Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-020-00074-2

RESEARCH Open Access

The quality of early childhood education

and care services in Greece
Christina Megalonidou*

*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract 
Dept. of Early Childhood Care High-quality early education and care experiences are critical for children’s growth and
& Education, International
Hellenic University, development, families’ ability to work, and the future health of society. In Greece, with
P.O. Box 141, Sindos, regard to research for children under 3 years of age in early childhood education and
57400 Thessaloniki, Greece care services, the issue of quality has been only marginally researched. The lack of avail-
able information on the quality of childcare services has been widely documented. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of early childhood education and
care services in North Greece. Nonprofit and for-profit centers (one hundred and thirty-
one classrooms) for children under 3 participated in this study. For quality assessment,
we used the ITERS-R scale (Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised). Results
suggested the existence of mediocre average quality.
Keywords:  Early childhood education and care services, Quality, Children under 3,
ITERS-R, North Greece

Introduction
In Greece, early childhood education and care services (ECEC) for children under 3 are
represented only by “daycare centers/nurseries or crèche”.1 The daycare centers are run
by the private (for-profit) and public (through municipalities for profit and nonprofit)
sector. Municipalities’ daycare centers come under the auspices of the Ministry of Inte-
rior and admit children from the age of 6 months up to 2 ½ years. The Ministry of Labor,
Social Security and Social Solidarity is mainly responsible for the private daycare cent-
ers and admits children from the age of 2 months up to 2 ½ years. Municipal Daycare
centers operated either by a municipal legal entity (nonprofit) or by a municipal util-
ity enterprise or in the context of a respective municipal service (for-profit). Priority for
registration is given to children of working parents, of unemployed parents, of economi-
cally disadvantaged families are selected in the registration procedure (such as orphans,
double orphans, children coming from single parent families, children of divorced or
separated parents, children of women accommodated in the network of structures pro-
tecting women who experienced violence, children coming from families that have fam-
ily members with physical or mental disabilities, children coming from large families,
etc.) by nonprofit centers and have monthly fees according to social criteria. For example

1 
The terms “nursery”, “crèche”, and “day care center” are used as synonymous concerning the early childhood education
and care services for children under 3 in Greece.

© The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​
mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.
Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 2 of 12

fees can be zero, for those who have an annual income of less than €15.000. Fees in pri-
vate and municipal daycare centers for profit are significantly higher.
In recent decades, early childhood education and care services (ECEC) for children
under 3 have become a matter of serious public concern. Affordable and good-quality
daycare services may improve the reconciliation of work and family life and thus fos-
ter labor market participation and gender equality. Daycare facilities may also provide
an important answer to declining fertility rates, by lowering the cost of childbearing in
terms of labor market and career opportunities. Finally, there is a growing tendency to
see daycare services from a social pedagogical perspective. In this perspective, the main
policy rational is no longer the reconciliation of work and care, but rather the contribu-
tion of daycare services to child development and socioeconomic integration (European
Commission 2014).
The level of quality in daycare centers has been shown to have significant implications
for children’s immediate and long-term development. Current research suggests that the
quality of childcare during the first 3 years of life can impact cognitive skills, language,
school readiness, social and emotional development, and resiliency to life stress (Burchi-
nal et  al. 1996, 2006; Burchinal 2016; Melhuish et  al. 2015; Howes 1997; Dunn 1993;
Vandell and Wolfe 2000a; OECD 2017; Plantenga and Remery 2009), especially for chil-
dren from disadvantaged family backgrounds and “at risk” (Arnold and Doctoroff 2003;
Campbell et al. 2008; Bardige 2006; Melhuish 2001; Dearing et al. 2009; von Suchodoletz
et al. 2017) with some documented benefits into adolescence and early adulthood (Har-
vard Center 2010, Vandell et  al. 2010). Concerns over detrimental effects of spending
a large number of hours in daycare centers have also been raised with regard to chil-
dren’s behavioral regulation, but recent evidence from Norway indicates no association
between quantity of care and behavior problems (Zachrisson et al. 2013).
These results highlight the need to assess and enhance the quality of daycare centers.
There is broad acceptance that quality in childcare services can be addressed by examin-
ing two commonly accepted components—structure and process (Howes and Ruben-
stein, 1983; Penn 2011; Phillipsen et al. 1997; Beller et al. 1996). Structural quality refers
to components such as physical environment (buildings, space and materials), child–
staff ratios, staff education and training, and curriculum that are more easily measur-
able in determining quality (Barros et  al. 2016; Slot et  al. 2015; OECD 2006). Process
quality focuses on the nature of interactions between the children and teachers, among
children, and among adults—teachers, parents, staff, and on the nature of leadership
and pedagogy (Barros et al. 2016; Slot 2017; Thomason and La Paro 2009; Vandell and
Wolfe 2000a; Cryer 1999; Goelman et al. 2006). The Infant/Toddler Environmental Rat-
ing Scale-Revised Edition (ITERS-R; Harms et al. 2006) is a widely used instrument in
research on childcare quality (Barros et al. 2016; Bjørnestad and Os 2018; Baustad 2012;
Campbell et  al. 2008; Gevers Deynoot-Schaub and Riksen-Walraven 2008; Goelman
et al. 2006; Vermeer et al. 2016). The instrument assesses overall or global quality of the
classroom environment for children up to 30 months of age.
Despite research indicating positive developmental outcomes for children receiv-
ing high-quality care and increasing numbers of young children in out-of-home care,
daycare centers are often plagued with poor structural and process quality, and the
least prepared and lowest compensated workforce (OECD 2015; Burchinal et  al. 1996;
 Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 3 of 12

