What small private providers are quietly getting right and why we need to say it out loud

The conversation about private providers in early childhood education and care often starts and ends with the same point: the data.

And to be clear, the data matters. It tells us important things about trends, risks, and where the system needs to improve.

But it does not tell the whole story.

Looking beyond the data

After more than thirty years working across early childhood services, I have learned to pay just as much attention to what happens inside centres as I do to what is reported about them. What I have seen, repeatedly, is that quality is not as simple as ownership type.

I have worked in not-for-profit organisations. I have worked with private providers. I have led teams, built services, and supported educators across both models.

And I have seen excellence and I have seen mediocrity in both.

What I am seeing in practice

Right now, I am working with a small private provider establishing a new early learning service. It is not a large corporate operation. It is a small group of centres, with owners who are directly involved and deeply invested in getting it right.

That proximity changes things.

Decisions are not filtered through layers of management or removed from the realities of the floor. They are immediate. They are personal. And they are tied directly to relationships with families, educators, and the community.

What that allows is intentional design.

We are embedding language immersion as part of the culture of the service, not as an optional extra. We are designing physical literacy programs that reflect what we now understand about movement, regulation, and brain development. We are building relationships with allied health professionals so that families are not left to navigate complex systems on their own.

We are investing in parenting programs, because children do not exist in isolation from their families. We are planning transitions to school carefully, with a focus on continuity and genuine understanding of each child.

Just as importantly, we are building a workplace where educators are supported properly. Flexibility is real. Leadership is present. Professional capability is expected and developed, not assumed.

This is not happening because of ownership.

It is happening because there is a clear intention to invest in quality, and the structure allows decisions to be made close to practice.

Time for a more honest conversation

This is not the story that is often told.

The dominant narrative suggests that not for profit equates to quality, and private equates to risk. I understand where that narrative comes from, and there is evidence that supports it at a system level.

But that narrative becomes problematic when it is treated as universally true.

Because it is not.

I have also spent time in large not for profit organisations where the distance between leadership and practice was significant. Where decision making was slow, resources were stretched, and educators were carrying the weight of systems that were not designed with them in mind.

That is not a criticism of the model. It is a reflection of what can happen within any large system, regardless of its structure or intent.

And it is important that we are honest about that.

The same way we expect transparency and accountability from private providers, we should be willing to look critically at all parts of the sector.

Because the reality is this: a label does not guarantee quality.

What drives quality is much more consistent.

It is leadership that understands practice. It is an investment in educators. It is clarity of purpose. It is the ability to respond to the needs of families and communities in real time.

These things are not exclusive to any one model.

Small private providers, in particular, are often operating in ways that are highly responsive and deeply connected to their communities. They are filling gaps in areas where services are needed. They are trialling new approaches. They are building relationships that are immediate and accountable.

They are not perfect. No part of this sector is.

But they are contributing in ways that deserve to be recognised.

We also need to be realistic about the system we are building.

Australia’s early childhood sector is already a mixed market, and it will remain one. The scale of investment required to meet demand, expand access, and improve quality means that no single model can carry that responsibility alone.

Private providers are part of that solution.

The question is not whether they should exist. They already do, and they are central to the system.

The question is how we ensure that quality is expected, supported, and delivered consistently across all services.

That requires a shift in the conversation.

Away from broad assumptions based on ownership.

And towards a more honest discussion about what is actually happening in practice.

After thirty years in this sector, I am less interested in what a service is called, and more interested in what it does.
Because if we keep mistaking labels for quality, we risk overlooking where real excellence is already happening.

Author

Roberta Keown is the Director at Discovery at Play early learning Balcatta, Chair of EYL Networx inc. An early childhood sector leader, registered teacher, and facilitator with over 30 years’ experience across service leadership, workforce development, and program design. Her work focuses on inclusion, early intervention, and innovative practice within contemporary early learning settings.