Early Childhood Policies and Systems in Eight Countries: Findings from IEA's Early Childhood Education Study

Front matter

Early Childhood Policies and Systems in Eight Countries

Findings from IEA’s Early Childhood Education Study

IEA EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDY

Foreword

Educational policymakers around the world are increasingly aware that early childhood education (ECE) can have a strongly positive impact on a child’s further development. Several countries have implemented reforms of their early childhood systems, generally focusing on a stronger emphasis on education and preparation for school. However, ECE systems remain diverse, with many countries still exploring the best options for their national educational system. This study gives an overview of the current status of ECE in eight different countries. This initial analysis enables in-depth comparison of policy provision within the different countries, with the goal of learning from the range of approaches to implementation adopted.

The report reveals that there are considerable differences in policies, delivery models, providers, access to, and participation in ECE, and in national expectations for child outcomes. Even the general aims of ECE differ among countries. However, almost all countries are investing extensively, and thus to investigate the success of such investments is natural. Helping policymakers and researchers in their efforts to better understand differing educational systems, and thus assisting with educational reform and improvement efforts, is central to the IEA’s mission.

This study is intended to establish further avenues for investigation into the differences in ECE policies, practices and outcomes among different countries. The IEA envisions that outcome measures will be the subject of future research to progress knowledge in this area. Such assessments need to be carefully tailored to incorporate national goals for child outcomes, which may also be diverse.

An endeavor such as this could not be successful without the dedication of a large number of individuals, institutions, and organizations around the world. The IEA thanks the many experts, institutions, and organizations who made this project possible for their enthusiastic engagement and commitment to this project.

The IEA is particularly indebted to the outstanding teams of experts at the Centre for Research in Early Childhood (CREC), the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), the IEA Headquarters and the IEA Data Processing and Research Center (IEA DPC).

On behalf of IEA, I thank the principal authors of the report, Chris Pascal and Tony Bertram from CREC, who were largely responsible for the policy phase of the IEA’s Early Childhood Education Study. My thanks go also to Caroline Sharp and Bethan Burge from NFER for their immense contribution to this study. Finally, my sincere gratitude goes to the study coordination at the IEA DPC, led by the study director Juliane Hencke and the study coordinator Marta Kostek, whose contribution to the content, as well as the overall management of the study, cannot be overstated.

vi

I also thank the Project Advisory Committee (PAC): Cristina Stringher, Elena Yudina, Sylvia Eyzaguirre, and Sun Jin, and additionally Agnes Stancel-Piatak, Steffen Knoll, Sabine Meinck, Hannah Köhler, Paulina Koršňáková and Roel Burgers (all from the IEA). The IEA Technical Executive Group (TEG) provided valuable feedback to the study design and the report format, and the IEA Publication Editorial Committee (PEC), under the lead of Seamus Hegarty, ensured the high quality of the final publication. Gillian Wilson edited the report. Finally, my sincere thanks go to the national centers that provided the study finance, as well as the data for the report.

My thanks also go to the country representatives: Josef Basl, Irena Borkovcova, Gabriela Cares Osorio, Kristin Flanagan, Dana Kelly, Grethe Kragh-Muller, Tiina Peterson, Charlotte Ringmose, Piotr Rycielski, Kamil Sijko, Cristina Stringher, Marika Veisson, and Elena Yudina. The country representatives provided invaluable input throughout the study, reviewing and completing the Policy Questionnaire, an effort that required substantial research to gather all the information required, as well as commenting on the content of this Report. I am grateful for their unstinting commitment to this project.