Whitebook et al. 1989; Ghazvini and Mullis, 2002; Goelman et al. 2006; Helburn 1995,
Helburn and Howes 1996; Howes et al. 1988.
In many European countries, the level of quality of services for children under 3 gives
rise for concern. There are two main forms of ECEC structure in Europe: the split and
unitary model, reflecting the attitudes and perceptions of preschool age in each country.
In a split model, ECEC provision is structured according to the age of children; often one
system is set up for children 0–3 of age, primarily focusing on care provision. The other
system focuses at older children 3–6 of age and the emphasis lies primarily on education
and preschool preparation. The responsibilities for governance, regulation and funding
are divided into two or more ministries, between the ministry for health, welfare or fam-
ily for younger children, while the ministry of education is responsible for the older chil-
dren. Consequently, educational guidelines normally apply only to provision for older
children. Also, the requirements for staff qualifications differ, with tertiary degrees in
ECEC required mostly in settings for older children. Moreover, access may vary with a
legal entitlement usually applying to older children. In a unitary model, ECEC is organ-
ized in a single phase for all children of preschool age. Often, children go to one insti-
tution, governed by one specific ministry, led by one management team for children
of all age groups, and the ECEC practitioners generally have similar qualifications and
pay level in all groups of children. The universal right to access from the youngest age
is clearly recognized in countries that have the unitary model. The unitary model seems
to provide better consistency between care mechanisms and the rest of the education
system, more resources for children under the age of 3, universal access to all ages and
better staff training (Nordic countries as well as in several Baltic and Balkan countries).
Split system for ECEC is still common in most European countries .2 In seven coun-
tries, both unitary and separate settings co-exist (Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia,
Spain, Austria and the United Kingdom) (Eurydice and Eurostat Report 2014, 2019). The
OECD has already indicated in its Starting Strong studies how the separation of ‘edu-
cation’ and ‘care’ in some cases may undermine the delivery of quality ECEC (OECD
2006). The current concerns about the quality of care provided to younger children are
corroborated by surveys conducted in European context. Vermeer et al. (2008) used the
ITERS-R scale to assess the quality of childcare in a representative national sample of
42 childcare centers in the Netherlands. The total number of childcare groups in the
42 centers was 153 (M = 3.6; SD = 1.90) per center. The average overall quality score on
the ITERS was 3.4 (minimal level). Similarly, Tietze and Cryer (2004) used the ITERS
to measure the quality of 75 childcare centers in East and West Germany. The average
overall quality score was 3.2. In 2011, again a nationwide quality research project was
funded, called the NUBBEK study (National Inquiry on Early Child Care and Education),
showed that less than 10% of the early childcare centers reached good or excellent qual-
ity (Tietze et al. 2013). In England, 75 childcare centers assessed using the same quality
measure were found to have mean score 4.2 (Smith et al. 2009). Three studies in Portugal
reported poor-quality care and education. Barros and Aguiar (2010) assessed the quality

