The Quiet Problem of Sideways Promotions in Early Childhood Education
Tammy Lawlor, VSKEA Founder
There’s a particular kind of promotion that doesn’t look like one on paper, but every teacher recognises it immediately. More responsibility. More expectations. More accountability. No pay rise.
In early childhood education, the Educational Leader (EL) role is increasingly becoming a clear example of what can only be described as a sideways promotion, a role that expands workload and responsibility without structurally recognising either.
What is a sideways promotion?
A sideways promotion happens when a role grows in scope but not in meaningful support. It might come with a title. It might even come with a small allowance. But critically, it lacks one (or both) of the things that make leadership sustainable:
Time to do the work
Pay that reflects the responsibility
Without those, the “promotion” becomes something else entirely: an expectation layered on top of an already full job.
The Educational Leader reality
In theory, the Educational Leader role is central to quality early childhood education. It involves:
Pedagogical leadership
Mentoring and supporting staff
Driving curriculum and reflective practice
Ensuring alignment with regulatory frameworks
In practice, many ELs are doing this work:
During lunch breaks
Before or after shifts
In unpaid hours at home
When systems propose that Educational Leaders should receive either additional time or additional pay, but not both, they are effectively formalising a model where part of the role remains unsupported.
That’s not a neutral compromise. It shapes how the role functions day-to-day.
Allowance without time risks burnout and unpaid labour
Time without allowance risks devaluing the expertise required
Neither option fully acknowledges the scope of the role.
Why this matters beyond one role
This isn’t just about Educational Leaders. It reflects a broader structural issue in early childhood education: the persistent undervaluation of the work itself. Early childhood remains a female-dominated sector, and historically, that has mattered in how work is priced and recognised. When leadership roles are designed without full resourcing, it reinforces a pattern wherein skilled, relational, complex work is treated as something that can be absorbed rather than properly supported.
This doesn’t usually show up as a single dramatic decision. It shows up in small, cumulative ways:
Extra responsibilities framed as “opportunities”
Leadership expectations without leadership conditions
Professional expertise assumed rather than compensated
Over time, this shapes who stays in the sector, and who steps away from leadership roles altogether.
The workforce reality
There is already significant pressure on the early childhood workforce:
Retention challenges
Increasing regulatory and documentation requirements
Rising expectations around quality and outcomes
In that context, the design of roles like Educational Leader isn’t just symbolic, it has practical consequences. If the role is not properly supported, experienced teachers may:
Decline leadership positions
Step back from them
Leave the sector entirely
That has a direct impact on:
Centre quality
Staff development
Continuity for children and families
What would a sustainable model look like?
A genuinely sustainable Educational Leader role would include:
Dedicated, protected non-contact time to carry out leadership responsibilities
A clear allowance that reflects the level of expertise and accountability
Defined scope, so expectations are realistic and consistent
We’re not looking to create “extra” benefits, but to align the structure of the role with the work it already requires.
The broader shift we need
There is increasing recognition that early childhood teachers should be valued on par with their school based counterparts. Pay parity is part of that shift. But pay alone doesn’t resolve everything. If roles within the sector continue to expand without matching conditions, then the underlying issue remains: Work is being reclassified, but not fully resourced. Addressing that requires more than adjustments to salary scales. It requires attention to how roles are actually designed and lived.
A moment of decision
The current conversations around Educational Leader conditions represent a turning point. They raise a simple but important question: Do we want leadership in early childhood education to be sustainable, or simply expected?
Because the answer will shape not just one role, but the future of the workforce itself. Sideways promotions are easy to introduce. They are much harder to sustain. And over time, systems tend to reflect the roles they choose to properly support.
What needs to happen next
As negotiations around the VECTEA continue, there is a clear opportunity to address this properly rather than partially. A sustainable Educational Leader role requires both extended and protected non-contact time that reflects the actual scope of the work AND a paid allowance that recognises the level of pedagogical leadership and accountability involved
This is not a new or untested idea. Allowances for leadership responsibilities already exist across the sector, including in the Children’s Services Awardg, large provider EBAs, such as what Goodstart offer, and school-based teaching roles where leadership and coordination positions are formally recognised and resourced.
Early childhood education should be no different. If the goal is a stable, skilled, and retained workforce, then the structure of leadership roles must match the expectations placed on them. Anything less risks continuing the cycle of undervaluation that the sector is actively trying to move beyond. This is a moment where educators, services, and advocates can speak clearly about what is needed: not a compromise between time and pay, but a model that reflects the full reality of the role.
Sustainable leadership isn’t built on trade-offs. It’s built on recognising the work, and resourcing it properly.