A new era for ECEC: From passive stakeholders to active architects of change

In recent times, the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector has quietly begun to reshape its relationship with policy and regulation. The shift is subtle but significant: rather than being the passive recipients of top‑down mandates or reactive critics, services, educators and leaders are increasingly dialoguing constructively with governments, contributing sector insight to critical reforms. This is not a turning point defined by protest or conflict, but one characterised by participation, consultation and co‑shaping.

 

This emerging posture matters, not only for the dignity and agency of the sector, but for the quality and sustainability of outcomes for children, families and communities.

 

Recent policy developments offer concrete examples of this evolving dynamic.

 

The national review underway for the CHC30121 Certificate III and CHC50121 Diploma in ECEC is explicitly inviting educator feedback through functional workshops, targeted submissions, and staged consultation. Rather than imposing a new curriculum from above, the review process is orienting itself to live practice, with voices from those who deliver care and education.

 

The Australian Government’s Child Safety Review under the National Quality Framework has opened consultation channels for approved providers, educators, volunteers and families. The subsequent Decision Regulation Impact Statement (DRIS) reflects sector‑informed refinements, including more nuanced regulation of educator conduct, information sharing, training mandates, working with children checks, and physical safety in services. 

 

At the federal level, the “National Children’s Education and Care Workforce Strategy” was co‑designed with sector stakeholders as a “living document.” These efforts signal a recognition that policy should be responsive to what the sector can realistically absorb and sustain.

 

Together, these examples mark a shift in tone and structure: from a posture of regulation over the sector, to one of regulation with the sector.

 

When educators and service leaders contribute to review and reform, policy is more likely to align with real conditions, resourcing, workforce capacity, diversity of settings, and local constraints. This reduces the implementation burden and avoids unintended consequences.

 

When policy is co‑designed, the sector’s ownership of reform is stronger. Rather than resisting changes perceived as externally imposed, services are more likely to engage proactively with new regulation, innovation and compliance.

 

A sector that is consulted respectfully builds trust with government, peaks, and community. This nurtures a virtuous cycle: governments are more willing to listen; the sector is more willing to engage.

 

Rather than relying on adversarial tactics, the sector gains leverage through evidence, data and reasoned input. Its interventions can be proactive, solution‑oriented, and framed in terms of system improvement, which tends to be more persuasive to policymakers.

 

To continue and deepen this shift, the ECEC sector must be intentional and strategic. Some essential ingredients include:

 

Cultivate informed participation

 

A meaningful voice depends first on knowledge. Educators and leaders must stay abreast of policy trajectories, reviews, regulatory proposals and research. Sector associations and peak bodies play a crucial role in translating dense policy language, summarising consultation windows, and coordinating collective responses.

 

Build capacity for constructive input

 

Not all service teams have experience writing submissions, analysing regulatory impact statements, or convening stakeholder workshops. Investing in training and mentoring (perhaps in partnership with universities or policy centres) will help practitioners convert practice insight into policy feedback.

 

Ensure inclusion and equity

 

Voices must be diverse, rural and remote services, community‑controlled services, culturally and linguistically diverse settings, small preschools, long day care, family day care, and First Nations early learning services. If consultation only reaches the well-resourced or urban providers, it risks reinforcing inequities.

 

Sustain contribution beyond the “window”

 

Too often, consultation periods are short and token. The sector must monitor implementation, provide feedback loops, suggest refinements, and track outcomes. Participation should be an ongoing relationship, not a one‑off opportunity.

 

Interface with peak, research and intermediary bodies

 

Not every provider can engage directly with the government. Peaks, professional associations, and policy intermediaries must continue aggregating sector views, surfacing local intelligence, and bridging between grassroots and government.

 

This is not a panacea. The government retains the final decision-making authority. Some reforms will still arrive in ways that feel abrupt or underfunded. Moreover, the sector must guard against consultation fatigue, repeated calls for feedback without evident follow-through will erode trust.

 

But the alternative, perpetual adversarial stances or disengagement,  is more damaging. A sector that holds only a reactive stance limits its influence and forfeits the opportunity to shape policy’s trajectory.

 

Imagine a future in which:

 

• ECEC services are embedded partners in national reform architects
• Policy is grounded in rich sector data (on workforce, outcomes, diversity)
• Educators are seen as credible knowledge holders whose voices matter
• Reform cycles include genuine co‑design, feedback phases, evaluation and revision

 

In such a future, regulation is not a “burden” but a shared scaffold, a framework shaped together, continuously improved, and ultimately better attuned to the needs of children, families and educators.

 

The sector is moving in that direction now. The question is whether it will step fully into its role as active architect, not just responder, of its future.