Library
Pre-school Integration in Ethiopia
By Sahilu Baye Alemu, Founder & Director, Enrichment Center Ethiopia (ECE)
Over the past two decades, Ethiopia has witnessed a remarkable transformation in pre-school education evolving from a fragmented, largely private system into a more formalized and government-supported structure. Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), once overlooked in public policy and often treated as a private enterprise, has now gained recognition as a cornerstone for national development and social inclusion.
The introduction of the government-led O-Class program in 2010 marked a watershed moment in this journey. Designed as a one-year school readiness initiative for six-year-old children before entering Grade 1, O-Class was the first major step toward integrating early learning within Ethiopia’s formal education system. Implemented under the Education Sector Development Program (ESDP IV) and aligned with the country’s Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I), the program aimed to improve school readiness, reduce repetition rates, and bridge early learning gaps. By 2012/13, approximately 26.1% of eligible children had access to pre-primary education—an impressive increase from 6.9% in 2009/10.
Despite these achievements, true integration of pre-school education remains a complex challenge in Ethiopia’s diverse and multicultural context. Integration means more than including children with disabilities; it involves addressing disparities between urban and rural areas, linguistic and cultural diversity, and socioeconomic inequalities. With over 80 ethnic groups and languages, Ethiopia’s diversity presents both opportunities and challenges in creating an inclusive early childhood system that reflects and respects its cultural richness.
A key issue is the uneven quality and accessibility of ECCE services across regions. Many rural O-Class centers face severe shortages of trained teachers, age-appropriate learning materials, and child-friendly environments. Government preschool teachers often receive only about ten months of pre-service training, while many private institutions provide even shorter courses. This limited preparation tends to promote academically driven teaching methods at the expense of holistic development, emotional well-being, and inclusive participation.
Ethiopia’s Education and Training Policy (1994) underscores the importance of all-round child development and mandates the use of local languages as mediums of instruction in pre-primary education. Yet, implementation remains inconsistent. Although the policy emphasizes continuous professional development and inclusive education, many teachers still feel ill-equipped to support children with special educational needs. Stigma, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of specialized support continue to exclude children with disabilities. Moreover, community perceptions often frame disability through traditional or spiritual lenses rather than educational ones, highlighting the need for culturally sensitive awareness programs and professional training that harmonizes local values with inclusive teaching strategies.
Integration should also be viewed through a social and cultural lens. In many Ethiopian communities, particularly rural ones, early learning begins at home through storytelling, songs, and shared routines rich indigenous practices that nurture social cohesion and cultural identity. However, these traditions are seldom integrated into formal curricula. Strengthening the home-school connection is therefore essential to ensure meaningful inclusion and to build curricula that honour children’s cultural backgrounds.
Several promising initiatives illustrate the potential of a holistic and integrated approach. Community-based childcare centers and NGO-supported programs that combine early stimulation, parental education, health, nutrition, and psychosocial support have shown success especially in disadvantaged areas affected by poverty or conflict. These models view parents and caregivers as primary educators and promote collaboration among teachers, health workers, and social service providers, advancing holistic child development.
Key Priorities for Advancing Pre-school Integration in Ethiopia
Strengthening Teacher Education and Support
Expand and enhance both pre-service and in-service training programs to emphasize child development, inclusive education, and culturally responsive, play-based pedagogy. Teachers must be empowered to nurture children’s emotional, social, and cognitive growth, rather than focusing solely on academic readiness.
Enhancing Community and Parental Engagement
Build strong partnerships with families, religious leaders, and local organizations to bridge traditional knowledge with modern educational practices. Drawing on Ethiopia’s rich heritage of storytelling, song, and communal child-rearing fosters relevance, identity, and sustainability.
Promoting Policy Coordination and Adequate Investment
Strengthen collaboration across the Ministries of Education, Health, and Women and Social Affairs. Coordinated policy implementation, sufficient funding, and consistent monitoring mechanisms are essential to improve service delivery and expand equitable access.
Curriculum Adaptation and Cultural Inclusion
Develop a flexible, inclusive curriculum that values indigenous languages, cultural stories, and play-based learning. Such approaches nurture identity, empathy, and belonging, ensuring early learning environments are meaningful for children from diverse backgrounds.
