Posted on by Sara

A profession without a plan: Why early years career pathways matter

In many professions, it’s clear: you grow up in your career. Teaching. Nursing. Social work. There are established ladders, from entry-level to leadership. But in early education in England, the only clear next step often leads out of the sector altogether.

That’s not just a personal loss for the individual — it’s a systems failure that undermines workforce stability and quality.

The career progression gap: Not a lack of ambition, but a lack of pathways

Repeatedly, surveys and studies show that early years educators want to progress — but can’t see how.

  • According to the Sutton Trust, 22% of early years staff cite lack of career progression opportunities as a key reason for leaving their job.
  • The Education Policy Institute (EPI) found that only 17% of early years practitioners felt there was a clear route to promotion. Compare that to 60–70% in teaching or nursing.

Many educators stay in the same role for years: not by choice, but because the system simply doesn’t show them where to go next.

Underdeveloped leadership roles and limited recognition

In other professions, leadership isn’t just about doing more — it’s about stepping into defined roles with clear responsibilities, preparation, and pay recognition.

In early years settings in England, leadership roles are often informal:

  • no mandatory leadership training
  • no consistent pay uplift tied to leadership responsibility
  • few opportunities to specialise — for example, as a pedagogy lead or inclusion specialist.

Contrast this with Sweden’s National Preschool Teacher Programme (NPTP), where in-service leadership training is a mandatory, funded part of moving into senior roles — and tied to both salary and professional standing.

Where do talented staff go instead?

When there’s nowhere to grow within early education, experienced practitioners often leave — moving into schools, administrative roles, or other sectors entirely.

This isn’t just about individual career shifts. It’s a structural drain on the workforce:

  • Loss of expertise and leadership capacity.
  • Fragmentation between early years and primary education.
  • A constant need to recruit and train new entry-level staff.

Other countries show real alternatives

England isn’t alone in facing these issues, but there are international models showing better systems:

  • Sweden: New leaders must complete in-service training within two years, linked to Master’s-level qualifications and higher pay.
  • Finland: Requires bachelor-level qualifications as a baseline for pre-primary educators, supporting both status and progression clarity.
  • OECD Starting Strong Survey (2018): Countries like Denmark, Norway, Germany, and Sweden that have structured career frameworks for early childhood education show stronger staff retention and leadership development outcomes.

Career progression shouldn’t mean leaving practice

If we want early education to be taken seriously, we need a workforce structure that supports growth from within. That means more than entry-level roles. It means clear pathways, recognised leadership tracks, and funded development opportunities.

What that could look like:

  • Mapped role pathways from practitioner to centre leader:
    Practitioner → Room Lead → Mentor → Pedagogy Lead → Centre Head
  • Funded, in-service leadership training similar to Sweden’s NPTP.
  • Pay uplift tied to responsibility and expertise, not just longevity in post.

When there’s no ladder, people leave. But when there is one — and it’s clear, consistent and respected — people stay, grow and lead.

Sources

Leave a comment