Bridging the gap: Inequalities in access to early childhood education and care

Several EU initiatives this year take stock of the extent to which early childhood education and care (ECEC) is accessible to all children and provide guidance and tools to improve it. The communication on a strengthened European Child Guaranteeopens in new tab makes reducing the socioeconomic participation gap a central ECEC issue. The Council Resolution on the second cycle of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area (2026-2030)opens in new tab was also approved this year. This resolution includes ECEC as part of a strategy on basic skills, which includes literacy, mathematics and science. It identifies better access to high-quality ECEC, particularly for learners from vulnerable groups, as one of the ways to improve educational outcomes, something that has become a priority in Europe after the decline in PISA results in many countries.

In the past, EU funding has allowed ECEC workers to take part in training and to improve their working conditions. In light of the ongoing negotiations regarding the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, this is a good moment to review the overall accessibility of ECEC. In terms of objectives for participation in ECEC (the ‘Barcelona targets’), new targets may be proposed next year, during the mid-term review of the EU objectives.

If this happens, it would be important to include a breakdown of children who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) in any new targets, given that the current indicators do not measure the worrying trend of a decline in participation by this group. While participation in ECEC has increased overall, it is important to note that the gap between the participation of children who are AROPE and those who are not continues to widen (Figure 1). The participation of children under the age of three who are AROPE increased slightly between 2016 and 2025, but the participation rates of children over the age of three who are AROPE actually decreased over the same period.

At the same time, the participation rates of non-AROPE children increased to a greater extent, particularly in the case of children under three. Consequently, the socioeconomic gap in participation rates has widened over time. In 2016, the difference in participation rates between AROPE and non-AROPE children was just over 15 percentage points. In 2025, it was nearly 20 percentage points.

A forthcoming Eurofound report analyses the drivers of participation in ECEC. The main results show a clear social gradient: higher parental education and higher household income are associated with substantially higher odds of participating in ECEC. It follows that, unless specific measures are put in place to tackle this trend, the pattern of widening inequalities will continue.

Another forthcoming Eurofound report documents the measures that Member States are putting in place to increase the accessibility of ECEC. The most common approach mentioned in the 2026 Child Guarantee progress reportsopens in new tab has been to increase the availability of ECEC places by investing in new facilities and expanding existing services (Belgium, Czechia, France, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Romania). Many Member States report continued investment in nursery schools, kindergartens and childcare centres to reduce waiting lists and improve territorial coverage, particularly in areas where shortages were more acute. In several countries, these investments are supported through the Recovery and Resilience Facility or national investment programmes. In Romania, for example, the investment under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan supports the construction and modernisation of nurseries alongside targeted initiatives to improve participation among disadvantaged and Roma children.

A second group of measures aims to reduce financial barriers to participation (Belgium, France, Latvia and Portugal). Countries report expanding free provision, increasing public subsidies for costs or reducing fees, particularly for low-income households. Some Member States also provide targeted fee exemptions or financial support for vulnerable families, seeking to ensure that household income does not constitute a barrier to participation. For example, the Creche Feliz programme in Portugal provides free nursery care for eligible children, removing or substantially reducing the fees paid by families. Its expansion has increased the number of children who can access formal childcare, regardless of household income.

Many reports also describe measures designed to increase participation among disadvantaged groups, including children who are AROPE, Roma children, migrant children, children with disabilities and those living in rural or remote areas (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Portugal and Romania). These initiatives often combine outreach activities, targeted enrolment campaigns, inclusive admission policies and stronger cooperation between education, health and social services to identify children who are not participating in ECEC. For example, measures in Estonia aim to strengthen the inclusiveness of preschool education through additional support services for children with special educational needs.

Improving the quality of ECEC services and strengthening the ECEC workforce constitutes another important policy priority (Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia and Portugal). Measures include investment in staff recruitment, continuing professional development, revised qualification requirements, improved pedagogical guidance and enhanced support for inclusive education. Several countries also report initiatives to strengthen multidisciplinary teams and specialist support for children with additional needs.

Finally, several Member States are working to improve governance, planning and integrated service delivery (Belgium, Finland, France, Portugal and Romania). Reforms in these areas include clearer responsibilities for local authorities, improved monitoring systems, enhanced inter-ministerial coordination and the development of integrated early childhood services linking education, healthcare and family support. As an example, implementation of the Service public de la petite enfance in France aims to improve the availability, quality and territorial coordination of ECEC services, while increasing the planning responsibilities of municipalities. The objective is to improve early identification of vulnerable children and facilitate more coordinated support for families.

A case could be made for putting in place more targeted measures for disadvantaged groups. If we look at specific groups of children who are not participating in ECEC, we can see that, in many cases, some of these groups are not accessing ECEC at all. This is true of Roma children. Eurofound’s forthcoming report on investigating the Child Guarantee among hard-to-reach populations analyses the data collected as part of the Roma survey 2024. This survey was conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 10 EU Member States. The results cannot be directly compared with the results from other surveys because of differences in methodology. However, the results do show a clear difference in participation rates.

Despite this gap in participation rates, few Member States include targeted measures that aim to increase the participation of Roma children in ECEC. Bulgaria is one of the few countries that provides examples in its 2026 progress report. The Access to education for every child programme involves representatives of marginalised groups, including Roma. Additional funding is provided to kindergartens located near segregated Roma neighbourhoods, including support for language learning and ‘educational mediators’ (non-teaching staff who act as a vital bridge between vulnerable communities and the education system). Educational desegregation measures also include transport, materials and motivational work benefiting preschool children. In Slovenia, Roma assistants in kindergartens strengthen links with families and communities. Short, fully funded and more flexible ECEC programmes for children who are otherwise outside ECEC are also available. In Ireland, the Equal Start model explicitly aims to support access and full participation in early learning and care (ELC) for disadvantaged children and specifically includes Traveller and Roma children. In Slovakia, more active outreach is planned to promote access to ECEC for specific groups of children in need, including Roma children.

The 2026 communication on a strengthened European Child Guarantee states that it will further assist Member States in 2027 by providing guidance on how to support the social inclusion of Roma children. This guidance will be developed with stakeholders and will focus ‘on integrated measures bringing together outreach, mediation, inclusive education, family support and community-based interventions’. The four examples outlined above are a good starting point for providing such guidance in the area of ECEC.

The EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation already includes a target regarding ECEC participation for Roma children. The goal is to ensure that, by 2030, at least 70% of Roma children aged three and above take part in ECEC, cutting the participation gap between them and the general population by at least 50%.

The forthcoming mid-term review of the Barcelona targets in 2027 opens a window of opportunity to create further synergies between participation targets set out in different strategies and to reinforce efforts in this area. It would be advisable, therefore, to include specific benchmarks for AROPE and Roma children along the lines of what has been set out in the Roma strategic framework.

Similarly, the mid-term review of ECEC targets in 2027 would be a good moment to add participation targets specific to children who are AROPE. This would also help to create synergies with the rollout of the EU AntiPoverty Strategy and issue an important signal that further gains in participation will not be achieved at the expense of further inequality.