Dirk Hastedt

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IEA HAMBURG, FEBRUARY 2016

Chapter 1: Summary of Key Findings About the Study

Delivery Models and Providers Participation and Enrollment Supporting Quality in ECE Expectations for Child Outcomes

Chapter 2: Introduction The Policy Questionnaire

Definition of Early Childhood Education (ECE) Programs Participating Countries

Methodology of the Policy Questionnaire

Structure of the Policy Report

Chapter 3: Overview of the Structures of the Early Childhood Education and Care Systems in the Participating Countries

Structure of ECE Systems

Parental Leave

Final Remarks

Chapter 4: Public Policy Policy Aims

Governance and System Management

Legislative Status and Statutory Entitlements for Children and Parents Policy Changes

Chapter 5: Delivery Models and Providers Setting Types and Characteristics Target Populations

Setting Enrollment Rates

Setting Funding Strategies System Transitions

Chapter 6: Participation and Enrollment

Levels of Participation in ECE Programs for Children from Subgroups of the Overall Population

Children from Low-Income Families

Children with Special Needs or Disability

Children from a Minority Ethnic Group

Children whose Home Language is Different than the National Language Prioritizing or Targeting Strategies for ECE Enrollment

Diversity and Cultural Responsiveness of Settings

Coverage and Availability of ECE Provision

Costs to Parents for Participation in ECE

Targeted Early Intervention Programs

Chapter 10: Final Reflections: Emerging Policy Issues

Delivery Models and Providers Participation and Enrollment Supporting Quality in ECE Expectations for Child Outcomes Concluding Comments

References Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary Appendix B: Organizations and Individuals Involved in ECES

86 105 108 109 115 117

129 131 134 135

168 172 172 173 176 177

183 191

CONTENTS

List of Figures

Figure 1: The study countries

Figure 2: Overview of ISCED Level 0 in the eight participating countries

Figure 3: Length of postnatal maternity, paternity and parental leave (in weeks)

Figure 4: Age of start of ISCED Level 1

List of Tables

Table 1: Percentage enrollment in formal care and preschool by age phase in study countries

Table2: Stated policy aims for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Table3: Level of government responsible for setting ECE policy for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Table 4: Bodies or ministries responsible for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Table 5: Statutory entitlements to services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Table 6: Statutory entitlements to parental leave and pay for parents of children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Table 7: Key policy changes for services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Table 8a: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Chile

Table 8b: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in the Czech Republic

Table 8c: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Denmark

Table 8d: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Estonia

Table8e: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Italy

Table 8f: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Poland

Table 8g: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in the Russian Federation

Table 8h: Main setting types and characteristics of services for children aged

0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in the United States

11 15 18 31

Table 18a:

Table 18b:

Table 19a:

Table 19b:

Table 19c:

Table 19d:

Enrollment rates for children aged from 0-3 years (ECED) and from 3 years to the start of primary schooling (PPE) at different ages Supply-side funding from central funds for children aged from

0—3 (ECED) and children aged from 3 to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Demand-side funding for children aged from 0-3 (ECED) and children aged from 3 to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Child characteristics and enrollment levels of children aged from

0—3 years (ECED) and children aged from 3 years to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Existence and focus of prioritizing regulations for children aged

0—3 years (ECED) and children aged from 3 to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Diversity and cultural responsiveness strategies for children aged

0—3 years (ECED) and children aged from 3 years to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Existence of universal coverage of services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) and areas of limited service availability

Strategies to increase coverage of ECE provision for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Existence of targeted early intervention programs at target groups for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary schooling (PPE)

Regulatory responsibilities at national level for children aged 0—3 years

(ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) Regulatory responsibilities at subnational level for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities, and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Chile

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Czech Republic

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, continuing professional Development (CPD) opportunities and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Denmark

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities, and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Estonia

CONTENTS

Table 19e:

Table 19f:

Table 19g:

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities, and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Italy

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, ontinuing professional development (CPD) opportunities and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in Poland

Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level, continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) in the Russian Federation

Table 19h: Main staff and leader categories, minimum qualification level,

Table 19i:

Table 19k: Table 20: Table 21:

continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities and average annual remuneration level in US$ of staff who work in services for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3

to the start of primary school (PPE) in the United States Distribution of educational attainment for staff who work in settings that serve children birth to three years in the United States Distribution of educational attainment for staff who work in settings that serve children three years to not-yet-in-kindergarten in the United States

Qualifications of staff who work as teachers in private and public primary schools in the United States

Regulated group size for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Regulated staff:child ratios for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Existence and scope of health and safety regulations for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Existence and content of curriculum guidance for children aged

