Leadership in Australia’s early childhood workforce policy: Silences and ambiguities as missed opportunities

Abstract

This paper explores how leadership is addressed within Australia’s National Children’s Education and Care Workforce Strategy (ACECQA, 2021). The Workforce Strategy has been widely welcomed, arriving at a time of unprecedented workforce pressures in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector. Yet, on close examination there appears an absence of focus on leaders as a distinct group within the ECEC workforce. Considering leadership is unequivocally central to retaining and sustaining early childhood educators, this absence of focus is noteworthy. First, the paper unpacks what is currently known about ECEC leadership. Then, how leadership in the policies under consideration is constructed as a problem in relation to quality and capability. Next, silences and ambiguities in how the strategy addresses the retention of leaders and their wellbeing is discussed. Ultimately it is argued that we need more understanding of the experiences of leaders as a distinct subset of the ECEC workforce.

Introduction

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) sectors in Australia and across the globe are experiencing acute workforce shortfalls (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2021; OECD, 2016). This circumstance is in the context of longstanding international recognition that attracting, retaining and sustaining ECEC workforces are critical to the provision of quality ECEC (OECD, 2001, 2012, 2016, 2019). A shortage of educators is however, only one issue in the backdrop of broader challenges with growing and sustaining professional ECEC workforces (Thorpe et al., 2020a). Challenges affecting the prior-to-school workforce are well established with attraction and retention, pay and conditions and lack of professional recognition among the most significant issues (United Workers Union, 2021). These factors are not localised, nor temporary, rather they continue to impact on ECEC provision across the globe (OECD, 2016). Most recently, in the Australian context, a Ten-year National Workforce Strategy has been launched by Australian governments. Shaping Our Future, a ten-year strategy to ensure a sustainable, high-quality children’s education and care workforce 2022-2031 (ACECQA, 2021) provides a roadmap of strategies and actions for the ECEC workforce. The strategy includes six interrelated focus areas: professional recognition, attraction and retention, leadership and capability, wellbeing, qualifications and career pathways and data and evidence. Shaping Our Future is accompanied by an Implementation and Evaluation Plan (ACECQA, 2022) which details the measures to progress actions related to the six focus areas identified in Shaping Our Future. The Implementation and Evaluation Plan also suggests how progress towards the outcomes will be monitored and reviewed. Both documents are informed by an overarching vision that the “children’s education and care sector has a sustainable, high-quality workforce of teachers and educators that is highly respected and valued by the broader community” (ACECQA, 2022, p.6).

Leadership has been identified as an issue related to ECEC quality in Australia and continues to be profiled in ECEC policy responses. The 2011 report of the Australian Government Productivity Commission on the Early Childhood Development Workforce and the Australian Government’s 2012-2016 Early Years Workforce Strategy (SCSEEC, 2016) suggested that what the ECEC workforce lacks in professionalism, responsiveness and collaboration, could be addressed by leadership. The National Quality Standards (ACECQA, 2020) include leadership and governance as one of seven assessable quality areas. Most recently, collaborative leadership and teamwork have been included as new principles in the recently updated Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Australian Government Department of Education, 2023). The ongoing consideration of leadership in ECEC policy aligns with evidence suggesting that leadership makes a difference, that the workforce value leadership and that leadership is a factor in retention or loss of staff (Thorpe et al., 2020a; 2020b) and educator wellbeing (Jones et al., 2019; Zinsser et al., 2016). It is timely then, to look at how leadership is positioned within the most recent workforce policy responses.

This paper is written in the Australian context and has two key foci. First, what is currently known about ECEC leadership is discussed. Second, two ECEC workforce policy documents are examined with attention to silences and ambiguities in how the current Australian ECEC workforce strategy addresses the retention and wellbeing of leaders. The analysis is conducted in relation to the following question, how are leaders positioned in the current Australian ECEC workforce strategy? The two key foci are drawn together to suggest where more evidence is required and how ECEC workforce policies may, in the future, be enhanced by drawing strategically on this evidence.