2 
In ECEC systems with separate settings, the transition between the two different types of setting usually takes place at
the age of 3. It may happen at an earlier age (2-and-a-half in Belgium—French and Flemish Communities) or at a later
age (4 in Greece, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).
Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 4 of 12

of 160 toddler childcare classrooms in the district of Porto. The average quality score on
ITERS-R scale was 2.84. Pessanha et al. (2007) assessed the quality of 15 infant centers
in Porto. One hundred and twelve infants between 1 and 3 years of age participated in
this study. The average quality score on ITERS-R scale was 2.6. Finally, Pinto et al. (2013)
assessed the quality of 95 infant classrooms in Porto and found that the overall mean
result on ITERS-R was 2.5. In Norway, the childcare centers were found to have high
quality scores. The average quality score on ITERS-R scale was 5.4 ranged between good
and excellent (Baustad 2012).
Greece has two types of institutions: kindergartens (nipiagogeio) and childcare cent-
ers. Children aged 4 and 5 attend pre-primary school (nipiagogeio), which falls under
the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs. Since
2018/19, the start of compulsory education (pre-primary school/nipiagogeio) has been
lowered from age 5 to 4. All kindergartens follow a national curriculum and only uni-
versity graduates can be hired as educators. Public childcare centers accept children
from 6 months to 4 years of age. More specifically, daycare centers/nurseries or crèche
provide services for children from 6  months to 2-and-a-half years (vrefikos stathmos),
for children aged 2 months to 4 years, with infant–toddler classrooms and classrooms
with children from 2-and-a-half to 4  years (vrefonipiakos stathmos) and child centers
for children aged from 2-and-a-half to 4  years (paidikos stathmos). Until 2001, public
childcare centers were under the auspices of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Since
then, they are funded and supervised by the municipalities with support of the Minis-
try of Interior. As mentioned above there is no universal right to access. Also, there is
no national curriculum. The OECD has already indicated in its Starting Strong studies
how the separation of ‘education’ and ‘care’ in some cases may undermine the delivery
of quality ECEC (OECD 2006). Indeed, if a country considers childhood as an impor-
tant and formative stage of life, childcare and early education are more often integrated
in one system, which contributes to clearer objectives for ECEC providers, parents and
other stakeholders.
In Greece, with regard to research for children under 3  years of age in ECEC, the
issue of quality has been only marginally researched. The lack of discussion about qual-
ity, combined with the absence of official evaluation procedures, has as result given a
very limited picture of the quality of child care services (Petrogiannis 2013). The relevant
research remains an underdeveloped area receiving neither adequate encouragement
nor support. What we know about the quality of Greece daycare services comes from
the work of individual researchers. Older studies show a low to medium level of over-
all quality, especially in indicators like learning and teaching, style of care, building and
equipment, adult–child ratios and family–educators relationships (Petrogiannis 2013;
Rentzou 2015).
Therefore, the main goal of this study was to describe the quality of infants’ childcare
classrooms in the North Greece.

Method
Participants and setting
The research was carried in daycare centers in Northern Greece. The term “Northern
Greece” is widely used to refer to regions of Macedonia and Thrace. It is the second
 Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 5 of 12

largest geographical division in Greece by population, after Continental Greece (about

2.38 million in 2017). Thessaloniki is the second largest city in Greece, with over 1 mil-
lion inhabitants in its metropolitan area, and the capital of the Northern Greece.
For the selection of registered private and municipal daycare centers in Northern
Greece, the official list was taken from Welfare Offices of each prefecture. The list of
municipal daycare centers was retrieved from each municipality as there was no official
list in Ministry of Interior. The total number of all officially authorized daycare class-
rooms with children under 3-year old in Northern Greece was 131, from 103  daycare
centers.
The sample of our study included all 131  daycare classrooms with children under
3-year old. Of those, 98 were in Thessaloniki and 33 in the country. Of those, 46 were
municipal daycare classrooms, 12 were municipal daycare classrooms for profit and
73 were privately owned. 28 of the 46 municipal daycare classrooms were in Thessa-
loniki and 18 in the country. From the 12 municipal daycare classrooms for profit, 11
were located in Thessaloniki and 1 in the country. Finally, from the 73 private daycare
classrooms 59 were in Thessaloniki and 14 in the country. In the total of 131  daycare
classrooms 2033 infants were accommodated. 563 of them were in municipal daycare
classrooms, 120 in municipal daycare classrooms for profit and 1027 were privately
owned.

