Safety, quality and the relationships in between

After more than forty years in early childhood education and care, I’ve seen and experienced many waves of reform move through our sector. I’ve seen accreditation introduced, the implementation of the National Quality Framework and Assessment & Rating against the National Quality Standard, curriculum frameworks evolve and become legislated, and expectations of educators’ increase over time. 

This has been accompanied by periods of excitement and periods of resistance. But I can honestly say that I have never seen anything quite like the current response to child safety. It goes without saying, of course, that children’s safety must always be non-negotiable. 

Overwhelmingly, we all want children to be safe, and we all support stronger systems that protect children from harm. Recent reviews and reforms have emerged in response to devastating incidents and systemic failures that have to come to light and demand action. 

This sense of urgency, fuelled by the media, has resulted in reactive and rapid-fire reforms that the sector has been tasked with navigating. However, alongside this urgency I see an uncomfortable question emerging: 

What happens when our response to child safety pulls educators away from children? 

This is the tension that educators are quietly talking about, because to loudly talk about it might mean the perception that they don’t see child safety as important, which of course they do! 

There is a burgeoning raft of policies, procedures, checklists, mandatory training, documentation expectations and compliance activities intended to strengthen safeguards, improve accountability and restore family and community confidence. My question is whether in our efforts to make children safer, could the unintended (or perhaps unconsidered) consequence be that educators spend more time proving safety than enacting it. 

The inherent danger in this is that child safety is not enacted through documents and policies, it is enacted through relationships. 

Educators need to know children deeply enough to recognise when something doesn’t feel right, for example when there are subtle changes in children’s behaviour. 

This comes from educators who have time to be present and attuned to children to build secure attachments.

Another question is emerging for me, and is becoming more and more evident:

Is quality quietly and slowly sliding off the agenda?

For years we fought hard as a sector to establish the importance of quality early childhood education and care. The National Quality Framework was never simply about keeping children safe. It recognised that quality includes relationships, curriculum, wellbeing, environments and responsive teaching. 

The goal was not solely about ensuring children’s safety, it was about promoting children’s holistic learning, development and wellbeing, built off the back of years of research and evidence from academics and educators much cleverer than me. 

However recently, it feels to me as though quality has become quieter in the conversation. It is of course possible to create safe, highly compliant services where every form is completed, checklists ticked diligently and policies and procedures followed. 

But if the consequence of this is that children experience little connection, little joy and limited opportunities for deep learning and educators who are stretched beyond capacity, then our endeavours to keep children safe may be compromising the very thing that we seek, children’s safety. 

Safety is multi-faceted and integrated; more than just protection from physical harm, it encompasses emotional, psychological, and relational safety. If children don’t feel relationally safe, they are less likely to disclose when they might be physically unsafe. 

In the current climate of child safety with reforms continuously coming down the pipeline, I’m hearing educators worry about getting child safety “wrong;” and am seeing an erosion of trust in their own professional judgement. 

This has a negative impact on professional autonomy, and professional autonomy matters. 

The work of early childhood education has always relied on thoughtful decision-making, critical reflection and responsiveness. Educators are attuned to individual contexts, children, families and colleagues, and adapt accordingly and responsively, drawing on their professional knowledge every day. 

Yet increasingly I hear educators questioning what they can and can’t do, whether they’re ‘allowed’ to do things, and what will happen to them if they get things ‘wrong.’ This kind of uncertainty changes the shape of practice as it narrows decision making and encourages, and sometimes even rewards, compliance over professional thinking. 

When educators become worried about making mistakes, they often move towards safer and more prescriptive practices. This means that they are less likely to take risks and to be creative in their thinking and approaches to practice, and more likely to be less confident in their skills and abilities. 

When educators no longer feel trusted as professionals, the consequences extend beyond practice and into workforce sustainability. Research consistently identifies workload, administrative burden and reduced professional agency as contributors to educator stress and burnout. 

Heavy workplace demands and increasing strain are already shaping educator experiences across the sector. Professional autonomy is not just a ‘nice to have’,  it’s a necessary tool to sustain educators in their work. Research also identifies that educators stay in positions when they feel valued, trusted and capable, and where they feel they can make meaningful decisions and use their expertise. 

When this is eroded, job satisfaction is impacted, and people who are unsatisfied with their jobs will inevitably leave or become unproductive, which is another potential contributor to the current challenges of workforce shortages.

There is no question that child safety reforms are necessary, and have been for some time. This is not a new issue, but it has become far more visible. That visibility has prompted fast-paced, reactive reforms. 

My concern is whether these reforms are being implemented in ways that strengthen relationships rather than replace them. Children do not experience safety through policies stored in folders; they experience it through people, relationships and everyday interactions. 

In fact, all of us do. For that reason, safety and quality must be given equal weight and careful attention. Without both, the safety agenda cannot be fully realised.

References

Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority. (2026). Guide to the National Quality Framework. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/Guide-to-the-NQF-260326.pdf

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (2025). Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework Final Report – Findings and recommendations for the NQF and inter-related child safety mechanisms 

Australian Government Department of Education (2025). Quality and Safety in ECEC Education Ministers meeting Communique

Jobs and Skills Australia. (2025). The future of the early childhood education profession: Extended report. Australian Government. https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-02/The%20Future%20of%20the%20Early%20Childhood%20Education%20Profession%20%E2%80%93%20Extended%20Report.pdf

National Foundation for Educational Research. (2020) New study suggests teacher autonomy over their professional development is strongly linked with job satisfaction and retention. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/press-releases/new-study-suggests-teacher-autonomy-over-their-professional-development-is-strongly-linked-with-job-satisfaction-and-retention/