The Path to Educational Equity

POLICY BRIEF

Executive Summary

Introduction: Early Childhood Education (ECE) policy to mitigate inequalities in education

Educational inequality remains a fundamental challenge for modern democracies, dictating long-term outcomes in employment, health and wealth. Research indicates that these disparities are not just a product of schooling but are visible as early as 9 months of age, with children from migrant, minority and low-income backgrounds facing the steepest barriers (Halle et al., 2009; Farquharson et al., 2024). To mitigate these early gaps, Early Childhood Education (ECE) has emerged as a critical lever for fostering equity. Yet, previous research lacks practical evidence on measuring the long-term impacts of ECE policies in reducing inequalities in educational outcomes. The STRIDE project directly addresses these challenges by conducting a study on the evaluation of long-term effects of ECE policies across five European contexts.

Drawing from the rigorous findings in our research, this policy brief aims to offer recommendations, based on the policy cycle, for ECE policies and reforms through shared evidence of what works and what could be improved at different levels to further mitigate inequalities in educational outcomes in the short, medium and long term.

About the Research

As a deliverable for the Strategies for Achieving Equity and Inclusion in Education Training and Learning in Democratic Europe (STRIDE) Project, Work Package 5.1 evaluated the long-term impacts of Early Childhood Education (ECE) reforms in five European countries: England, Poland, Hungary, Norway and Denmark. Reforms included England’s Sure Start, Poland’s universal preschool expansion, Hungary’s Mandatory Kindergarten from Age Three, Norway’s Free Core Time in Kindergarten Initiative and Denmark’s Introduction of Mandatory Language Assessments. The ECE reforms were analysed using a mixed methods approach throughout all country cases. Through an integration of quantitative analyses, qualitative interviews with critical stakeholders and policymakers, and a media analysis gauging political and popular sentiment toward policies, this study produced a robust, multi-dimensional evaluation of ECE policy development, implementation and outcomes.

Key Research Findings

Results from all country cases revealed the significance of ECE reforms, especially to the general public, as cases emphasised the importance of stakeholder and beneficiary involvement in the development and dissemination of ECE policies and revealed shared popular sentiments of ECE amongst the public in the media. Additional key findings from our comprehensive research are as follows:

Agenda Setting

1. Political Legitimacy through benchmarking and welfare rights: Findings in Poland and Hungary reveal that efforts to expand access to ECE aligned with international standards (e.g., EU benchmarks) which can act as catalyst for national governments to expand preschool access. Across all countries, ECE expansion was broadly accepted and endorsed politically when framed as a foundational right.
2. Targeted outreach through local data: National policies often fail to reach the most marginalised, rural communities without specific local identification; therefore, localized data mapping and assertive outreach are needed to identify and support the most marginalized families who fall through the cracks of standard policy.

Policy Formation

3. Integrated Services and Educational Continuity: Successful models (e.g., England’s Sure Start model) use cross-sectorial hubs, acting as a “one-stop shop” by linking health, family support, and ECE to target development. However, these gains are lost without intermediary services that bridge the gap between early childhood and primary school (England and Hungary).
4. International Knowledge-Sharing for Equity: Comparative evaluations (for example, England’s integrated “one-stop shop”) provide blueprints for addressing multi-dimensional poverty, while collaborative knowledge-sharing helps nations identify and pre-empt shared threats, such as the “elitisation” of private preschools observed in both Poland and Hungary.
5. Beneficiary Empowerment as Policy Design: Findings from all countries reveal the significance of beneficiary involvement in the development and formulation of ECE policies. Engaging parents as “informed partners” rather than passive recipients is crucial. This community involvement fosters the trust and reciprocity needed for effective and sustainable policy implementation.

Policy Adoption and Legitimation

6. Sustainable Funding vs. Bureaucracy: While EU development funds drive expansion of ECE in disadvantaged regions (e.g., Hungary), high bureaucracy and short-term cycles create financial risks for local authorities and NGOs (Poland’s case). Streamlining these processes is essential for long-term program stability.
7. Targeted support and Statutory enshrinement of programmes: Evidence suggests that targeted support yields more significant benefits for the disadvantaged than universal reforms alone (Norway and Denmark). However, programs must be enshrined in law to protect them from funding cuts during political or economic shifts.
8. Local Integration and Responsibility: Long-term success of ECE policy depends on local authorities taking ownership (Poland). Integrating ECE into broader municipal welfare investments (rather than treating it as a standalone program) ensures it is viewed as a permanent pillar of social support (Norway).

Policy Implementation

9. Reliance on Multi-Level Funding and NGOs: Expansion in rural and disadvantaged areas (e.g., Poland) depends heavily on international instruments and NGOs, which often act as essential “welfare state replacements” by providing infrastructure where government services are absent.
10. Workforce Crisis as a Barrier to Quality: Across all countries (notably Hungary and Norway), severe teacher shortages and high staff turnover fundamentally limit the system’s capacity to reduce educational inequalities, regardless of program design.
11. Physical Proximity and Holistic Care: Physical distance remains a primary barrier for marginalized families (Norway and Denmark). Thus, successful implementation requires localized services and “assertive outreach,” direct, personal engagement to facilitate enrolment among hard-to-reach groups. Multidimensional ECE models, providing shared access to information across healthcare, familial wellbeing programmes, education and play are particularly significant for the most disadvantaged groups.