Instruments
The Infant-Toddler Environmental Rating Scale Revised Edition (ITERS-R; Harms
et  al. 2006) was used to measure the global quality of the individual classrooms
serving children from birth through 30  months of age. First, the scale was trans-
lated by two independent translators from English into Greek. The translators were
fluent speakers of both languages, were qualified early childhood educators and
had knowledge of the scale. Then, the research team (the two trained observers)
reviewed both versions of translations and resulted in a common format translation.
This translation was once again reviewed by a third person fluent in both languages,
held a degree in early childhood education and had knowledge of the scale (author).
The last translated version was the one was applied. The ITERS-R includes 39 items,
organized under 7 subscales: I. Space and Furnishings (5 items); Personal Care Rou-
tines for infants and toddlers (6 items); Listening and Talking (3 items); Age Appro-
priate Activities (10 items); Adult–Child Interaction (4 items); Program Structure (4
items); and Parent and Staff Communication (7 items). The scale is designed to be
used with one room or one group at a time. A block of at least 3 h should be set aside
for observation and rating. Also the observer should arrange a time with the teacher
to ask questions about indicators that were not able to observe. Approximately
20–30 min will be required for questions (Harms et al. 2006). Observers rated indi-
vidual classrooms using a 7-point scale for 39 total items during a 3-h observation
period, with descriptors for 1 (inadequate), 3 (minimal), 5 (good), and 7 (excellent).
Internal consistency has a Cronbach’s alpha = .76 for the complete scale. Space and
Furnishings includes aspects of the environment, such as indoor space, furniture
and display for children. Personal Care Routines encompass aspects of daily rou-
tines, such as nap, meals, health and safety practices. Listening and Talking includes
Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 6 of 12

a focus on language and books used in the classroom. Activities include children’s
engagement in play, fine motor, science, and music activities. Interaction includes
supervision, peer and staff–child interactions. The Program Structure includes free
and group play activities, provisions for children with disabilities and finally Parents
and Staff subscale includes provisions for parents and needs of staff.

Procedure
Observer training
Training for all of the scales included detailed information on each measure as well as
Video Guide and Training Workbook for the ITERS-R and practice classroom observa-
tions. An expert researcher (author) trained two observers in the ITERS-R. The three
observers conducted training sessions in 19  daycare classrooms, aiming at 80% inter-
rater agreement. The mean interrater percent agreement for these classrooms was 89%.

Data collection
All data were collected by two researchers. As suggested by scale authors, each observer
remained with each group of children at least 3 h to observe classroom main routines
and activities. All classrooms were observed during the morning, the period of greatest
activity among infant care classrooms. At the end of each observation, a teacher meet-
ing was used to clarify demographic information and to complete the items that could
not be observed. Meetings lasted approximately 30 min. In addition to completing the
ITERS-R, observers also collected background information on teachers, group size, and
teacher/child ratios during their observation.
Inter-observer agreement checks were conducted during the data collect procedure,
across 34 agreement sessions. Interrater exact percent agreement, M = 94.37.

Results
The observations and the interviews by ITERS-R (Harms et al. 2006) were carried out
based on the directions given in ITERS-R. No elements in the scales were changed or
left out, except item 23 (Use of TV, video, and/or computer) and item 32 (Provisions for
children with disabilities) because it were scored as “Not applicable”.
Overall mean results ranged from 2.60 to 5.40 (M = 3.88, SD = .70), presenting a nor-
mal distribution. In general, the quality of the daycare centers’ ranged between mini-
mum (3) and good (5) and suggested the existence of mediocre average quality.
Table  1 presents descriptive statistics for ITERS-R subscales and items. Mean sub-
scales scores varied between 2.91 (Program structure) and 5.56 (Interaction). Five of
the seven subscales presented mean scores between minimum (3) and good (5). The
subscale ‘Interaction’ (item 25–28) was the subscale with an overall average high score
(between good and excellent) while the subscale “Program structure” (item 29–32) was
the subscale with lower score.
Mean results at the item level ranged from 1.42 (Nature/science) to 6.39 (Staff con-
tinuity). Highest average scores are achieved for items 36 “Staff interaction and coop-
eration” and 37 “Staff continuity” (almost excellent quality), items 11 “Safety practices”,
15 “Fine Motor”, 25 “Supervision of play and learning”, 26 “Peer interaction”, 27 “Staff–
child interaction”, 25 “Supervision of play and learning”, 26 “Peer interaction” and 27
 Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 7 of 12

