Flexible work research prompts ECEC roster and job design questions

Australian research has distinguished flexibility that gives workers choice and security from arrangements that shift risk to employees. It offers ECEC providers a framework for reviewing rosters, hours and career pathways, although the study did not analyse the sector separately.

The Working for Women Research Partnership found flexible work could improve job quality or deepen insecurity, depending on how employers designed it.

It defined “good flex” as arrangements offering genuine choice and control over hours, work patterns or location, without sacrificing security, job quality or progression.

“Bad flex” included employer-controlled scheduling, casual or short-hours work and volatile rosters. These arrangements were associated with unstable income, limited paid leave and weaker access to training or progression.

Women were more likely to experience flexibility linked to part-time or casual work and tightly controlled schedules, particularly in feminised sectors such as health, education, retail and care.

Survey finds gender gaps in access

The thematic paper drew on the 2025 Australian Workplace Gender Equality Survey. YouGov surveyed 5,000 Australians aged 18 to 70 during September and October 2025, with results weighted to the population.

Among respondents, 45.9 per cent of women reported working part time, compared with 22.2 per cent of men. Casual employment was reported by 24.5 per cent of women and 17.8 per cent of men.

In women-dominated workplaces, 55.8 per cent of women reported having the flexibility they wanted. This compared with 62.5 per cent of men working in those settings.

The survey also found 61 per cent of women worked fully on site, compared with 57.6 per cent of men. These national findings were not broken down for ECEC and should not be read as sector-specific results.

ECEC providers can review roster quality

The 2024 national workforce census counted 268,050 ECEC workers, with 91.2 per cent identifying as female. This makes the research relevant to workforce design, despite the lack of separate ECEC findings.

For site-based educators, flexibility is unlikely to centre on remote work. Possible areas for review include predictable rosters, control over shifts, sustainable hours, job sharing and clear return-to-work pathways. These have not been tested as ECEC solutions by this study.

The partnership’s actionable insights report recommended testing models covering schedule control, sustainable hours, shared work, return-to-work pathways and inclusive job design.

For providers, the central question is whether an arrangement gives educators meaningful choice while maintaining security and progression, or transfers operational risk through uncertain hours and employer-controlled rosters. Further ECEC-specific research is needed to establish which models improve retention or quality.