Most children aged 3 to 5 (84%) attend early childhood education (ECE) programmes across the OECD, yet only 32% of those aged 0 to 2 are enrolled in early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01) on average. Younger children from low-income families are least likely to attend these programmes, despite being likely to benefit the most.
Almost all OECD countries provide at least one year of free early childhood education before primary school. By 2022, enrolment rates among children the year before they reach primary school age averaged 95% across OECD countries, a 1-percentage point increase since 2013.
Public provision of early childhood educational development services (ISCED 01) is lower in many OECD countries than public pre-primary provision (ISCED 02). On average across OECD countries, one-third of children in pre-primary education are enrolled in private institutions, whereas half of those in early childhood educational development are enrolled in private institutions.
Education at a Glance 2024
Education in the early years has a crucial role in children’s development and well-being. An expanding body of scientific research indicates that early childhood education and care (ECEC) substantially improves children’s language, cognitive, social and emotional skills while fostering the self-regulation and confidence they need for a smooth transition into primary school in the short term (Yoshikawa, Weiland and Brooks-Gunn, 2016[1]; Shuey and Kankaraš, 2018[2]; OECD, 2020[3]; OECD, 2021[4]). Furthermore, the progress that children make in their first years can have a lasting impact on their educational attainment, academic performance, well-being and earnings in later life (García et al., 2020[5]; Heckman and Karapakula, 2019[6]). Beyond these individual benefits, well-designed and high-quality ECEC programmes are likely to benefit children from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds and help reduce social inequalities by promoting equitable opportunities among children in the longer term (Duncan et al., 2023[7]; OECD, 2024[8]). Consequently, these programmes can help to reduce the disparities in academic performance across socio-economic classes, genders, and rural and urban populations and strengthen social cohesion among children (UNICEF, 2019[9]). Families and society also benefit from ECEC in both the short and long term, through the increased engagement of parents, especially women, in the labour market (OECD, 2021[4]).
Over the last decade, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye stand out for the remarkable increase in enrolment – by about 30 percentage points – among children in the year before they reach the official age for starting primary education.
Children in capital cities are less likely to participate in formal education in a number of countries. For example, in Chile, the Santiago metropolitan area has among the lowest enrolment rates for 3-5 year-olds in the country. Even in countries where the enrolment of 3-5 year-olds exceeds 90% nationally, capital cities tend to have some of the lowest share of children participating in formal education.
In Korea, Lithuania and Portugal children benefit from the guaranteed provision of free ECEC for a minimum of five years, spanning from the end of paid maternity, parental or home care leave to the start of compulsory education. In contrast, there are 17 OECD countries which still have a “childcare gap” of at least a year, where children lack access to free ECEC services.
This chapter only covers formal education and care. Informal care services (generally unregulated care arranged by the child’s parents either in the child’s home or elsewhere, provided by relatives, friends, neighbours, babysitters or nannies) are not covered (see Definitions section for more details). In some countries, children under the age of 3 are also likely to be enrolled in other registered ECEC services which do not meet ISCED 2011 criteria. The enrolment rates of those children should be interpreted with caution, given the limited availability of data for these services. As a result, the analysis of this chapter concentrates on the children at the age of 3 and above at pre-primary level where data are more available and comparable.
In light of the numerous benefits associated with participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC), it has been a growing priority in education policies of many OECD countries. The objective of expanding participation in ECEC aligns with global targets set by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG Indicator 4.2 aims to ensure that by 2030, all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education, thereby preparing them for primary education (UNESCO, 2024[10]). Specifically, SDG Indicator 4.2.2 monitors enrolment rates among children one year before the official primary entry age. This indicator serves as a critical measure to assess the extent to which children are exposed to organised learning activities before they start primary education.
Enrolment of children in the year before they reach the official primary education entry age has become near-universal, reaching 100% in 8 countries and surpassing 90% in almost all other OECD countries. On average, enrolment among children in this category has seen a 1 percentage-point increase since 2013, to reach 95% across OECD countries in 2022. Although the theoretical age for starting primary education varies between 5 and 7, the majority of countries set it at 6. Enrolment rates in these countries are therefore based on the share of children enrolled at the age of 5 (Table B1.2).
Several countries have experienced large rises in enrolment one year before the official primary education entry age, of 10 percentage points or more since 2013 (Figure B1.1). Saudi Arabia and Türkiye stand out as especially remarkable, with increases of about 30 percentage points, indicating a substantial surge in participation in pre-primary education. These notable rises may be partly attributed to the implementation of effective ECEC policies, combined with the comparatively low participation rates in these countries in 2013. In some countries, the increase in enrolment can be partly explained by the expansion of compulsory education. In the Slovak Republic, for instance, pre-primary education became compulsory in 2021 and the enrolment of children one year before primary school has increased by 9 percentage points since 2013 and by 5 percentage points since 2021.
Some countries offer distinct one-year programmes specifically for children in the year before starting primary school. These programmes are often designed to help children with the transition from ECE to primary education. For example, Finland’s Esiopetus programme for 6-year-olds is the only type of ECE that can be offered in school-based settings. It follows a different curriculum framework, which is explicitly aligned with the one for primary education (OECD, 2017[11]). It is also the only ECE service in Finland that has mandatory attendance, at an average of 4 hours per day, 700 hours per school year. The right to complementary ECE continues until the start of school to ensure a full-day service. In other countries, the organisation of ECE programmes for children is similar for all years of pre-primary education. France and Italy, for example, have a single curriculum framework for all children enrolled in pre-primary education, and children start attending programmes in school-based settings from the age of 3. Meanwhile, in Estonia, there is a single ECE programme for children aged from 1.5 to 7, which is offered in centre-based settings, and is also regulated by a single curriculum framework.