Table 1  Descriptive Statistics for ITERS-R Items and Subscales

Mean SD Min/Max

I. Space and Furnishings 4.31 1.28 0.6–6.6

1. Indoor space 4.78 2.19 0–7
2. Furniture for routine care and play 3.97 2.20 0–7
3. Provision for relaxation and comfort 4.51 1.75 0–7
4. Room arrangement 4.25 1.89 0–7
5. Display for children 4.02 .94 2–7
II. Personal Care Routines 3.89 1.08 1.5–6.5
6. Greeting/departing 2.32 1.18 0–6
7. Meals/snacks 4.47 1.58 0–7
8. Nap 4.55 1.94 0–7
9. Diapering/toileting 2.69 1.97 0–7
10. Health practices 3.40 1.96 0–7
11. Safety practices 5.89 1.34 1–7
III. Listening and Talking 3.98 1.25 0–7
12. Helping children understand language 4.55 1.62 0–7
13. Helping children use language 4.21 1.60 0–7
14. Using books 3.18 1.67 0–7
IV. Activities 3.21 0.92 1.3–5.2
15. Fine motor 5.25 1.56 0–7
16. Active physical play 2.27 1.71 0–7
17. Art 2.66 1.30 0–7
18. Music and movement 4.54 1.67 0–7
19. Blocks 4.94 1.85 0–7
20. Dramatic play 4.52 1.38 1–7
22. Nature/science 1.42 1.23 0–7
24. Promoting acceptance of diversity 1.98 1.85 0–7
V. Interaction 5.56 1.28 2.5–7
25. Supervision of play and learning 5.97 1.44 2–7
26. Peer interaction 5.66 1.31 0–7
27. Staff–child interaction 5.73 1.75 0–7
28. Discipline 4.89 1.91 0–7
VI. Program Structure 2.91 1.04 1–7
29. Schedule 3.29 1.56 1–7
30. Free play 2.64 1.45 1–7
31. Group play activities 3.07 1.71 0–7
VII. Parents and Staff 3.76 0.92 2.3–6.1
33. Provisions for parents 1.63 1.56 0–7
34. Provisions for personal needs of staff 3.62 2.26 0–7
35. Provisions for professional needs of staff 3.81 2.51 0–7
36. Staff interaction and cooperation 6.27 1.29 0–7
37. Staff continuity 6.39 1.63 0–7
38. Supervision and evaluation of staff 2.84 1.00 0–7
39. Opportunities for professional growth 1.82 1.46 0–7
Overall subscale 3.88 0.70 2.6–5.4

“Staff–child interaction” (between good and excellent quality). Lowest average scores are
achieved for items 24 “Promoting acceptance of diversity”, 33 “Provisions for parents”
and 38 “Supervision and evaluation of staff ” (inadequate quality).
Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 8 of 12

Discussion
Results from this study suggest that all 131  daycare classrooms with children under
3-year old in Northern Greece qualifying for mediocre average quality. Five of the seven
subscales presented mean scores between minimum (3) and good (5) while the subscales
“Program structure” (item 29–32) and “Activities” (item 15–24) were the subscales with
lower score. These findings support results previously reported by Petrogiannis (2002)
using the ITERS (M = 3.50) and Rentzou (2011) using the ITERS-R (M = 3.23); none
of the childcare centers assessed were found to have high quality scores, but ranged
between minimal and good.
The average quality score on subscale Space and Furnishings was medium. In Greece,
a study of the Athens Municipal Crèche’s (AMC) settings showed that the majority of
buildings were free of technical or operational issues. However, none of the 77 settings
has the required (by 2002 law) license to operate; something that is encountered in other
cities as well, suggesting that some of these buildings could have been built for other
purposes but later were modified to nurseries to cover the local needs for daycare provi-
sion. The medium scores for space and furnishing could be attributed to economic rea-
sons because settings rely on local authorities to subsidize them. Recently, this situation
has been changed by the Ministerial Decision 41087/29-11-2017 “Standard Regulation
of Operation for Municipal Child and Infant/Child Centers”. This decision is setting out
the conditions for the establishment and operation of childcare centers operating within
the legal entities of municipalities or within municipal units and also of private childcare
centers, the relevant technical specifications, the specific terms and conditions of suit-
ability as well as the control. Since 2019, daycare centers that did not meet the above
regulations were forced to suspend their operation.
Program structure (M = 3.21) and Activities (M = 2.91) were the subscales with lower
score. Previous research findings have also identified low scores for the two particular
subscales (Petrogiannis 2002; Rentzou 2011). Although a number of European mem-
ber states have recently initiated reforms, in Greece early childhood education and care
(ECEC) is not only still provided in separate settings: kindergartens and infant/child-
care centers but furthermore have become more split. Kindergartens provide education
for children 4 to 6. Since 2006, attendance has become compulsory for children 5- to
6-year old and more recently for children 4- to 5-year old. Κindergartens are supervised
and regulated by the Ministry of Education and follow a national preschool curriculum
developed by the Institute of Educational Policy. This curriculum describes the purpose
of kindergartens, the learning outcomes and areas and is accompanied by an educator
guide. Public childcare services for infant and toddler accept children from 6 months to
2 ½ years. They are run, funded and supervised by local authorities with the support of
the Ministry of Interior. Private services are supervised by the Ministry of Health and
Social Welfare. Children with working parents, families with low economic resources
and children who need special care have priority. There is no national curriculum but
operation standards mainly refer to nursery facilities’ safety features, staff employed
(tasks and qualifications), structural features such as child–staff ratios (1 educator and
1 assistant to 8, or 2 educators and 1 assistant to 12, infants or toddlers), hygiene con-
ditions and feeding arrangements. Low scores on such subscales may place children at
increased risk of infections and limit children’s opportunities to develop language and
 Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 9 of 12

