Early Childhood Education Quality for Children 2026
SURVEY REPORT – 19 October 2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What more than 3,000 ECE staff say about children’s experiences
The 2026 ECE Quality for Children and Workplace Survey asked staff working in early childhood services about the quality of ECE that children experience.
Across the results, four areas stood out: staff having less time to build relationships with children; declining staff confidence in service quality; alleged breaches of, and problems with, minimum adult-to-child ratios; and concerns about children’s physical and emotional safety.
1. ALMOST HALF DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET TO KNOW EACH CHILD
“The children always seem to come last.”
Nearly half of the staff (47%) working directly with children said they did not have enough time to form individual relationships with each child and get to know them well.
That had risen sharply in the last three years. In 2023 and 2020, it was 30% and 29% respectively.
Staff described having to supervise too many children, minimum staffing levels, cleaning, routines, documentation, and increasing demands for individual support as taking them away from children.
2. MORE THAN ONE-THIRD WOULDN’T EXPOSE THEIR CHILD TO THE SAME QUALITY
“I couldn’t and wouldn’t put my child in a position where they became just a number on many a spreadsheet.”
More than one-third (35%) said they would not be happy for their own child to attend an ECE service of the same quality as their service.
This was the highest level recorded since the survey began. From 2014 to 2023, this figure remained between 25% and 27%.
Staff pointed to child numbers and ratios, children’s safety and their wellbeing, staffing instability and quality, poorly maintained environments and resources, and management focusing on cost-saving over spending on staff and children as reasons for why they would not be happy with their own child attending a service of the same quality.
3. 47% REPORT THEIR SERVICE HAS FALLEN BELOW MINIMUM STAFF:CHILD RATIOS
“They follow ratios but if one teacher is busy nappy changing… only one teacher is left to supervise even though on paper you are meeting the ratio.”
Government guidance states that services must maintain minimum ratios at all times, including when staff take entitled breaks.
Yet, in centre-based ECE, 47% of respondents said ratios fell below the requirements at least on one occasion.
Staff also described being legally “in ratio” while too few adults were actually available to actively supervise children. For example, when one teacher in a class of two teachers had gone to a bathroom to change a child’s nappy and the other teacher was left alone with up to 9 other under 2s. Or when one teacher is outside with many more than 10 children because other staff are inside the building. This can happen because of the way that ratios are calculated as the number of adults on the premises rather than per group of children under the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008.
4. ONE IN FOUR REPORT CONCERNS ABOUT CHILDREN’S SAFETY
“I worry about children’s emotional safety as even the babies have to wait to be comforted when they are upset.”
One in four early childhood service staff (26%) were concerned for children’s safety.
They were specifically worried about:
- inadequate supervision;
- ratios not reflecting children’s individual support needs;
- unsafe or poorly maintained environments and equipment;
- overcrowding and noise;
- aggressive child behaviour;
- insufficient staff capacity to comfort distressed children.
THE OVERALL PICTURE
Overall, it’s clear from the findings that children are not prioritised enough in the operation of ECE services.
Staff repeatedly connected poor quality experiences with: group size, adult-to-child ratios, staffing stability, unqualified staff, competing duties, poor management practices, and the increasing level of individual support required by some children.
The findings also highlighted that meeting minimum staffing requirements was not the same as having sufficient staff available to provide the responsive relationships, active supervision and individual attention young children need.
ABOUT THE SURVEY AND THE PARTICIPANTS
The survey is conducted every three years by the Office of Early Childhood Education (OECE). A full description of the survey, participant recruitment and methodology is available on the OECE website: ECE Quality for Children and Workplace Survey.
A total of 3,040 staff working in licensed ECE services throughout New Zealand completed the 2026 survey.
Who we surveyed
Respondents represented a wide range of ECE roles:
Qualifications and practising certificate status
Respondents were a highly qualified group. Qualifications included:
- 88% ECE-qualified teachers with a practising certificate
- 5% primary- or secondary-qualified teachers with a practising certificate
- 4% with an ECE, primary or secondary teaching qualification but no practising certificate
- 1.5% with a Level 4 ECE qualification
- 0.7% with a Te Kohanga Reo teaching qualification
- 5% with none of the above
Percentages exceed 100% because some respondents held more than one qualification.
Experience
Respondents were predominantly highly experienced ECE staff. Seventy-seven percent had worked in ECE for 10 years or longer, while just 3% had entered the sector within the previous two years.
Gender
The vast majority of respondents identified as female (97%), while 2.5% identified as male and 0.5% as another gender.
Services represented
Respondents came from private services (61%) and public or community-based services (39%).
Most (96%) worked in teacher-led centres, including kindergartens, preschools, daycare centres, Aoga Amata, Puna Reo, Montessori and Rudolf Steiner services. Respondents working across two or more services were asked to answer according to the type of service in which they worked the most hours.
Self-employed home-based educators and staff working in Kōhanga Reo managed by Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust were not included in the survey.
