance for a more integrated policy approach. In particular, this requires that total investments in education and families remain more stable throughout early childhood, in contrast to the sharp decline observed in many countries between age 1, coinciding with the end of maternity leave entitlements, and the beginning of pre-primary education (typically around age 3) (see Chapter 9).

In addition, a whole-of-government approach calls for high-level policies and national commitments to support co-ordinated services throughout childhood (see Chapter 10). ECEC itself encompasses different types of programmes with different degrees of formality and regulation, as well as with different goals. The different types of provision can meet different family and societal needs, but can also be challenging for families to navigate, contributing to disparities in participation, beyond the risks of variation in the quality of ECEC provision (see Chapter 6). The degree of system fragmentation varies across OECD countries, but generally makes co-ordination of services challenging even within the ECEC sector.

Better horizontal co-ordination of ECEC with other services is also needed. Starting with prenatal services to support healthy pregnancies, this co-ordination and continuity needs to extend through the developmental milestones of early childhood and into primary school, with the aim of sustaining the benefits from one set of services to another and contributing to long-lasting effects of ECEC.

Policy and service co-ordination has several objectives. First, these efforts aim to build on the multiple factors that influence children’s development, learning and well-being (see Chapter 3). This approach recognises that there is not a single strategy that, on its own, can eliminate opportunity gaps among young children. Second, co-ordination and integration are promising directions for making ECEC and complementary supports more accessible to all families and children, reducing systemic barriers that hinder access to various services (see Chapter 5). Third, co-ordination can enhance the quality of services. A well-connected service environment fosters ongoing knowledge exchange among providers and stakeholders, facilitating a holistic response to children's needs (see Chapters 6 and 7). Finally, the efficiency of policy investments and design of services can be improved by making the most of available resources, avoiding duplication of efforts and layering interventions (see Chapter 9).

Comprehensive service models are shaped by their guiding principles, governance structures, and the degree of co-ordination and integration across services. These key dimensions influence how services are utilised, managed and delivered to families. Across contexts, enabling conditions that support successful co-ordination tend to include a combination of both top-down supports (e.g. stable funding, legal frameworks for co-operation) and bottom-up, local inputs (e.g. commitment to supporting early childhood initiatives, capacity for implementation), as well as shared values, strong leadership and strong communication channels, including for data sharing (see Chapter 10). In addition, all programme components need to be of high quality in order to support quality at the level of co-ordinated services while avoiding substitution effects between programmes.

[4] Britto, P., H. Yoshikawa and K. Boller (2011), Quality of Early Childhood Development Programs in Global Contexts: Rationale for Investment, Conceptual Framework and Implications for Equity. Social Policy Report. Volume 25, Number 2, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2011.tb00067.x.

[1] Clarke, C. et al. (2022), “The economic costs of childhood socio-economic disadvantage in European OECD countries”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8c0c66b9-en.

[3] Marmot, M. et al. (2010), Fair Society, Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review), Institute of Health Equity, https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review.

[5] Mullis, I. et al. (2023), PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103.kb5342.

[6] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

[2] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.

[9] OECD (2022), “Finland’s Right to Learn Programme: Achieving equity and quality in education”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 61, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65eff23e-en.

[7] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.

[8] OECD (2020), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.