literacy skills, critical scientific reasoning and positive attitudes toward diversity. Rea-
sons for this lack of developmental appropriateness may be due to a custodial concep-
tualization of infant and toddler care, opposed to an educational focus (Petrogiannis
2013). One other reason could be the lack of an explicit theoretical background to guide
activities in Greek daycare settings. The absence of a national curriculum for childcare
settings has been identified as a major concern and an indication of the status that child-
care has in the Greek education system (Evangelou and Dafermou 2005). Another possi-
ble reason for the lack of developmental appropriateness of infant and toddler child care
may be that infants and toddlers are generally viewed as being too young to respond to
educational activities.
From Parents and Staff subscale, lowest average scores are achieved for items Provi-
sions for parents and Opportunities for professional growth (inadequate quality). Sakel-
lariou and Rentzou (2008) identified minimal quality when they evaluated the provision
for parents and parental involvement in preschool settings. The Greek research evidence
indicates that parents of children under the age of 3 ascribed more importance to care
aspects like nutrition and safety aspects of settings than educational ones. An explana-
tion seems to be more likely for Greece is that historically the kindergartens were used
for educational purposes and daycare and nursery settings focused mainly on care and
child protection. Another issue is that this custodial care routine does not allow for par-
ent involvement. The studies indicated that the presence of parents was very rare and
restricted to special occasions (during Christmas or Easter) (Petrogiannis 2002; Rentzou
and Sakellariou 2012; Rentzou 2015; Papaprokopiou 2003). It is characteristic that the
national law for childcare centers has limited references to the importance of the paren-
tal role. The item Opportunities for professional growth also has scored inadequate. Pre-
school educators employed at the Day Care Nurseries ran by the municipalities, under
the Ministry of Internal have higher level training (university graduates), but the oppor-
tunities for continuing professional education are optional, are not centrally controlled
and largely depend on the specific circumstances of each municipality.
In Greece early childhood care and education is characterized by a division between
education and care services. This division reflects the country’s socioeconomic and
political changes (wars, poverty, and demographic changes). Socioeconomic and politi-
cal influences seemed to lead settings to focus on either care or education, depending on
the state’s aspirations or on social demands. This history appeared to lead to a division of
education and care, which is still evident today. In addition, Greece belongs to Mediter-
ranean model, sharing a cultural emphasis on mothers’ role and presence in early child-
hood years, strong family ties and high reliance on the extended family for supporting
childcare needs (Saraceno 2000). Another issue is the lack of discussion and research
studies about quality in early childhood services, combined with the absence of official
evaluation procedures and inspection mechanisms, the split system of governance and
the confusion of responsibilities. Since their transfer to local authorities, childcare ser-
vices stopped being the concern of government. Local authorities on the other hand find
it hard to make changes to childcare centers as they struggle with limited funding and
their problems.
The division between early childhood education and care may not only have its roots
in the history of Greek education system but it is also a reflection of how early childhood
Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 10 of 12

is understood and the relative value given by governments to policy making, funding and
regulation in this field.