0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Areas of learning included in curriculum guidance for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Pedagogic approaches promoted in national guidance for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Existence of guidance on parental partnership and level of parent participation in settings for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

xi xii

Existence of a responsible body at national or subnational level for the accreditation of settings for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Existence of a responsible body at national or subnational level for the inspection of settings for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Aspects of quality assurance processes covered by accreditation for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Aspects of quality assurance processes covered by inspection for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Reporting of results of accreditation of settings for children aged

0 to 3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Reporting of results of inspection of settings for children aged

0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Use of accreditation results of settings to inform the development of policy and practice in settings for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Use of inspection results of settings to inform the development of policy and practice in settings for children aged 0-3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) Expectations for child outcomes in different areas of learning and development for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Existence of national or subnational child assessments in different areas of learning and development for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE) Assessment methods used for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Recipients of reporting of child outcomes data for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

Use of child outcomes data for children aged 0—3 years (ECED) and children aged 3 to the start of primary school (PPE)

CHAPTER 1: Summary of Key Findings

About the Study

The IEA International Early Childhood Education Study (ECES) is a comparative research program of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The purpose of the study is to explore, describe and critically analyze early childhood education (ECE) provision and its role in preparing children for the learning and social demands of school and wider society.

In the context of IEA’s ECES, ECE has been defined as formal early education and care provision for young children from birth up to the age of primary education. This period is defined under the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) system as ISCED Level 0 (UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] Institute for Statistics, 2012). ISCED Level 0 can be further divided into early childhood educational development programs (ECED) (ISCED Level 0.1) and programs in pre-primary education (PPE) (ISCED Level 0.2) (see Appendix A for more detail).

The data analyzed in this report were collected using a policy questionnaire addressed to and completed by the National Research Coordinator(s) (NRC) of eight participating countries. The participating countries were: Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation and the United States. It should be noted that the eight participating countries opted into the study and so cannot be viewed as a representative or purposefully selected sample of country types. Nevertheless, they do provide interesting illustrations of ECE policy in action in a range of diverse contexts.

The questionnaire collected basic information about the wider policy context for ECE from birth to the age of primary schooling in each participating country. In particular, it aimed to provide an overview of policy strategies, as well as the systemic and structural results of ECE policy at national and, where necessary, subnational levels.

The analysis of the survey data enabled transnational comparisons in policy and systems, and documented key policy changes underway and planned. These data revealed a set of key findings in each of the five policy areas as covered in the questionnaire and this report: public policy; delivery models and providers; participation and enrollment; supporting quality in ECE; and expectations for child outcomes. These key findings are highlighted throughout the report with their supporting evidence, but are all summarized below for ease of access.

1. All eight study countries have a wide range of policy aims for ECE, including aims to support a child’s development and learning agenda, aims to support parental employment and training, aims that address wider social and civic issues, and aims that support early intervention for language needs or special needs. This suggests that ECE policy is being used to meet a spectrum of social, economic, educational, and political demands in all eight study countries.

2. Among the study countries, a mix of national and regional or local level governance (national and subnational) has been implemented to manage ECE services dedicated both to children under three years (early childhood education and

© International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 2016 1

T. Bertram, C. Pascal, Early Childhood Policies and Systems in Eight Countries, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-39847-1 1 development: ECED) and children three years and over (pre-primary education: PPE). The influence of national level governance increases as provision moves towards the pre-primary year and transition to the schooling system. This suggests that for younger children there is increased potential for local or regional variation in the delivery of services.

There is a complex system of governance and system management for ECE in most of the study countries. In seven of the eight study countries, responsibility for delivering and managing ECE services at a national, local or regional level is distributed among a range of national bodies or ministries at each of these levels and between different phases in ISCED Level 0 (ECED and PPE services, including kindergarten). Only in Estonia is there a unitary system with one national body responsible for services throughout the entire ISCED Level 0. This complexity in system governance and management is especially evident in the development and delivery of policy for children under three years (ECED).

