Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care

For young children, early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings represent a transitional space providing a first experience of social life beyond the family. These early encounters with the views and behaviours of others matter for how children construct their identities, sense of belonging and perceptions of others. Building respect for diversity and developing inclusive practices in ECEC is therefore essential for ensuring the well-being and positive development of all children.

As the most proximal factors shaping children’s experiences in ECEC, setting-level organisational and pedagogical practices are critical to adapting to all children’s needs in order to promote inclusion and reduce inequalities in the early years. Building on consistent quality frameworks that set conditions for achieving high levels of quality across ECEC systems (see Chapter 6), setting-level practices with an intentional focus on inclusion constitute a major lever of support for the children who stand to benefit most from ECEC.

The overarching policy questions addressed in this chapter are:

• What organisational and pedagogical practices can promote inclusion in ECEC settings?

• How can ECEC policies support those practices?

The chapter identifies features of curriculum, continuous professional development, team and workforce composition, and monitoring and assessment practices that deliberately seek more inclusive ECEC experiences for all children, as well as strategies to support their implementation. The chapter focuses on factors with a direct influence on process quality, i.e. the quality of interactions that children experience through their ECEC settings, with other children, staff and teachers, and with their families and the wider community. As a preliminary step, it presents evidence on the growing diversity of the populations of children participating in ECEC and reviews strengths-based and right-based rationales for an inclusive approach to diversity in ECEC.

A sustained expansion of ECEC has taken place in OECD member and accession countries in recent decades. Given the historically stronger uptake of ECEC services by socio-economically advantaged and non-immigrant families, growing enrolment rates have generally translated into greater social and cultural diversity within ECEC settings. This presents challenges for ECEC systems as new organisational and pedagogical models are required to respond to the needs of increasingly diverse populations of children and families, but also creates opportunities to build on their backgrounds and experiences. Addressing diversity with a dual focus on children’s rights and strengths is key to ensuring that ECEC acts as an engine of equity and inclusion.

In the context of this report, diversity refers to people’s differences as perceived by themselves and/or by others, which may relate to their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture, religion, mental and physical ability, socio-economic and immigration status (see Chapter 1). Diversity is multi-dimensional and might relate to individuals’ physical characteristics or behaviour, and/or to social and cultural practices. Diversity can, in some cases, be associated with a relative lack of resources while, in other contexts, represents an asset that can lead to greater resilience, more knowledge of and openness to other cultures, and richer interactions with peers and ECEC staff. However, children from diverse backgrounds are generally more vulnerable and at risk of disadvantage in education, hence the target of equitable and inclusive reforms, practices and policies (OECD, 2019[1]); (OECD, 2023[2]); (see Chapter 3).

While acknowledging the multi-dimensional nature of diversity, the report explores inclusion in ECEC with regard to just some of its many facets (see Chapter 1). Inclusive ECEC policies and practices can nonetheless extend to other aspects of diversity. For instance, it is essential that children and parents in families with different gender identities and sexual orientations (i.e. LGBTQI+) see their family types acknowledged and represented in the design and delivery of ECEC services, or that gifted children (i.e. children identified as having significantly higher than expected intellectual abilities given their age) have their specific educational needs met in ECEC settings. Policies addressing these dimensions fall outside the scope of this report, but have been addressed in related OECD work in education (OECD, 2023[2]).

Multiple policy and demographic developments account for the growing diversity of children participating in ECEC. Among those is the expansion and greater accessibility and affordability of ECEC in most OECD countries over the last two decades, which is reflected in the increasing participation in ECEC of children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (see Chapter 5). Families of different socio-economic backgrounds represent a central manifestation of social diversity in ECEC settings. In 2022, on average across OECD countries, one in seven children lived in relative income poverty, which can be associated with material deprivation, poor nutrition and unstable housing (OECD, 2024[3]). Many of the policies discussed in this report specifically target low-income families with children, with the objective of promoting their participation and engagement in ECEC.

International migration flows are also shaping the composition of child populations in ECEC. Globally in 2020, the number of international migrants reached 281 million, of which 36 million were children (UNICEF, 2022[4]). Permanent-type migration to OECD countries reached a record level in 2022, with more than 6 million new permanent immigrants (not including Ukrainian refugees); more than one-third of countries registered their highest levels of arrivals in the last 15 years. Family migration remained the primary category of entry, representing 40% of all permanent-type migration (OECD, 2023[5]). These trends result in increasing levels of foreign-born populations living in OECD countries. In 2022, 145 million people in the OECD area lived outside their country of birth, one-quarter more than in 2012. Over that decade, the share of the foreign-born population increased in almost all OECD countries, and by 2022 immigrants accounted for more than 10% of the population in two-thirds of OECD countries; those with the highest shares were Luxembourg (50%), Switzerland (31%), Australia (29%), New Zealand (26%), Canada (22%), Austria (21%), Ireland and Sweden (20% in both) (OECD, 2023[5]). In other countries, large immigration flows are a more recent but also sizable phenomenon. For instance, over the same decade, the share of immigrants multiplied by 10 in Colombia and more than tripled in Chile (OECD, 2023[5]).

Forced population displacements are also growing globally, with children being dramatically over-represented among refugees. Between 2010 and 2022, the global number of forcibly displaced child refugees and asylum seekers more than doubled from 21 million to 43 million, with almost 2 million children estimated to have been born as refugees between 2018 and 2022 (UNICEF, 2024[6]). Following Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as of June 2023 there were around 4.7 million displaced Ukrainians in OECD countries, one-third of whom are estimated to be children (OECD, 2023[5]).

International migration and displacement are complex phenomena, but one of their most visible implications for ECEC systems is the increasing share of multilingual children participating in ECEC. Given the centrality of language for early development, growing up with multiple languages represents a distinctly meaningful dimension of diversity, although migration is not only (and necessarily) related to language but also to cultural experiences that may differ from mainstream cultural norms in the country of residence.

Robust comparative indicators on multilingualism in ECEC are, however, scarce. New analyses carried out for this report using data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) provide a trend perspective on the prevalence of multilingualism in ECEC across countries (Figure 7.1). Results suggest that the percentage of children who spoke two or more languages before beginning primary school and who had attended ECEC programmes for two years or more grew in 14 out of the 24 OECD member or accession countries with available data between the mid-2000s and the mid-2010s. On average across those systems, almost one in six children (14%) attending ECEC settings in the mid-2010s were multilingual. Over that decade, the share of multilingual children increased by four or more percentage points in Austria, Canada, Ireland, Spain and New Zealand. As a result, in most of these systems, over one in five children were reported as being multilingual by the mid-2010s, with similar overall percentages observed also in the French Community of Belgium and Italy (Figure 7.1). In light of international migration trends over the last decade (OECD, 2023[5]), levels of multilingualism among the cohorts of young children attending ECEC in more recent years are likely to be substantially higher in many OECD countries.

A complementary perspective on the concentration of multilingual children within ECEC centres is provided by the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Starting Strong. In 2018, at the pre-primary level, the percentage of centres where more than 10% of the children had a first language (i.e. spoken in their family environment) different from the language used in their ECEC centre ranged from more than 40% of centres in Denmark (with low response rates), Germany, Iceland and Norway, to less than 2% in Japan and Korea. High levels of concentration were visible in countries such as Germany, where multilingual children represented between 31% to 60% of the children enrolled in about one in six pre-primary centres, or Türkiye, where they represented more than 60% of the children in one in ten centres (González-Sancho et al., 2023[7]).

Another important dimension of diversity relates to special education needs (SEN). This term is used in many education systems to characterise the broad array of conditions of children with disability and additional needs that affect their learning and development, albeit there is no universal consensus on these conditions, and countries adopt varying classifications. SEN can be grouped into three broad categories: learning disabilities, physical impairments and mental disorders (OECD, 2023[2]). The identification of some categories of SEN is particularly challenging in early childhood, given the rapid and significant cognitive and physical changes that children undergo in this period and the difficulty of interpreting the absence of some developmental markers, especially for children under age 3.