Conclusions
In conclusion, our results indicate that overall quality must be improved in Northern
Greece daycare services for children under 3-year old. In the current economic crisis,
constant flux of immigrants, demographic and sociopolitical changes, policy-makers
need to base changes in early childhood care. That services need to be organized sys-
tematically with clear targets and quality orientation to provide right experiences and
optimize child development.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable for that section.

Declaration
The manuscript has not been published, or submitted for publication elsewhere. This manuscript is not be submitted for
a special issue.

Authors’ contributions
Not applicable for that section.

Funding
This research received no specific Grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 17 February 2019 Accepted: 23 July 2020

References
Arnold, D., & Doctoroff, G. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54(1), 517–545.
Bardige, B. (2006). Infants and toddlers: Providing responsive and supportive care. Young Children, 61(4), 12.
Barros, S., & Aguiar, C. (2010). Assessing the quality of Portuguese child care programs for toddlers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25, 527–535.
Barros, S., et al. (2016). Infant child care in Portugal: Associations with structural characteristics. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 37(1), 118–130.
Baustad, A. G. (2012). Using the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale for examining the quality of care for infants and
toddlers in Norwegian day care centers. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 5(2), 1–21.
Beller, E. K., Stahnke, M., Butz, P., Stahl, W., & Wessels, H. (1996). Two measures of the quality of group care for infants and
toddlers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 151–167.
Bjørnestad, E., & Os, E. (2018). Assessing quality in Norwegian child care for toddlers using ITERS-R. European Early Child-
hood Educational Research Journal, 26(1), 111–127.
Burchinal, E. (2016). Quality, thresholds, features and dosage in early care and education: Secondary data analyses of child
outcomes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 81/2.
Burchinal, R., Roberts, E., Nabors, A., & Bryant, M. (1996). Quality of center child care and infant cognitive and language
development. Child Development, 67, 606–620.
Burchinal, M., Roberts, E., Roberts, J. E., Zeisel, S. A., Hennon, E. A., & Hooper, S. (2006). Social risk and protective child,
parenting and child care factors in early elementary school years. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(1), 79–113.
Campbell, F. A., Wasik, B. H., Pungello, E., Burchinal, M., Barbarin, O., Kainz, K., et al. (2008). Young adult outcomes of the
Abecedarian and care early childhood educational interventions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 452–466.
Cryer, D. (1999). Defining and assessing early childhood program quality. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 563, 39–55.
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. (2009). Does higher quality early child care promote low-income children’s math
and reading Achievement in middle childhood? Child Development, 80(5), 1529–1549.
Dunn, L. (1993). Proximal and distal features of day care quality and children’s development. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 8, 167–192.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). Key data on early childhood education and Care in Europe—2019 Edi-
tion. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
 Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 11 of 12

