Would better ratios fix the whole workload

I want to ask a question that might make some of us uncomfortable. If we reduced the number of children per educator tomorrow, what would still be making the job impossible to get through?

I started thinking about this while reading about the Big Steps campaign and the push for better educator-to-child ratios. My first thought was, what if ratios aren't the whole problem? What if we also need to look properly at everything we expect an educator to do while they are responsible for those children?

The campaign deserves to be represented fairly. United Workers Union's published demands extend to additional tasks such as cleaning and stronger inclusion staffing. There is more to its position than a change to the numbers. [1] That makes me want to take the workload part of this conversation further, right into the everyday decisions made within services.

What is an educator there to do

When I think about the purpose of an educator, I think about children's safety, health, wellbeing, learning and development. I think about knowing the child well enough to notice when something has changed, being available when they need help, and having the time to follow their thinking somewhere interesting.

Planning and meaningful documentation belong in that work. So do professional accountability and the practical care children need. Loving working with children does not mean expecting a job without responsibility. But how much can we keep adding before the expectations compete with the very work we employed someone to do?

Adequate staffing matters. ACECQA explains that minimum ratios alone do not establish adequate supervision, and that a service may need staffing above those minimums to meet children's needs safely. [2] Simplifying paperwork cannot make an unsafe staffing arrangement acceptable. Equally, adding an educator does not automatically remove an unnecessary process.

I recorded the same cleaning information three times

I was once registered with a service that required a cleaning document to stay in my files in case an authorised officer visited. I also had to complete a separate document containing the same information to submit to the office.

Then the service began experimenting with digital documentation. I was required to complete that version as well. All three remained part of my workload.

The documents had slightly different wording and slightly different explanations of why they were needed. The underlying information I was recording was the same. I had done the cleaning, but I still had three places to write about it.

I understand why a service needs reliable records. What I question is why each destination needed me to create another version. Could one properly designed record have met those needs? When the digital system arrived, what was it supposed to replace?

These are questions I would like every service introducing a new form or platform to answer before asking educators to use it.

Good enough to share but still another form to complete

At another service, there were numerous learning documents to complete for additional service requirements. I designed my documentation around what I understood those requirements and ACECQA's expectations to be, while also making it work with my processing capabilities and needs.

The coordinator praised the documentation. It was shared with other educators in the service. Yet I was still told I needed to complete the service's prescribed forms. If I chose to keep using my own documentation, I would need to do both. No missing information was identified to me; the requirement was to use their proforma as well.

A shared template can be useful. People need to find essential information and understand each other's records. But if an alternative is valued enough to share, surely we can examine whether it fulfils the purpose before requiring another version. Different people process information differently. A usable documentation system should take that seriously.

What does ACECQA actually ask for

ACECQA's guidance explains that assessments and evaluations of children's learning must be documented. It also says the National Law and Regulations do not prescribe the amount or method of educational documentation. [3]

Its guidance for providers questions observation quotas, inflexible templates and requiring photographs for every piece of child documentation. It recommends adequate non-contact time for documenting and planning. [4]

That is worth taking into a team meeting. Which expectations come from a regulatory requirement? Which come from a provider's decision? Which are habits nobody has revisited? The distinction matters because it tells us who can change them.

This guidance concerns educational documentation. We cannot assume that the same flexibility applies to every safety record. We can still ask whether information is being entered repeatedly and whether each version serves a necessary purpose.

International evidence also gives us reason to examine the whole workload. The OECD's TALIS Starting Strong 2024 findings identify simultaneous tasks, administrative work and documentation workload as frequently reported sources of stress across participating systems. These are international findings, not an Australian prevalence estimate. The report also recognises the value of documenting children's development and the importance of allocating time for it. [5]

Safe sleep is a useful place to ask better questions

Children's safety during sleep needs careful attention. ACECQA's guidance identifies requirements for sleep and rest policies, risk assessments, monitoring and documentation. [6] A risk assessment, a procedure and a record of what happened each have different jobs. Having all three is not, by itself, duplication.

The question is what happens to the information after it is recorded. If an educator enters the same sleep information on paper, in an app and again for an internal report, what does each transfer achieve? That is an example to investigate, rather than an assumption about every service.

Who needs to use the record during care? What do families need to know? What must be retained or made available for review? Does someone actually require a separate submission, or could they access an appropriate version of the original record?

The format needs to work for the educator using it in the moment and for its legitimate later uses. Any redesign must preserve required information, privacy and reliable access. It must also support the actual supervision and checks; completing a record cannot substitute for doing them.

Photographs deserve the same thought. ACECQA asks providers to consider children's rights, privacy and engagement when using images for documentation. [4] Before expecting another photograph, I want us to ask what it contributes to understanding the child's learning and whether it is necessary.

Practical help belongs in the staffing conversation

I have been pleased to see services advertising dedicated administration positions. I would also like to see centres properly resource daily cleaning with a dedicated person whose job is to clean the service.

Educators will always respond to immediate hygiene needs while caring for children. My question is why responsibility for the wider cleaning workload should routinely sit with people who are also expected to be available to children. Cleaning is essential work and deserves appropriate staffing and time of its own.

Family day care needs its own consideration too. As a hypothetical example, moving from four paid preschool-age places to three would remove a quarter of the revenue from those places if hours and fees were equal, before expenses or compensating funding. I am not presenting that as a Big Steps proposal. It illustrates why changes across different settings need careful consideration of child safety, educator workload and financial viability together.

What could your service change now

I want government to account for the practical consequences of new requirements, including the resources needed to implement them. I also want providers to examine the work they add themselves. We can pursue safer staffing while asking those questions today.

Take one documentation process to your next team discussion. Bring the actual forms. Identify what each is for, who needs the information and where it has already been recorded. Ask whether a second version captures anything different or simply asks for the same information in different words.

Then involve the person who can authorise a change. Educators need a decision and practical support to implement it, rather than another reflection task that leaves the workload untouched.

I have created a short companion download, Documentation Review: What Can We Simplify?, to help you work through one process and agree on one change. Start with something manageable. Check the requirements, protect the records you need to keep, and come back to see whether the change helped.

Download the free Documentation Review checklist - https://educatorswell.com.au/downloads/tew-documentation-review.pdf

At The Educators Well, this is part of what wellbeing first means to me: taking a serious look at the conditions in which we ask people to work.

If we want educators to have more time for children, what are we prepared to take off their workload?

The Educators Well | Rachel Smith

Sources

[1] United Workers Union. ECEC Ending Understaffing.

[2] ACECQA. Supervision requirements under the NQF.

[3] ACECQA. Educational program documentation for educators and teachers.

[4] ACECQA. Educational program documentation for approved providers.

[5] OECD (2025). Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024, chapter 8, Retaining early childhood education and care staff.

[6] ACECQA. Sleep and rest legislative requirements.

Sources checked 4 October 2026.