Examining the Divide Between Public and Private Early Childhood Education Providers

By Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is often regarded as a critical factor in leveling the playing field for children, but patterns across OECD nations tell a different story. While participation has grown, persistent inequalities in access and quality remain a challenge, particularly for the most vulnerable populations.

In many OECD countries, the ECEC supply is divided between publicly-run centers and private operators, including both non-profit and for-profit entities. This division isn't just about types of management; it extends into who the settings serve, their geographical distribution, and the conditions they provide. In nations like Chile, Denmark, and Finland, public management constitutes a significant majority in pre-primary settings, accounting for at least 60%. Conversely, Germany tilts toward private providers, while all ECEC establishments in Ireland and New Zealand are privately managed, often for profit.

The dominance of private entities intensifies in provisions for younger children under three. Data from TALIS Starting Strong reveals that in most participating countries, privately managed settings outnumber public facilities for infants and toddlers. This trend is particularly pronounced in locations such as Ireland, Israel, and New Zealand, where for-profit models comprise over 40% of available services.

The reliance on private operators is part of broader governmental strategies to enhance supply, yet this approach raises critical equity questions. Often, public settings are more prevalent in rural areas and lower-income neighborhoods, while private settings tend to cluster in urban and wealthier regions. This geographical disparity can limit access for disadvantaged children who genuinely stand to benefit from high-quality early education options.

The implications of these disparities are profound. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds—those from low-income families, minority language groups, or with special educational needs—are more likely to end up in under-resourced settings. Unfortunately, these environments often provide lower-quality experiences, thereby exacerbating existing social divides from a young age.

Investigations reveal that public ECEC centers often face deteriorating physical environments characterized by issues like poor ventilation and noise levels compared to their private counterparts, as noted in the TALIS Starting Strong data. Interestingly, private organizations in some regions show higher levels of family engagement, a factor linked to improved educational outcomes for children. This trend is evident in various countries, including Colombia, Finland, and Türkiye.

The starkness of the divide between public and private sectors can be alarming. For instance, in Türkiye, nearly 59% of private for-profit ECEC settings serve no children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, while 31% of public settings also exhibit this trend. Similarly, in Morocco, the figures are 68% for private and 55% for public situations. Notably, private providers typically present more suitable physical conditions than public centers, shaping the formative experiences of numerous children.

Despite these challenges, there are promising examples. In places like the Flemish Community of Belgium, and under-3 settings in Norway and Germany, the quality and distribution of services in public and private sectors appear to converge more positively, with a comparable share of vulnerable children accessing both types of facilities.

Governments must navigate a challenging landscape. While embracing private provision can enhance supply and participation rates, it can also deepen systemic inequalities if not thoughtfully managed. Critical investments in public ECEC settings are necessary to equip them to handle the complexities of serving diverse populations effectively.

To mitigate disparities, governments should prioritize funding for public ECEC sites that are tasked with serving high numbers of disadvantaged children, providing them with additional resources, staff, and training focused on these populations.

On the other hand, public oversight is essential for private providers that benefit from public funding. In some regions, pre-primary privatized settings face more rigorous external inspections than their public equivalents, including financial audits. Stricter quality checks must also be applied to private settings to ensure they meet necessary standards.

Funding allocations should be tied to stringent quality requirements, preventing funds intended for educational improvements from being diverted to profit margins. Encouraging inclusion through incentives for private ECEC settings that accept disadvantaged children and attaching funding conditions to serve lower-income areas could help strike a balance.

Such strategies are vital to preventing entrenched inequalities from becoming more pronounced in these mixed markets. High-quality ECEC not only serves immediate educational purposes but can also reduce long-term societal costs associated with remedial education and social services. Hence, effective governance and strategic investments are critical if we hope to fulfill the promise of equitable opportunities for all children.

This blog is based on a chapter from the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Insights and Interpretations brochure: talis3s2024-insights-interpretations.pdf.

The Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) evaluates issues affecting early childhood education and care (ECEC). In 2024, it gathered data from ECEC professionals in under-3 and pre-primary settings across 17 countries and subnational regions.