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat. (2014). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe.
2014 Edition. Eurydice and Eurostat Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Evangelou, D., & Dafermou, H. (2005). Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education. The case of Greece. In O.
Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), International perspectives on research in early childhood education (pp. 119–136). Green-
wich: Information Age Publication.
Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2008). Infants in group care: Their interactions with professional
caregivers and parents across the second year of life. Infant Behavior & Development, 31(2), 181–189.
Ghazvini, A., & Mullis, R. L. (2002). Center-based care for young children: Examining predictors of quality. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 112–125.
Goelman, H. B., Forer, P., Kershaw, G., Doherty, G., Lero, D., & LaGrange, A. (2006). Towards a predictive model of quality in
Canadian child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 280–295.
Harms, T., Cryer, D. R., & Clifford, R. M. (2006). Infant toddler Environment Ratings Scale. Revised Edition. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Harvard Center. (2010). Enhancing and practicing executive function skills with children from infancy to adolescence. Boston:
Harvard Center.
Helburn, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers. Technical Report. Denver: Department of
Economics, Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy, University.
Helburn, S. W. & Howes, C. (1996). Child care cost and quality. Future of Children, 6(2), 62–82 Sumer-Falls 1996.
Howes, C. (1997). Childrens experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult: child
ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 404–425.
Howes, C., Rodning, C., Galluzzo, D. C., & Myers, L. (1988). Attachment and child care: Relationships with mother and
caregiver. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 403–416.
Howes, C., & Rubenstein, J. L. (1983). Determinants of toddlers’ experiences in daycare: Age of entry and quality of setting.
Child Care Quarterly, 14, 140–151.
Melhuish, E. (2001). The quest for quality in early day care and preschool experience continues. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 25(1), 1–6.
Melhuish, E. et al. (2015). A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child
development. Curriculum and quality analysis impact review, CARE.
OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2015). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). Starting strong 2017: Key OECD indicators on early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Papaprokopiou, N. (2003). Public day care settings: In the Past, in the Present, In the Future. In EADAP (Ed.), Towards a
cooperative and participating training in preschool education. Athens: Gutenberg. (In Greek).
Penn, H. (2011). Quality in early childhood services: An international perspective. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.
Pessanha, M., Aguiar, C., & Bairrāo, J. (2007). Influence of structural features on Portuguese toddler child care quality. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 204–214.
Petrogiannis, K. (2002). Greek day care centers’ quality, caregiver’s behavior and children’s development. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 10(2), 137–148.
Petrogiannis, K. (2013). Early education and care in Greece: In search of an identity. Nordic Early Childhood Education
Research, 6(29), 1–9.
Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of
child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281–303.
Pinto, A., Pessanha, M., & Aguiar, C. (2013). Effects of home environment and center-based child care quality on children’s
language, communication and literacy outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 94–101.
Plantenga, J., & Remery, C. (2009). The provision of childcare services: A comparative review of 30 European countries. Luxem-
bourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Rentzou, K. (2011). Evaluating the quality of care and education provided by preschool centers. An Approach by
Researcher’s, Educators’ and Parents’ Perspectives. Unpublished Thesis. University of Ioannina, Greece.
Rentzou, K. (2015). Reflections on the quality of the dichotomous early education and care system in Greece. Childhood
Education, 91(4), 250–258.
Rentzou, K., & Sakellariou, M. (2012). Researchers and Parents Perspectiveson Quality of Care and Education. Early Child
Development and Care, 183(2), 294–307.
Sakellariou, M., & Rentzou, K. (2008). Evaluating provisions for parents and parental involvement in Greek Preschool Set-
tings. The International Journal of the Humanities, 6(9), 95–106.
Saraceno, C. (2000). Being young in Italy: the paradoxes of a familistic society. European Journal of Social Quality, 2(2),
120–132.
Slot, P. (2017). Literature review on Early Childhood Education and Care quality: Relations between structural characteristics at
different levels and process quality. Internal document. Paris: OECD.
Slot, P., Leseman, P. M., Verhagen, J., & Mulder, H. (2015). Associations between structural quality aspects and process qual-
ity in Dutch early childhood education and care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 33, 64–76.
Smith, R., Purdon, S., Schneider, V., La Valle, I., Wollny, I., Owen, R., et al. (2009). Early Education pilot for two year old children
evaluation. U.K.: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Thomason, A., & La Paro, K. (2009). Measuring the quality of teacher–child interactions in toddler child care. Early Educa-
tion and Development, 20, 285–304.
Tietze, Wolfgang, & Cryer, Debby. (2004). Comparisons of observed process quality in German and American infant/tod-
dler programs. International Journal of Early Years Education, 12(1), 43–62.
Tietze, W., Becker-Stoll, F., Bensel, J., Eckhardt, A. G., Haug-Schnabel, G., Kalicki, B., Keller, H., Leyendecker, B. (Hrsg.) (in Vor-
bereitung). (2013). NUBBEK–Nationale Untersuchung zur Bildung, Betreuung und Erziehung in der frühen Kindheit.
Forschungsbericht. Weimar/Berlin: verlag das netz.
Megalonidou ICEP (2020)14:9 Page 12 of 12

Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L. D., Vandegrift, N., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010).
Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth
development. Child Development, 81(3), 737–756.
Vandell, D.L. & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? Washington: Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
http://aspe.hhs.gov
Vermeer, H., van Ijzendoorn, M., De Kruif, R., Fukkink, R., Tavecchio, L., Riksen-Walraven, M., et al. (2008). Child care in the
Netherlands: Trends in quality over the years 1995–2005. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169(4), 360–385.
Vermeer, H., et al. (2016). Quality of child care using the environmental rating scales: A meta-analysis of international
studies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(1), 33–60.
von Suchodoletz, A., et al. (2017). Associations among quality indicators in early childhood education and care (ECEC) and
relations with child development and learning: A meta-analysis. Internal document. Paris: OECD.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. A. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland:
Child Care Employee Project.
Zachrisson, H., Lekhal, R., Toppelberg, C., & Dearing, E. (2013). Little evidence that time in child care causes externalizing
problems during Early Childhood in Norway. Child Development, 84(4), 1152–1170.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.