Childcare centres may have clear rules for staff numbers, but there are loopholes to get around them

There is a growing number of “serious incidents” in Australian early childhood services, including day cares.

A serious incident is one that seriously compromises the health, safety or wellbeing of a child. There were 160 such incidents per 100 services in 2024–25. This is up from 148 and 139 in the previous two years.

These figures follow explosive revelations of safety issues and abuse in the sector.

In response, there are several new national child safety measures. These include banning personal phones in early childhood services, improving recruitment, and making sure parents can see a service’s compliance history.

But one key area has not received the attention it needs. This is educator-to-child ratios.

How are ratios supposed to work?

Ratios are presented as a simple numerical safeguard to ensure enough qualified educators are present and working directly with children.

These can differ between states and territories, the type of service and the age of the children. However, for children aged under 24 months at daycare, there needs to be one educator for every four children. As children get older, the ratios change. For example, in New South Wales for children over 36 months, it is 1:10.

Tammy Williams’ recent PhD research interviewed 16 early childhood educators about their workplaces, which were a mix of for-profit services. Some were small, standalone services; others were part of large corporate chains.

They reported how ratios operate in practice can be very different from how they look on paper. This raises serious questions about how safe the system really is.

‘Under-the-roof’ ratios

The “under-the-roof” ratio is a common term in early learning services. Some services use this to calculate ratios based on the total number of children and educators across the building, rather than within each child’s regular room.

For example, an educator might have 12 children in their room instead of the regulated 1:10. But the room next door might have just eight, so on average, the ratio is met in theory. In the PhD study, one educator said:

There are times when you have two or three children over in your room, but they fit in another room, which I don’t understand. It puts so much more stress on the people in that room. I don’t even get why that is allowed.

Or educators might still be counted if they are having a break. This can be permitted in certain situations under some state regulations if the break is short and the educator is still in the same service as the children.

But media reports suggest this is overused by some services. Staff may also be counted when they are working in the office, or cleaning elsewhere in the service. Other staff, such as chefs and might also be included in the official count, even though this isn’t permitted.

As another educator noted:

Ratios, half the time, are not right […]

What are the rules?

Despite its widespread use, the term “under the roof” does not appear in the national laws or regulations. They clearly state staff counted in the ratios must be “working directly” with the children, and they must be “educators”.

So there is a mismatch between the law and how it is applied in practice. Regulators are increasing their inspections – including more unannounced visits. But regulators are also understaffed and services can go years between inspections. For planned inspections, services can “put on an act”, as one educator described.

‘There is a lot of stress’

When educators are stretched, this obviously limits their ability to provide safe, high quality education and care. In the PhD study, one educator also described how not having enough staff can lead to stress, which can flow on to the children.

I feel there is a lot of stress and […] they’re going to pick up on that and they’re going to feel it as well. I feel they miss out on things because there’s so much stuff that educators need to do.

If educators are too busy, it can also interfere with children’s relationships with educators and disrupt their daily routines and sense of security.

Despite Australia needing another 21,000 educators, educators constantly report wanting to leave, because of burnout and workplace conditions. As one interviewee explained:

The people who are passionate about being here are very, very passionate and they’re getting tired. They’re looking at moving into retail positions and cleaning positions.

What happens now?

Some flexibility when using ratios helps services adapt to unexpected day-to-day changes such as sick leave. However, the research suggests some services are using loopholes as a standard way of operating, rather than for emergencies. This leaves children at risk, without adequate supervision.

The following ideas are based on recommendations from the Productivity Commission, other studies and our research:

1. Increase staffing ratios to accommodate daily realities. These include child illness, breaks, hygiene and additional educational needs. The Productivity Commission has suggested 1:3 for babies, and we recommend 1:4 for toddlers and 1:8 for ages three to five. There also needs to be a “floater” – an educator who covers breaks and staff shortages.

2. Create funded cleaning and administrative positions. This would improve educators’ status and job satisfacton, allowing them to use their training to educate and care for children.

3. Tighten the rules. Make sure staffing rules reflect the rooms in which children belong, including only those staff actively working with the children.

Policymakers and the community rightly expect services to strengthen safety. But unchanged ratios leave educators responsible for delivering more under the same minimum staffing rules. This can lead to educator burnout and attrition. Educators need real support to ensure they are in turn, supporting children and families.