Overall Conclusion on Country Cases

The case studies you find in the toolbox have comprehensively evaluated the long-term impacts of significant Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) policies across England, Poland, Hungary, Norway and Denmark using a rigorous mixed-methods approach. Drawing on quantitative analyses, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and media analyses, this report offers a complex and multi-faceted understanding of the effectiveness and broader implications of particular early childhood education interventions at reducing educational inequalities.

Quantitative findings across each study provide mixed results, highlighting the nuanced and often context-dependent nature of ECEC impacts. Some studies, like England’s Sure Start, indicate a positive effect on the likelihood of disadvantaged students obtaining post-16 qualifications, however, this effect becomes statistically non-significant when controlling for a broader set of variables.

For Hungary, no overall effect of kindergarten attendance was found, but evidence of positive impacts on mathematics and reading test scores was observed among children from families experiencing material hardship. Poland’s analysis reveals a strong correlation between increased preschool availability and better eighth-grade exam performance, particularly in urban areas, although regional disparities persist despite overall improvements in access.

Norway’s Free core time in kindergarten initiative also reveals a positive, though not always statistically significant, effect on grade point average amongst the study’s targeted population, children from low SES and immigrant backgrounds. These results are consistent with findings at lower levels of schooling.

Denmark’s reform resulted in small statistically significant average effects on standardised GPA, but these effects were uneven across social groups and varied according to locality and institution.

The students who received the most improvements in academic achievement, however, were those from low-income, low-education and immigrant backgrounds. In sum, the quantitative results throughout each study often point toward positive effects for disadvantaged groups, but also underscore the necessity for further development and improvement of ECEC policies to increase the likelihood of combatting educational inequalities.

Some methodological challenges throughout the quantitative sections include sample size limitations, data availability and the complexity of isolating policy effects over long periods.

Qualitative interviews with policymakers and practitioners reveal a strong consensus on the intrinsic value and perceived positive impact of ECEC reforms, particularly in addressing educational inequalities and fostering social inclusion. Stakeholders often emphasised the importance of early intervention for academic achievement, socio-emotional development, and family well-being.

Key themes included the value of child-centred pedagogical approaches, the significance of dignifying and respectful community engagement and the transformative power of involving parents and local communities.

However, interviewees also highlighted persistent challenges, such as the politicisation of education, chronic underfunding, a lack of cohesive long-term strategic planning, complexities in data sharing and impact evaluation, and the difficulties of implementing universal reforms which also adhere to localised needs.

In Poland, the crucial, yet often invisible, role of the “third sector” (NGOs) in driving access and innovation, particularly in rural and disadvantaged areas, emerged as a unique and vital component of reform success.

The media analyses further contextualised the public and political discourse surrounding these ECEC initiatives, reflecting a spectrum of views. While policies like Sure Start in England and mandatory kindergarten in Hungary generally garnered widespread political and public support, they were not immune to criticism, often related to funding sustainability, effectiveness, and political motivations.

Common themes throughout all studies included debates regarding overall policy effectiveness and implementation, financial allocations, the availability of kindergarten places, teacher shortages and the balancing act between universal provision and targeted support for the most disadvantaged.

Media coverage often revealed the instrumental use of ECEC in broader political agendas, such as labour market activation or national integration, highlighting ongoing societal tensions and regional divides. Nonetheless, the sustained volume of media attention underscores the growing recognition of ECEC as a vital component of child development and social policy, raising public awareness and shaping political priorities.

In conclusion, while the long-term, statistically measurable impacts on reducing educational inequalities may show varying degrees of robustness across contexts and specific outcomes, the qualitative evidence strongly suggests that ECEC reforms have laid crucial groundwork for future efforts to address systemic disparities.

The perceived benefits by stakeholders, coupled with the broad societal support and sustained media attention, reinforce the notion that investing in integrated early years support programs is critical for fostering long-term benefits for children and families, particularly those facing multiple disadvantages.

Future research should aim to overcome existing methodological limitations by employing larger, more representative longitudinal datasets and adopting designs capable of capturing sustained impacts over time.

Furthermore, comparative evaluations with other early years initiatives and reforms are recommended to deepen the understanding of the conditions under which such ambitious policies succeed or falter in promoting greater equity in educational outcomes.