While all countries acknowledge the need to develop high-quality ECEC programmes, there is considerable variation in how they are organised, and the design of the supporting social and family policies aimed at expanding participation. The range of ECEC services offered in OECD countries varies significantly. There are differences in the age at which children enter ECEC, the amount of time they spend in ECEC, how ECEC centres are governed, how services are funded, whether children attend full-day or part-day, and where the provision is located, whether in centres or schools, or in homes (OECD, 2017[12]). The programmes offered by ECEC services can also vary significantly in terms of their content. In order to distinguish between ECEC services that primarily offer an intentional education component and those that aim to offer only childcare, ECEC provision can be classified into two main categories: those that comply with the ISCED 2011 classification of early childhood education (ECE) services, and other registered ECE services that are not considered by ISCED to be an educational programme. In other words, ECE programmes are those that meet ISCED 2011 criteria while ECEC programmes consist of both ECE programmes and other registered ECEC services which do not meet the criteria (Box B1.2).
One key difference in the way countries organise their ECEC systems is which administrative authorities are ultimately in charge and whether the system is split or integrated at the national level according to the target age. More than half of the OECD countries with available data have integrated ECEC services for children from the ages of 0 or 1 until they begin primary school. In these countries, a single authority is in charge of managing the whole ECEC system and establishing appropriate educational programmes to ensure a smooth transition to primary education. In such cases, it is usually the education ministry that is in charge of regulating ECEC programmes and any division between ECEC programmes based on target age groups has been made for the purpose of facilitating international comparisons. In the remaining countries with available data, different authorities are responsible for ECEC provision for different age groups. In these countries, ECEC services for older children (generally 3-5 year-olds) are mostly regulated by the education ministry, while those designed for younger children (generally aged 0 to 2) are often governed by another authority.
Despite the benefits of high-quality ECEC in the first years of life, participation in early childhood education is not compulsory in any OECD country for children under the age of 3 (OECD, 2018[13]; OECD, 2018[14]). On average, less than half of 2-year-olds and 18% of those under 2 were enrolled in formal ECE programmes in OECD countries in 2022 (Figure B1.2). This average hides a great deal of variation across countries. While there are no formal ECE programmes for 2-year-olds in Greece, India, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Switzerland, more than 90% of 2-year-olds are enrolled in such programmes in Iceland, Korea, Norway and Sweden (Table B1.1).
Some countries have registered ECEC services which are an integral part of ECEC provision, but do not comply with the criteria for ECE, e.g. crèches in France (Box B1.2). In the Netherlands, for example, 87% of 2-year-olds and 66% of children under the age of 2 attend such services. Although such programmes exist in many countries, particularly for children under 3, not all countries are able to report the number of children enrolled in them (Table B1.1.).
Even when considering all ECEC programmes, regardless of whether they meet the ISCED standards or not, the enrolment of young children differs across OECD countries. In Australia, Korea, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, enrolment is high among the youngest children, with more than 40% of children under 2 enrolled in ECEC programmes. In contrast, Costa Rica, Greece, Switzerland and Türkiye have low enrolment rates among children aged 3 and under, but they rise as children become older (Table B1.1.). Enrolment rates among the youngest children, and the age at which they start to attend ECEC, can be influenced by a range of factors including the number of places available, the amount of free provision, the cost of ECEC services, parental employment and leave, as well as regulations regarding the minimum starting age for ECEC.
Although almost all OECD countries already provide free access to at least one year of ECEC before children start primary education (see Table B1.1 and Table B2.1 in Chapter B2), ECEC services for children under the age of 3 are typically not funded by the government. This reflects the fact that within constrained public budgets for ECEC, often priority is given to pre-primary education (OECD, 2017[12]; OECD, 2024[8]). As a consequence, out-of-pocket costs for ECEC can be an important barrier to enrolment in many OECD countries, particularly for lower income households (Box B1.3). On the other hand, in the 11 countries where free ECEC services are available to children under the age of 3 (see Table B2.1 in Chapter B2), enrolment rates are notably high for this age group. For instance, children are entitled to some free ECEC services from birth in Korea, where the enrolment rate is 96% for children aged 2-year-olds (Table B1.1). Box B1.1 considers the issue of childcare “gaps” – the period of time between the end of paid maternity, parental or home care leave and the start of free provision of ECEC.
Other factors such as availability and length of parental leave, maternal employment and cultural perspectives on the role of women either in the workplace or as primary caregivers, are also likely have an impact on enrolment rates among of young children. For instance, in Hungary and the Slovak Republic, where parental paid leave lasts over three years, the enrolment rate among children aged under 3 was just 4% in 2022. The traditional role of women as principal caregiver can be a determining factor in the use of childcare services. Relatively few young children are enrolled in ECEC in countries where maternal employment rates are low. In some countries, the employment rate of all women is generally low: for instance, women’s labour-market participation rates were 50% in Mexico and just 39% in Türkiye in 2022 (ILOSTAT, 2022[15]). In contrast, in the Netherlands, 81% of mothers with at least one child under 3 are employed, compared to the OECD average of 64% (OECD, 2022[16]). Even though parental leave is relatively short in countries such as Costa Rica, Mexico, Türkiye and Switzerland, the participation of children in ECE is also low. For example, the enrolment rates among 2-year-olds are 11% in Czechia and 2% in Türkiye where the employment rates of mothers whose youngest child is under 3 are below 22% (OECD, 2022[16]). Lastly, childcare can be informal and provided by family members, neighbours or friends. In some countries, a low participation in formal ECEC may reflect a high prevalence of informal care mechanisms (Table B1.1).