Ensuring Equitable Access and Resource Allocation
Prioritize underserved rural and marginalized communities. Every child regardless of geography, ability, or socioeconomic status deserves quality early learning opportunities. Sustained investment in infrastructure, materials, and child-friendly facilities must remain a national priority.
Ethiopia’s journey toward a fully integrated ECCE system is ongoing. The O-Class initiative and the subsequent ECCE Framework have established a solid policy foundation that recognizes early childhood development as a holistic, multisectoral endeavour encompassing education, health, and nutrition. Yet, persistent challenges (limited financial resources, uneven implementation, and shortages of qualified personnel) continue to impede progress.
Ultimately, pre-school integration in Ethiopia transcends the educational domain. It is a moral and societal commitment to nurture the whole child rooted in family, culture, and community. By weaving together traditional wisdom and modern pedagogy, Ethiopia can build an early childhood system that embodies inclusion, resilience, and hope for future generations. Strengthening ECCE today lays the foundation for human development, social cohesion, and sustainable national progress tomorrow.
Note: In this study, integration refers to the systemic alignment of Ethiopia’s early childhood education components including policy frameworks, curricula, teacher preparation, and community practices into a cohesive, equitable, and culturally responsive system. Inclusion, in contrast, denotes the provision of equitable opportunities for all children, regardless of ability, background, or circumstance, to participate fully and meaningfully in early learning environments.
This article was written for TAC Interconnections in November 2025
Keyworking Pilot Project in Wolverhampton, UK
This keyworking pilot project was established in 2002 by Wolverhampton LEA and Wolverhampton Primary Care Trust for families who had a pre-school child with complex needs. The aim was to explore the benefits of supporting a sample of these families with the Team-Around-the-Child model with a Keyworker as TAC Team Leader.
When the evaluation of the pilot was designed, it was agreed that the perceptions of parents and other family members, and only those perceptions, would determine the value of the TAC approach. It was also agreed that parent approval would not be enough to carry the pilot forward into accepted practice for Wolverhampton.
The evaluation of the pilot project therefore had two parts:
The views of parents about the value of the TAC approach.
The views of practitioners and managers about how they felt about this way of working, how it impinged on the rest of their work, what support TAC Team Leaders needed and what additional resources were required.
Parents’ views were sought in structured interviews in their own homes. Practitioners gave their views in a questionnaire.
Both parents and practitioners spoke in positive terms and the project is now being extended to support more families. Practitioners, especially Keyworkers, highlighted time constraints and the need for clerical support. The following is a selection of parents’ comments. More information is available from Wolverhampton Early Years Service.
Parents’ comments about their Keyworker
‘I get on with her, I have got to know her as a friend and I can tell her my problems. She has a lot of experience with children and she knows how to deal with parents.’
‘I trust her.’
‘She has the most information about my child.’
‘She is a point of reference when you don’t know who to go to.’
‘She has been there at the lowest points, we have grown close.’
Parents’ comments about TAC meetings
‘I’ve got a great team to help me. I like the meetings and look forward to them.’
‘We all understand each other.’
‘Everybody gets to say what they want to say. We take turns to speak.’
‘I like them. I sometimes feel nervous about what they might say. They might tell me I am doing something wrong.’
‘Everybody gets together and shares information on my child’s development. This helps me to see the development.’
‘They all understand what I am going through.’
‘The meetings are informal. They are important because we discuss activities and agree the next goals.’
‘I am thrilled by the Keyworker project. It would have been valuable earlier... If there was a problem (in the first year) which affected everything about him we did not know whom to ask about it. It was not holistic. The first meeting was the most useful; we ironed out different approaches and agreed clear, consistent objectives…’
‘We have a meeting every three months at home. All the children are here. My Keyworker is really good at leading the meetings. They last 60 to 90 minutes.’
‘Doctors try to take control. TAC does not.’
‘I always say what I want and they listen to me. They ask me what, as a mum, I want my child to be doing. I get on with them all and we are open as friends. They do listen and help.’
‘My child has problems sleeping. She is up and down and then I usually get up with him at about five. I haven’t talked to my health visitor about this or told the TAC.’
Parents’ comments about the Family Support Plan and the learning goals
‘Yes, I got a report. My reading isn’t very good but I understand it.’