Overall Appendix

Guide For Qualitative Interviews by NKUA

Cover Note for partners

All the questions should ask the opinions of the interviewees and not of the organisation. Please, try that the name of the organisation isn’t revealed in order to minimise the possibility of revealing the interviewee’s identity. For reasons of anonymity, names of persons and organisations should be omitted in the transcription and analysis.
The information sheet and the consent forms should be the same for all partners. Please use those prepared changing only the logo and contact info details. Do not forget to collect only written consent forms signed.
The interview guide is prepared to act as a tool for semi-structured interviews. That means that while we need to collect answers on the specific axes of the guide, the questions could be rephrased or asked in different order based on the interview flow.
Please pay attention that where ‘policy’ is mentioned it means that the policy maker should be asked about the specific [name] policy implemented in ECEC.
If deemed necessary, each partner is free to add national specific questions to a certain limit.
According to STRIDE proposal 2-4 interviews is expected to be conducted. We suggest conducting 3 interviews. If possible, it would be useful to have a variety of interviewees. For example, a policy maker involved in the design and first stages of the policy, a policy maker involved in later stages, a policy maker and evaluator.

Interview guide

Place and role of the interviewee

• Could you please describe your position and role in the organisation? (Note: if different also ask about the current position and role in the same or other organisation)
• What is your overall experience in policy/policies on inequalities in education? (Note: We are interested in their professional experience on the topic)
• What was your role in the design/development/implementation of the (specific) policy?
  Content, goals and timeline of the policy
• On what kind of inequalities did you focus through this policy? Why?
• Can you describe the main goals of the policy?
• Can you describe the timeline of the policy? (e.g., time of design, when did it start to be implemented, duration, is it still running, is it going to end at some point, etc.)
• Did this policy relate to any other policy domains? If yes, which ones and how?
• Deliberation with beneficiaries and stakeholders
• Did any kind of deliberation precede the policy or occur during any phase?
• Were other stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of this policy? What roles did they hold?
• Did you involve the beneficiaries of the policy at any stage of the policy development? How? Was their involvement effective?
• Did you collaborate with other policy institutions during the design and implementation of this policy?

Use of data

• Did you use research data in the design of this policy? What kind of data? Where did you find the data?
• More specifically, did you use any longitudinal data in the design/implementation of the policy? If yes, to what extent did these data assist you in this process?
• [Note: if the answer is no in the previous question, ask the following two questions:]
• Why? Are they not collected in [country]? Were they difficult to access?
• Do you think longitudinal data would offer any assistance during the development of this policy?
• Did you (or the policy team) have to overcome any obstacles during the design
  and implementation of this policy? Can you mention some example(s)? How did you overcome them?
• Was the policy design and implementation affected by any kind of political changes and/or decisions?
• Was the policy design and implementation affected by any European and/or international developments/ policies? (e.g., EU directives, OECD reports, PISA).

Evaluation

• Has the policy been evaluated?
• [Note: If no, ask why, wasn’t it foreseen? Isn’t it yet scheduled? If yes, ask the following]
• Who evaluated the policy? (The policy team, another independent organisation). Which was the role of the beneficiaries in the evaluation process?

Overall assessment and recommendations

• Which in your opinion are/were the strong points and the weaknesses of the policy?
• Based on your experience, do you have any recommendations for policy makers on issues about inequalities in education?

