New EYFS framework takes effect in England: what can Australia’s early childhood sector learn?

An updated Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework has come into effect in England, introducing clearer safer sleep requirements and strengthening several areas of safeguarding and workforce suitability.

The changes, introduced by England’s Department for Education and highlighted by Nursery World, became mandatory on 1 September 2026.

The EYFS establishes the learning, development, safeguarding and welfare standards that registered early years providers in England must meet. Separate versions apply to childminders and group and school-based providers.

Although the reforms do not apply in Australia, they offer a useful point of comparison as the Australian early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector implements strengthened child safety requirements and considers how regulation can provide clear, consistent protection for children.

Of particular interest is England’s decision to move detailed safer sleep expectations directly into the statutory framework, reducing the need for providers and educators to locate essential requirements across separate guidance documents.

The revised EYFS frameworks introduce changes across safer sleep, safeguarding, recruitment, workforce suitability and screen use.

The principal updates include:

• explicit safer sleep requirements within the statutory framework;
• a prohibition on providing registered childcare at premises where a legally banned dog breed is kept or present;
• a lower threshold for reporting allegations, changing the wording from “serious harm” to “harm”;
• enhanced criminal record checks for volunteers, including those who are supervised;
• a requirement that new employees do not commence before the necessary criminal record check has been received;
• clearer expectations about information staff must disclose if it may affect their suitability to work with children;
• a requirement for providers to have regard to government guidance on children’s screen use; and
• clarification of the Level 2 English requirements within the early years qualifications framework.

For childcare provided on domestic premises, the updated framework also strengthens notification requirements relating to people aged 16 years or older who live or work at the premises.

One of the most significant changes is the inclusion of detailed safer sleep requirements within the mandatory framework itself.

For children under two, the framework requires providers to ensure that children are placed on their backs in their own separate sleep space on a firm, flat surface.

Babies aged 12 months and under must only be placed to sleep in a cot. Under the English framework, this definition includes cots, carrycots, Moses baskets and travel cots. Floor beds, also known as coracles or sleep pods, do not meet the requirement for babies in this age group.

Sleep spaces must contain only a firm, flat and waterproof mattress with lightweight bedding tucked securely below the child’s shoulders. A correctly fitted baby sleeping bag may be used as an alternative, subject to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Cots must not contain additional items such as:

• pillows;
• toys;
• cot bumpers;
• extra blankets;
• wedges; or
• straps.

Children’s heads must remain uncovered, and the recommended room temperature for babies is between 16°C and 20°C.

Babies under six months must have an adult in the same room during every sleep. All sleeping children must be checked frequently and remain within the sight and hearing of staff.

The standards are not entirely new to safer sleep practice in England. The key change is that they are now expressed directly within the statutory framework, making the expectations more visible and enforceable.

For children, clearer statutory requirements should support greater consistency across early years settings.

A baby’s safety should not depend on which service they attend, which educator is present or whether a provider has successfully located and interpreted separate pieces of guidance.

The revised framework should help ensure that children are:

• placed to sleep in an appropriate position and environment;
• protected from loose bedding and other suffocation hazards;
• monitored throughout sleep and rest periods;
• cared for by staff who understand safer sleep practices;
• protected by stronger workforce screening and suitability processes; and
• supported through clearer safeguarding and reporting expectations.

The requirement for babies under six months to have an adult in the same room during every sleep is particularly notable. It recognises that sleep is not a passive routine during which supervision can be reduced.

Sleeping children remain dependent on adults to notice changes in their breathing, colour, position or overall wellbeing and to respond immediately when concerns arise.

For families, clearer statutory expectations may also provide greater confidence that safer sleep practices will be applied consistently across different educators and settings.

Australia already has significant sleep and rest requirements under the Education and Care Services National Law and Regulations.

Under regulations 84A, 84B and 84C, approved providers must:

• take reasonable steps to meet children’s individual sleep and rest needs;
• maintain sleep and rest policies and procedures;
• undertake a sleep and rest risk assessment at least every 12 months;
• complete a new assessment when circumstances arise that may affect children’s safety, health or wellbeing;
• consider children’s ages, developmental stages, health requirements and individual needs;
• address the safety and suitability of cots, bedding and sleep equipment;
• establish appropriate supervision and monitoring arrangements;
• determine the method and frequency of physical checks;
• document sleep and rest periods; and
• ensure staff understand and follow the service’s procedures.

Australia’s approach relies heavily on each provider undertaking a meaningful risk assessment and developing practices suited to its children, environment, staffing arrangements and operating model.

This provides flexibility, but it can also create variation when providers interpret requirements differently or do not clearly distinguish between legal obligations and recommended best practice.

Red Nose Australia identifies continuous supervision—where an educator can see and hear a sleeping infant or child at all times—as best practice, particularly for babies under 12 months and children with known risk factors for sudden unexpected death in infancy.