Reliable and internationally comparable indicators of the prevalence and types of SEN in ECEC are also rare. Data from European countries provide important insights, including a lack of consistent definitions of SEN across countries and a variety of strategies to provide education and care services for children with these types of needs. In most of the countries with available data, less than 4% of the children enrolled in pre-primary programmes are identified with an official decision of SEN. However, rates vary due to different identification criteria, as suggested by the disparity in rates in countries like Lithuania (20%) and Sweden (1%) (Figure 7.2: White marker, right axis). Across countries with available data, more boys than girls receive an official decision of SEN, with the gender imbalance being larger at early ages (EASIE, 2024[8]).

An indicator of greater relevance in the context of this report is the rate of placement of children with SEN in ECEC settings where they attend mainstream groups or classes for the largest part (80% or more) of the school week. This operational definition of “inclusive education” is in opposition to situations where children with SEN attend fully separate special settings (“segregation”), attend special classes within mainstream settings (“separation”), or take part in shared activities or lessons with mainstream peers only occasionally (“integration”). In the inclusive model, children with SEN attend a mainstream setting for the majority of the time, while allowing also for their participation in small group or one-to-one withdrawal activities for limited periods of time (maximum one day or 20% of the week) (Ramberg and Watkins, 2020[9]). This aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that children with disabilities should not be excluded from the general education system and should have access to inclusive and quality education on the same basis as their peers (United Nations, 2006[10]).

On average across European countries with available data, close to eight in ten children with an official decision of SEN are enrolled in inclusive pre-primary (ISCED 02) settings, i.e. settings where they attend mainstream groups or classes for most of the week (Figure 7.2: Blue bars, left axis). This masks substantial variation, as inclusive enrolment remains, for instance, below 50% in Luxembourg and Switzerland, reflecting the varying degree to which various forms of special education are socially and institutionally rooted in different countries. Importantly, though, in most countries, rates of enrolment in inclusive settings for children with SEN are substantially higher in pre-primary than in primary or secondary levels of education (EASIE, 2024[8]).

TALIS Starting Strong again provides complementary insights at the centre level. In 2018, children with SEN represented more than 10% of the children in a sizable share of mainstream ECEC centres in most participating countries. At the pre-primary level, this applied to 34% of centres in Chile, 30% of centres in Denmark (with low response rates), 24% of centres in Iceland, and between 8% and 15% of centres in Germany, Israel, Japan and Norway (González-Sancho et al., 2023[7]). These figures are consistent with the pattern of high rates of enrolment in inclusive settings in the EASIE data (Figure 7.2).

While the circumstances and needs associated with various forms of diversity can elicit different responses from ECEC systems, individuals and settings that embody several dimensions of diversity (intersectionality, see Chapter 3) are receiving increasing attention from researchers and policymakers because they can be, and often are, exposed to multiple types of disadvantages as a result of such combination of identities (OECD, 2023[2]). Intersectionality highlights that, rather than being independent of each other, different aspects of individuals’ backgrounds interact to create unique identities and experiences. By questioning traditional group classifications and informing a more nuanced identification of children’s needs, an intersectional lens to diversity has the potential to yield more tailored and effective education policies and interventions (Varsik and Gorochovskij, 2023[11]). Reliable indicators to guide intersectional approaches in ECEC are mostly lacking, but TALIS Starting Strong provides an opportunity to examine how various dimensions of diversity accumulate at the centre level (Figure 7.3). However, the survey cannot distinguish between situations where this accumulation applies to the same individual children or to different groups of children within ECEC centres. In 2018, ECEC centres where two dimensions of diversity applied to more than 10% of the children existed in all participating countries, albeit to a varying degree. Most notably, at the pre-primary level, these centres represented 32% of all centres in Chile, 19 % of centres in Iceland, 17% of centres in Germany and 11% of centres in both Norway and Türkiye (González-Sancho et al., 2023[7]). Further, while highly diverse centres where three or four dimensions of diversity apply to more than 10% of children were rare in most countries, they accounted, for instance, for about 8% of centres in Germany (Figure 7.3).

With growing levels of social and cultural diversity, the early development of children attending ECEC settings reflects an increasingly diverse range of experiences. For young children in particular, learning is acquired primarily in the social, cultural and linguistic contexts of their families and communities. For instance, opportunities for early language development vary between children growing up in families of high and low socio-economic status in relation to the quantity and quality of conversational inputs from parents (Rowe, 2017[12]), and between monolingual and multilingual children depending on their exposure to the majority language in their home environments (Persici et al., 2022[13]). ECEC settings and staff need to be attuned to these and other differences in children’s early experiences and recognise how they can shape their individual needs, behaviours and well-being.

Commonly, though, a deficit model has informed strategies for supporting children from diverse backgrounds in ECEC. This view attributes early group differences in outcomes, such as lower vocabulary size in the majority language among socio-economically disadvantaged or multilingual children, to presumed and often stereotyped weaknesses of these children and their families, rather than to systemic factors related to social inequalities and discrimination. A deficit view of group differences may thus lead to advocating more direct instruction on basic language skills for children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, or a greater focus on the majority language for multilingual children (NASEM, 2024[14]). While these measures can be guided by equity concerns intending to compensate for what is perceived as a deficit in resources, they can be problematic if focused on a narrow range of learning outcomes to the detriment of other areas of children’s development or non-majority languages (see Chapter 8). Targeting and labelling practices with this deficit-based approach can also unintentionally lead to stigmatisation, as when children receiving remedial supports are regarded as weak learners (OECD, 2023[2]).

The deficit perspective is now contested by a growing body of research which emphasises the cultural nature of learning and supports a strengths-based approach to diversity. This builds on an appreciation of the varied ways in which different cultures afford experiences for early learning, development and well-being, and challenges the assumption that early childhood practices typical of Western societies and middle-class families represent universal and normative conditions for child development, rather than those of specific cultural contexts (Trawick‐Smith, 2019[15]). This shift in child development research also calls for a better understanding of how the ecology of everyday lived experiences and its variation across populations and situations influence what children know and how they learn (Rogoff, Dahl and Callanan, 2018[16]). For ECEC, this implies adopting a model in which curriculum and pedagogy support all children in connecting curricular goals to their learning and developmental experiences outside ECEC settings, as well treating those experiences as assets that children bring into the playgroup or classroom, given that young children make sense of new experiences primarily in relation to what they already know (NASEM, 2018[17]).

A strengths-based perspective to diversity in ECEC therefore recognises that all children learn through their immediate experiences, as embedded within cultural contexts, and posits that celebrating and incorporating this variety of experiences and cultures within ECEC settings, including in those with relatively low levels of diversity, is crucial to promoting early learning, development and well-being. Adopting this perspective implies undertaking measures to identify and reject biases, deficit narratives and stereotyped assumptions about children from racial, cultural and linguistic minorities, as well as about children with SEN and children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds (NASEM, 2024[14]). A strengths-based approach that values children’s diversity in its multiple dimensions is also aligned with the principle of whole-child development, as it elevates outcomes such as sense of agency and positive identity as developmental goals for all children.

Strengths-based approaches are explicitly embraced in ECEC frameworks in several OECD countries. For example, Australia’s Early Years’ Strategy 2024-2034 includes a specific focus on the strengths of young children and their families as one of five key principles guiding how the Australian Government will work to support children and families in the early years (Principle 2: Strengths-based). This principle calls for the recognition that all children and families have unique relationships, strengths, capabilities and resources, and seeks to empower them to set their own goals that build on those strengths. A related principle emphasises the importance of valuing all forms of diversity, including in relation to gender, culture, language, place and disability (Principle 4: Equitable, inclusive and respectful of diversity) (Australian Government, 2024[18]).

The case of multilingualism illustrates how advancements in research support a shift from deficit- to strengths-based approaches to diversity in ECEC. The deficit lens about the learning potential and outcomes of multilingual children builds on misconceptions like that early exposure to multiple languages is confusing for young children and leads to language delays. The current scientific consensus disproves these concerns and highlights that, while some aspects of language development can vary between multilingual and monolingual children (e.g. dual-language learners may take longer to master aspects that differ between their two languages), rich exposure to a second language, especially before age 3, tends to be associated with better skills in both the language the child speaks at home and the language the child learns in an early education setting (for reviews, see (Espinosa, 2020[19]) and (LaMarr, 2022[20])). The evidence is less conclusive about the notion of a bilingual advantage in executive function and cognition, which derives from a neuroplasticity framework that links early multilingualism to enhanced cognitive processes (Bialystok, 2017[21]). There is little basis for claims of benefits in either linguistic or non-linguistic outcomes when exposure to multiple languages in the early years is only superficial (Whiting and Marshall, 2023[22]). Overall, however, research provides robust evidence that emergent multilingualism represents an asset rather than a hindrance to early learning and supports the adoption of a strengths-based model that values diverse language abilities and cultural knowledge in early education settings. This includes supporting multilingual children in maintaining their home languages, through both curriculum design and staff professional development for its implementation (NASEM, 2024[14]).

