This proposal presents findings and design principles from a European project (Project No. 2023‑1‑SE01‑KA220‑SCH‑000156400) initiative to develop a transnational in‑service training curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) professionals. The countries involved are Sweden (Municipality of Vänersborg), Italy (Sweden Emilia Romagna Network and Bambini Bicocca), Latvia (University of Liepaja), Belgium (Erasmus Hogeschool Brussels) and Spain (University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia). Specifically, this contribution presents the evaluation results from an international and local pilot course on school–family relationships held at UVic‑UCC (Spain). The proposal argues that sustainable educational change in ECEC depends on strengthening curricular coherence across system, school, and classroom levels, a point widely supported in European policy frameworks and research on the professionalisation of the ECEC workforce (European Commission, 2014; 2019). This emphasis aligns with scholarship showing that high‑quality ECEC requires a highly qualified, continuously developing workforce capable of responding to diverse pedagogical, social, and cultural challenges (European Commission, 2021). The curriculum model integrates shared European values—child‑centred and rights‑based approaches, inclusive pedagogies, and collaborative professional cultures—and situates Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as a process grounded in research on pedagogical leadership and situated professional learning (Fonsén & Ukkonen‑Mikkola, 2019). It incorporates methodological principles identified in comparative reviews of effective CPD, including the interweaving of theory and practice, collaborative reflection, and workplace‑embedded experiential learning (Jensen & Iannone, 2018). Research further indicates that continuous professional development correlates with improvements in learning environments, professional competence, and pedagogical quality (Peleman et al., 2018). The abstract also synthesises a recent review on partnerships with immigrant parents in ECEC, which identifies language barriers, power asymmetries, cultural disagreements, and structural constraints as frequent obstacles, while highlighting facilitators such as multilingual resources, translanguaging, respectful and proactive professional attitudes, recognition of parents’ perspectives, and practices that foster equality and shared goal‑setting (Norheim & Moser, 2020). These insights reinforce the need for CPD that equips professionals to design welcoming environments, enact culturally responsive communication, and organise time and institutional support for equitable partnerships (Norheim & Moser, 2020). Against this backdrop, the international UVic‑UCC course blended seminars, reflective dialogue, hands‑on workshops, and site visits, enabling boundary‑crossing learning and concrete transfer to practice. Participants reported plans to redesign welcoming spaces, apply pedagogical documentation purposefully, and create structured opportunities for collaboration among families and professionals. Trainers emphasised coherence between objectives, methodologies, and the development of reflective, competent practitioners. Situated within broader debates on the role of education research in times of rapid societal change, the proposal underscores the need to understand how knowledge is produced, translated, and enacted within professional communities, while maintaining high‑quality, rights‑based practices for children and families (United Nations, 1989; Siraj, Kingston, & Neilsen‑Hewett, 2019). Overall, the contribution lies in: (1) presenting a theoretically grounded, research‑aligned transnational CPD curriculum that emphasises curricular coherence; (2) offering empirical results showing that short, intensive, transnational courses can catalyse concrete professional changes (internationalization, diversity and inclusion, social and green sustainability, STEAM, and family participation); and (3) proposing an evaluation framework that supports schools in integrating teacher learning with organisational development, thereby strengthening ECEC quality across diverse European settings (Bove et al., 2018).

We adopt a design‑based implementation research orientation to align curriculum development, professional learning, and school development. The transnational in‑service training curriculum (TITC) functions as a design framework specifying values, methodological elements (experiential learning, coaching, collaborative reflection), and organisational guidelines (scope, duration, resources, agents), explicitly connecting system‑level priorities with school/classroom enactment. Two complementary courses inform the analysis. (1) An international course: ‘The School–Families Relationship and Family Participation’ (UVic‑UCC, Spain; July 7–9, 2025), with eight ECEC professionals from four countries (Sweden, Italy, Latvia and Belgium) across multiple roles (4 preschool teachers, 1 infant-toddler centre’s educator, 2 university lecturers and ECEC trainers, 1 PhD Student). (2) A local course ‘School-Families Relationships and Family Participation’ (Vic, Catalonia; 6 sessions on 5, 12, 19, 26 March & 2, 9 April 2025) with 20 participants (8 preschool teachers; 12 infant‑toddler educators). In the local cohort, approximately 60% reported more 15 years of experience, about one‑third 11–15 years, and about a 10% 6–10 years. Both courses combined seminars, workshops, peer reflection, and site visits (e.g., municipal infant‑toddler centre and university ECEC labs). Data collected served to do and evaluation that followed a multi‑stage schema: (a) ex‑ante design review; (b) pre‑course survey of expectations and needs; (c) in‑course formative feedback; (d) post‑course satisfaction/learning survey; and (e) planned follow‑up to monitor organisational impact (meso level). Instruments included structured questionnaires, reflective prompts, observation/field notes during sessions and visits, and analysis of participant artefacts (documentation samples, action plans). We used qualitative content analysis (grounded‑theory informed) to code open responses and reflections, and descriptive statistics for Likert‑type items. Analysis focused on (1) perceived relevance and coherence of content; (2) evidence of curricular alignment (translation of principles to school/classroom routines); (3) shifts in professional identity and collaborative practices; and (4) enablers/constraints for transfer (time, leadership, external support). To preserve the curricular perspective, we mapped activities and take‑aways to competency fields (family‑participation design, pedagogical documentation, inclusive/rights‑based approaches, distributed leadership) and to Erasmus+/UN priorities to ensure system‑level relevance. We triangulated participant and trainer feedback across the two courses to assess alignment between learning design and reported outcomes.

