Ratios back in focus as international data prompts questions about staffing, safety and quality

Educator-to-child ratios have long been one of the most closely watched measures of quality and safety in early childhood education and care (ECEC), but growing workforce pressure, child safety concerns and increasing complexity in children’s needs are prompting renewed discussion about whether minimum staffing requirements remain enough to support contemporary practice.

New data released by the First Five Years Fund (FFYF) in the United States has highlighted the central role adult-to-child ratios play in supporting supervision, responsive relationships and quality early learning environments.

The FFYF analysis notes that caring for infants, toddlers and preschoolers is labour-intensive, with younger children requiring more individualised care due to their reliance on adults for feeding, toileting, supervision, emotional support and daily routines.

While the data relates to the US system, where ratios are set at state level and vary by age group and care setting, the findings are highly relevant to Australia, where staffing ratios sit at the heart of the National Quality Framework and remain a key consideration for providers, educators, regulators and families.

What the US data shows

The FFYF report reinforces that ratios are not simply an administrative or licensing requirement.

Instead, they are closely connected to children’s safety, learning, development and access to consistent, responsive care during the years of fastest brain development.

The report also highlights that ratios generally become more flexible as children grow older and more independent, while infants and toddlers require the lowest ratios because of the intensity of care involved.

In the US, ratios vary across states because child care licensing is determined at state level. Providers receiving funding through the Child Care and Development Fund are required to comply with the ratios set by their state.

This differs from Australia, where nationally consistent ratio requirements apply under the National Quality Framework, although some differences remain between jurisdictions for certain age groups.

How Australia compares

In Australia, minimum educator-to-child ratios are generally:

• 1 educator to 4 children from birth to 24 months
• 1 educator to 5 children for children over 24 months and less than 36 months in most jurisdictions
• 1 educator to 4 children for children over 24 months and less than 36 months in Victoria
• 1 educator to 11 children for preschool-age children in several jurisdictions
• 1 educator to 10 preschool-age children in New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania
• 1 educator to 15 children for over preschool-age children in most jurisdictions

These ratios compare relatively strongly with many international systems, particularly for infants and toddlers.

For example, Finland is often cited as having one of the stronger early childhood staffing models, with OECD material noting a ratio of one trained adult to four children under three years of age, and one trained adult to seven children over three years of age in early childhood education and care settings.

Australia’s birth-to-24-month ratio of 1:4 is broadly comparable with Finland’s under-three ratio, although Victoria’s 1:4 ratio for children over 24 months and less than 36 months is stronger than the national 1:5 requirement in most other Australian jurisdictions.

International examples show wide variation

International comparisons are not always straightforward because countries define age groups, qualification requirements, assistant roles, service types and group sizes differently.

However, OECD analysis has found that child-to-staff ratios in early childhood services differ considerably across countries.

In early childhood educational development services, the OECD has reported an average of nine children for every teacher across OECD countries, ranging from three children per teacher in Iceland to 29 children per teacher in the United Kingdom.

At pre-primary level, OECD analysis has also identified countries such as Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, New Zealand and Slovenia as having fewer than 10 children per teacher, while some other jurisdictions report ratios of 20 or more children per teacher.

These figures suggest that Australia sits comparatively well on infant and toddler ratios, but the broader policy question remains whether minimum ratios remain sufficient in the context of modern expectations around supervision, inclusion, educator wellbeing and child safety.

More than a compliance requirement

For Australian providers, ratios are often discussed through a compliance lens.

However, many sector leaders argue that ratios should also be understood as a quality, safety and workforce measure.

For educators working directly with children, daily practice extends well beyond supervision alone.

Supporting children’s learning, managing routines, building relationships with families, documenting learning, responding to behaviour, facilitating inclusion and meeting regulatory obligations all compete for educators’ time and attention throughout the day.

As a result, some stakeholders are questioning whether minimum ratios always translate into optimal conditions for children, educators and services.

Child safety has changed the conversation

Discussions about staffing levels have taken on additional significance following heightened national attention on child safety within early childhood settings.

Across Australia, governments, regulators and providers have implemented or proposed reforms aimed at strengthening safeguarding practices, improving supervision and reinforcing accountability.

Many of these reforms rely heavily on active supervision, professional judgement and strong educator engagement with children throughout the day.

For some providers and sector advocates, this has raised a broader question: can the expectations placed on educators continue to grow without also considering the staffing structures required to support them?

While ratios alone do not determine quality or safety, they remain one of the most visible indicators of the capacity educators have to provide responsive care and supervision.

Workforce challenges remain a critical factor

The ratio discussion is also closely linked to workforce sustainability.

Recruitment and retention difficulties continue to be reported across many regions, particularly in rural, regional and high-growth communities.

At the same time, educators are increasingly being asked to navigate complex developmental, behavioural and inclusion needs while maintaining high-quality learning environments.

Many services report that children requiring additional support are presenting with greater complexity than in previous years, often requiring significant educator time, collaboration with allied health professionals and ongoing engagement with families.

These realities have led some sector leaders to suggest that future discussions about staffing should consider not only the number of children present, but also the complexity of children’s needs and the broader responsibilities educators carry.

Balancing quality and sustainability

Any discussion about ratios inevitably intersects with service viability.

Labour remains the single largest operating cost for most ECEC providers, meaning changes to staffing requirements can have significant financial implications.

For many operators, particularly smaller providers and community-managed services, balancing workforce investment with affordability and sustainability remains an ongoing challenge.

This creates a tension that policymakers continue to grapple with: how to support quality outcomes and workforce wellbeing while maintaining affordability for families and financial sustainability for services.

Looking beyond minimum standards

The FFYF report serves as a reminder that questions about staffing levels are not unique to Australia.

Across many countries, policymakers, providers and educators continue to debate what constitutes appropriate staffing arrangements for young children and how those arrangements influence quality, safety and learning outcomes.

For Australia, the discussion may ultimately move beyond whether minimum ratios are being met and towards whether existing staffing models remain fit for purpose in a sector facing increasing expectations.

As workforce shortages, child safety reforms and inclusion pressures continue to reshape the operating environment, the question for policymakers may not simply be whether current ratios comply with regulation, but whether they provide the conditions necessary for children and educators to thrive.

Read the full analysis by the First Five Years Fund here.