Research on developmental resilience is also paying increasing attention to children’s positive and adaptive responses to early experiences of stress and deprivation, as a complementary perspective to the negative effects of growing up in poverty, which are widely documented in various disciplines (see Chapter 3). An emerging framework explores the “hidden talents” that children can develop to function within high‐adversity and unpredictable environments, as well as strategies to leverage stress-adapted skills as building blocks for success in education and other contexts. This approach conceptualises young children living in poverty as capable and adaptive, avoiding stigma and suggesting new avenues to better tailor education and social policy interventions to their needs and potential (Ellis et al., 2020[23]) (DeJoseph et al., 2024[24]). Examples of strategies that capitalise on stress-adapted skills potentially applicable in ECEC include using tasks that require children to shift rather than sustain their attention; bringing into the curriculum concepts that are ecologically relevant in harsh environments; and building on competencies developed for everyday problem-solving (Ellis et al., 2020[23]).

Strengths-based frameworks can also inform approaches for supporting children with SEN in ECEC, even if different types of conditions and disabilities can require specific adaptations. Common vectors are to maintain a whole-child approach when supporting children with SEN, rather than addressing only the disabilities or disorders that affect their learning and development, and to respect and facilitate the voices and experiences of their families to better identify their needs and to support overall well-being at the family level (Elder, Rood and Damiani, 2018[25]).

Research indicates that children with disabilities benefit from having access to engaging early education experiences in mainstream settings alongside typically developing children (Gulboy, Yucesoy-Ozkan and Rakap, 2023[26]). There is less consistent evidence regarding how the presence of children with SEN influences the outcomes of peers without disabilities, but the literature indicates mostly positive or neutral effects on their academic achievement at the pre-primary and primary levels, as well as positive effects on social outcomes such as increased peer acceptance (Kart and Kart, 2021[27]).

Focusing on the strengths and needs of diverse children has the potential to improve the quality of ECEC experiences for all children because all children share the capacity to learn in multiple ways, including through play and exploration, observing others, and intentional and responsive pedagogy, and because all children require some level of individualised support and accommodation. Hence, the conditions and competencies required for ECEC settings and staff to more effectively support children from diverse backgrounds can ultimately benefit all children (NASEM, 2024[14]).

Policies to promote equity and inclusion in education are developed within regulatory frameworks which consist of a range of legal instruments and agreements, and which are often underpinned by commitments at the international level. Most OECD countries are parties to prominent international treaties and declarations containing provisions relating to equity and inclusion in education, and which provide an underlying framework for system-level policy development towards these goals (OECD, 2023[2]).

The right to education for everyone is recognised in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has been signed or ratified by all OECD countries (UN General Assembly, 1966[28]), and its content and the resulting state obligations have been unpacked in subsequent UN statements (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999[29]). The right to education comprises four essential and interrelated elements: availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability (for the first two, see Chapter 5). Of direct relevance to this chapter, acceptability means that “the form and substance of education, including curricula and teaching methods, have to be acceptable (e.g. relevant, culturally appropriate and of good quality) to students and, in appropriate cases, parents”. Adaptability means that “education has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings” (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999[29]).

The right to education is restated within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN OHCHR, 1989[30]), including respect for children’s cultural identity, language and values, as well as respect for their views as protagonists of their educational experiences. This right is also reaffirmed regarding Indigenous children specifically in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that Indigenous children have the right to all levels of education without discrimination and that Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational institutions with education being provided in their own languages and in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning (UN General Assembly, 2007[31]). Likewise, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reaffirms the right in relation to children with disabilities and specifies that education must be inclusive, with the provision of “effective individualised support mechanisms… provided in environments that maximise academic and social development, with the goal of full inclusion” (UN General Assembly, 2006[32]). All OECD countries are also signatories to the (non-binding) Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education and Framework for Action, which endorses the principle of inclusive education that asserts that education systems should serve all learners, taking into account and responding to the wide diversity of their characteristics and needs (UNESCO, 1994[33]).

Children’s rights to equitable and inclusive ECEC inform commitments to action of signatories of the Tashkent Declaration adopted during the UNESCO World Conference on Early Childhood Care and Education (UNESCO, 2022[34]), with a particular focus on disadvantages and vulnerable children. The Declaration urges UNESCO member states to:

Ensure further improvements and implementation of policy and legal frameworks to guarantee the right of every child to inclusive quality care and pre-primary education, with special reference to the most disadvantaged children. Recalling the Incheon Declaration commitment to encourage at least one year of free and compulsory quality pre-primary education for all (Sustainable Development Goal Target 4.2), and progressively increase ECCE provision, prioritizing inclusion and gender equality by providing equitable and adaptive support to the most vulnerable and marginalized children (p.7).

An inclusive ECEC system offers quality for all children while respecting their diversity, which includes their families and communities, and responding to their varying needs and strengths (OECD, 2023[2]). In this chapter, inclusion is explored mainly with regard to children’s and families’ socio-economic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, as well as in relation to children’s special education needs (SEN). While equity focuses on levelling opportunities (see Chapter 6), inclusion is about adapting the system to fit the child, rather than the other way round, and about recognising and addressing the different experiences, needs and challenges of diverse groups of children and families. Inclusion is therefore closely associated with individual and collective identities, and with fostering a sense of belonging for these identities within the ECEC system (OECD, 2023[2]).

The organisational and pedagogical practices outlined in this section are consistent with the principle of strategically combining universal and targeted approaches to promote equity and inclusion in ECEC (see Chapters 1 and 6). The practices also align with tiered models of support for young children, in which support is tailored to the needs of individual children or designed to support the ECEC setting that is working with an individual child. Tiered models of support for young children in early education and care typically involve a first tier consisting of a high-quality curriculum and other quality standards applicable to all children or settings, and additional tiers providing more specific supports to small groups of children within settings and, in cases with the highest level of need, personalised support for individual children (Sugai and Horner, 2019[35]) (European Commission, 2021[36]) (Soukakou, Dionne and Palikara, 2024[37]). This chapter proposes a framework for inclusive ECEC practices that combines curriculum and pedagogical practices with considerations on the organisation and competencies of staff teams as well as monitoring and assessment practices (see Figure 7.4). The focus is placed on quality processes within ECEC settings, which represent major inclusive processes related to social interaction, children’s engagement in daily activities with peers, and personalised needs assessment and supports, and as such, the core of broader inclusive ecosystems (Bartolo et al., 2019[38]).

This framework posits that solid quality foundations from which all children can benefit reduce the need for and increase the effectiveness of more targeted supports (see Annex A, Workshop 4 and Workshop 7), and that it is possible to maintain a dual focus on improving the quality of interactions for all children and providing additional supports for some of them. A first step in this direction is to build high-quality relationships (i.e. warm, predictable and accepting of diversity) between staff and all children, as this process can help staff to better identify children’s different needs and strengths. Functional teamwork – as reflected in a shared culture, clear structures and strong collaboration within settings – is another pre-condition for effective inclusive supports to children, as it can facilitate a range of pedagogical practices targeting different needs across developmental areas. Ultimately, inclusion within ECEC settings for the children with the highest levels of need can be best realised through personalised supports that remain embedded in activities in which all or most of the children in the group participate. Informed by this framework, the chapter explores measures across four policy levers, namely curriculum and pedagogy, continuous professional development, team and workforce composition, and setting-level monitoring and assessment, as well as conditions for their implementation.

An equity-centred approach to curriculum is about providing differential support for children based on their individual needs, particularly additional support for children with difficulties, and without lowering expectations on their learning and development outcomes due to their backgrounds. In turn, an inclusion-centred approach to curriculum is about offering all children a high-quality curriculum that allows children to reach their full potential by valuing diversity, that is, by respecting and building on their diverse characteristics, needs and abilities (OECD, 2023[2]).