‘I get a written plan, I don’t know what it is called. I’m not sure where it is. It just says what was discussed so I don’t need it much. It has the same words as at the meeting. They are all sticking to the plan as much as they can (when my child is not ill).’
‘I get a report from the Keyworker. It is a summary with clear objectives. The Keyworker had even drawn hands to help get a point across! It is good to have something to refer back to.’
‘I understand the goals.’
‘I think they are the right goals, they make sense.’
‘I like the goals. They are the same goals as last time. I would like more progress.’
‘The goals are OK but I would like faster progress. Goals are physical now but I would like more on speech.’
Parents’ comments about support for the whole family
‘The team are here to help me and my child. My partner works a twelve-hour day. He has been to some appointments but he would like to be more involved.’
‘The team acknowledge that I have another child and they take that into account. He comes to some of the various sessions unless they say he shouldn’t. My Keyworker is mostly here for my child. My partner has met the Keyworker a few times and he gets on with her.’
‘We have had lots of support. TAC is for the whole family and it meets our needs.’
In the time since this evaluation was carried out Wolverhampton has been able to use the initial comments made by parents to reshape their thoughts and approach in their Team-Around-the-Child model.
Note: This account is taken from Part 11 of Early Support for Children with Complex Needs
Halton Team Around the Child, UK
The system
Team Around the Child (TAC) in Halton provides enhanced Care Co-ordination, at the level of the family, for children with complex support needs 0 to 19 years, using a ‘key worker’ from within the professionals already involved. This role has been given the title of Team Around the Child (TAC) Facilitator.
Eligibility criteria
The acceptance range is from birth to 19 years.
Children with complex and/or multiple health, social or educational needs that are persistent and ongoing and affect the child’s functioning.
The child must receive, is eligible to receive or is about to receive specialist services from three or more disciplines from any agency, including the voluntary sector.
The child/family must live in Halton, or be registered with a Halton GP.
Families can refer themselves or be referred by any professional involved with the child/family, with their knowledge and consent.
Background
In the time before TAC there was recognition that, for many children, the services could and should be ‘more joined up’. Staff themselves wanted ‘to do better’. Some put time and effort into extra support for families where they felt a need. This was on an ad hoc basis and if that person left, families were back to square one. It often represented a special relationship between a family and professional. At worst this was well-meaning and genuine on behalf of the professional and, at best it gave the family positive help and a champion for their cause. However, nowhere in a professional’s role was this extra commitment recognised for the source of support it was to the family, or the added work-load it meant for the professional. In order to provide a reliable service a structure and mechanism had to be developed with commitment from all agencies at all levels.
The Early Support Pilot Programme (DfES) provided the funds to try out Team Around the Child in the form of a Project that ran from November 2002 to July 2003. The Project enabled development of training and support for the professionals in the use of TAC, alongside developing the scheme and supporting 13 families during that time. It is now open to a wider age band.
Team-Around-the-Child Facilitator role
The TAC Facilitator is identified by mutual agreement between the child and family and the professional. The role encompasses all elements of key working and a job/role description1 was developed to recognise this. The Team Facilitator:
provides a proactive contact point for families
operates within boundaries agreed with families (e.g. confidentiality)
gives emotional and practical support
researches information and enables action on behalf of/with families
is an advocate with a small ‘a’
liases/negotiates with other members of the child’s team to ensure action
is available to families (at least at the end of a telephone) when needed during regular working hours
TAC Assistant
The original Project bid to Early Support Pilot Programme contained a generic support worker (the TAC Assistant). The rationale was to enable practitioners to relinquish some of their own uni-professional work with families in order to gain some time to dedicate to the multi-disciplinary work of a TAC Facilitator. All families have welcomed the TAC Assistant role as it seems to plug a gap in services not provided elsewhere. Tasks include direct individual family support and indirect support such as support groups and assisting at delivery of group interventions led by a practitioner. Direct support to practitioners in terms of providing or assisting their interventions also features highly in the job profile. The remainder of the time is used for record-keeping, administrative support to TAC, training, and supervision sessions for herself. Further breakdown and investigation into the added value that families experience is currently ongoing.
