These critical reflection questions invite educators to look beneath the surface. To interrogate not just what ratios are, but what they do. How they impact our ability to see every child, respond to every need, and show up as our full selves. It challenges us to name the invisible labor, the moral compromises, and the quiet grief that ratio pressures can bring—while also illuminating the courage, creativity, and collective wisdom that educators embody every day.

In early childhood education, trust and collaboration are foundational—not just for children, but for the adults who guide them. Yet across the sector, many educators report that unprofessional gossip among staff continues to undermine workplace culture, erode morale, and fracture team cohesion.

In early childhood education, care is our currency. We pour it into children, families, documentation, and compliance—but how often do we pause to ask, “R U OK?” to the person beside us? R U OK? Day isn’t just a date on the calendar—it’s a culture we cultivate. It’s a reminder that behind every ratio, roster, and regulation is a human heart doing its best. And sometimes, that heart needs to be asked, gently and genuinely, “How are you, really?”

In early childhood education and care, child safety is not just a number—it’s a practice. While educator-to-child ratios are essential, they are only one part of a broader obligation: ensuring adequate supervision at all times. Together, these two pillars—Regulation 122 and Section 165—form the foundation of safe, responsive, and compliant care.

In the NSW and VIC early childhood sector, safeguarding children and ensuring accountability in service operations are paramount. But what happens when a complaint—particularly one involving alleged harm to a child—is investigated by the Department of Education and deemed “inconclusive,” with no breach of law or regulation found? Can that decision be contested, and if so, how?

This article outlines the formal pathways available to services and individuals in NSW and VIC who seek to challenge departmental decisions, especially in cases where child safety concerns remain unresolved.

“I was watching the rain because it made me feel calm. I didn’t want to talk; I just wanted to listen to the drops.” This simple statement carries more than imagination—it holds intention, emotion, and agency.

This article is a call to shift the lens. To move from about to by. From adult narration to child-led storytelling. Because when children speak, they don’t just describe—they reveal.

In early childhood services across Australia, educators are often expected to stay beyond their rostered hours to complete tasks—cleaning, documentation, ratio coverage, or closing duties. But when this extra time goes unpaid, it’s not just unfair—it may be unlawful.

In early childhood education, two terms often surface in compliance conversations: active supervision and in ratio. While both are essential to child safety and regulatory integrity, they serve distinct purposes—and conflating them can lead to serious oversights in practice. Let’s unpack each concept, then explore how they play out in real-world settings.

A: Legally, yes—an educator is considered “in ratio” as long as they are physically present and supervising the required number of children according to the age-based ratios set by the National Quality Framework (NQF). But practically? That’s where the system starts to unravel.

With new child safety regulations having just come into effect, here’s a sector-responsive list of Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) priorities that services across Australia should consider updating immediately. These priorities align with the National Quality Standard (NQS), recent regulatory changes, and sector best practice.