Early childhood education and care leadership – emerging knowledge

Scholarship on leadership in ECEC has accelerated in the last 10 years with research strengthening the argument that quality ECEC is shaped by effective leadership (Siraj-Blatchford & Hallett, 2014Siraj-Blatchford & Hallet, 2014; Stamopoulos & Barblett, 2020; Waniganayake et al., 2017). Leadership in ECEC is complex, multifaceted and highly contextual; it “is more than the sum of its parts” (Rodd, 2013, p. 9). Recent work explores leadership as a social responsibility (Sakr & O’Sullivan, 2022; Stampoulos & Barblett, 2020), wellbeing of leaders (Logan et al., 2020; Neilsen-Hewett et al., 2022) and leadership emergence and development (Gibbs, 2020). Small pockets of research challenge normative constructions of leaders and leadership in ECEC (Davis et al., 2015; Nuttall et al., 2020; Sims et al., 2014; Varpanen, 2021; White et al., 2023). In the context of ECEC workforce shortages, it is increasingly important to understand the attraction to leadership and its effects. Recent workforce studies demonstrate that leadership is pivotal in predicting retention or loss of staff (Thorpe et al., 2020a; 2020b) as well as morale, teamwork and shared purpose (McDonald et al., 2018). Yet, there is little agreeance on what defines ECEC leadership, whether ECEC leadership can or should be defined and whether normative measures of quality are appropriate or useful when applied to the work of leaders.

Research on the cultivation of leadership in ECEC contexts may inform the issue of attraction and retention of leaders. Gibbs’ (2020) mini-ethnographic case study of three ECEC organisations in Australia looked at the emergence and development of leadership through practices of leading and organisational arrangements. This research suggests that emergence and enabling of leadership is predicated on a complex arrangement of cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political conditions. The following arrangements were found to enable leadership, “cultures of trust, use of professional knowledge and language, collaborative development of philosophy, democratic allocation of resources, sharing of power and openness to activism, disruption and creativity” (Gibbs, 2020, p. 672). The findings of this study attest to the diverse and interrelated responsibilities of service providers and leaders in creating conditions for leadership to emerge and develop. It seems reasonable to suggest that enabling conditions for leadership might also contribute to leadership sustainability, that is, for the retention of leaders.

A national study of the Australian ECEC workforce provides valuable educator and teacher perspectives on leadership, generating important insights from those not in leadership positions. For example, desirable behaviours and qualities of leaders described by educators include having high expectations, being approachable and accessible, managing workload, supporting professional growth and respecting them and their work (Irvine et al., 2018). Studies looking to the experiences of leaders themselves also offer important insights. Alchin et al., (2019) investigated current challenges for directors/managers in centre-based early childhood services in Australia through a national questionnaire. Organisational leadership and management were rated as more challenging for early childhood leaders than pedagogical leadership. Another workforce study by Irvine et al. (2016) similarly found administrative tasks such as paperwork to be most challenging, along with issues of recruitment. Interestingly, the degree of emphasis on pedagogical or administrative responsibilities varied according to service type with kindergarten directors more likely to foreground their teaching role, while long day care directors were focused on management aspects of their role (managing staff, rosters, pay and paperwork) (Irvine et al., 2016). Irvine et al. (2016) also highlight tensions that arise where approaches taken by directors were not necessarily welcomed by staff.

Attention to wellbeing of the ECEC workforce in research is relatively recent—focus on leaders as a distinct group is especially new. The pandemic was a catalyst for new focus on the wellbeing and experiences of leaders in ECEC (Logan et al., 2020; Neilsen-Hewett et al., 2022). Perhaps unsurprisingly these studies highlight challenges for leaders in the emotional support of staff as well as complexities in managing work related stress and recruitment and retention of staff (Logan et al., 2020; Neilsen-Hewett et al., 2022). While looking more broadly at educator wellbeing and from an organisational perspective, Logan et al. (2020) found that the pandemic highlighted the importance of support for centre directors from management in key areas that respond to their work demands (e.g., emotional competence training). Neilsen-Hewett et al. (2022) investigated the experiences of four service directors during the pandemic. This study highlighted the complexity of leadership as well as protective factors for wellbeing that were enhanced by: high-quality practice of educators, strong service-based philosophies and ability to focus on relationships. These studies not only provide important insights into experiences of leading during a crisis, but also impacts on their wellbeing. Further research is warranted to determine more fully, the factors that impact wellbeing of leaders in ECEC and to ascertain how similar (or not) these factors are to those that impact the wider ECEC workforce.