Management
The Project was ‘mainstreamed’ with minimal recurrent available resources with some additional short-term funds (Sure Start and New Opportunities Fund) to maintain the scope of support to families.
A multi-agency Management Group, including parents, meets bi-monthly to oversee Halton TAC. There is a management lead from a senior clinician, a co-ordinator (now within the CDC Co-ordinator’s role, upgraded and with some time released), clerical support and the TAC Assistant. The personnel profile is as follows:
TAC Lead 0.1 WTE (Whole Time Equivalent)
Co-ordinator 0.3 WTE
Clerical Officer 0.3 WTE
TAC Assistant 1.0 WTE
Training
The rolling training package developed for the TAC Facilitators during the Project has been further developed and refined by use and by the feedback of participants of courses run so far. The training explores the background of care co-ordination and identifies the need, develops skills to pick up the issues from the parents’ perspectives, identifies the skills and attributes of a Team Facilitator, addresses the practicalities of working within Halton TAC (introduction to the system, the process and the personnel and ongoing support) and participants are encouraged to identify further training needs to help them to be effective TAC Facilitators. The TAC personnel, using a mixture of approaches including presentations, practical exercises, group work and discussions, deliver the package as a group effort. Following comments received from previous participants, it is now run over two half-days, each culminating in lunch to allow networking and further development of peer discussions generated during the training. A case scenario introduced during the first half-day links the two sessions. This scenario provides the basis of identifying the parents’ perspectives and is worked in, through the practical exercises, to joint goal planning at the end.
A bi-monthly peer support group meeting allows further sharing of experience and gives support to those using the TAC model and an opportunity for the TAC personnel to gather feedback from practice. Multi-disciplinary training monies have provided further in-depth training using external consultants to develop skills gaps identified by TAC Facilitators.
Evaluation and monitoring
The Process Flow Chart and associated audit tool provides easy evaluation of standards. The Sure Start contract monitoring forms for individual children/families gives us quantitative data with regards to time spent on TAC. There is some feedback gathered by the National Children’s Bureau as part of their independent evaluation of projects funded by DfES through ESPP. During the initial Project interviews were undertaken with families and professionals using TAC, and this gives a ‘taster’ of the impact TAC was having on them.
Future plans are for evaluation of the TAC Assistant role to include a parent questionnaire possibly through telephone interview, as well as an activity survey of the Assistant’s role to identify key support needs of families and how the Assistant fulfils them. The survey will also gather parents’ perspectives of the whole scheme and will be covered at the same time. Training is routinely evaluated using a standard feedback form and these have helped to ‘fine tune’ the package.
Barriers to Care Co-ordination
Despite care co-ordination featuring large in many recent government guidance documents, as well as many that reach far back into the past, it is still not fully funded. We have used the TAC model as a ‘low-budget’ option and have effected changes in working practice to re-invest time from individual interventions into TAC to provide a more co-ordinated service to families. The structure to support busy clinicians to use TAC will need ongoing resources throughout the disciplines and agencies.
The TAC Project identified the unexpected amount of time needed. Commissioners, managers or clinicians must not ignore this time element. It would be all too easy to drop TAC as ‘icing on the cake’ when many services are already hard pressed to even provide their ‘core’ bread-and-butter services. The commitment, to ‘go the extra mile’ for families, is inherent in many clinicians’ practice but the reality of constantly striving to ‘do more for less’ can be destructive. Substantial changes at senior and middle management levels could also be inhibitive to schemes like this, where a shared history of development and knowledge of TAC is suddenly lost, and where organisations are under severe financial restraints. The take-up of TAC training in education establishments has been slow, possibly due to tight timetables, however commitment to the principles of care co-ordination has been good.
The future for Halton
Locally TAC has been embraced at all levels of the agencies and features in the Children with Disabilities Strategy for Halton and the Child Development Centre Action Plan. It has been heartening to see the level of commitment from front-line workers to making things better for the families they work with. TAC now features in job roles and job descriptions in several disciplines. New recruits in any discipline are being introduced to TAC as an integral system in the procedures in Halton. The training package is running three times a year to mop up existing staff volunteers and to pick up new recruits in all disciplines and all agencies.
C. K. Superintendent Physiotherapist Paediatrics and TAC Lead. March 2004