Policies to offer at least some free hours of ECEC services, often targeting disadvantaged population groups, have become widespread in recent years, particularly in European countries. Children aged 1 to 4 in Luxembourg, and from birth to primary education in Lithuania, benefit from 20 hours of free ECEC per week, with parents or guardians paying for additional hours. In Romania, ECEC is free of charge for both the normal (10 hours per day) and the short programme (5 hours per day) (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023[17]). The Norwegian government has recently implemented a policy granting lower-income parents entitlement to 20 hours of free childcare (Rastrigina and Pearsall, 2023[18]). In Sweden, municipalities are obliged to provide a place in ECEC to children who have lived in the country for a short time, regardless of whether their parents or guardians have formally requested it. The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) in the Slovak Republic provides targeted assistance to increase the involvement of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as Roma children, or children with disabilities (European Commission, 2023[19]). Roma parents in Croatia are also exempted from kindergarten expenses (Toy Project, 2019[20]; OECD, 2022[21]). In addition, there is a widespread effort to expand capacity aimed at increasing enrolment rates for children aged 3 and below. For example, Spain is using the funds from the European Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) to create over 60,000 places by 2025. This initiative is intended to meet all demands for early education for children under the age of 3 and to reduce regional disparities in participation.
Some countries with integrated ECEC systems have developed policies intended to increase the affordability and accessibility of services for children under the age of 3 by providing substantial financial assistance to parents for childcare services. For instance, in Sweden, where municipal budgets provide the majority of the funding for 1-6 year-olds, parents are required to contribute a small percentage of out-of-pocket expenses that are contingent on their income but are capped at a maximum amount (OECD, 2024[22]). In Denmark, municipalities provide a place in an ECEC facility for all children older than 26 weeks. (Hofman et al., 2020[23]; OECD, 2022[21]). By the age of 2, the enrolment rate for children in these two Nordic countries surpasses 85% (Table B1.1).
Enrolment rates for children under the age of 3 in early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED level 01) have expanded on average across OECD countries, rising from 28% in 2013 to 32% in 2022. The increases have been particularly pronounced in some countries, such as Israel, Korea and Lithuania, which have seen rises of at least 14 percentage points. Germany has also experienced a 6 percentage-point increase in enrolment among children under 3 since 2013. This increase may be due to the implementation of a law in 2013 that legally guaranteed a place in formal childcare to all children aged 1 and over (Table B1.2).
In many European countries, such increases in enrolment may be attributed to the further impetus provided by the European Union (EU) after the original targets set at the Barcelona 2002 meeting. The EU initially aimed for enrolment rates of at least 33% of children under the age of 3 by 2010. These objectives were revised as part of the wider European Care Strategy in 2022 to ensure more enrolment in ECEC, enhance the social and cognitive development of disadvantaged children, and encourage parents' involvement in the labour market. The revised Barcelona targets for 2030 are for a minimum of 45% of children under the age of 3 to be enrolled in formal childcare (European Commission, 2023[19]). The EU 2030 objectives also highlighted the issue of low enrolment rates among children with disabilities, those with a migrant background and Roma children.
The term “childcare gap” was introduced by Eurydice (2023[19]) to describe the period between the end of paid maternity, parental or home care leave and the start of legal entitlement to a guaranteed place in ECEC services across EU countries. However, the OECD analysis replaces the duration of legal entitlement with the duration of free provision (Figure B1.3). This indicator is highly significant as it directly affects the choices available to parents. In the absence of government assistance, parents may find their options for childcare limited, leaving them the choice of either private care, if financially feasible, or informal care where available. Those lacking access to these alternatives may face the difficult decision of leaving their jobs. Women are disproportionately affected by this scenario and are more likely to either exit the workforce or reduce their working hours upon becoming parents (Nightingale and Janta, 2020[24]).
In Korea, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia children are guaranteed free ECEC services for at least five years from the end of their parents’ paid leave until the start of compulsory pre-primary or primary education. Free provision of ECEC may ensure continuous care without the need for parents to leave their job or pay for care. In contrast, the childcare gap in many countries can last for a number of years. In 17 countries, children are not entitled to any free provision of ECEC services between the end of paid maternity, parental or home care leave and the start of compulsory education, resulting in a theoretical gap of up to five years. Lacking free ECEC services, parents in these countries may face financial constraints that prevent them from enrolling their children in ECEC programmes, leading them to opt for at-home care.
On average, paid maternity, parental or home care leave across OECD countries lasts one year, with the duration varying widely. In Finland home care allowance and leave is available to children aged up to three years. The duration ranges from over three years in Hungary and the Slovak Republic to no legal entitlement to parental leave at the national level in the United States, and only three months in Mexico.