Methodology

To examine the ways that leaders are positioned in current early childhood policy responses, content analysis of two current early childhood policy documents was conducted. Content analysis was particularly well suited to the question, allowing for both enumeration and understanding of how terms such as ‘leaders’ and ‘leadership’ are deployed in the documents (Prior, 2008). First, the parameters were set by choosing the two documents for analysis. Shaping Our Future, a ten-year strategy to ensure a sustainable, high-quality children’s education and care workforce 2022-2031 [SOF] (ACECQA, 2021) and its accompanying Implementation and Evaluation Plan (ACECQA, 2022) were chosen for the analysis as these are the most current policy texts operationalising ECEC workforce policy in Australia. It is acknowledged that these two texts do not represent the total policy landscape, therefore the claims made through this analysis are necessarily partial and are offered as a starting point to open further reflections.

To conduct this initial and exploratory part of the inquiry I firstly needed to reacquaint myself with the policy document, conducting a first read with the research question in mind. Second, I used the search feature in Microsoft Word to locate each instance where the term ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’ was used. Portions of text that mentioned leaders or leadership were extracted into a text file along with portions of text that referred to other categories of worker, but did not specifically refer to leaders. Of the instances where leaders were explicitly referenced, the focus was to determine how often leaders were included in the strategy and when included, whether leaders were positioned: as a subset of all frontline workers or, as a distinct group. Another possibility afforded through the analysis was consideration of where leaders were not present. Drisko and Maschi (2015) note the additional possibilities for analysis made possible through identification of content not present where it might reasonably be expected. Each sentence that included either of these terms was further scrutinised to determine the extent to which leaders are identified in the document as a distinct category. This led to the next process of analysis, more descriptive in nature, where segments of the document were further examined to look for patterns of meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2006) in the ways that leaders are described and/or the ways in which leaders are seemingly absent. Of most interest in this analysis were the ways in which leaders were spoken of in relation to other categories of frontline workers, as well as sections of the documents where an emphasis (or absence of emphasis) on leadership in relation to capability, attraction and retention and wellbeing was identified. The analysis identified silences and ambiguities in the data from which potential implications for leaders and leadership in the context of the ECEC workforce are drawn.

What does Shaping Our Future say about leaders and leadership? Silences and ambiguities

The discussion here addresses the key question, how are leaders positioned in the current Australian ECEC workforce strategy? The discussion focuses on how leaders and leadership are spoken of and in particular, how leaders are positioned in relation to other frontline workers (teachers and educators) and whether leaders are considered in the strategy as a distinct subset of the ECEC workforce for the target of strategies. The analysis focusses predominantly on three of the focus areas in Shaping Our Future: leadership and capability, attraction and retention and wellbeing. Particular attention is paid to silences, that is, areas where leaders are not a focus and ambiguities, that is, where leaders are subsumed within other categories or where responsibilities are unclear.

Leadership and capability

The vision and actions of Shaping Our Future are informed by and described through the concept of quality. Leadership is one of the focus areas discursively produced as a problem not only of quality, but also of capability. Focus Area 3 outlines measures for increasing quality of leadership and management through three foci: provision of training (on the National Quality Framework), professional development (through micro-credentialling) and access to professional networks. The adoption of quality as an objective, neutral and value-free measure of ECEC is contested (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Hunkin, 2018). Nevertheless, quality is now a dominant idea that frames thinking about the provision of goods, services and education in many countries. In times where easy, fix-all solutions are in high demand, leadership and leadership development may be vulnerable to functionalist and technicist solutions. These kinds of answers may be easy to package and deliver at scale yet may not be capable of responding to the complexities of ECEC leadership, which is enacted in varying ways and in diverse contexts. Positioning early childhood leadership as multi-faceted, complex and interpreted and enacted according to context makes functionalist models or instrumental framing of leadership more difficult (Gibbs, 2020; Halttunen et al., 2022; Stamopoulos & Barblett, 2020). It has been argued that leaders and leadership are best developed from ‘the bottom up’ (Sims et al., 2014), with leaders collaboratively thinking about what discourses like quality mean in their work and how best they can develop quality in their contexts.