Curriculum is also an instrument to recognise children’s rights to an ECEC system that considers their needs and values. Since ECEC curricula are often value-based, they represent a major building block for fostering an appreciation of diversity by all children and staff (OECD, 2021[39]). Diversity needs to be valued and sustained across all settings within an ECEC system, and not only in settings serving large shares of diverse children.

While curriculum frameworks can recognise these aspects, gaps will inevitably exist between how curricula are designed and how they are implemented. This speaks to the importance of promoting dynamic and flexible pedagogical approaches that respond to the needs and specific characteristics of the groups of children that ECEC professionals are working with. Curricular frameworks and guidelines should thus allow ECEC settings to adapt the curriculum to consider the diversity and resources in the local environment, including by engaging in discussions with families and communities (European Commission, 2014[40]). Curriculum flexibility refers to how adaptable a curriculum can be to changing educational contexts or different student needs. Dimensions of flexibility include learning and development goals, content, pedagogy, assessment and time, while flexibility can vary in degree, from low to high, as well as in nature, depending on the leeway proved to adapt, add, reduce or co-design content (OECD, 2024[41]).

The scope in this chapter is limited to three core areas of high-quality ECEC curricula with a focus on equity and inclusion (OECD, 2023[2]) (NASEM, 2024[14]): responsiveness to cultural and linguistic diversity, adaptations and supports for children with SEN, and engagement with families from diverse backgrounds (see Annex A, Workshop 7).

Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) is a concept for teaching that emphasises the need to sustain children’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds and diversity in their educational settings. It builds on asset-based pedagogical research that counters deficit views regarding communities of colour and children from diverse backgrounds more generally. CSP pleads that inclusive pedagogies should sustain (i.e. actively promote, rather than ignore or just acknowledge) linguistic and cultural pluralism (Paris, 2012[42]). Language and cultural revival are of particular relevance in the case of Indigenous cultures of OECD countries (Kral et al., 2021[43]).

While there is evidence that ECEC centres across countries provide materials (e.g. books or toys) from cultures other than the ethnic majority as a recognition of the importance of adopting a multicultural diversity approach (OECD, 2019[44]), it is necessary to go beyond the display of cultural diversity towards a more profound transformation of pedagogical practices in ECEC settings. ECEC curriculum can include an explicit recognition of the importance of multilingualism awareness and practical guidance for ECEC staff to include home language(s) in classroom practices (Bergeron-Morin, Peleman and Hulpia, 2023[45]), and programmes can, for instance, invite parents to read to children in their home languages in ECEC centres (Kirsch and Bergeron-Morin, 2023[46]).

Historically, approaches to emerging multilingualism focused on bilingualism, but more recent research emphasises more complex multilingual environments where more than two languages coexist. The concept of “translanguaging” refers to a dynamic process in which multilingual speakers navigate social and cognitive demands through strategic employment of multiple languages (García and Wei, 2014[47]) (Bonacina-Pugh, da Costa Cabral and Huang, 2021[48]). Implications for ECEC curriculum and pedagogy include building on the multilingual competencies of children, using multilingual materials, and working closely with parents to maintain their heritage languages. In highly diverse contexts where many languages are represented within ECEC settings, and where it is not reasonable to expect that ECEC staff speak these languages, this can also involve fostering language awareness and visibility, at least symbolically. Examples of ECEC curriculum frameworks and resources with a focus on linguistic and cultural inclusion exist in several countries (Box 7.1).

As noted in previous sections, in most of the countries with available data, the majority of young children with SEN who participate in ECEC are enrolled in the same settings as typically developing peers. However, attendance in mainstream settings does not guarantee that actual practices respond to the needs of young children with SEN and should thus be considered a building block rather than a sufficient condition for effective inclusion.

An important question for developing more inclusive ECEC is whether general ECEC curricula can provide adequate guidance and supports for ECEC staff to individualise and effectively address those needs, complementing other potential supports such as the presence of specialised staff in multi-professional teams. This is a complex problem, as specific conditions tend to be associated with specific needs: for instance, children with autism often require specialised interventions with a focus on language and social skills, while children with Down syndrome require focused support for gross and fine motor development, as well as attention to cognitive development. Importantly, targeted supports on social and emotional development and well-being are critical for all children across the range of special education needs (NASEM, 2024[14]).

Focusing on the needs of children with disabilities has the potential to improve the experiences of all children. All children require some level of individualised support and accommodation, and while these needs may be more pronounced for children with disabilities, the skills that general education teachers develop to teach children with disabilities more effectively will ultimately benefit all children.

Staff interactions with families are distinct from but deeply intertwined with interactions with children. ECEC curriculum should aim to promote positive engagement with families, given its potential for improving children’s experiences in both home environments and ECEC settings (see Chapters 4 and 10). Curriculum can provide explicit guidance on co-operation with parents and promote agreed values within a framework of socio-cultural diversity. However, this requires recognising and respecting a range of values and child-rearing practices of diverse families, and the implementation of ECEC-family partnerships to develop a common understanding of ECEC goals. A mono-cultural arrangement of ECEC services oblivious of diversity generally fails to gain the trust of minority groups and may have negative consequences for children’s participation in ECEC and reinforce discrimination (see Chapter 5) (European Commission, 2014[40]).

Strong connections with families are also essential for ECEC staff to understand when and how to adapt the curriculum and pedagogical practices to address the strengths and needs of individual children. Early childhood staff can collaborate with families to co-construct curricular components that are meaningful and relevant in local contexts. Elevating the role of families in supporting children’s development involves honouring their languages, cultures and talents, as well as inviting these assets into ECEC classrooms (NASEM, 2024[14]).

High-quality continuous professional development (CPD) for ECEC staff is paramount to promoting more inclusive practices within ECEC settings. Research emphasises that practical training in authentic contexts and peer feedback represent central features of effective CPD (see Chapter 6). Evidence also indicates that staff with both pre- and in-service training in working with children from diverse backgrounds are more likely to adapt their practices to suit different children’s interests, abilities and cultural heritages (OECD, 2020[54]). At the same time, working with children with special education needs and with multilingual children are areas where ECEC staff in multiple countries report a strong need for ongoing training (OECD, 2019[44]). This section discusses both the types of competencies and the delivery models that CPD can target to better equip ECEC staff in addressing diversity.

Research has looked at the staff competencies required to respond to increasing diversity in education settings using a wide range of terms and constructs, often under the multi-faceted rubrics of intercultural competence and multicultural education (Council of Europe, 2014[55]) (Romijn, Slot and Leseman, 2021[56]) (OECD, 2023[2]). As an example, Banks (2004[57]) distinguishes five dimensions of multicultural education: cultural content integration, knowledge as social construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture. Notwithstanding some differences, these frameworks share the stance that enhancing educators’ ability to respond to diversity involves addressing both their knowledge and skills as well as promoting a general disposition to value diversity. This means that inclusion-focused professional development can aim to induce both cognitive and attitudinal shifts in ECEC staff. In addition, the ECEC curriculum needs to be clear about how it views multicultural education and what is expected from staff in this respect.

The OECD Strength through Diversity project identified four core competencies for inclusive teaching (OECD, 2023[2]), which in an ECEC context can be reformulated as follows:

• Critical reflection: the process by which staff identify the assumptions behind their actions working in ECEC settings, understand their historical and cultural origins, and question their meaning.

• Dismantling unconscious bias: the process of recognising how one’s own biases can affect interactions in the classroom and the impact they can have on children, and the subsequent process of engaging in strategies to mitigate these biases.

• Global competence: the capacity to examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others, and to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with children and families from different backgrounds.

• Treating diversity as an asset and a source of growth: adopting a strength-based approach to diversity as well as helping children to see that abilities and knowledge can be developed through effort, and supporting them to do so.

Similar formulations of these competencies are articulated by other organisations. For instance, among other expectations for ECEC staff, the European Commission highlights the recognition of the different cultural and social backgrounds of children; the capacity to work with all families, including those who may have different values and attitudes; and a respectful treatment of all children and families. Inclusion-related competencies for ECEC professionals can include fostering inclusive attitudes; the development of an open-minded approach towards parents and children; the ability to adapt to new ideas and situations; the ability to put themselves in the position of the parent/child and have a better understanding of their needs; and developing intercultural competencies and awareness of different family arrangements (European Commission, 2021[58]). In the United States, the Zero-to-Three model of critical professional competencies emphasises the cross-cultural skills required to work with diverse populations, with specific considerations for adjusting practices to meet the individual needs of infants and toddlers from populations facing significant risk factors and for ensuring a strength-based approach to supporting multilanguage learners (LeMoine, 2020[59]).