Four of the eight study countries have statutory entitlements for children to have access to some level of ECED service, ranging from sessional, to half day, to full-time programs, with relatively generous levels of entitlement in Denmark, Estonia and the Russian Federation. Six of the eight study countries have statutory or universal, non-mandatory entitlement for children to full-time PPE services in the year before entry to primary schooling, again with relatively generous levels of entitlement in Denmark, Estonia and the Russian Federation. This would seem to be in line with the trend internationally towards a establishing a universal and statutory ECE system, particularly at PPE level (European Commission/EACEA [The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency]/Eurydice [Education Network in Europe]/Eurostat, 2014; OECD, 2012b).

In most of the study countries, national policy indicates an acceptance that parents, particularly mothers, need to be supported in balancing their work and family commitments; the majority of study countries incorporate an entitlement to some level of parental leave, usually maternity leave. However, the complexity of eligibility requirements, limitations on accessing some entitlements, the variable level of salary compensation and complex timing of the leave entitlements within the study countries create challenges for parents and employers to navigate and for policymakers to address if parental leave is to form a coherent and equitable part of an integrated ECE system.

All study countries have recently undergone, or have imminent plans for substantial changes in their ECE policy, at both ECED and PPE levels. In particular, increases in public expenditure and enhanced statutory entitlements to ECE services are the most common recent or planned changes. The evidence illustrates the dynamic nature of ECE policy and reflects the growing visibility and importance attached to the development of the ECE systems within all the study countries.

ve

In all study countries, there are various setting types or forms of provision delivering ECE services to children under three years old (ECED) and from three years up to primary school age (PPE). These include home-based and center-based services, and may be called créches, kindergartens, nursery schools, nursery or kindergarten classes in primary schools, kids clubs, preschools, day-care centers and integrated centers. Some countries have a greater variety of setting types than others, and the

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS number of setting types also tends to reduce with the age of the child. The variety in types of provision within the study countries exemplifies the current complexity and diversity in the delivery of ECE services during ISCED Level 0.

Settings in the study countries are mostly focused on a particular age group of children, usually birth to three years of age (ECED) or children aged three to primary school age (PPE); however, Denmark and Estonia have fully integrated settings that cater for children from birth to primary school age.

Funding for ECE settings is complex. In Denmark and Estonia, all ECED and PPE settings are fully publicly funded, but in Chile, the Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation and the United States, settings can be fully publicly funded, fully privately funded, or receive a mixture of public and private funding.

All of the study countries have ECE settings that offer a range of daily schedule options, from shorter sessions to extended day services (over 10 hours), with the Russian Federation also offering 24-hour services in one type of setting. Parents may have to use more than one setting to meet their needs of 10 or more hours. In the United States, for example, a child may attend a preschool at a primary center in the morning, a different program in the afternoon, and home-based childcare in the late afternoon to evening.

There are differing approaches to targeting certain populations to enhance their participation in ECE services, with some countries avoiding a targeting approach, and adopting a universal and integrated approach (Czech Republic, Italy and Poland) and others embracing targeting as a useful strategy to increase the integration and inclusion of certain groups, particularly children from low-income families and children with special needs or disability (Chile, Denmark, Estonia, the Russian Federation and the United States).

Enrollment levels to ECE services appear to increase in line with the age of the child, with high levels of enrollment (above 86%) in all the study countries (where data available) in the final year of ISCED Level 0, and some countries approaching 100% enrollment.

Supply-side and demand-side funding are both used extensively in the study countries as key elements in the financing of ECE settings at both ECED and PPE levels. Supply-side funding is used in a variety of ways, including subsidizing funded places, subsidizing staff salaries, and providing capital and resource grants to settings. Methods of demand-side funding include: providing tax credits or relief, offering vouchers to parents, reduced fees, and paying family allowances. In those countries where there is largely publicly-funded ECE provision (Denmark, Estonia and Italy) supply-side funding predominates.

In the study countries there is an awareness of the importance of offering support in transition for parents, children and practitioners at key points in the ECE system and through to ISCED Level 1, and encouragement at national or subnational level levels for the incorporation of transition strategies within ECE practice in the majority of the study countries, supported by national guidelines in Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the Russian Federation and the United States.