Space does not permit, for a comprehensive analysis of quality in ECEC workforce policy, nor is it the author’s intention to suggest that concepts of quality and capability have no place in the construction of leadership. Furthermore, it is not suggested that increased opportunities for training, professional development and networking are not useful or welcomed strategies. What is suggested however, is that implementation of the ECEC workforce strategy actions, particularly those that focus on professional learning opportunities for leaders are currently ambiguous in their focus and intended outcomes. Professional learning and networking need to be tailored to the needs of the sector and each centre, reflecting a ‘bottom up’ approach. In this way it becomes more likely that the development of ‘quality leadership’ will be relevant to and reflective of context specific values and beliefs; where quality is ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (Pence & Moss, 1994).

Attraction and retention of leaders

Shaping Our Future is silent on the issue of attracting and retaining leaders in ECEC. The document identifies attraction and retention of “qualified, skilled and experienced teachers and educators” (ACECQA, 2022, p.20) as one of the six focus areas. Those who work in ECEC are sometimes referred to in the strategy as a homogenous group, (i.e. educators, teachers and leaders), at other times as distinct groups (i.e. teachers and educators), yet rarely as a single group (i.e. leaders only). Focus Area 2 provides an example of reference to distinct groups of early childhood frontline workers. In Focus Area 2, progress on attraction and retention is determined by an “increased number of teachers and educators entering the workforce” and an “increased proportion of teachers and educators staying in the workforce” (ACECQA, 2022, p. 20). Given that leaders are referred to elsewhere in the strategy as a distinct subset of the ECEC workforce, the omission of leaders in Focus Area 2 is noteworthy.

Issues relating to the ECEC workforce are well documented in relation to: attraction (Gibson et al., 2020; Thorpe et al., 2011) retention (Fenech et al., 2021; Grant et al., 2019; Horwood et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2017; McDonald et al., 2018; McKinlay et al., 2018; Thorpe et al., 2020a) and attrition (McMullen et al., 2020; Sumsion, 2002) of early childhood educators and degree qualified teachers and others employed in ECEC (including leaders). A subset of these studies look explicitly at degree qualified teachers (Fenech et al., 2021; Gibson et al., 2020; Grant et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2017; McKinlay et al., 2018; Sumsion, 2002) and research is emerging looking at attraction and retention of men in ECEC (Brody et al., 2021; Kirk, 2020; Sullivan et al., 2022). Leaders however, have not been considered as a distinct group in relation to factors that impact on attraction and retention.

Leadership is identified as a key factor in decisions of early childhood educators and teachers to stay, or to leave their jobs (Thorpe et al., 2020a; 2020b). Educators report dissatisfaction when they perceive a lack of leadership, with high morale and teamwork most associated with leadership (McDonald et al., 2018). Leaders inversely report dissatisfaction with staff behaviour and morale (McDonald et al., 2018). Tensions are also reported in undertaking educational leadership (Fleet et al., 2015; Grarock & Morrissey, 2013; Nuttall et al., 2014) and in making sense of leadership and management roles (Klevering & McNae, 2019; Krieg et al., 2014). Wellbeing is also emerging as an issue for leaders in ECEC (Logan et al., 2020; Neilsen-Hewett et al., 2022). These findings (among others) document the complexity of ECEC leadership, highlighting also the unique characteristics of leadership in ECEC. The tensions and difficulties reported in these studies make it plausible to suggest that the unique facets of leadership work in ECEC may impact on attraction and retention of leaders in ECEC. Considering these findings, it would seem important that any professional learning initiatives, under the remit of improving leadership and management capability, target these concerns. Further research will be important to gain a more comprehensive understand of factors that impact on the attraction and retention of leaders in ECEC.