A common feature across these frameworks is to emphasise the importance of professional development to address staff’s attitudes towards diversity as a foundation for building skills in more specific areas. This involves focusing on the set of assumptions, beliefs and values that underpin staff’s practices, as a target for CPD on an equal footing with more concrete knowledge and skills. This can include, for instance, addressing deficit-oriented views on diversity, and encouraging staff to critically reflect on implicit assumptions in their work with diverse children and families.

Research supports this focus on the attitudinal dimension as a basis for developing more inclusive practices in ECEC settings, and show its links with both work contexts and training experiences. Staff’s positive attitudes towards multilingualism have been found to a be a major determinant of development-focused communication between parents and staff in multilingual ECEC centres in Luxembourg (Aleksić, Bebić-Crestany and Kirsch, 2024[60]). A study with ECEC and primary school teachers in England (United Kingdom), Italy, the Netherlands and Poland suggests that diversity-related self-efficacy (i.e. the feeling of preparedness for working with diverse populations) constitutes a specific domain of teachers’ sense of efficacy, which tends to be higher among teachers working in more diverse classrooms and having more opportunities to build up diversity-related self-efficacy beliefs. Both classroom composition and this sense of self-efficacy appear positively associated with the use of intercultural practices in classrooms (Romijn et al., 2020[61]). In turn, results from TALIS Starting Strong 2018 show that in six out of nine participating countries, pre-primary staff having received both pre- and in-service training to adapt their work to individual child needs are more likely to report a strong sense of self-efficacy in this area (OECD, 2020[54]). Evidence is less conclusive on the effectiveness of diversity-related CPD in bringing lasting changes to practices, with successful examples being for the most part long and intensive interventions with a strong coaching component (Castro et al., 2017[62]); (Kirsch et al., 2020[63]).

Continuous training specifically targeted at leaders of ECEC settings deserves particular attention. Professionals with leadership roles can play a pivotal role in creating a school or setting-wide culture of respect and appreciation for diversity and in enabling staff to deal more effectively with diverse classrooms. Often the first point of contact for parents, setting leaders can also shape interactions with multilingual parents. Diversity-related competencies for leadership also relate to critical self-reflection on the values and beliefs embedded in professional interactions with children and families from diverse backgrounds, and include intercultural communication as a major element (Cherkowski and Ragoonaden, 2016[64]).

Besides targeting competencies in both dispositional and cognitive domains, the success of diversity-related CPD depends on identifying and implementing promising delivery models. Research underscores that theoretical knowledge and traditional training formats often fall short of meaningfully changing staff attitudes and practices, as this generally requires direct and practical exposure to high-diversity contexts. An inventory of CPD inclusion-related initiatives in 10 European countries suggests that more dynamic forms of CPD, such as team-level reflection, can facilitate addressing value-laden topics more likely to elicit strong feelings from practitioners, as compared to other subjects (e.g. multilingualism) for which a greater focus can be placed on knowledge and skills and training at the individual level (Slot, Romijn and Wyslowska, 2017[65]). A review of 45 studies on teachers’ intercultural competencies in both pre-service and in-service professional development interventions stresses the importance of guided reflection on held assumptions for supporting practitioners in developing new appreciations and understandings of the needs and strengths of children and families from diverse backgrounds, and that this type of reflection is more effective when occurring at the team-level rather than individually. The review also highlights the benefits of embedded interventions that align with local contexts (i.e. characteristics of settings and the families and children they serve) and existing policies (Romijn, Slot and Leseman, 2021[56]). Attending to local contexts also implies adapting the content of training to participants’ levels of knowledge and experience, which tend to vary with the characteristics of the settings where they work, therefore potentially requiring varying combinations of theoretical and practical components (Buchner, Eberl and Hess, 2023[66]). In the case of multilingualism-focused training, this can involve responding to and taking advantage of the combined language repertoires of staff and families (Bergeron-Morin, Peleman and Hulpia, 2023[45]).

A number of relevant CPD initiatives and broader strategies for promoting inclusive values and practices among ECEC professionals exists internationally (see, for instance (European Commission, 2021[36])). Examples from Ireland and Australia illustrate some recent developments (Box 7.2).

Besides ensuring that high-quality workforce preparation programmes are available, supporting inclusion in ECEC demands leveraging opportunities for collaborative teamwork involving staff with different profiles, including by recruiting more staff with diverse backgrounds. This can also inform policies addressing the broader challenge of staff shortages in the ECEC sector.

ECEC authorities often provide targeted funding to support equity and inclusion efforts in ECEC settings (see Chapter 9). Targeted staffing is one of the main mechanisms to be mobilised for better equipping ECEC settings to serve populations of children with different characteristics. Targeted staffing means allocating human resources where they are needed most. ECEC policies need to consider the benefits and challenges of allocating staff with particular profiles (e.g. more experienced, with certain types of training, with diverse backgrounds) to specific settings, as well as the possibility of having specialised staff work across multiple settings.

Allocating support staff is a common form of targeted staffing. Distinctions between ECEC staff roles and categories vary across countries, but ECEC support staff can be broadly defined as staff whose main function is to assist the work of ECEC teachers (i.e. those with the most responsibility for a group of children). ECEC support staff mainly include assistants, who support the teacher in a group of children, and specialised staff, who may either support education and care for individual children or offer specialised activities for all children (e.g. music or sports) (OECD, 2022[72]). The presence of an additional professional in the classroom can, for instance, facilitate that children receive more individual help and attention during activities, from either the support staff member or the teacher, which in turn means that their needs are more likely to be met. The effective use of support staff may also facilitate a more flexible classroom or setting environment that can contribute to increased engagement and inclusion of children with specific needs in group activities, for example by enabling child groupings in ways that respond to different needs and strengths (OECD, 2023[2]).

The qualifications and experience of individual ECEC staff and setting leaders are important, given that teaching and caring for young children requires specialised knowledge, skills and abilities, especially when children have specific needs related to their backgrounds. Analyses of TALIS Starting Strong 2018 found little evidence of differences in the percentages of staff with high educational qualifications (i.e. a bachelor’s degree or higher) or with more than 5 years of experience between ECEC centres with high and low shares of children from diverse backgrounds. At the same time, in several countries, the percentage of specialised staff was larger in centres with more children with special education needs, children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and multilingual children, which is consistent with their expected role in supporting these children (González-Sancho et al., 2023[7]). However, this was not observed in all participating countries or regarding all dimensions of diversity, which suggests ample room for developing targeted staffing policies.

Strategic staff allocations can also serve to create multi-professional teams within ECEC settings. Multi-professional teams are attracting growing attention by researchers, given the potential of complementary specialisations and profiles to better accommodate the complex range of supports needed by children and families in increasingly diverse societies (Oberhuemer et al., 2023[73]). Multi-professional work in ECEC may involve collaboration between professionals from different sectors on a shared task or programme (see Chapter 10), or, at the setting ECEC level, differently qualified ECEC professionals working together with the same group of children. ECEC settings can build on the various strengths present in multi-professional teams and allocate tasks according to individual staff competencies to offer more tailored supports to children and families with diverse needs (Box 7.3).

ECEC systems need to consider the benefits of attracting and retaining individuals with more diverse backgrounds to work in the ECEC sector. Staff diversity can be important in terms of awareness and identification of the needs and strengths of children from diverse groups, as well as to expose all children, including those from majority groups, to other cultures and individual backgrounds. At various levels of education, teachers in many OECD countries tend largely to come from the dominant cultural groups, while increasingly teaching to learners from non-dominant cultures and minorities. This is a challenge for inclusive education as individuals from non-minority backgrounds may have only partial and biased understandings of the experiences lived by individuals from non-dominant cultures (OECD, 2023[2]). In contexts where social and cultural diversity grow faster in children’s populations than among ECEC professionals, an increasing demographic imbalance within ECEC settings may thus exacerbate cultural misunderstandings and miscommunication between staff and children and families.

