Programming Time Entitlements Under the Children’s Services Award

Programming time is a cornerstone of quality practice in early childhood education. The Children’s Services Award guarantees educators and teachers responsible for planning and documenting learning experiences a minimum of two hours of non-contact time each week. This entitlement recognises that programming is not an “extra” task but a professional responsibility essential for compliance, reflection, and supporting children’s development.

Yet, questions often arise about how this entitlement is applied in practice — particularly when educators are absent due to illness or approved leave. Do services reallocate the time, or is it lost? How do entitlements differ for Early Childhood Teachers (ECTs) and Educational Leaders? And what happens in services where educators do not receive programming time at all?

Award Requirements

Programming time:
- Educators responsible for preparing, implementing, or evaluating developmental programs must receive at least two hours per week of non-contact time.
- This time is part of ordinary hours and must be rostered in advance.
Educational Leaders:
- Entitled to two hours per week for leadership duties.
- If they also have programming responsibilities, entitlement increases to four hours per week.
Early Childhood Teachers (ECTs):
- Entitled to the same minimum of two hours per week for programming.
- If also the Educational Leader, they receive four hours per week.

What Happens When Educators Are Absent?

Lost Time: Some services interpret the Award strictly, if the rostered block is missed due to illness or leave, it is not reallocated.
Reallocation Practices: Other services reschedule programming time later in the week, recognising that responsibilities remain.
Flexible Scheduling: Splitting programming time into smaller blocks across multiple days reduces the risk of losing it entirely.

Reallocation Practices

Other services take a more supportive approach. They recognise that programming responsibilities remain regardless of illness or leave, and therefore reallocate the non-contact time later in the week. This might mean:

Shifting the programming block to another day when the educator is present.
Offering additional hours the following week to make up for lost time.
Allowing flexibility, such as splitting programming time into shorter sessions across multiple days.

These practices acknowledge that programming is not optional — it is a core part of the educator’s role.

Should Educators Still Get the Time?

From a fairness and workload perspective, yes. The responsibility to program does not disappear when an educator is sick or on leave. Children’s learning continues, documentation requirements remain, and compliance obligations do not pause. If programming time is lost, educators often end up doing the work unpaid, contributing to stress and burnout.

Providing catch-up programming time:

Supports quality outcomes for children.
Reduces unpaid labour.
Demonstrates respect for educators’ professional responsibilities.

When Educators Do Not Receive Programming Time

Despite the Award entitlement, some educators report not being given programming time at all. This may occur due to:

Staffing shortages that make rostering non-contact time difficult.
Budget pressures leading services to prioritise ratios over programming.
Misinterpretation of the Award, with some managers unaware that programming time is a legal minimum.

In these cases, educators often end up completing programming outside paid hours, contributing to stress, burnout, and inequity.

Immediate Actions

Raise it with management: Calmly explain that programming responsibilities remain regardless of absence, and ask if the time can be reallocated later in the week.
Document the missed time: Keep a simple record of when programming hours are lost. This helps show patterns if it becomes a recurring issue.
Negotiate flexibility: Suggest splitting programming time into shorter blocks across different days, so it’s less likely to be lost entirely.

Professional Protections

Refer to the Award: The Children’s Services Award sets the minimum entitlement. While it doesn’t explicitly cover absences, you can argue that the intent is to ensure programming is done every week.
Centre policies: Check whether your service has internal guidelines about reallocation of non-contact time. Some centres have flexible arrangements written into their procedures.

Personal Strategies

Prioritise essentials: If time is lost, focus on the most urgent documentation first (observations, compliance records) and leave less critical tasks for later.
Collaborate with colleagues: Sometimes sharing programming tasks across the team can reduce the burden when hours are missed.
Avoid unpaid catch-up: It’s tempting to do programming at home, but this sets a precedent. Protect your boundaries by keeping programming within paid hours.

Regulatory & Quality Frameworks

National Quality Standard: Programming is a requirement under the NQS. If educators are consistently losing time, it can affect compliance with Quality Area 1 (Educational Program and Practice).
Approved provider obligations: Providers must ensure educators have the resources to meet their responsibilities. Raising the issue in terms of provider obligations can strengthen your case.

External Supports

Fair Work Ombudsman: They can clarify how the Award should be interpreted and whether reallocation is expected.
Professional associations: Groups like ACA or CELA often provide advice, templates, and advocacy support for educators dealing with Award entitlements.
Networking with peers: Sharing experiences across services can highlight common practices and give you leverage when suggesting improvements.

Compliance & Quality Considerations

Programming is essential for National Quality Standard compliance, especially Quality Area 1 (Educational Program and Practice).
Approved providers must ensure educators and ECTs have the resources to meet their obligations.
Consistently losing or denying programming time risks non-compliance and increases unpaid labour.

Sector Practices

Larger services or those with strong leadership cultures are more likely to reallocate programming time.
Smaller centres under financial or staffing pressure may not, leaving educators to catch up outside paid hours.
Professional associations (e.g., ACA, CELA) encourage supportive practices that preserve programming time.

Best Practice

Reallocate missed time to ensure fairness and compliance.
Document policies so staff know what happens if programming time is missed.
Guarantee access to programming time for all educators with programming responsibilities.
Support wellbeing by protecting programming time, reducing stress and burnout.

Formal Script: Requesting Programming Time Reallocation

Opening Statement

“Thank you for meeting with me. I’d like to raise an important issue regarding my programming time entitlement under the Children’s Services Award.”

Acknowledging the Entitlement

“As you know, the Award provides a minimum of two hours of non-contact programming time each week for educators responsible for planning and documentation. This time is essential for compliance with the National Quality Standard and for ensuring high-quality outcomes for children.”

Explaining the Problem

“In recent weeks, I have not received my allocated programming time due to [illness/approved leave/staffing shortages]. While I understand operational challenges, the programming responsibilities remain t}he same regardless of absence. Without this time, I am unable to complete documentation within paid hours, which risks non-compliance and places additional stress on staff.”

Proposing Solutions

“To address this, I’d like to suggest:

Reallocation of missed time later in the week.
Splitting programming time into shorter blocks across multiple days to reduce the risk of losing it.
Establishing a clear centre policy so programming time is not forfeited when educators are absent.”

Framing Compliance & Wellbeing

“Reallocating programming time is not just about fairness — it ensures we meet our obligations under the Award and the NQS, while also protecting staff wellbeing by reducing unpaid labour.”

Closing Statement

“I’d appreciate if we could review our current practice and adopt a consistent approach that guarantees programming time is preserved, even when absences occur. This will strengthen compliance, support educators, and ultimately benefit the children in our care.”

Educators and ECTs are entitled to a minimum of two hours programming time per week, with additional hours for Educational Leaders. While the Award does not specify what happens if time is missed due to illness or leave, best practice is to reallocate programming time. Services that fail to provide programming time altogether risk non-compliance and contribute to unpaid labour — making it critical that providers uphold this entitlement consistently.