Q: Can I, As an Educator, Refuse to Work Alone?

In early childhood education across Australia, the question of whether educators can refuse to work alone is no longer hypothetical—it’s urgent. With rising behavioural complexities, mounting workloads, and increasing safety concerns, educators are asking, "Do I have the right to say no?" The answer is layered, but powerful: Yes, you do have a leg to stand on. And it’s time we stood together.

What the Regulations Say

While the National Law doesn’t explicitly prohibit solo staffing, several key provisions offer protection:

1. Section 165 – Inadequate Supervision

Services must ensure children are adequately supervised at all times. If being alone compromises your ability to monitor, respond, or de-escalate behaviours safely, it may constitute a breach.

2. Section 167 – Protection from Harm and Hazards

Educators must take every reasonable precaution to protect children. If solo staffing increases risk—whether physical, emotional, or relational—it’s non-compliant.

3. Regulation 123 – Educator-to-Child Ratios

Ratios must be maintained at all times. If you're pulled into crisis management, documentation, or cleaning while alone, ratios may be breached.

4. Regulation 122 – Direct Engagement

Only educators working directly with children count toward ratios. If you're managing behaviours solo and unable to engage meaningfully, the service may be operating outside the law.

Can You Refuse? Yes—Here’s How

Refusing to work alone isn’t insubordination. It’s advocacy. It’s safeguarding. It’s leadership.

Document the Risk

• Keep a log of incidents, behaviours, and times you were left alone. Note how it impacted supervision, safety, and your ability to meet EYLF outcomes.

Request a Risk Assessment

• Services are required to assess and mitigate risks. You can formally request an assessment of solo staffing practices.

Use Regulatory Language

• Frame your concerns using the National Law: “inadequate supervision,” “risk of harm,” “non-compliance with Regulation 123.”

Seek Collective Support

• Raise the issue in team meetings, professional networks, or union forums. Collective voices carry weight.

Propose Trauma-Informed Staffing Policies

• Advocate for policies that adapt ratios and support structures when high-risk behaviours are present.

What Regulatory Language Examples You Can Use

Supervision and Safety

• “This staffing arrangement may constitute inadequate supervision under Section 165 of the National Law.”
• “Being left alone compromises my ability to maintain active, responsive supervision in line with Regulation 84.”
• “The current practice does not meet the requirement to take every reasonable precaution to protect children from harm or hazard (Section 167).”

Ratio and Staffing Compliance

• “Solo staffing during high-risk periods may breach Regulation 123, which mandates educator-to-child ratios be maintained at all times.”
• “Under Regulation 122, educators must be working directly with children to be counted in ratios. When I’m managing behaviours alone, this is not achievable.”
• “The service may be operating outside compliance if ratios are not adjusted to reflect behavioural risk and supervision needs.”

Duty of Care and Risk Management

• “This situation presents a foreseeable risk to both children and educators, and requires a formal risk assessment under Regulation 168(2)(g).”
• “I am requesting a review of staffing policies to ensure alignment with trauma-informed practice and relational safety obligations.”
• “The current arrangement may not meet the service’s duty of care under common law and sector best practice.”

Workplace Health and Safety

• “Repeated solo exposure to high-risk behaviours may breach Work Health and Safety obligations, particularly regarding psychological safety.”
• “I am raising this as a workplace hazard requiring mitigation under WHS legislation.”

How to Use These Phrases

You can embed these into:

• Incident reports: “This incident highlights inadequate supervision under Section 165…”
• Formal memos or emails: “I am requesting a staffing review due to potential breaches of Regulation 123…”
• Team meeting notes: “We need to discuss how solo staffing aligns with our obligations under Section 167…”
• Advocacy letters: “Educators are being left alone in breach of supervision and safety requirements…”

You are not alone in feeling alone. And that irony is exactly why this conversation must shift—from individual coping to systemic accountability.

You have the right to say, “I will not be left alone.” Not because you’re unwilling. But because you’re protecting what matters most—children, connection, and care.

Reference:
National Law and Regulations