Actual childcare gaps may differ from the theoretical gaps presented in Figure B1.3. In some countries children are not guaranteed free education until the start of compulsory education. However, several countries offer subsidies that allow parents to enrol their children in ECEC services without shouldering the full costs. For instance, in Denmark, municipalities subsidise public ECEC services, covering at least 75% of the costs for a guaranteed place (Eurydice, 2024[25]). Similarly, in Finland, municipalities are legally required to provide ECEC services based on local demand, and fees are moderate, varying with family size, income, and the child's participation hours. In 2022, 40% of children in municipal ECEC in Finland did not pay any fees and only less than a fifth paid the maximum fee (Education Statistics Finland, 2024[26]). Likewise, in Slovenia, kindergarten fees are reduced for all children in public kindergartens, private kindergartens with a concession, or private kindergartens funded by the municipal budget. The government covers 23% of ECEC service costs for all parents liable for income tax in the Republic of Slovenia. Lastly, depending on the socio-economic status of the family, ECEC services can be subsidized up to 100% in Slovenia (Eurydice, 2024[27]).
Conversely, even when free provision is mandated in the legal framework, it does not necessarily translate into full participation in ECEC services. Access and capacity issues can considerably reduce the use of these services in practice. Children may be required to travel long distances to access free ECEC centres, or parents may face lengthy waiting lists when attempting to enrol their children. Furthermore, free childcare programmes may only offer limited hours per day, posing challenges for parents who wish to work. These practical considerations illustrate the complexity of childcare provision and its implications for workforce participation. Additionally, at the subnational level, additional types of free childcare provision might be available.
Focusing on the other end of the gap, the actual use of parental leave may also differ from what is laid out in national legislation. For instance, the United States may be the only country without national mandated paid maternity and parental leave, but some US states have state-mandated paid leave plans, including California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington and the District of Columbia. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 23% of US workers had access to paid family leave benefits in 2021, mostly through employer-sponsored benefit plans, while 89% had access to unpaid family leave benefits (OECD, 2022[28]). Employers may provide longer parental leave than is guaranteed by national legislation. For instance, in Brazil, companies in the private sector may provide additional leave benefits above those required by the state. In contrast, some employees may feel pressure not to take the parental leave to which they are entitled. For instance, in Korea, women often do not use their full entitlement of parental leave due to concerns about their job security and poor wages (Kim, Hwang and Kim, 2021[29]; Lee, 2023[30]). This lack of access in practice to parental leave may be partly the reason for the high enrolment rates (66% in 2022) of children under the age of 3 in ECEC programmes in Korea.
Although participation is not compulsory in all countries, enrolment among children over 3 is still very common across OECD countries, with 89% 4-year-olds enrolled in ECE and primary education on average. Rates reach 96% of children by the age of 5 (Table B1.1). In more than half of OECD countries with available data, the enrolment of children between the ages of 3 and 5 is nearly universal, i.e. at least 90% (Table B1.2). The highest enrolment rates of 4-year-olds in ECE and primary education are found in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Peru, Portugal and the United Kingdom, where they equal or exceed 99%. In contrast, 50% or less are enrolled in education in Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland and Türkiye (Table B1.1). Lower enrolment rates are likely to stem from subnational differences in the starting age of compulsory education in some countries, such as Switzerland.
The positive impact of ECEC on children’s development, skills and well-being, smoothing the transition to primary education, have recently convinced some policy makers to lower the compulsory starting age. Over the last decade, France has lowered its compulsory starting age by three years, Costa Rica and Hungary by two years, while eight other OECD and accession countries lowered the starting age for compulsory pre-primary education by one year. Some years of pre-primary education is now compulsory in 24 countries. In 11 countries, compulsory education starts one year before entry into primary education. Compulsory education starts even earlier in some countries: at the age of 3 in France, Hungary, Israel and Mexico; 4 in Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Greece and Luxembourg; and 4-5 in Switzerland. Even in countries where compulsory education does not start until the first year of primary education, around the age of 5 or 6, many OECD countries offer free provision of early childhood and education services for at least one or two years before the start of compulsory schooling (see Chapter 2, Table B2.1).
Policies to expand compulsory education often lead to higher enrolment rates. For instance, Costa Rica made two years of pre-primary education compulsory in 2018, as did Greece in 2020. Consequently, between 2013 and 2022, the enrolment 3-5 year-olds in pre-primary education increased by 11 percentage points in Costa Rica and 17 percentage points in Greece (Table B1.2). This shows how compulsory education reforms can effectively drive enrolment growth, ensuring more children have access to foundational education experiences.
The ISCED 2011 classification was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 36th session in November 2011. In this session, some main and subsidiary criteria were established for classifying early childhood education and care programmes. In order to comply with the ISCED 2011 classification, ISCED level 0 programmes must:
have adequate intentional educational properties
have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational activities and a duration of at least 100 days per year
be institutionalised usually as school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group of children. In other words, there should be a clear dividing line between family-based arrangements or “babysitting”
have a regulatory framework that is defined as legislation, guidelines, standards or instructions and that is recognised by the relevant national authorities
have trained and accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for educators) (OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015[31]).
For the purpose of international comparability, the ISCED 2011 classification also splits ISCED level 0 programmes into two categories which are classified depending on age and the level of complexity of the educational content:
ISCED level 01 refers to early childhood educational development programmes, typically aimed at children under age 3. In these programmes, the learning environment is visually stimulating, and the language is rich and fosters self-expression, with an emphasis on language acquisition and the use of language for meaningful communication. There are opportunities for active play so that children can exercise their co-ordination and motor skills under supervision and in interaction with staff;
ISCED level 02 refers to pre-primary education programmes, aimed at children in the years immediately prior to starting compulsory schooling, typically aged between age 3 and age 5. In these programmes, children improve their use of language and their social skills, start to develop logical and reasoning skills, and talk through their thought processes. They are also introduced to alphabetical and mathematical concepts, understanding and use of language, and are encouraged to explore their surrounding world and environment. Supervised gross motor activities (i.e. physical exercise through games and other activities) and play-based activities can be used as learning opportunities to promote social interactions with peers and to develop skills, autonomy and school readiness.
