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.

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.

Recent charges against two childcare workers in Western Sydney have reignited critical conversations about child safety, supervision practices, and compliance structures in early learning centers. On June 26, a 17-month-old child was allegedly assaulted twice in separate incidents on the same day—each involving a different educator—raising concerns about how such occurrences go undetected.

We’ve built a sector where “under the roof” staffing logic can mask supervision breakdowns. Where ratios are met on paper, but no one is actively watching. Where a child can be harmed twice in one day—and no one notices until it’s too late.

We need to stop pretending that minimum standards are enough. Because they’re not. Children deserve active supervision, not passive headcounts. Educators deserve clear protocols, not vague staffing models.

The following list of questions helps educators critically reflect on their supervision practices, ensuring a balance between safety, engagement, and autonomy.