What $10‑a‑Day Childcare Could Mean for Educators, Ratios, and Quality Practice

The idea of $10‑a‑day childcare sounds appealing, especially for families struggling with the cost of living. But a new report commissioned by the Australian Childcare Alliance (ACA) warns that the funding model behind this proposal could have serious consequences for educators, staffing levels, and the quality of early learning.

This article breaks down what the report is saying in a way that’s clear, practical, and relevant to the people who feel these changes first: educators.

Why Australian Childcare Alliance Is Concerned

The ACA’s report, prepared by dandolopartners, examines the potential shift toward supply‑side funding, a model where the government pays services directly, rather than subsidising families.

The concern is simple:

If funding is set too low, centres will only be able to afford the bare minimum.

This has already happened in aged care, where supply‑side funding led to:

• reduced staffing
• lower quality
• prioritising “low‑needs” residents
• limited investment in facilities

The ACA warns that early childhood could face the same fate.

What This Means for Educators

1. Staffing Levels Could Drop

Some centres currently choose to roster above ratio because it’s safer, calmer, and better for children.

Under a low‑funding model, services may no longer be able to afford:

• extra educators
• floaters
• dedicated support for children with additional needs
• non‑contact time
• mentoring and professional development

This would increase more pressure on educators and reduce the quality of interactions.

2. Ratios Could Become the Ceiling, Not the Floor

Right now, ratios are the minimum—not the goal.

But if funding only covers the minimum, centres may be forced to:

• operate at ratio all day
• reduce flexibility
• cut back on support roles
• limit small‑group learning
• rely more heavily on under‑roof ratios

This directly affects safety, supervision, and educator well-being.

3. Quality Practice Could Be Compromised

The report warns that if funding doesn’t reflect the real cost of high‑quality care, services may have to cut:

• incursions and excursions
• high‑quality resources
• specialist programs
• environmental upgrades
• additional staffing for transitions, rest time, and outdoor play

These “extras” are often what make early learning rich, meaningful, and responsive.

What This Means for Centres

1. Financial Viability Could Be at Risk

If funding is too low, some centers—especially small, regional, or community‑based services—may struggle to stay open.

2. New Centre Development Could Slow Down

Investors and providers may hesitate to build new centres if the funding model is uncertain or insufficient.

3. Inclusion Could Be Impacted

The report highlights a major risk:

Supply‑side funding may incentivise centres to prioritise children with lower needs.

This is already happening in aged care, where residents who require more support are seen as “costly.”

ECEC cannot afford to repeat this pattern.

Why the ACA Is Calling for Caution

The ACA, along with many sector leaders, is not opposed to reform. In fact, they agree that:

• childcare must be affordable
• families need relief
• the system needs improvement

But they argue that:

• rushing major funding changes is risky
• supply‑side funding is complex and slow to implement
• families need support now, not years from now
• quality must not be sacrificed for affordability

They support the Productivity Commission’s recommendation for a gradual, evidence‑based approach.

What Educators Should Take Away

This report is not about resisting change it’s about ensuring the right change happens.

For educators, the key messages are:

• Staffing matters.
• Ratios matter.
• Quality practice depends on adequate funding.
• Children with higher needs must not be disadvantaged.
• The sector must avoid repeating aged care’s mistakes.

Your voice is important in this conversation. The people who understand the realities of ratios, staffing, and daily practice are the ones who can speak most clearly about what children truly need.

The Bottom Line

$10‑a‑day childcare sounds simple.
But the funding model behind it is not.

If implemented poorly, it could:

• reduce staffing
• increase pressure on educators
• limit inclusion
• lower quality
• destabilise centres

Affordability matters, but not at the cost of safety, quality, or educator well-being.

The ACA’s message is clear: Let’s make childcare more affordable, but let’s do it in a way that protects the people and practices that make early learning meaningful.

Further Reading 

Federal Budget 2025—$5 Billion Investment In Universal ECEC, Permanent Free TAFE, and Cutting Student Debt
Preschool Enrollment Is Declining, Prompting Calls For Universal Free Childcare