There is significant variation between the study countries as to the number of children in the population who are from low-income families, have special needs or disability, are from minority ethnic groups, and whose home language is different from the national language. In some countries, these subgroups can form a very sizable element of the population; this has implications for policy choices. Even given this variation, when comparing the study countries that submitted evidence, there are differences in the level of enrollment of children from these subgroups, with some countries achieving much higher levels of enrollment proportionally than others. In particular, the study countries offering publicly-funded universal ECE have a significantly higher level of participation of these subgroups than countries where there is targeted funded entitlement.

Prioritizing regulations or targeting strategies to allocate ECE places preferentially are commonly used in the study countries at national and/or local level. A range of social, developmental and economic criteria are used by the study countries to focus the targeting strategies, with the most common prioritizing regulations aimed at enhancing ECE participation for children from low-income families and children with special educational needs or disability.

The promotion of culturally and linguistically responsive practices in ECE settings to increase the enrollment and participation of children from diverse social and cultural backgrounds is evident in all the study countries, and usually supported by legislation.

There is more universal coverage of ECE places at PPE level than for children at ECED level. Shortage of ECE places is greater for children under the age of three years, and this shortage can also be more acute for children living in rural areas, from low-income families, or who have special needs or disability.

In the seven study countries where there is a national commitment to achieve universal coverage of ECE services, strategies have been adopted to increase the geographic coverage of services and to extend their opening hours in order to enhance the participation of all children.

Ascertaining the costs of ECE services to parents can be difficult, as charging policy and practice are not generally nationally documented. However, the data from the participating countries suggest that when free universal publicly-funded ECE services are unavailable, there is evidence that these costs can constitute a significant proportion of household income. This also implies that the costs to parents may be a significant factor when looking at levels of child enrollment in ECE services.

Targeted intervention programs as part of ECE services are used extensively in the majority of study countries as a mechanism to provide additional and early support for children from low-income families, children from minority ethnic groups, children with special needs or disability, and children whose home language is different from the national language. The intervention may take a variety of forms, including input from specialist professionals, providing additional resources, running support groups, providing specialist advice, and supplying internet-based study material to support professional practice.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

All study countries regulate their ECE services, with regulatory responsibilities being distributed between national and subnational bodies, indicating a desire to ensure all ECE services meet minimal standards. Some countries appear to regulate more than others, and some aspects of service delivery are more regulated than others, with the most frequently reported regulated aspects across countries overall being health and safety, and child protection. The system for monitoring regulatory compliance may also be very complex, with a wide range of national and subnational bodies with compliance responsibility for different aspects of regulation in many of the study countries.

A comparison of the information presented for the study countries illustrates the diversity of staffing for ECE services, which varies by age phase, type of setting, setting provider (public or private), location and professional role of staff. In services for under-threes (ECED), a wide range of child care, educator and health focused staff are found in the study countries, but there are more "education" focused staff than “care” or “health” focused staff. In the United States, staff working in settings outside primary schools tend to have greater preparation in child development, while teachers in primary schools often have more training in academic teaching. The qualification level of these US staff also ranges from lower secondary school level to graduate level and includes, but not always, specialized training in ECE. The minimum qualification required of staff tends to increase with the age of the child they work with, with more staff having ISCED Level 5 and above in the pre-primary year. Leaders in all settings are usually required to have an ISCED Level 5 or above in educational attainment in the pre-primary year. Specific training in leadership and management is rare.

Opportunities for continuing professional development are variable in the study countries. For most at the ECED level this is optional, with it becoming a requirement for more senior staff or for those who work in the pre-primary year.

Remuneration rates are very different between the study countries and thus cannot be compared across them, although within-country salary levels are usually higher in PPE level settings than ECED settings. In the study countries, staff with higher qualifications and more senior roles are more highly paid, and those who work in public settings are paid more than those working in private settings, as are those working in center-based services compared with home-based services. There is also a differentiation between those who work with children aged from three to six or seven years (PPE) and those who work with children aged under three years (ECED), and even for teachers within these age groups depending on funding sources. Leaders' basic salaries do not always differ from the staff who work directly with children, but additional allowances mean in some cases they may earn considerably more.