England’s reforms therefore raise an important question: should some high-consequence safety practices be stated more explicitly in Australia’s regulations?

England’s decision to move safer sleep expectations into its statutory framework highlights the value of regulatory accessibility.

Requirements are more likely to be implemented consistently when educators can find, understand and explain them without navigating numerous legislative provisions, regulator resources and external health guidance.

Australian providers must currently draw information from the National Law and Regulations, ACECQA guidance, recognised health advice, product safety standards and, in some cases, jurisdiction-specific material.

Each source has a valid role, but fragmented information can make it more difficult for services to understand precisely what is mandatory, what must be determined through risk assessment and what represents recommended best practice.

Regulatory clarity does not remove professional judgement. It gives educators a stronger foundation from which to exercise it.

Australia’s risk-based approach allows sleep and rest arrangements to respond to individual children and different service environments.

However, this flexibility depends on the quality of the risk assessment.

An annual review should not be treated as a generic template or an administrative document that is updated only by changing the date. It must reflect how sleep operates at the service, including:

• the location and visibility of sleep spaces;
• the ages and needs of children;
• the movement of educators during breaks;
• the number of children sleeping at different times;
• the method and frequency of physical checks;
• the ability to hear and respond to sleeping children;
• staffing changes and absences;
• the suitability and condition of equipment; and
• any health or developmental factors affecting individual children.

The assessment should also be reviewed whenever the environment, equipment, staffing model or needs of a child change.

The English framework expressly requires sleeping children to remain within sight and hearing of staff, with an adult in the same room as babies under six months.

Australia requires adequate supervision and monitoring, with the arrangements determined through the service’s risk assessment.

For Australian providers, the comparison creates an opportunity to consider whether their current arrangements provide genuine protection or simply produce a completed record.

A sleep check should meaningfully assess a child’s safety, health and wellbeing. Educators should be able to observe matters such as breathing, skin colour, body position, temperature and whether the child’s head and face remain uncovered.

A documented check is valuable, but the record is not the protective measure. The quality of the observation and the educator’s capacity to respond are what protect the child.

The reforms extend beyond physical sleep environments to staff screening, volunteer checks and ongoing suitability.

This reflects a broader understanding that children’s safety depends on both systems and people.

Policies cannot compensate for inadequate induction, limited training or a workplace culture in which educators do not feel confident raising concerns.

Australian services can use the English reforms as a prompt to examine whether safer sleep practices are consistently covered through:

• induction for new educators;
• orientation for casual and agency staff;
• practical training and observation;
• regular room-level discussion;
• supervision and performance processes;
• audits of equipment and practice; and
• communication with families.

Every educator responsible for sleeping children should understand not only what the service requires, but why each protective practice matters.

One challenge for ECEC services is understanding the difference between minimum legal compliance and evidence-informed best practice.

England has responded by placing more prescriptive expectations within its statutory framework.

Australia may choose to retain a more flexible, risk-based model. If so, providers and educators need clear guidance about which decisions remain within their professional judgement and which practices should be treated as a minimum safety baseline.

This is particularly important in areas involving continuous supervision, the frequency and quality of physical checks, family requests that differ from safer sleep recommendations and the use of equipment not designed for routine sleep.

The English framework should not be used as a substitute for Australian legislation or guidance.

Definitions of approved sleep equipment differ between countries, as do product safety standards, climatic conditions and regulatory structures.

For example, products included within England’s definition of a cot may be treated differently in Australia. Australian services must ensure cots and sleep equipment comply with applicable Australian requirements and follow local guidance from ACECQA, Red Nose Australia and relevant product safety authorities.

The lesson is not necessarily to reproduce every English rule. It is to consider whether Australia’s existing requirements are sufficiently clear, accessible and consistently understood.

The updated EYFS framework reflects a broader international movement towards more explicit and enforceable child safety standards.

For Australia, the reforms provide an opportunity to test the strength of existing practice rather than assume that current policies are sufficient.

Approved providers and service leaders may wish to ask:

• Can every educator explain the service’s safer sleep requirements?
• Are sleeping children continuously within sight and hearing wherever practicable?
• Do physical checks involve meaningful observation?
• Does the risk assessment reflect the service’s current environment and practice?
• Are family requests considered without compromising children’s safety?
• Are cots, mattresses and bedding suitable and compliant?
• Can staffing arrangements remain safe during breaks, absences and unexpected changes?
• Are casual educators, students and volunteers adequately inducted?
• Are lessons from incidents and near misses used to improve practice?

England’s reforms do not automatically mean Australia needs more regulation. They do, however, demonstrate the value of ensuring critical child safety expectations are visible, unambiguous and consistently applied.

The central lesson is that strong regulation should do more than require documentation. It should help every educator understand what safe practice looks like and support them to deliver it every day.

When babies and young children are sleeping, their safety remains an active responsibility.