However, there are other registered ECEC services that are considered to be an integral part of countries’ ECEC provision but do not comply with all the ISCED level 0 criteria to qualify as educational programmes. For instance, crèches in France and Luxembourg are designed to deliver some recommended educational properties, as centre-based institutions and regulated by a relevant ministry. Classroom teachers in these programmes are required to have at least a bachelor's degree qualification. However, there are no specific requirements regarding the minimum number of educational activities that must be conducted on a daily or yearly basis.
Geographical location may impede access to high-quality ECEC. There is substantial regional variation in enrolment rates of 3-5 year-olds across OECD countries, which may be attributed to different population dynamics, socio-economic factors, regulatory frameworks and cultural norms (Figure B1.4. ). Understanding these geographical disparities is crucial for recognising effective approaches and tailoring strategies to the specific requirements of each situation, eventually working towards universal access to high-quality early childhood education.
Among OECD countries with available data, higher levels of participation in formal education for 3-5 year-olds at the national level are correlated with smaller disparities across regions. Most countries where enrolment rates were over 90% also had low regional variation. For instance, there is relatively uniform and equitable enrolment of children aged 3 to 5, exceeding 90%, across regions in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden. Conversely, the countries with the lowest levels of participation of 3 to 5 year-olds in formal education often had the greatest disparities across regions, with wide regional variations in enrolment rates in Chile, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the United States. The difference between the regions with the highest and lowest enrolment rates of 3-5 year-olds is over 40 percentage points in both Switzerland and the United States. Both countries are federal and their subnational entities have a great degree of autonomy over the organisation of ECEC. Low levels of enrolment may be due to regional differences in regulations on starting ages and/or lower provision of ECEC.
Children in capital cities are less likely to participate in formal education in a number of countries. For example, in Chile, enrolment rates among of 3-5 year-olds in the Santiago metropolitan region are among the lowest in the country. Even in countries, where the enrolment of 3-5 year-olds exceeds 90% nationally, capital regions tend to have some of the lowest shares of young children participating in formal education. This might be explained by insufficient provision of public ECEC to meet demand, or the greater prevalence of privately managed settings in capital cities. Publicly managed centres are significantly more likely to be located in more rural areas, underlining the role of the public sector in ensuring equal access to ECEC settings across the national territory (OECD, 2019[32]).
Enrolment in all levels of education combined
Note: Three years old breakdown by regions unavailable in the Netherlands, hence the enrolment rates 3-5 year-olds by regions are estimated.
See under Chapter B1 Tables for StatLink.
Source: (OECD, 2024[33]), Education and Skills-Subnational education and indicators, OECD Data Explorer (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/3q). For more information see Source section and Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en).
Disparities in the use of childcare between low- and high-income families present a significant challenge in many countries, reflecting systemic inequities in access and differences in the propensity to use ECEC. This enrolment gap underlines how socio-economic status and use of childcare intersect, highlighting the need for comprehensive strategies to address barriers faced by disadvantaged households. Exploring the underlying factors behind this divergence can provide valuable insights to help design inclusive policies that promote equal opportunities for children from all backgrounds.
There is a notable and consistent income gap in childcare use in most OECD countries, particularly among children under 3. On average, across OECD countries with available data, 32% of children aged 0 to 2 years old from lower-income households attend childcare compared to 50% of those from higher-income households (Figure B1.5). This enrolment gap across income levels is more pronounced in Ireland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, where the cost of childcare is relatively high for parents. According to the OECD Tax-Benefit model, which calculates childcare costs and benefits across OECD countries, net childcare costs for a dual-income couple on low earnings with two children aged 2 and 3 would be at least 24% of their average wage in these countries, compared to an average of 11% across OECD countries with available data (OECD, 2024[35]).
Despite relatively low net childcare costs in Belgium and France (amounting to 12% of average income for the same family profile (OECD, 2024[35])), the enrolment gaps in childcare services across income levels are particularly pronounced. One of the challenges in these countries is attributed to the limited accessibility to ECEC services due to a shortage of available places in public care facilities (OECD, 2020[36]). In France, ECEC services in higher-income neighbourhoods are more likely to have places available, resulting in considerable differences in participation rates in ECEC programmes across different income levels (Gaudron et al., 2021[37]; OECD, 2023[38]). Similarly in the Flemish Community of Belgium, municipalities and neighbourhoods with a higher average family income had more childcare places per 100 children than municipalities and neighbourhoods with lower income families (León et al., 2023[39]). Considering the well-established benefits of ECEC, including the positive outcomes for children and their families, such as cognitive development, well-being, and reducing poverty, this pattern could potentially exacerbate socio-economic disparities in countries with sizeable enrolment rate gaps (OECD, 2023[38]).
Conversely, in some countries where the out-of-pocket costs of childcare are below the OECD average (amounting to 6% of average income for the same family profile), the enrolment gap is notably narrow, as in Estonia, Finland and Germany (OECD, 2024[35]). Estonia caps childcare fees at 20% of the monthly minimum wage, while Germany exempts low-income and other vulnerable households from paying ECEC fees (OECD, 2023[38]). In Finland, parents' monthly fees depend on family size, number of care hours, and gross income, and in March 2023, the income threshold for these fees was increased by 33% to encourage greater use of formal childcare services by low- and middle-income families (Eurydice, 2023[40]).