Research has explored the consequences of having a more diverse workforce in early levels of education, often under the perspective of staff-child demographic match (i.e. matching based on shared backgrounds). In the United States, studies have found positive effects of teacher-child demographic congruence on children’s engagement, motivation, social skills and attendance (but not reading or math competencies) in elementary schools (Rasheed et al., 2019[78]), as well as on parental engagement and child absence (Markowitz, Bassok and Grissom, 2020[79]), and a range of other outcomes (Little, Ansari and Curenton, 2023[80]) in ECEC centres. Evidence further suggests that classroom composition matters too, as the effects of equitable and culturally responsive pedagogies by staff can be stronger in classrooms with greater racial or ethnic diversity of children (Curenton et al., 2022[81]). Researchers have also hypothesised that the lack of significant relationship between teacher educational attainments and process quality in ECEC classrooms that served primarily Latino, Asian, and Indigenous students may be related to the replacement of teachers from the communities being served by more educated teachers who may not understand cultural practices, as calls for heightened qualification requirements have intensified (Manning et al., 2019[82]). This suggests that ECEC systems seeking to attract more highly qualified staff should also consider potential implications for the demographic composition of its workforce.

Particularly in countries where multilingualism is prevalent, a policy of growing priority is to attract and retain multilingual staff who are able to communicate with children and families from cultural and linguistic minority backgrounds and who are more receptive to supporting the maintenance of home languages. This is the case of Luxembourg, which seeks to promote plurilingual staff teams and multilingual practices (Kirsch and Aleksić, 2021[83]). At a subnational scale, examples of initiatives of recruiting ECEC staff with diverse linguistic competences include the German Federal State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and the Belgian city of Brussels (Bergeron-Morin, Peleman and Hulpia, 2023[45]). Also in Germany, recent policy recommendations at the ministerial level emphasise the recruitment of ECEC staff from the under-represented migrant population (BMFSFJ, (2021[84]).

Education systems across the OECD have implemented a variety of workforce recruitment and allocation initiatives of relevance for both targeted staffing and attracting and retaining staff with diverse backgrounds. These include mandatory staff rotation across settings; incentives to attract staff to remote and disadvantaged settings, such as direct financial incentives or seniority premiums towards gaining promotions; and supports for staff working in high-need settings, such as smaller class sizes or reduced instructional time, which may be combined with other incentives. Another initiative is alternative teacher certification programmes, which typically provide non-teaching graduates with the opportunity to earn accredited qualifications while earning an income. Other measures include outreach programmes to candidates from diverse or minority backgrounds, and targeted mentoring programmes (OECD, 2023[2]). However, the implementation of some of these measures has to also consider potential negative consequences of high levels of staff turnover on continuity of attachment and stability of relationships between staff and children. Relatedly, working conditions remain of critical importance for maintaining a well-trained and more diverse ECEC workforce, and for creating opportunities for targeted staffing policies. These conditions include adequate salaries, contract stability, opportunities for career progression and reasonable workloads (OECD, 2021[85]).

Within ECEC settings, monitoring and assessment practices can support inclusion in multiple ways. On the one hand, these practices help experts and staff alike to better understand and identify variability in children’s needs and strengths, and thereby inform eligibility for targeted supports and facilitate transitions. On the other, they measure the quality of inclusive practices, both generally and particularly when provided to vulnerable children. In both cases, ECEC staff need to be supported to use the resulting information to adapt their interactions with children.

The labelling of young children through monitoring and assessment requires careful consideration. Labelling children with a particular need, ethnicity or other type of background can have both positive and negative impacts (OECD, 2023[2]). Classifications can be beneficial by explaining the limitations of regular practice and justifying adaptations for some children. Classifications can also bring consistency to research and communication and be useful in the monitoring and placement of children in special programmes or settings. Further, the absence of labels may silence the experiences of children with diverse backgrounds and obscure their needs to some stakeholders, even when individual settings and staff have a good understanding of those needs. Conversely, labelling may result in educators having lower expectations about children belonging to diverse groups due to stereotypes regarding their abilities. Further, labelling may have limited or no value for educational practice without further analysis of individual children’s needs (OECD, 2023[2]).

Concerns also exist around recurring biases in the identification of SEN. Evidence of age differentials in early special education placements in the United States shows that children eligible to attend kindergarten at the youngest possible age are about 40% more likely of such placements than peers eligible at the oldest possible age. This effect appears largest in settings with wide variation in age, and persistent into later stages of schooling (Shapiro, 2023[86]). Age differentials have been interpreted as reflecting an overdiagnosis of attention-deficit disorders for the youngest children. Research has consistently documented an over-representation of boys in early identification of SEN. For example, gender differences are visible in the identification of 13 disability categories among children attending state-funded nurseries in England (United Kingdom), with boys accounting for more than two-thirds of children identified with autism spectrum disorder, or with speech, language and communication disabilities in 2022/23 (Daniel and Wang, 2023[87]). Gender differences have been linked to the fact that girls mature at a faster rate and achieve cognitive milestones at a younger age, although the extent to which these differences are due to real variation in needs or to bias remains open to discussion. Similarly, the identification rate of language development delays has been shown to vary between monolingual and multilingual children. Recent evidence on 2-3-year-olds in Sweden suggests that assessing bilingual children directly in both their mother tongue and their second language, rather than on one of the languages only, is the best model to achieve adequate accuracy of language difficulties (Nayeb et al., 2020[88]).

Within a broader paradigm change from special education for children with disabilities to inclusive education for all children, many countries are abandoning the view that clinical labels or a formal special education needs diagnosis are required for the provision of specific support in educational settings. Examples include Portugal, where legislative changes in 2018 removed categorisation systems of students in specific groups and shifted the emphasis to information on categories of support measures (universal, selective and additional) (OECD, 2022[77]), or Ireland, where the AIM programme (Box 7.2 and Box 7.3) provides a range of supports for children with a disability to access and engage in ECEC focusing on the individual child’s needs and without requiring a formal diagnosis of disability (see Annex A, Workshop 7).

An important step in supporting the implementation of a high-quality and inclusive ECEC curriculum is to generate robust evidence and actionable information about the inclusiveness of classroom practices with young children. This involves monitoring the quality of the targeted supports that ECEC staff provide for children from diverse backgrounds, in addition to measuring process quality more generally in all settings. This can be carried out as part of broader evaluations of process quality by inspectorates or other quality assurance bodies, or as part of research-oriented projects, with a more deliberate focus on specific groups of children as well as on the quality of targeted supports.

In response to the limitations of established quality assessment instruments in the field (Phillips, Johnson and Iruka, 2022[89]); (NASEM, 2024[14]), a number of observational and self-reflection tools have been developed in recent years with a focus on capturing aspects of early childhood classrooms that speak to responsiveness to the needs and strengths of children from diverse backgrounds (Box 7.4). Used in combination with other more general quality assessment measures, these tools hold promise for enabling a richer picture of process quality in contemporary, increasingly diverse ECEC settings. However, given the wide variety of configurations of social and cultural diversity across countries, further testing and adaptation of these tools to a wider range of geographical and cultural contexts is still needed.

ECEC settings represent privileged environments wherein a range of early childhood professionals with varying areas of expertise can offer services for children and families in a co-ordinated and consistent manner (see Chapter 10). Adequately identifying children’s needs and strengths to support them in their development, particularly those in need of enhanced levels of support, is an area where ECEC staff can play a critical role, provided that they are equipped with the necessary training and resources.

There can be benefits to a more systematic monitoring of children’s needs at the setting level, including by supporting non-specialised staff in taking greater responsibilities in processes such as the identification of children with developmental difficulties. Building on staff’s proximity with children and their recurrent and intentional interactions can improve monitoring with a focus on inclusion. However, monitoring tasks should facilitate work with children and families rather than overburden staff, especially considering the staff shortages and high levels of stress reported in many countries (OECD, 2020[54]). Further, the intervention of specialised staff with specific training will continue to be required in instances such as the identification and care of children with more complex types of disabilities. Tiered models in which regular staff are supported to take on early warning and early responses, including through collaborative assessment and deliberation, and where specialised staff are brought in to provide additional and more targeted supports (again in collaboration with other staff) may hold promise in this respect.