Focus Area 1 Attraction and Retention—despite its title—primarily includes strategies targeting attraction. Strategies likely to address retention are not evident and leaders are not included as a distinct sub-group in Focus Area 1. This is especially concerning given that those on the frontline of ECEC perceive of limited opportunities for advancement (Thorpe et al., 2023) and many end up in formal leadership positions reluctantly (Krieg et al., 2014) or accidently (Coleman et al., 2016; Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Osgood, 2004; Rodd, 2013). Thorpe et al. (2023) assert that recognition and workplace conditions should be at the forefront of policy responses in order to address the issue of retention of ECEC staff. Further research is warranted in order to examine workplace conditions that promote the attraction, sustaining and retention of leaders in the ECEC sector.

Wellbeing of leaders

The inclusion of work-related wellbeing as one of the six key focus areas is a welcome and timely addition to the workforce strategy. The strategy acknowledges that wellbeing of the workforce is an urgent priority which is encouraging given that wellbeing has not always been a focus in regulation, curriculum or policy, despite mounting evidence that educator wellbeing is critical to high-quality ECEC (Corr et al., 2017; McMullen et al., 2020; Zinsser et al., 2016). The current workforce policy initiatives however, are variously silent or ambiguous about wellbeing as an issue that may have distinct effects on ECEC leaders.

Shaping Our Future is silent on the issue of wellbeing for leaders as a distinct sub-group. Leaders are included in the Implementation Plan; however, roles, responsibilities and impacts are ambiguous, and leaders are certainly not recognised as a distinct group in need of targeted focus for wellbeing. The Implementation Plan includes leaders (again as a sub-category of the workforce alongside educators and teachers) as recipients of initiatives and targets for the expected impact of “improved wellbeing for educators, teachers and leaders” (ACECQA, 2022, p. 28). In the Implementation Plan, a measure of progress in relation to wellbeing is that service leaders, along with educators and teachers will “report positive relationships between colleagues and low levels of workplace conflict” (ACECQA, 2021, p.28). This action provides clear acknowledgement that poor workplace culture is detrimental to staff wellbeing. Given the different roles and responsibilities of ECEC frontline workers, it seems plausible that impacts may be experienced differently for leaders than for educators or teachers. This seems especially likely given that development of workplace culture and maintenance of staff morale is identified as a key responsibility of leaders (Irvine et al., 2018; Thorpe et al., 2023). This is reflected in Shaping Our Future where “workforce culture” is listed as one of the elements (as well as management) that defines Focus Area 3 Leadership and Capability. It is problematic then that leaders are not included as a distinct group with targeted wellbeing supports.

In addition to silence on the matter of leader wellbeing, the workforce strategy is also ambiguous on exactly who is responsible for wellbeing. Responsibility for wellbeing of the ECEC workforce is located with service providers and management who “have clear responsibilities in terms of workplace health and safety, as well as expectations in terms of promoting a positive workplace environment that safeguards staff wellbeing” (ACECQA, 2021, p. 51). Ambiguity is also evident in the Implementation Plan where in Focus Area 4 progress measures target improvements for all ECEC workers in: work-life balance, positive workplace relationships and reduced conflict, rates of absenteeism and rates of serious workplace health and safety claims. This result will be achieved as service providers action “strong mental health and wellbeing supports for their workforce” (ACECQA, 2021, p.52). Employers are encouraged to action their responsibilities for example, through provision of Employee Assistance Programs. Evidence supports the effectiveness of Employee Assistance Programs in contemporary Australian workplaces where work-life and wellness are increasingly a concern of employers (Compton & McManus, 2015; Kirk & Brown, 2005). While there is a clear remit in Focus Area 4 for service providers, evidence suggests that success of Employee Assistance Programs is predicated on robust and effective relationships between HR and Employee Assistance Program professionals (Compton & McManus, 2015). In ECEC contexts, evidence also suggests that relationships between organisations (service providers, managers) and leaders is key to generating positive work environments (Harrison et al., 2019). In ECEC contexts, it may be extrapolated then that effective relationships between centre leaders, service providers and Employee Assistance Program providers are therefore critical to promoting workplace wellbeing. In ECEC contexts, service providers are not necessarily in daily contact with the centre. So, while providers are responsible for facilitating access to Employee Assistance Programs, it is more likely that leaders who are responsible for management of staff on a day-to-day basis, will be a key source of support and encouragement for staff to access such initiatives. These considerations raise questions about how, when implementing workforce strategies, lines of responsibility for wellbeing of staff will be determined as well as how relationships between leaders, managers and service providers will be facilitated.