The transnational CPD curriculum functions as a curricular spine linking values, competencies, pedagogies, and evaluation across ECEC system levels while respecting local specificities. Evidence from the international and local courses shows strong satisfaction and clear intentions to change practice, including redesign of welcoming spaces, strengthened pedagogical documentation, and more structured opportunities for teacher–family collaboration, supported by a balanced mix of theory, reflective dialogue, and practical learning. The local course also highlights the value of territorial professional communities where educators from neighbouring centres compare practices, co design improvements, and plan implementation in context. Curriculum development emerges as a multilevel, relational process: system guidance shapes school leadership and cultures (distributed, appreciative), which in turn enable classroom enactments (rights based pedagogy, inclusive routines). External partners (universities, municipal services, cultural organisations) sustain coherence through evaluation cycles that keep knowledge production and use closely connected. The project promotes CPD that is situated, collaborative, and mobility enabled, extending learning through communities of practice and job shadowing. Improvement priorities from the local course include extending course duration, dedicating time to 0–3 specific challenges, improving time management within sessions, and scheduling follow up meetings to consolidate transfer. Policy and leadership implications call for guaranteed time and recognition for CPD, cross institutional partnerships, and shared evaluation instruments to track organisational impact. The CPD curriculum aims for coherence across system, school, and classroom, ensuring teacher learning translates into sustainable educational change that strengthens children’s rights, inclusion, and family participation in ECEC. The project’s European dimension lies in its capacity to address shared challenges—cultural diversity, family–school partnerships, workforce professionalisation—through a transnational CPD model that supports mutual learning across countries. By generating comparable evidence and shared practices, it contributes to social cohesion and reinforces the EU commitment to equitable, inclusive ECEC provision.

Bove, C., Jensen, B., Wyslowska, O., Iannone, R. L., & Mantovani, S. (2018). The impact of continuous professional development on ECEC practitioners in Italy: Effectiveness of a competency‑based approach. Early Years, 38(3), 330–344. Council of the European Union. (2019). Council Recommendation on High‑Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems (OJ C 189, 05.06.2019). Council of the European Union. (2022). Council Recommendation on ECEC: The Barcelona targets for 2030 (2022/C 484/01). European Commission. (2014). Proposal for key principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care. European Commission, DG EAC. (2021). Early Childhood Education and Care: How to recruit, train and motivate well‑qualified staff. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Eurydice. (2023). Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe 2023 – Early childhood education and care. Publications Office of the EU. Fonsén, E., & Ukkonen‑Mikkola, T. (2019). Early childhood education teachers’ professional development towards pedagogical leadership. Educational Research, 61(2), 181–196. Jensen, B., & Iannone, R. L. (2018). Innovative approaches to CPD in ECEC: A comparative review. European Journal of Education, 53, 23–33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. Norheim, H., & Moser, T. (2020). Barriers and facilitators for partnerships between parents with immigrant backgrounds and professionals in ECEC: A review based on empirical research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(6), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836582 Omdal, H., & Roland, R. (2020). Possibilities and challenges in sustained capacity‑building in ECEC institutions: Leaders’ perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(4), 568–581. Peleman, B., Vandenbroeck, M., Peeters, J., Cameron, C., Hauari, H., & Urban, M. (2018). Continuous professional development and ECEC quality: Findings from a European systematic literature review. European Journal of Education, 53(1), 9–22. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. Siraj, I., Kingston, D., & Neilsen‑Hewett, C. (2019). The role of professional development in improving quality and supporting child outcomes in early education and care. Asia‑Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 13(2), 49–68. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.