Education Minister Jess Walsh has announced today that the government is banning the unsafe business practice of misuse of “under-the-roofline” ratios. For many educators, this statement feels like a long-awaited victory. Yet the choice of wording — misuse — leaves room for interpretation, and that ambiguity deserves closer scrutiny.

At the end of 2026, the early childhood sector is still waiting for ratio reform. Despite years of advocacy, despite mounting evidence, and despite repeated calls from educators, families, and sector leaders, ratios remain unchanged. Everything else seems to be happening—new frameworks, reporting requirements, compliance checks—but the most fundamental safeguard, the number of adults available to protect and nurture children, is still overlooked.

As 2026 winds down, educators across Australia are asking the same question they’ve been asking all year: Why haven’t ratios been addressed?

Despite months of advocacy, countless submissions, and direct feedback from the floor, the issue remains untouched. Ratios, the single most urgent concern raised by educators, have been sidelined in favour of training modules, registers, and compliance tweaks.

Yes, we’ve seen movement in workforce pay, child safety training, and regulation. But the one thing that determines whether educators can actually keep children safe, supported, and emotionally secure—staffing ratios and group sizes is still being tiptoed around.

To Decision-Makers in Education and Care,

I write to you as an educator and advocate for the safety and well-being of children and staff in early childhood education.

Educator ratios must be upheld at all times, including during care tasks unless supervision is compromised, in which case coverage is legally required. Here’s a guide to help educators understand their rights and responsibilities around ratios and supervision, with more examples and direct links to authoritative sources.

In early childhood education, ratios are more than numbers. They are the heartbeat of safety, connection, and quality care. Yet across Australia, educators are sounding the alarm: current ratios are failing both children and staff. The sector is bleeding talent, and the emotional toll is mounting. It’s time to reform ratios—not just to meet minimum standards, but to honour the dignity of every child and the well-being of every educator.

In the wake of child abuse allegations and the rollout of policies like Four Eyes, early childhood educators are being asked to be more present, more vigilant, and more accountable. But presence alone is not enough. True safeguarding requires witnessing—not just watching. To witness is to be emotionally attuned, relationally responsive, and ethically grounded. It means seeing the child not as a subject of supervision, but as a whole person—worthy of affirmation, protection, and care.

Education Ministers have made safeguarding practices a national priority. As part of this, they’ve asked ACECQA to conduct a rapid assessment of how educator-to-child ratios are being applied in practice under the National Quality Framework.

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.