Combining well-targeted tax credits with childcare subsidies can greatly enhance the accessibility, affordability, and coverage of ECEC services. For example, the childcare system in Sweden employs a progressive fee structure that is supplemented by free provision for children below the national poverty line. The maximum fees that parents have to pay are 3% of the household’s combined income for the first child, 2% for the second and 1% for the third. This practice is also prevalent in Estonia, Finland and some regions of Germany (Dougherty and Morabito, 2023[41]).
Private institutions can be classified into two categories: independent and government dependent. Independent private institutions are controlled by a non-governmental organisation or by a governing board not selected by a government agency and receive less than 50% of their core funding from government agencies. Government-dependent private institutions have similar governance structures but rely on government agencies for more than 50% of their core funding (OECD, 2018[42]).
In most countries, the share of children enrolled in private institutions is considerably higher in early childhood education than at primary and secondary levels. Private institutions are also more prevalent in early childhood educational development than at pre-primary level. This is primarily due to the fact that public funding for ECE services for children under 3 is lower than for pre-primary services in many countries. Pre-primary education has increasingly become a part of compulsory education in many OECD countries. There are 24 OECD countries where at least some years of pre-primary are included in compulsory education, with all pre-primary years compulsory in 8 of them (see Table B2.1 in Chapter B2). That means the majority of OECD countries guarantee children a place in public or publicly funded or subsidised institutions. Yet, differences in funding across ECE levels may have implications for any legal entitlements, the intensity of participation and overall enrolment rates, particularly among children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (Cadima et al., 2020[43]) (Box B1.3).
Some governments have made the deliberate choice to provide ECEC services through private institutions. Governments may opt to outsource services to private providers, particularly in countries which are heavily reliant on government-dependent private institutions. From a parent's perspective, whether ECE services are provided by public or government-funded private institutions may not significantly affect either their cost or the quality. Parents may select a provider based on factors such as proximity, without necessarily being aware of the institutional differences. Considerations of accessibility, cost, programme offerings, staff quality and accountability may lead parents to choose independent private institutions.
On average across OECD countries, one-third of children in pre-primary education are enrolled in private institutions (Figure B1.6). However, there is notable cross-country variation. In Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Slovenia and Switzerland, 5% or less of the children in pre-primary education attend private institutions, while in Australia, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan and New Zealand, around 80% or more are enrolled in private institutions (Table B1.3). Yet, even in countries where pre-primary enrolment in private institutions is high, private institutions predominantly rely on substantial funding from government agencies.
Over the last decade, in most OECD countries, the share of pre-primary children enrolled in private institutions has increased. This privatisation of pre-primary education has been most significant in Poland, where it rose by 10 percentage points. On the other hand, the share of pre-primary enrolments accounted for by public institutions increased in Korea by 11 percentage points and in Saudi Arabia by 33 percentage points (Table B1.3). The distribution of children between different kinds of private institutions has not changed much, however, except in Japan, where an ECE reform in 2019 meant all private institutions in ECE became government dependent (Children and Families Agency of Japan, 2023[44]).
The public provision of early childhood educational development services is lower than it is at pre-primary level in all OECD countries except Chile, Denmark, Peru and Romania. Almost half of children attending these services are enrolled in private institutions, although the shares vary across countries. While all children enrolled in early childhood educational development services are in private institutions in Indonesia, Ireland, Israel and Türkiye, only 7% or less are in private institutions in Slovenia and Romania. In contrast to the trend of increasing enrolment in private institutions at pre-primary level, the share of children in public early childhood educational development services has expanded since 2013 in several countries including Chile, Costa Rica and Korea, with the most remarkable increases exceeding 21 percentage points (Table B1.3).
Given that funding mechanisms and childcare benefits differ more in early childhood education than at higher levels, the classification of institutions into public, government-dependent private and independent private may not be helpful for understanding the exact cost of services for parents. Some subsidies and assistance may be available at central and local level, particularly for children from disadvantaged households. For instance, in Latvia, if a child cannot find a place in an institution run by the local government, and instead attends a private educational institution, the costs must be partly covered by the local government, up to the average amount of cost to enrol a child in a local government educational institution (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023[17]).
Early childhood education (ECE): ECEC services in adherence with the criteria defined in the ISCED 2011 classification (see ISCED 01 and 02 definitions) are considered early childhood education programmes and are therefore referred to as ECE in this chapter. Others are considered an integral part of countries’ ECEC provision but are not in adherence with all the ISCED criteria (Box B1.2) Therefore, the term of ECE excludes the programmes that do not meet the ISCED 2011 criteria.
ISCED 01 refers to early childhood educational development services and ISCED 02 refers to pre-primary education (see Box B1.2 for further information).
ECEC services: The types of ECEC services available to children and parents differ greatly. Despite those differences, most ECEC settings typically fall into one of the following categories (see Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes).
1. Regular centre-based ECEC: More formalised ECEC centres typically belong to one of these three subcategories:
a. Centre-based ECEC for children under age 3: Often called “crèches”, these settings may have an educational function, but they are typically attached to the social or welfare sector and associated with an emphasis on care. Many of them are part-time and provided in schools, but they can also be provided in designated ECEC centres.
b. Centre-based ECEC for children from the age of 3: Often called kindergarten or pre-school, these settings tend to be more formalised and are often linked to the education system.
c. Age-integrated centre-based ECEC for children from birth or age 1 up to the beginning of primary school: These settings offer a holistic pedagogical provision of education and care (often full-day).