Recent research developments in Australia and Korea provide examples of tools designed to be used by ECEC staff to monitor children’s needs, relying on observable behaviours within settings and staff’s regular work with children (Box 7.5). Information gathered with these tools can help staff to improve overall process quality and targeted supports for children with additional needs.

[70] ACECQA (n.d.), National Workforce Strategy, https://www.acecqa.gov.au/national-workforce-strategy (accessed on 12 November 2024).

[60] Aleksić, G., D. Bebić-Crestany and C. Kirsch (2024), “Factors influencing communication between parents and early childhood educators in multilingual Luxembourg”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 124, p. 102309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102309.

[18] Australian Government (2024), Early Years Strategy 2024-2034, https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children-programs-services/early-years-strategy (accessed on 2 July 2024).

[49] Australian Government Department of Education (2022), Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (V2.0), Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council, https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2024).

[57] Banks, J. and C. McGee Banks (eds.) (2004), Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice, Jossey-Bass.

[38] Bartolo, P. et al. (2019), “An adapted ecosystem model for inclusive early childhood education: a qualitative cross European study”, International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, Vol. 9/1, pp. 3-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2019.1637311.

[45] Bergeron-Morin, L., B. Peleman and H. Hulpia (2023), Working with multilingual children and families in early childhood education and care (ECEC): guidelines for continuous professional development of ECEC professionals. NESET report, Publications Office of the European Union, https://nesetweb.eu/en/resources/library/working-with-multilingual-children-and-families-in-early-childhood-education-and-care-ecec-guidelines-for-continuous-professional-development-of-ecec-professionals/ (accessed on 15 July 2024).

[21] Bialystok, E. (2017), “The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 143/3, pp. 233-262, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099.

[96] Björck-Åkesson, E. et al. (eds.) (2017), Inclusive Early Childhood Education Environment Self-Reflection Tool, (E. Björck-Åkesson, M. Kyriazopoulou, C. Giné and P. Bartolo, eds.), https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/inclusive-early-childhood-education-environment-self-reflection-tool (accessed on 1 November 2024).

[48] Bonacina-Pugh, F., I. da Costa Cabral and J. Huang (2021), “Translanguaging in education”, Language Teaching, Vol. 54/4, pp. 439-471, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444821000173.

[66] Buchner, U., C. Eberl and M. Hess (2023), “Promoting culturally informed and sensitive practice in day-care centers—a contribution to the professionalization of day-care teachers”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 14, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1192631.

[62] Castro, D. et al. (2017), “Early education of dual language learners: An efficacy study of the Nuestros Niños School Readiness professional development program”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 188-203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.002.

[64] Cherkowski, S. and K. Ragoonaden (2016), “Leadership for diversity: Intercultural communication competence as professional development”, Teacher Learning and Professional Development, Vol. 1/1, pp. 33-43.

[55] Council of Europe (2014), Developing intercultural competence through education, Council of Europe Publishing.

[95] Curenton, S. et al. (2019), “Validity for the Assessing Classroom Sociocultural Equity Scale (ACSES) in Early Childhood Classrooms”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 31/2, pp. 284-303, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1611331.

[81] Curenton, S. et al. (2022), “Antiracism defined as equitable sociocultural interactions in prekindergarten: Classroom racial composition makes a difference”, Child Development, Vol. 93/3, pp. 681-698, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13779.

[87] Daniel, J. and H. Wang (2023), “Gender differences in special educational needs identification”, Review of Education, Vol. 11/3, https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3437.

[69] DCYA (2016), Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines for Early Childhood Care and Education, https://assets.gov.ie/38186/c9e90d89d94b41d3bf00201c98b2ef6a.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[24] DeJoseph, M. et al. (2024), “The promise and pitfalls of a strength-based approach to child poverty and neurocognitive development: Implications for policy”, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 66, p. 101375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101375.

[53] Digital Iceland (2024), What is MEMM?, https://island.is/frett/hvad-er-thetta-memm (accessed on 28 November 2024).

[8] EASIE (2024), European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education: 2020/2021 School Year Dataset Cross-Country Report.

[25] Elder, B., C. Rood and M. Damiani (2018), “Writing strength-based IEPs for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms”, International Journal of Whole Schooling, Vol. 14/1, pp. 116-155, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1182587.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[23] Ellis, B. et al. (2020), “Hidden talents in harsh environments”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 34/1, pp. 95-113, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579420000887.

[97] Elwick, S. et al. (2023), “Feasibility and Potential Benefits of the Observe, Reflect, Improve Children’s Learning (ORICL) Tool: Perspectives of Infant–Toddler Educators”, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 48/3, pp. 203-216, https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391231186169.

[19] Espinosa, L. (2020), Addressing Equity in the ECE Classroom: Equal Access and High Quality for Dual Language Learners, Foundation for Child Development, https://www.fcd-us.org/getting-it-right-using-implementation-research-to-improve-outcomes-in-early-care-and-education/.

[58] European Commission (2021), Early childhood education and care – How to recruit, train and motivate well-qualified staff – Final report, Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/48.

[36] European Commission (2021), Toolkit for inclusive early childhood education and care. Providing high quality education and care to all young children, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2766/399018.

[40] European Commission (2014), Proposal for key principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, https://www.opgroeien.be/sites/default/files/documenten/ecec-quality-framework_en.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2024).

[84] Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ) (2021), Fachkräfte mit Migrations hintergrund im Arbeitsfeld (früh)kindlicher Bildung, Betreuung und Erziehung, https://www.recht-auf-ganztag.de/resource/blob/198966/7dbcbe04ec0fe476ecbd009867d8ce0c/studie-zu-fachkraeften-mit-migrationshintergrund-im-arbeitsfeld-frueh-kindlicher-bildung-betreuung-und-erziehung-data.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2024).

[94] Figueras-Daniel, A. and Z. Li (2021), “Evidence of support for dual language learners in a study of bilingual staffing patterns using the Classroom Assessment of Supports for Emergent Bilingual Acquisition (CASEBA)”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, pp. 271-285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.011.

[93] Freedson, M., A. Figueras and E. Frede (2009), Classroom assessment of supports for Emergent Bilingual acquisition (CASEBA), NIEER.

[47] García, O. and L. Wei (2014), Translanguaging. Language, bilingualism and education, Palgrave Macmillan.

[7] González-Sancho, C. et al. (2023), “Levelling the playing field in ECEC: Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2018”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 305, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/757e4fea-en.

[67] Government of Ireland (n.d.), The Access and Inclusion Model, https://aim.gov.ie/ (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[26] Gulboy, E., S. Yucesoy-Ozkan and S. Rakap (2023), “Embedded instruction for young children with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of single-case experimental research studies”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 63, pp. 181-193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.12.014.

[101] Kang, E. et al. (2022), Comprehensive Measure for Early Screening and Support for Children At Risk for Developmental Disabilities in Early Childhood Education and Care (I): A Survey and Development of Early Screening Tool, Korea Institute of Child Care and Education, Report 2022-26.

[76] Karila, K. and P. Kupila (2023), “Multi-professional teamwork in Finnish early childhood education and care”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00124-5.

[27] Kart, A. and M. Kart (2021), “Academic and Social Effects of Inclusion on Students without Disabilities: A Review of the Literature”, Education Sciences, Vol. 11/1, p. 16, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010016.

[83] Kirsch, C. and G. Aleksić (2021), “Multilingual education in early years in Luxembourg: a paradigm shift?”, International Journal of Multilingualism, Vol. 18/4, pp. 534-550, https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1905643.

[63] Kirsch, C. et al. (2020), “Developing multilingual practices in early childhood education through professional development in Luxembourg”, International Multilingual Research Journal, Vol. 14/4, pp. 319-337, https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2020.1730023.

[46] Kirsch, C. and L. Bergeron-Morin (2023), “Educators, parents and children engaging in literacy activities in multiple languages: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Multilingualism, Vol. 20/4, pp. 1386-1403, https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2195658.

[43] Kral, I. et al. (2021), “A strong start for every Indigenous child”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 251, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ebcc34a6-en.

[20] LaMarr, T. (2022), Multilingualism, LibreText, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddler_Care_and_Development (accessed on 2 July 2024).