Policy Evaluation

12. Value of Pilot Data and cross-country knowledge sharing: The absence of pilot data and background studies in Hungary was a primary weakness in policy rollout, as they had little to no foundation for effective ECE reform.
13. Collection and access to Longitudinal Data: Lack of evaluations after the implementation of mandatory assessments created a “black box” where reforms are not followed up and quality is unknown (e.g., Denmark). Long-term impact requires consistent follow-up and accessible, country-wide longitudinal databases for evaluation.
14. Accessibility of cross-sectorial data: This was significant in England as the Sure Start Model was based on a multidimensional approach, which required the usage of accessible data across healthcare, familial wellbeing programmes and education for successful impact evaluations.

Recommendation for Policy and Practice

Based on this comparative research, we recommend the following policy and practice actions, organised across the five stages of the policy cycle and spanning international, national and local levels.

Agenda Setting

• International Level | Leverage Benchmarking: Ensure the continuation of effective ECE targets and indicators with international standards (e.g., OECD, EU ET2030, or European Education Area guidelines) to catalyse political will and provide a roadmap for national reforms.
• National Level | Frame as a Universal Right: Position ECE as a foundational entitlement under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Broaden the narrative by framing it as a core pillar for social mobility and labour market expansion.
• Local Level | Map “Invisible” Populations: Utilize localized data mapping to identify specific neighbourhoods, groups and communities that remain unreached by standard ECE services.

Policy Formation

• International Level | Leverage Collaborative Frameworks: Provide access to and utilise international research and frameworks for the development of ECE policies and focus on universal threats to educational equity to enhance the global effectiveness of ECE.
• National Level | Integrated, Cross-Sectoral ECE model and Seamless Educational Trajectories: Design ECE as a “one-stop shop”, integrating health, education, and family support services. To prevent “gain fadeout,” establish clear intermediary guidelines that ensure this integrated support continues through the transition into primary school.
• Local Level | Formalize Parental Deliberation: Establish methods to ensure the implementation of stakeholder voices in the creation of ECE programmes. This ensures programme design is responsive to specific community needs and builds local trust.

Policy Adoption and Legitimation

• International Level | Streamline Funding and Protect Social Mandates: Reduce the administrative burden for accessing international grants (e.g., EU Social Fund). Ensure that these funds maintain a dedicated focus on ECE as a critical social dimension, protecting it from shifting geopolitical priorities.
• National Level | Prioritize Statutory Protection: To ensure long-term survival, move programs beyond temporary budget allocations by enshrining them in national legislation to reduce progress fade-out and mitigate the elimination of effective ECE programmes after pilot implementation.
• Local Level | Formalize Municipal Commitments: Transition from “pilot project” status to permanent service delivery by integrating successful ECE initiatives into core municipal budgets and governance structures. This shifts ECE from a contingent program to a stable pillar of local welfare.

Policy Implementation

• International Level | Establish “Fast-Track” Funding for the Third Sector: Streamline the delivery of international structural funds (e.g., via the European Commission) to empower NGOs and local activists to act as service providers in regions where national welfare systems are insufficient or absent.
• National Level | Mitigate the Workforce Crisis: Address systemic teacher shortages through sustained investment in competitive salaries and high-quality training. Without a stable and qualified workforce, program quality and the ability to reduce educational inequalities are fundamentally compromised.
• Local Level | Optimize Assertive Outreach and Holistic Care: Ensure ECE facilities are physically located within disadvantaged residential areas to eliminate transportation barriers. Use high-engagement recruitment methods, such as home visits and door-to-door outreach, to reach families alienated by other methods like standard digital application systems. Facilitate the secure exchange of information between health, social services, and education sectors to provide accessible, holistic care.

Policy Evaluation

• International Level | Facilitate Cross-Country Knowledge Sharing: Utilize international platforms to exchange findings from both successes and failures. Sharing small-scale pilot evaluations before full-scale implementation prevents the replication of costly errors across borders.
• National Level | Ensure Quality Evaluation, Data Accessibility and Monitoring: Mandate that assessments and screenings include legally binding follow-up support to prevent “progress fade-out.” Additionally, centralize and open country-wide datasets to researchers, policymakers and stakeholders to ensure transparent, evidence-based policy adjustments. Emphasise the importance of longitudinal data production and sharing for the evaluation of ECE policies.
• Local Level | Formalize Cross-Sectorial Data Sharing: Empower local governments to bridge “data silos.” Facilitating the secure exchange of information between health, social services, and education sectors is essential for conducting accurate, multi-dimensional local impact evaluations.

Conclusion

Work Package 5.1 of the STRIDE Project has contributed significant findings through its evaluation of five country case studies. Insights from all countries offer strong foundations for policy development, implementation and evaluation.

This research not only helps stakeholders and policymakers examine what works but also provides critical tools to promote the mitigation of educational inequalities for children facing intersectional disadvantages.