The International Network on Leave Policies and Research has been producing an annual review of leave policies and related research since 2005 (for earlier reviews, go to the network’s website www.leavenetwork.org). The review covers Maternity, Paternity and Parental leaves; leave to care for sick children and other employment-related measures to support working parents; and early childhood education and care policy. The International Review is based on country notes from each participating country, prepared by members of the network and edited by a team of network members. Each country note follows a standard format: details of different types of leave; the relationship between leave policy and early childhood education and care policy; recent policy developments; information on take-up of leave. The International Review also includes definitions of the main types of leave policies; and cross-country comparisons. These comparative overviews cover: each main type of leave; the relationship between leave and ECEC entitlements; and policy changes and developments since the previous review. We also include a technical appendix. The 2026 International Review covers 53 countries. These are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Vietnam. Costa Rica is a new country note joining the review this year for the first time. The content of the International Review is to the best of our knowledge correct at the time of going to press, but mistakes may occur. If you should have a query or find an error, we would be grateful if you would contact the country note authors as relevant and the editors. We recommend that readers consult the most recent version of the International Review where possible, as we are unable to retrospectively rectify errors.

International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs) have had a global influence on education in recent decades, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has played a leading role, most notably with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The organisation's latest ILSA is the International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS), a test of five-year-olds, which first reported in 2020. The OECD has portrayed IELS as significant, describing it as 'a great example' and the 'future of assessment'. We locate IELS within the OECD's ILSA testing regime and its extensive critiques. Subsequently, through an analysis of IELS documentation, we explore its rationale and processes and then contrast these with its reported outcomes. We demonstrate that IELS has failed to deliver on its intentions and acutely manifests many of the problems that critics of ILSAs have identified. We argue that IELS has contributed to the waning interest in the OECD's testing regime and that other approaches to comparative research should be given greater attention.

This Colloquium continues the critique of the International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS ), an international large-scale assessment study of 5-year-olds by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). After revisiting what IELS is, it focuses on a recently published report on the second cycle of IELS, taking a critical look at this report, highlighting what we regard as being four particularly problematic areas and questioning the study's rationale. In conclusion, this Colloquium asks why the OECD persists with pursuing its array of international large-scale assessments, in the face of mounting criticism, and we suggest it is part of an existential effort to secure OECD's global influence.

The article argues that the purposes of education, not confined only to schooling, must be relevant to the conditions of the times, which can be summed up as a polycrisis, a combination of complex, interconnected and existential crises that are more than the sum of their parts. Yet despite the warning provided by the recent pandemic, there is still an absence of democratic discussion about the purposes of education, which under neoliberalism have been reduced primarily to a narrow economic rationale. The article considers some of the implications of the polycrisis for education, and concludes with the need to rethink the school given the conditions of the times and the need to repurpose education.

The International Network on Leave Policies and Research has been producing an annual review of leave policies and related research since 2005 (for earlier reviews, go to the network’s website www.leavenetwork.org). The review covers Maternity, Paternity and Parental leaves; leave to care for sick children and other employment-related measures to support working parents; and early childhood education and care policy. The International Review is based on country notes from each participating country, prepared by members of the network and edited by a team of network members. Each country note follows a standard format: details of different types of leave; the relationship between leave policy and early childhood education and care policy; recent policy developments; information on take-up of leave. The International Review also includes definitions of the main types of leave policies; and cross-country comparisons. These comparative overviews cover: each main type of leave; the relationship between leave and ECEC entitlements; and policy changes and developments since the previous review. We also include a technical appendix. The 2025 International Review covers 52 countries. These are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Vietnam. Kosovo is a new country note joining the review this year for the first time. The content of the International Review is to the best of our knowledge correct at the time of going to press, but mistakes may occur. If you should have a query or find an error, we would be grateful if you would contact the country note authors as relevant and the editors. We recommend that readers consult the most recent version of the International Review where possible, as we are unable to retrospectively rectify errors.

This is a report of The COST Action ‘Parental Leave Policies & Social Sustainability’ (CA21150) that provides a detailed exploration of recent developments in terminology, with a particular focus on the language used in leave policies. While the primary emphasis is on leave policies for parents of young children, it is important to note that other types of leave are becoming increasingly relevant. The report is divided into three main sections. The first examines the nomenclature used by international organisations with a focus on leave policies. The second looks at the terminology adopted by individual European countries, while the third reviews the language used in various comparative studies of leave policies. The concluding section reflects on whether a uniform or harmonised terminology for parenting leave policies for young children is desirable or feasible, and if so, what this terminology might entail.

This Policy Note examines moves to 'de-gender' parenting leaves, focusing on the case of Spain, where recent policy developments have replaced 'Maternity leave' and 'Paternity leave' with gender-neutral terms, and equalised fathers' to mothers' formal entitlements for these leaves at birth, instead of moving the focus to develop paid Parental leave. The rationale for and early results of change are considered, before adding examples of changes from other countries, some of which have taken a different approach to gender neutrality based on more extended periods of paid Parental leave accessible and affordable for both parents. Some of the issues raised by such developments are discussed, including whether moves to de-gender leave facilitate or hinder gender equality, the balance between rigidity and flexibility in leave policies, and the representation of children's interests in leave policy. The conclusion of the Policy Note is that gender neutral terminology, by itself, is insufficient and that leave policy design is necessary to incentivise more equal use and more equal impacts on parents, though even then the fundamental question remains: does re-design require equal treatment in all respects or do biological differences justify some differences in leave policy?

Starting and finishing with the words of Sally Lubeck, one of the founders of RECE, this article locates early childhood education, all education, in conditions of polycrisis, conditions that are extremely dangerous but offer a glimmer of hope by making transformative change more possible. The article argues that such change calls for re-thinking, re-conceptualising and re-forming (early childhood) education; and, with a focus on the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, explores what this might mean, starting from a re-politicisation of early childhood education, all education, leading to political questions and political choices.