TL;DR

The gender pay gap in education is not primarily caused by unequal pay for equal work. Most schools already operate under transparent salary scales and enterprise agreements.

Instead, the gap is driven by who occupies the highest leadership roles within the organisation. Even small differences in representation at the top of the hierarchy can produce a measurable gender pay gap.

Closing the remaining gap will therefore depend less on payroll adjustments and more on leadership pipelines, role design, and on how schools support women in moving into senior positions.

At the current pace of change, achieving full parity could still take more than a decade.

What is driving the gender pay gap in education?

On 3 March 2026, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency released its latest national report on the gender pay gap across Australian industries.

For the education sector, the numbers are striking.

The mid-point gender pay gap in education sits at 7.2 per cent, well below the national benchmark of 11.2 per cent. At first glance, this suggests the sector is performing relatively well. Compared with finance, construction, or mining, schools appear far closer to pay equity.

Yet the report also reveals something more subtle.

Even in a sector where 67 per cent of the workforce is female, a gender pay gap persists. And if progress continues at the current rate, it could take another decade or more to reach full parity.

The data, therefore, raises an uncomfortable but necessary question for school leaders and governors.

If salary structures are already relatively fair, what is actually driving the gender pay gap in education?

The Gender Pay Gap Data for Education

The latest WGEA report provides several important insights into the gender pay gap within the education sector.

First, education remains a female-dominated workforce. Women make up around 67 per cent of employees across the sector.

However, when the workforce is analysed by remuneration level, the distribution shifts slightly.

Women represent 59 per cent of the highest-earning quartile.

This difference may appear small, but it matters.

The average remuneration for the upper quartile in education is approximately $189,000, compared with roughly $74,000 in the lowest quartile. When earnings vary this widely, even modest differences in representation at the top of the organisation can influence the overall gender pay gap.

Another finding from the report deserves attention.

Across all industries, 54.8 per cent of employers reduced their gender pay gap over the past year. In education, the figure is slightly lower at 49.7 per cent.

In other words, more education employers saw their gender pay gap widen than shrink during the past reporting period.

This does not necessarily indicate that schools are becoming less equitable. In fact, it highlights something deeper about how the gender pay gap operates in sectors with structured pay systems.

Schools already exhibit many of the conditions other industries are striving to achieve. Salary bands are transparent. Enterprise agreements determine teacher pay. Large discretionary bonuses are rare.

Yet the gender pay gap still exists.

Which suggests the remaining drivers lie somewhere beyond payroll.

Why the Gender Pay Gap Persists in Female-Dominated Sectors

The gender pay gap does not measure equal pay for equal work. It measures the difference between the average earnings of men and women across an entire organisation.

This means the gap is largely shaped by role distribution rather than salary policy.

Within the highest-earning quartile of a school system, a variety of roles are found. Principals, deputy principals, heads of school, business managers, and experienced leaders all occupy this space. These positions carry different levels of authority and remuneration, even though they fall within the same quartile.

When one gender becomes slightly more concentrated in the very highest positions, the effect cascades through the organisation’s average earnings.

This is why the gender pay gap can persist even in sectors where women make up the majority of employees.

It is not primarily a pay structure issue.

It is a hierarchy issue.

And hierarchies tend to evolve slowly.

Leadership pathways develop over decades. Promotions occur incrementally. Institutional expectations about leadership roles change gradually rather than overnight.

The final few percentage points of the gender pay gap are therefore often the hardest to close.

Understanding the Leadership Pipeline Behind the Gender Pay Gap

If the gender pay gap in education is structural rather than financial, the next question becomes more complex.

Why might fewer women progress into the highest leadership roles?

The answer is rarely singular.

For many educators, the most demanding years of leadership progression coincide with the most intense family responsibilities. Many women remain the primary caregivers within their households, which can shape decisions about workload, travel, and availability for senior leadership positions.

Leadership roles in schools are also often designed around traditional expectations of presence and time. Long onsite hours, extensive evening commitments, and limited flexibility can make some positions difficult to combine with family responsibilities.

There are also cultural factors at play. Research consistently shows that men are more likely to apply for senior roles when they meet only part of the criteria, while women are more likely to wait until they feel fully prepared. This difference in application behaviour can quietly shape leadership pipelines over time.

None of these dynamics is unique to education, but they interact in particular ways within schools.

Understanding the gender pay gap, therefore, requires looking beyond salary scales and examining the broader architecture of leadership itself.

Structural Barriers Often Hide in Plain Sight

Sometimes the forces shaping the gender pay gap are surprisingly practical.

One widely cited example comes from Coles Group.

When the company examined its leadership pipeline, it discovered that men dominated the Store Manager roles. At first glance, this appeared to be a typical representation issue.

But a deeper analysis revealed something more subtle.

The most common pathway to becoming a Store Manager was first managing the Fruit and Vegetable department. That department required extremely early start times, often beginning well before dawn.

For many employees, this posed no issue. But for others, particularly those with primary caregiving responsibilities, those hours created a significant barrier.

In effect, the prerequisite role unintentionally filtered out a large portion of potential female candidates before they ever reached the leadership pipeline.

Rather than treating the gender pay gap as a pay problem, Coles treated it as a pipeline design problem.

The company re-examined the prerequisites for store leadership and created the Store Manager Accelerator Program, opening new development pathways that did not depend on a single operational role.

The lesson is instructive.

Sometimes organisations do not need to change pay structures to influence the gender pay gap. They need to examine the hidden assumptions embedded in career progression pathways.

Rethinking Leadership Pathways to Close the Gender Pay Gap

If leadership pipelines ultimately shape the gender pay gap, then addressing it requires more than incremental policy adjustments.

It invites schools to think creatively about how leadership roles are designed and supported.

One possibility is reconsidering how presence and productivity are defined in leadership positions. Hybrid work arrangements, even in senior roles, may allow experienced educators to remain in leadership pathways without sacrificing family responsibilities. Strategic use of remote work, administrative flexibility, and carefully structured onsite schedules could enable more leaders to participate fully in senior roles.

Another opportunity lies in how schools cultivate aspiring leaders. Leadership development often occurs informally through experience rather than through structured preparation. More deliberate investment in leadership training for early and mid-career female educators may strengthen the pipeline of candidates who feel ready to step into senior roles.

Encouragement also matters. Many talented educators underestimate their readiness for leadership positions. Explicit invitations to apply, mentorship from experienced leaders, and visible examples of successful female leadership can help shift these perceptions.

Even subtle changes in role design can influence participation. Leadership positions that allow for shared responsibilities, flexible hours, or staged transitions into senior roles may open pathways that were previously difficult to navigate.

None of these ideas is radical on its own. Yet together they challenge an assumption that often sits quietly beneath organisational structures.

The assumption that leadership must look the way it always has.

The Strategic Question for School Governors

The WGEA report does not simply highlight the existence of a gender pay gap. It offers a lens for examining how leadership develops within institutions.

For school boards and governors, this presents an important strategic question.

Are our leadership structures designed to enable the full range of talent within our workforce to progress?

Or are they unintentionally shaped around patterns that emerged in a different era?

The education sector has already made significant progress toward pay equity. Compared with many industries, the gender pay gap in schools is relatively small.

But the remaining gap tells a story about leadership itself.

At the current pace of change, parity may still be a decade away.

This suggests the most important work ahead may not lie in adjusting pay structures at all.

It may lie in reimagining how leadership pathways are designed, supported, and encouraged within our schools.

Because the gender pay gap is often less about what people are paid.

And more about who can lead.