References

• Andalo, D. (2003). Solid support: Sure Start is supporting parents with more childcare and help to get back to work. The Guardian.
• Bailey, M. J., Sun, S., & Timpe, B. (2021). Prep school for poor kids: The long-run impacts of Head Start on human capital and economic self-sufficiency. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 13(3), 134–170. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20190453
• Bálint, L. (2012). Internal migration. In P. Őri & Z. Spéder (Eds.), Demographic portrait of Hungary 2012 (pp. 123–134). Budapest: Demographic Research Institute, HCSO.
• Beattie, J. (2010). War on women. Daily Mirror.
• Beckford, M. (2011). 250 Sure Start centres ‘could close within a year.’ The Telegraph.
• Belsky, J., Melhuish, E., Barnes, J., Leyland, A. H., & Romaniuk, H. (2006). Effects of Sure Start local programmes on children and families: Early findings from a quasi-experimental, cross-sectional study. BMJ, 332(7556). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38853.451748.2F
• Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
• Bleses, D., Dale, P. S., Justice, L., Højen, A., Vind, B. D., & Jiang, H. (2021). Sustained effects of an early childhood language and literacy intervention through second grade: Longitudinal findings of the SPELL trial in Denmark. PLOS ONE, 16(10), e0258287.
• Bleses, D., Højen, A., Justice, L. M., Dale, P. S., Dybdal, L., Piasta, S. B., Markussen-Brown, J., Clausen, M., & Haghish, E. F. (2018). The effectiveness of a large-scale language and preliteracy intervention: The SPELL randomized controlled trial in Denmark. Child Development, 89(4), e342–e363.
• Bråten, B., Drange, N., Haakestad, H., & Telle, K. (2014). Gratis kjernetid i barnehager: Sluttrapport (Fafo rapport).
• Breen, R., & Müller, W. (Eds.). (2020). Education and intergenerational social mobility in Europe and the United States. Stanford University Press.
• Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.11.001
• Carneiro, P., Cattan, S., Conti, G., Crawford, C., Farquharson, C., & Ridpath, N. (2025). The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes.
• Carneiro, P., Cattam, S., & Ridpath, N. (2024). The short- and medium-term impacts of Sure Start on educational outcomes.
• Cebolla-Boado, H., Radl, J., & Salazar, L. (2017). Preschool education as the great equalizer? A cross-country study into the sources of inequality in reading competence. Acta Sociologica, 60(1), 41–60.
• Ciepielewska-Kowalik, A. (2014). Usługi opieki i edukacji przedszkolnej w Polsce. Problemy Polityki Społecznej. Studia i Dyskusje, 24(1), 63–80.
• Ciepielewska-Kowalik, A. (2020). (Un)intended consequences of the 2016 educational reform on early childhood education and care in Poland. Policy Futures in Education, 18(6), 806–823.
• Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
• Clegg’s rallying call. (2011). Sunday Sun.
• Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
• Cseres-Gergely, Z. (2003). The effect of economic incentives on residential mobility and migration in Hungary, 1990–1999. Society and Economy, 25(3), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1556/socec.25.2003.3.6
• Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., & Schennach, S. M. (2010). Estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Econometrica, 78(3), 883–931.
• De la Porte, L., Parreira do Amaral, M., Seger, M., & Thomsen, J.-P. (2022). Reducing inequality through early intervention: Policy pathways in European education systems. Journal of Education Policy, 37(5), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2021.1934603
• Dietrichson, J., Kristiansen, I. L., & Nielsen, B. C. V. (2018). Universal preschool programs and long-term child outcomes: A systematic review. Copenhagen: VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research.
• Directorate General for Justice and Consumers. (2019). Roma inclusion measures reported under the EU Framework for NRIS: Annex I – Country summaries of EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:96a20b39-d094-11e9-b4bf-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF
• Dobosz-Leszczyńska, W. (2024). TIMSS 2023: Osiągnięcia matematyczne i przyrodnicze czwartoklasistów. Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych. https://ibe.edu.pl/pl/aktualnosci-miedzynarodowe-badania-edukacyjne/158-wyniki-badan/2777-znamy-wyniki-miedzynarodowego-badania-nauczania-matematyki-i-nauk-przyrodniczych-timss-2023
• Drange, N., & Telle, K. (2015). Promoting integration of immigrants: Effects of free child care on child enrollment and parental employment. Labour Economics, 34, 26–38.
• EVA. (2011). Sprogvurdering i børnehaveklassen – en kortlægning. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. https://www.eva.dk/grundskole/sprogvurdering-i-boernehaveklassen-kortlaegning
• European Commission, Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2024). Education and training monitor 2024: Hungary. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/769254
• Far from certain. (2003). The Guardian and The Observer. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
• Farquharson, C., McNally, S., & Tahir, I. (2024). Education inequalities. Oxford Open Economics, 3(Supplement_1), i760–i820. https://doi.org/10.1093/ooec/odad029
• Felfe, C., & Huber, M. (2017). Does preschool boost the development of minority children? The case of Roma children. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 180(2), 475–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12207
• Felfe, C., & Lalive, R. (2010). How does early child care affect child development? Learning from the children of German unification. Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2010: Ökonomie der Familie, 25(3), 351–382.
• Folkeskolen.dk (2008). Børnehaveklassen bliver obligatorisk fra 2009. https://www.folkeskolen.dk/boernehaveklassen-bliver-obligatorisk-fra-2009/
• Gambaro, L., Stewart, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2014). An equal start? Providing quality early education and care for disadvantaged children. Policy Press.
• Gormley, W. T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 872–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.872