[59] LeMoine, S. (2020), “Defining competencies for the early childhood workforce”, ZERO TO THREE Journal, Vol. 40/3, pp. 5-10, https://www.zerotothree.org/resource/journal/defining-competencies-for-the-early-childhood-workforce/.

[80] Little, M., A. Ansari and S. Curenton (2023), “Guest editorial: Advancing our understanding of demographic (Mis)match in early childhood education”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 64, pp. 174-176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.03.003.

[92] Lundqvist, J. and U. Larsdotter Bodin (2021), “Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP): a cultural validation and investigation of its perceived usefulness in the context of the Swedish preschool”, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 25/3, pp. 411-427, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1555867.

[82] Manning, M. et al. (2019), “Is Teacher Qualification Associated With the Quality of the Early Childhood Education and Care Environment? A Meta-Analytic Review”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 89/3, pp. 370-415, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319837540.

[79] Markowitz, A., D. Bassok and J. Grissom (2020), “Teacher-Child Racial/Ethnic Match and Parental Engagement With Head Start”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 57/5, pp. 2132-2174, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219899356.

[51] Ministry of Education (n.d.), About Kōwhiti Whakapae, https://kowhiti-whakapae.education.govt.nz/about-kowhiti-whakapae (accessed on 12 November 2024).

[74] Ministry of Education and Culture (2021), Programme for Developing Education and Training Provision and Programmes in Early Childhood Education and Care 2021–2030, Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-876-2 (accessed on 2 November 2024).

[14] NASEM (2024), A New Vision for High-Quality Preschool Curriculum, The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/27429.

[17] NASEM (2018), How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures, National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/24783.

[88] Nayeb, L. et al. (2020), “Identifying language disorder in bilingual children aged 2.5 years requires screening in both languages”, Acta Paediatrica, Vol. 110/1, pp. 265-272, https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15343.

[73] Oberhuemer, P. et al. (2023), “Team concepts in ECEC: potentials and challenges of heterogeneous staff teams”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00127-2.

[41] OECD (2024), “Defining curriculum flexibility and autonomy”, in Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy: Promoting a Thriving Learning Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f57729ae-en.

[3] OECD (2024), Poverty rate (indicator), https://doi.org/10.1787/0fe1315d-en (accessed on 5 July 2024).

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

[5] OECD (2023), International Migration Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0f40584-en.

[77] OECD (2022), Review of Inclusive Education in Portugal, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9c95902-en.

[72] OECD (2022), “Staff teams in early childhood education and care centres”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 53, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b913691-en.

[39] OECD (2021), Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee2adcd-en.

[85] 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.

[68] OECD (2021), Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care in Ireland: Review on Sector Quality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/72fab7d1-en.

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

[1] OECD (2019), Changing the Odds for Vulnerable Children: Building Opportunities and Resilience, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a2e8796c-en.

[44] 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.

[42] Paris, D. (2012), “Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 41/3, pp. 93-97, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12441244.

[102] Park, H. et al. (2023), “A Pilot Study to Develop a Teacher Form of the Korean Screening Index for Early Development”, Korean Journal of Child Studies, Vol. 44/3, pp. 293-307, https://doi.org/10.5723/kjcs.2023.44.3.293.

[13] Persici, V. et al. (2022), “Vocabulary and reading speed in the majority language are affected by maternal language proficiency and language exposure at home: a study of language minority bilingual children in Italy”, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 25/10, pp. 3729-3744, https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2076552.

[89] Phillips, D., A. Johnson and I. Iruka (2022), “Early care and education settings as contexts for socialization: New directions for quality assessment”, Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 16/3, pp. 127-133, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12460.

[71] Productivity Commission (2024), A path to universal early childhood education and care. Inquiry report no. 106 – Vol. 1, Australian Government Productivity Commission, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childhood/report/childhood-volume1-report.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2024).

[9] Ramberg, J. and A. Watkins (2020), “Exploring inclusive education across Europe: some insights from the European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education”, FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.32865/fire202061172.

[75] Ranta, S. et al. (2023), “Teamwork as a cornerstone of a child’s educational support in early childhood education and care in Finland”, Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, Vol. 12/2, pp. 158-178, https://doi.org/10.58955/jecer.121462.

[78] Rasheed, D. et al. (2019), “The Effect of Teacher–Child Race/Ethnicity Matching and Classroom Diversity on Children’s Socioemotional and Academic Skills”, Child Development, Vol. 91/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13275.

[16] Rogoff, B., A. Dahl and M. Callanan (2018), “The importance of understanding children’s lived experience”, Developmental Review, Vol. 50, pp. 5-15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.006.

[56] Romijn, B., P. Slot and P. Leseman (2021), “Increasing teachers’ intercultural competences in teacher preparation programs and through professional development: A review”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 98, p. 103236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103236.

[61] Romijn, B. et al. (2020), “Teachers’ self-efficacy and intercultural classroom practices in diverse classroom contexts: A cross-national comparison”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 79, pp. 58-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.08.001.

[12] Rowe, M. (2017), “Understanding Socioeconomic Differences in Parents’ Speech to Children”, Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 12/2, pp. 122-127, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12271.

[50] Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family (2019), Bridging Diversity. A Early Years Programme, Verlag das netz.

[86] Shapiro, A. (2023), “Over Diagnosed or Over Looked? The Effect of Age at Time of School Entry on Students Receiving Special Education Services”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 89/2, pp. 161-177, https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221108735.

[100] Simpson, S. et al. (2021), “The ASQ-TRAK: Validating a culturally adapted developmental screening tool for Australian Aboriginal children”, Early Human Development, Vol. 163, p. 105481, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2021.105481.

[65] Slot, P., B. Romijn and O. Wyslowska (2017), Inventory and analysis of professional development and models related to diversity and inclusiveness . ISOTIS..

[90] Soukakou, E. (2012), “Measuring quality in inclusive preschool classrooms: Development and validation of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP)”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 27/3, pp. 478-488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.003.

[37] Soukakou, E., C. Dionne and O. Palikara (2024), Promoting quality inclusion in early childhood care and education: inclusive practices for each and every child.

[91] Soukakou, E. et al. (2014), “Measuring the Quality of Inclusive Practices”, Journal of Early Intervention, Vol. 36/3, pp. 223-240, https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115569732.

[99] Squires, J. et al. (2009), Ages and Stages Questionnaires User’s Guide, 3rd Edition, Paul H Brookes Publishing.

[35] Sugai, G. and R. Horner (2019), “Sustaining and Scaling Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Implementation Drivers, Outcomes, and Considerations”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 86/2, pp. 120-136, https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919855331.

[15] Trawick‐Smith, J. (2019), Not All Children Grow Up the Same, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119148104.ch2.

[29] UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999), CESCR General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Art. 13), https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/d-general-comment-no-13-right-education-article-13-1999 (accessed on 15 September 2024).

[31] UN General Assembly (2007), UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.

[32] UN General Assembly (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities (accessed on 15 September 2024).

[28] UN General Assembly (1966), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (accessed on 15 September 2024).

[30] UN OHCHR (1989), Convention on the Rights of the Child, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (accessed on 15 September 2024).

[34] UNESCO (2022), Tashkent Declaration and Commitments to Action for Transforming Early Childhood Care and Education, https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2022/11/tashkent-declaration-ecce-2022.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2024).

[33] UNESCO (1994), Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427 (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[6] UNICEF (2024), Child displacement, https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement/ (accessed on 27 June 2024).

[4] UNICEF (2022), International Migrant Stock 2020, https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/migration/ (accessed on 25 June 2024).

[10] United Nations (2006), Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD).

[52] Université de Montreal (n.d.), ÉLODiL (Éveil au Langage et Ouverture à la Diversité Linguistique), https://elodil.openum.ca/presentation/ (accessed on 2 December 2024).

[11] Varsik, S. and J. Gorochovskij (2023), “Intersectionality in education: Rationale and practices to address the needs of students’ intersecting identities”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 302, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dbb1e821-en.

[22] Whiting, S. and C. Marshall (2023), “Foreign language provision in English primary schools: making evidence-based pedagogical choices”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1063863.

[98] Williams, K. et al. (2023), “Feasibility and initial psychometric properties of the observe, reflect, improve children’s learning tool (ORICL) for early childhood services: A tool for building capacity in infant and toddler educators”, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391231194374.