2. Family childcare ECEC: Licensed home-based ECEC, which is most prevalent for children under age 3. These settings may or may not have an educational function and be part of the regular ECEC system.
3. Licensed or formalised drop-in ECEC centres: Often receiving children across the entire ECEC age bracket and even beyond, these drop-in centres allow parents to complement home-based care by family members or family childcare with more institutionalised services on an ad hoc basis (without having to apply for a place).
Informal care services: Generally unregulated care arranged by the child’s parent either in the child’s home or elsewhere, provided by relatives, friends, neighbours, babysitters or nannies; these services are not covered in this indicator.
Paid maternity, parental and home care leave available to mothers: covers all weeks of employment protected parental and home care leave that can be used by the mother. This includes any weeks that are an individual entitlement or that are reserved for the mother, and those that are a sharable or family entitlement. It excludes any weeks of parental leave that are reserved for the exclusive use of the father.
Net enrolment rates are calculated by dividing the number of children of a particular age / age group enrolled in ECEC by the size of the population of that age / age group. While enrolment and population figures refer to the same period in most cases, mismatches may occur due to data availability and different sources used in some countries. Therefore, population data is adjusted in the calculation of enrolment rates by age. This adjustment method ensures that if the cumulative enrolment data across all ISCED levels exceeds the population data for a particular age, the population data for that age is adjusted to match the total enrolment for the corresponding age.
Data refer to the reference year 2022 (school year 2021/22) and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2024 (for details, see (OECD, 2024[45]) Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes.
Data from Argentina, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
Data on length of paid maternity, parental or home care leave are available in Indicator PF2.1 at the OECD’s Family database (OECD, 2024[46]).
Data on subnational regions for selected indicators are available in the OECD Education and Skills-Subnational education and indicators (OECD, 2024[34]).
Data on enrolment by income levels are available in Indicator PF3.2 at the OECD’s Family database (OECD, 2024[34]).
References
[43] Cadima, J. et al. (2020), “Literature review on early childhood education and care for children under the age of 3”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 243, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9cef727-en.
[44] Children and Families Agency of Japan (2023), Free Early Childhood Education and Childcare, https://www.cfa.go.jp/policies/kokoseido/mushouka/about/en (accessed on 22 May 2024).
[41] Dougherty, S. and C. Morabito (2023), “Financing and delivering early childhood education and childcare across levels of government”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 23/2, https://doi.org/10.1787/7bd38503-en (accessed on 7 May 2024).
[7] Duncan, G. et al. (2023), “Investing in early childhood development in preschool and at home”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier B.V., https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesedu.2022.11.005.
[26] Education Statistics Finland (2024), Amounts of customer fees by fee category in early childhood education organized by municipalities, https://vipunen.fi/fi-fi/_layouts/15/xlviewer.aspx?id=/fi-fi/Raportit/Varhaiskasvatus%20-%20asiakasmaksut%20-%20kuntien%20asiakasmaksut%20maksuluokittain.xlsb (accessed on 11 July 2024).
[19] European Commission (2023), Education and Training Monitor 2023: Comparative Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2766/810689.
[17] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2023), Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in Europe 2023: Early Childhood Education and Care, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2797/868638.
[25] Eurydice (2024), Denmark - Early Childhood Education and Care, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/denmark/early-childhood-education-and-care#:~:text=The%20Act%20on%20Day%20Care,(Life%20in%20Denmark%202021). (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[27] Eurydice (2024), Early childhood and school education funding in Slovenia, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/slovenia/early-childhood-and-school-education-funding (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[40] Eurydice (2023), National reforms in early childhood education and care, Ongoing reforms and policy developments.
[5] García, J. et al. (2020), “Quantifying the life-cycle benefits of an influential early-childhood program”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 128/7, pp. 2502-2541, https://doi.org/10.1086/705718.
[37] Gaudron, C. et al. (2021), L’accueil dans les structures de la petite enfance des enfants de moins de 3 ans en situation de pauvreté : un état des savoirs, https://cnam.hal.science/hal-03989894.
[6] Heckman, J. and G. Karapakula (2019), “Online appendix: The Perry Preschoolers at late midlife: A study in design-specific inference”, IZA Working Papers, No. 12362, IZA Institute of Labor Economics, http://cehd.uchicago.edu/perry-design-specific-inference.
[23] Hofman, J. et al. (2020), After Parental Leave: Incentives for Parents with Young Children to Return to the Labour Market, European Union, Luxembourg, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2020)658190.
[15] ILOSTAT (2022), ILO Modelled Estimates Database, International Labour Organization, https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/.
[29] Kim, E., W. Hwang and M. Kim (2021), “Determinants of perceived accessibility of maternity leave and childcare leave in South Korea”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18/19, p. 10286, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910286.
[30] Lee, Y. (2023), “Norms about childcare, working hours, and fathers’ uptake of parental leave in South Korea”, Community, Work and Family, Vol. 26/4, pp. 466-491, https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2031889.
[39] León, M. et al. (2023), DELIVERING ON THE CHILD GUARANTEE, http://www.feps-europe.eu.
[24] Nightingale, M. and B. Janta (2020), The Childcare Gap in EU Member States, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/228659 (accessed on 1 March 2024).
[33] OECD (2024), Education and Skills-Subnational education and indicators, OECD Data Explorer (database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/3q (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[45] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en.