• Gupta, N. D., & Simonsen, M. (2010). Non-cognitive child outcomes and universal high quality child care. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.09.004
• Gupta, N. D., & Simonsen, M. (2016). Academic performance and type of early childhood care. Economics of Education Review, 53, 217-229.
• Hansen, O. H., & Broström, S. (2011). What does research tell us about services under threes: Ole Henrik Hansen reports on recent Nordic research on services for under threes. Children in Europe, (20), 15-18.
• Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2011). The economics of international differences in educational achievement. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 89–200). Elsevier.
• Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898
• Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.001
• Heckman, J. J., & Mosso, S. (2014). The economics of human development and social mobility. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 689–733. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040753
• Heckman, J. J., Pinto, R., & Savelyev, P. A. (2013). Understanding the mechanisms through which an influential early childhood program boosted adult outcomes. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2052–2086. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.6.2052
• Jakobsen, A., Piopiunik, M., & Wiederhold, S. (2013). Educational preferences and labour market outcomes: Evidence from a Danish preschool reform (IZA Discussion Paper No. 7393). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/7393
• Jenkins, A., & Sabates, R. (2007). The classification of learning aims: A framework for monitoring participation and achievement in education and training. Education Economics, 15(2), 149–166.
• Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Early childhood interventions: Proven results, future promise. RAND Corporation.
• Leseman, P. P. M., & Slot, P. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of poverty: Challenges for European early childhood education and care. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), 314–326.
• Ministry of Education. (2008). A strategy for improved language acquisition in early childhood. Danish Ministry of Education. (Internal policy note referenced in EVA, 2011).
• Melhuish, E., Belsky, J., Leyland, A. H., & Barnes, J. (2008). Effects of fully-established Sure Start local programmes on 3-year-old children and their families living in England: A quasi-experimental observational study. The Lancet, 372(9650), 1641–1647.
• Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., Tawell, A., Slot, P. L., Broekhuizen, M. L., & Leseman, P. (2015). A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child development. European Commission.
• Melhuish, E., & Gardiner, J. (2018). Study of early education and development (SEED): Impact study on early education use and child outcomes up to age seven. Department for Education.
• Naumann, I., McLean, C., Koslowski, A., Tisdall, K., & Lloyd, E. (2013). Early childhood education and care provision: International review of policy, delivery and funding. Scottish Government Social Research.
• OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264035461-en
• OECD. (2017). Starting strong 2017: Key OECD indicators on early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en
• OECD. (2020). Education at a glance 2020: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en
• OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Performance Across Subgroups – Country Note for Denmark. OECD Publishing.
• Peeters, J., Sharmahd, N., & Budginaitė, I. (2015). Professionalisation of childcare assistants in early childhood education and care (ECEC): Pathways towards qualification. NESET II report.
• Phillips, D., Gormley, W. T., & Anderson, S. (2016). The effects of Tulsa’s CAP Head Start program on middle-school academic outcomes and progress. Developmental Psychology, 52(8), 1247–1261. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000151
• Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2012). Long-term effects of early childhood care and education. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 1(1), 23–51.
• Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Grabbe, Y. (2007). Effective pre-school and primary education 3–11 project (EPPE 3–11): Influences on children’s attainment and progress in Key Stage 2: Cognitive outcomes in year 5. Institute of Education, University of London.
• Schütz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Wößmann, L. (2008). Education policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61(2), 279–308.
• Statistics Poland. (2024). Zasięg ubóstwa ekonomicznego w Polsce w 2023 roku. Warsaw: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.
• Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project. Routledge.
• Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj, I., & Taggart, B. (2014). Students’ educational and developmental outcomes at age 16: Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education project (EPPSE). Department for Education.
• UNICEF. (2008). The child care transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries. Innocenti Report Card 8. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
• Van Lancker, W., & Ghysels, J. (2016). Explaining patterns of inequality in childcare service use across 31 developed economies: A welfare state perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57(5), 310–337.
• Varga, J. (2010). The effect of kindergarten attendance on the probability of being promoted to secondary grammar school in Hungary. Budapest Working Papers on the Labour Market BWP – 2010/5. Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
• Waldfogel, J. (2004). Social mobility, life chances, and the early years. CASE Paper 88. London School of Economics.
• Waldfogel, J., & Washbrook, E. (2011). Early years policy. Child Development Research, 2011, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/343016
• Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84(6), 2112–2130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.1209
• Wiśniewski, J. (2019). Access to preschool education in Poland: Between social expectations and systemic barriers. European Journal of Education, 54(3), 383–394.

General Glossary