In our push to capture every moment under the EYLF, many educators find themselves swamped by paperwork rather than immersed in play. Observation records, plans, reflections, assessments—they grow faster than we can connect with each child. When every anecdote demands multiple frameworks and sign-offs, learning narratives can lose their heart. In today’s landscape, dominated by the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), that balance has unraveled. The EYLF was meant to unify and elevate practice. Instead, we’ve watched it morph into an overwhelming checklist culture—where paperwork eclipses presence, and compliance overshadows connection. Somewhere along the way, a valuable framework was repurposed into a bureaucratic beast. So, educators, are we documenting learning or drowning in it?

Across Australia, regulated staffing ratios aim to safeguard children in early learning settings. However, a growing number of incidents reveal that meeting these minimum requirements on paper doesn’t always translate into active, vigilant supervision. Below are several case studies that illustrate how gaps can emerge—even when legal ratios are nominally met.

The “under the roof” rule allows childcare centres to meet staffing ratios by counting all educators on-site, regardless of whether they are physically present in rooms with children. This means a centre may appear compliant on paper, even if individual rooms are understaffed.While originally intended to offer flexibility, educators say it’s now being used to cut corners—leaving children without adequate supervision and educators stretched beyond capacity.

An opt-in intimate care waiver is a formal consent form offered by some early childhood education and care (ECEC) services that allows families to choose whether male educators can perform intimate care tasks—such as nappy changes, toileting, or dressing—for their child. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable compromise: empower families, protect children, and avoid blanket bans on male staff. But scratch beneath the surface, and a deeper question emerges: Are we quietly institutionalizing gender discrimination?