Analysis of the documents Shaping Our Future and the Implementation Plan highlight two key areas that would benefit from further understandings and increased clarity. First, a limited evidence base addressing wellbeing of early childhood leaders suggest more attention is warranted to gain understanding of the wellbeing needs of early childhood leaders. Logan et al. (2020) stress the importance of generating further understanding of the work of directors, given that many aspects of their work (such as emotional labour) are often invisible. This is imperative given increasing calls for organisational leadership that attends to the emotional work climate (Cumming et al., 2020; Zinsser, 2016). Second, it is argued that increased clarity around responsibilities for wellbeing will also be important so as to make targeting of strategies effective. Leaders are subsumed within the broader workforce as targets of wellbeing initiatives provisioned at an organisational level. Shaping Our Future identifies wellbeing as primarily a responsibility of service providers (employers) and management, yet evidence suggests that relationships between employers and those responsible for human resource management (often service directors) are key to the success of Employee Assistance Programs for improving wellness. Absence of focus on leaders as a distinct group with potentially distinct wellbeing effects/needs and ambiguous responsibilities for wellbeing are areas that would benefit from further research in order to realise the goals of the workforce strategy, to attract and retain a “highly skilled, well supported and professionally recognised workforce” (ACECQA, 2021, p. 4).

Conclusion – Silences and ambiguities as missed opportunities

Australia’s workforce strategy for the next decade, envisions a “sustainable, high-quality children’s education and care workforce” (ACECQA, 2021, p. 1). This 10-year vision for the ECEC sector is aspirational in its pursuit of longer-term strategies to address ECEC workforce challenges. This paper joins others in reporting on workforce challenges yet to be addressed in the National Workforce Strategy 2021-2031. Thorpe et al. (2023) observe that while Shaping Our Future has a strong focus on strategies for attraction of staff to the ECEC sector, strategies for retention of staff that demonstrates a commitment to a sustainable and thriving workforce, are lacking. This paper concurs with the analysis of Thorpe et al. (2023), with additional observations on silences and ambiguities in relation to ECEC leaders and leadership. The two areas for analysis in this paper have been the absence of leaders as a distinct category of worker in the strategies addressing attraction and retention as well as silences and ambiguity in addressing the wellbeing of leaders.

Noting an absence of focus on leaders as a distinct group does not suggest there is no utility or applicability of strategies across frontline workers as a broader group. However it is important to acknowledge the limitations in how workforce issues can be understood and addressed when frontline workers are predominantly considered as a homogenous group. Shaping Our Future recognises leaders as a distinct sub-group in some of the six focus areas, yet the strategy is silent on actions for the retention and wellbeing of leaders. Among those who ultimately take up employment in the ECEC sector as a result of strategies actioned in Shaping Our Future, it is reasonable to assume that some of these will also adopt positions of leadership. We know that leaders play a significant role in the provision of quality and staff wellbeing in their centres. It is also clear that leadership will be crucial to the take up and success of many workforce strategies and initiatives. It is reasonable then to suggest that leaders be considered as a distinct sub-group of the ECEC workforce when developing strategies that address retention and wellbeing. In relation to the research question, it is ultimately argued that there is not enough research on factors impacting retention or wellbeing of leaders that can inform strategic or targeted policy responses. The case is put forward in this paper, that research on factors influencing the retention and wellbeing of leaders needs urgent attention.

More than 10 years of workforce development and policy initiatives in Australia has seen little movement in ECEC workforce stability. This paper argues that an insufficient evidence base makes strategic and impactful policy responses difficult to construct (Press et al., 2015). This argument is especially relevant in relation to leaders in ECEC, a group about which there is only a small body of national or international research that may inform workforce policy. Leadership continues to be espoused as a key factor that influences the retention of staff in the sector (OECD, 2016). Yet if policy imperatives and aspirations are to be achieved and most importantly, if a career in ECEC is to be an attractive, fulfilling and sustainable prospect for aspiring leaders, a stronger evidence base needs to be developed and drawn on. It is yet to be determined whether Australia’s current policy response will enable or promote leaders to be forthcoming or to stay.