Evidence is mounting on early years workforce challenges
Natalie Perera executive director and head of research, Education Policy Institute
Monday, February 17, 2020
New research shows that poor pay, an increasing workload and low status are combining to drive early years workers out of the sector, says Natalie Perera
Last week, NatCen published new research (as part of a programme of work with EPI and funded by the Nuffield Foundation) which, once again, highlighted the challenges of working in the early years sector.
The good news is that many early years workers said they entered the profession because of a love of early years and working with young children. But, as we’ve heard so many times before, many are being pushed out of the job they love due to a combination of low pay, increasing workload and low status.
Consistent with previous EPI research, which found that early years staff have experienced a real-terms pay cut since 2013 and around 44.5 per cent are reliant on in-work benefits to top up their wages, this latest research finds that low pay is a significant factor in driving people out of the profession. Some workers said the challenges of supporting their own families on the salary of a childcare worker were too great and meant staying in the sector was not a long-term career option.
This is important feedback and requires some reflection. Rightly or wrongly, the sector is largely reliant on a female workforce. But women are now telling us they cannot stay in the profession and support their own families. At a time when families are generally reliant on two incomes and there is greater pressure on single parents to be in work, working in the early years sector is increasingly unviable.
Add to that the increasing paperwork and demands from both parents and employers, and it’s hardly surprising that we are left with an unstable workforce.
The question is, how can this be fixed? I discussed possible solutions with someone who is an expert in this area and whose opinion I highly regard. We found ourselves considering the solutions that might be ‘affordable’ or ‘palatable’ for the Government – modest pay increments, for example. But, sometimes, the stakes are so high that we need to think about solutions that might cost more but are worth the investment. Those solutions might be more radical and not fit with the Government’s current priorities, but it is, arguably, the role of experts and professionals to try to change those priorities and put the Government on a path that is consistent with the evidence.
In the meantime, our programme of research continues, with more to come later this year.