[46] OECD (2024), Indicator PF2.1. Parental leave systems, OECD Family Database, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/family-database/pf2_1_parental_leave_systems.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[34] OECD (2024), Indicator PF3.2: Enrolment in childcare and pre-school, OECD Family Database, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/family-database/pf3_2_enrolment_childcare_preschool.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[8] OECD (2024), “International evidence to support the reform of Early Childhood Education and Care in Brazil in 2024”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 97, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b820e627-en.
[22] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Switzerland 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/070d119b-en (accessed on 5 May 2024).
[35] OECD (2024), OECD Tax-Benefit web calculator, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages/tax-benefit-web-calculator/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
[38] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.
[28] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2022, OECD, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eeb7cbe9-en (accessed on 8 May 2024).
[16] OECD (2022), OECD Family Database - LMF1.2. Maternal employment rates, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF1_2_Maternal_Employment.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2024).
[21] OECD (2022), Reducing the Gender Employment Gap in Hungary, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fe5bc945-en.
[4] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
[3] OECD (2020), Early Learning and Child Well-being: A Study of Five-year-Olds in England, Estonia, and the United States, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3990407f-en.
[36] OECD (2020), “Is childcare affordable?”, Policy Brief on Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD, Paris, http://oe.cd/childcare-brief-2020 (accessed on 7 May 2024).
[32] OECD (2019), Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/301005d1-en.
[13] OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.
[14] OECD (2018), “How does access to early childhood services affect the participation of women in the labour market?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 59, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/232211ca-en.
[42] OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
[12] OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en.
[11] 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.
[31] OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.
[18] Rastrigina, O. and E. Pearsall (2023), “Net childcare costs in the EU, 2022: Analysis for working families and disadvantaged families”, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/social/benefits-and-wages/Net-childcare-costs-in-the-EU-2022-for-working-and-disadvantaged-families.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2024).
[2] Shuey, E. and M. Kankaraš (2018), “The power and promise of early learning”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9b2e53f-en.
[20] Toy Project (2019), TOY for Inclusion, Together Old and Young website, http://www.toyproject.net/project/toy-inclusion-2/ (accessed on 5 May 2024).
[10] UNESCO (2024), SDG 4 Indicators, Scoping Progress in Education, https://www.education-progress.org/en/indicators (accessed on 16 May 2024).
[9] UNICEF (2019), A World Ready to Learn: Prioritizing Quality Early Childhood Education, UNICEF, New York, https://data.unicef.org/resources/a-world-ready-to-learn-report/.
[1] Yoshikawa, H., C. Weiland and J. Brooks-Gunn (2016), “When does preschool matter?”, The Future of Children, Vol. 26/2, pp. 21-35, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0010.
Cut-off date for the data: 14 June 2024. Data and more breakdowns are available on the OECD Data Explorer (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s).
Public and private institutions
Note: See under Chapter B1 Tables for StatLink and Box B1.4 for the notes related to this Table.
Public and private institutions
Note: See under Chapter B1 Tables for StatLink and Box B1.4 for the notes related to this Table.
Note: See under Chapter B1 Tables for StatLink and Box B1.4 for the notes related to this Table.
Table B1.1. Enrolment rates in early childhood education and care (ECEC) and primary education, by age (2022)
Note: Early childhood education (ECE) = ISCED 0, other registered ECEC services = ECEC services outside the scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED criteria. To be classified in ISCED 0, ECEC services should: 1) have adequate intentional educational properties; 2) be institutionalised (usually school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group of children); 3) have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational activities and a duration of at least 100 days a year; 4) have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national authorities (e.g. curriculum); and 5) have trained or accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for educators). See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. In other registered ECEC services, 2-year-olds includes children under the age of 2, and 3-year-olds includes children aged 3 to 5.
2. Early childhood education excludes early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED 01).
3. Year of reference differs from 2022: 2018 for Indonesia; and 2021 for Argentina and South Africa.
Table B1.2 Trends in enrolment rates of children in early childhood educational development (ISCED 01) and pre-primary education (ISCED 02), by age group (2013 and 2022)
Note: Early childhood education (ECE) = ISCED 0, other registered ECEC services = ECEC services outside the scope of ISCED 0, because they are not in adherence with all ISCED criteria. To be classified in ISCED 0, ECEC services should: 1) have adequate intentional educational properties; 2) be institutionalised (usually school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group of children); 3) have an intensity of at least 2 hours per day of educational activities and a duration of at least 100 days a year; 4) have a regulatory framework recognised by the relevant national authorities (e.g. curriculum); and 5) have trained or accredited staff (e.g. requirement of pedagogical qualifications for educators). See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. The legal age at which school becomes compulsory is 6, but children are allowed in legislation to attend school from age 5, and most do.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia and Türkiye; 2015 for Colombia, Hungary, Romania and South Africa; and 2016 for Denmark and Japan.
3. Year of reference differs from 2022: 2018 for Indonesia; and 2021 for Argentina and South Africa.
Table B1.3 Trends in the distribution of children enrolled in early childhood education and care (ISCED 0), by ISCED 0 programme and type of institution (2013 and 2022)
Note: See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference differs from 2022: 2018 for Indonesia; and 2021 for Argentina, Australia and South Africa.
2. Year of reference differs from 2013: 2014 for Croatia; 2015 for Colombia, Romania and South Africa; and 2016 for Denmark.
3. Japan's early childhood education and care reforms mean all private ECEC institutions became government-dependent in 2021.
See Definitions and Methodology sections and Education at a Glance 2024 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en) for more information.
Data and more breakdowns are available on the OECD Data Explorer (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4s). Please refer to the Reader's Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.