RESULTS
1. Do staff have enough time to form relationships with children?
Respondents who worked directly with children were asked whether they had enough time to form individual relationships with each child and get to know them well. Respondents whose roles focused on working with adults rather than children were asked to skip this question. A total of 2,844 respondents answered.
- 53% said yes
- 47% said no
The proportion who reported having insufficient time to form individual relationships with children had risen substantially, from 29% in 2020 and 30% in 2023.
As in previous surveys, respondents in 2026 identified recurring barriers to forming individual relationships with children. These were that there were too many children in a group or class, insufficient staffing, and other responsibilities such as cleaning and documentation taking their time away from children. Staff described the following things as getting in the way of them forming individual relationships with children:
- large numbers of children being supervised by individual staff, when other staff were changing nappies, doing other duties, or on toilet or other breaks;
- minimum staffing ratios, absences and shortages;
- inexperienced, non ECE-qualified, or temporary staff;
- cleaning and other non-teaching duties;
- documentation requirements;
- children requiring substantial individual support.
The children, whom staff described as needing a lot of individual support or more support than they were able to give them under the current conditions at their service, included infants and toddlers, newly enrolled children, children who spoke little or no English, and children with additional learning, developmental, behavioural or emotional needs.
Overall, the respondents’ comments described staff being pulled between the needs of children and the operational demands of running the service.
In their own words
“The children always seem to come last and often have to amuse themselves while we are doing other tasks we have been directed to do by management.”
“It’s hard to form individual relationships when our job isn’t mainly ‘teaching or building relationships’. It feels like we are in a baby factory making sure every routine is done.”
“Crowded conditions and regular use of the under-the-roof’ ratio counting system makes it feel like factory conditions… I see so many experiences for children being run as nothing more than speedy photo opportunities.”
“All our time is spent on those children who have challenging behaviours and neurodiversity. We have no time for the quiet kids.”
“I often feel more like a security officer than an educator. Much of my day is spent scanning the environment, anticipating risks, managing conflicts, and ensuring the safety of children, many of whom have high support needs and behavioural challenges.”
2. Would staff be happy for their own child to experience the same quality?
Respondents were asked: If you had a child of your own, would you be happy for them to attend an ECE service of the same quality as the one you work in?
Between 2014 and 2023, the proportion who said they would not be happy for their own child to experience ECE of the same quality remained relatively stable at 25% to 27%. (It was 26% in 2020 and 2023).
In 2026, this rose to 35% – the highest recorded since the survey began.
Respondents who answered “no” were invited to explain why. They had concerns about:
- financial priorities and investment in quality;
- group size and staffing ratios;
- staffing quality, stability and retention;
- staff wellbeing and capacity;
- children’s safety and supervision;
- children’s physical, emotional and social needs;
- environments and resources;
- management practices and pedagogical priorities.
Respondents described situations where they believed spending decisions by management hindered staffing levels, support, and investment into the programme to ensure children experienced quality education and care.
“My child attends a community-based preschool… the teachers have ample non-contact time for planning and set ups, the profits go back into the centre, the centre is calm, the teachers never leave. We are so grateful to find this centre. It is streaks ahead of my own centre where I work.”
“There’s a desire to improve things but money talks and saving money talks louder. I couldn’t and wouldn’t put my child in a position where they became just a number on many a spreadsheet second to the revenue they bring in.”
“I have told close friends who I have previously taught their other two children to look elsewhere. The service is now just a money-making machine and not providing the quality education and care we once were.”
Group size and its interaction with ratios
Respondents described large groups of children, staffing ratios they considered insufficient for children’s needs, and the movement of children or staff between spaces to maintain ratios as impacting their service’s quality.
“Children are moved around like numbers, just to make the day work with ratios being under the roof instead of per room. This makes extra stress for children and teachers.”
Staffing quality, stability and retention
Respondents who answered “no” were concerned about inconsistent staffing, reliance on unqualified and less experienced staff, staff turnover and difficulties retaining teachers.
“The owner employs many unqualified teachers. She doesn’t give regular time off for teachers to programme plan…”
“Lots of the teachers feel undervalued because of the low pay and the centre lacks passionate teachers that love their job because they don’t feel valued.”
“Teachers are over-worked and many are overwhelmed and often not in the best frame of mind…”
“Teachers are lacking energy and their teaching practice has fallen.”
Children’s safety and supervision
Lack of supervision, injuries, challenging behaviour and whether staffing was sufficient to keep children safe were all top of mind for respondents.
“To[o] many children in one space, not resourced as well as it should. A lot of children with additional needs who bite, scratch, push, hit others.”
“There are numerous unsafe incidents daily when we cannot intervene and children must fend for themselves. At least once a week we have a child injured and no one knows what happened as there were not enough kaiako to supervise effectively.”
Children’s physical care, emotional and social needs
Respondents were also worried that children’s basic care, emotional wellbeing and social needs were not being adequately met.
“Nappies not being changed frequently enough.”
“Children’s emotional and social development needs to be paramount and they are not.”
Physical environment and resources
Respondents said their facilities were run-down, noisy or poorly designed, had limited access to natural outdoor features such as grass, and/or insufficient or damaged resources.
“The noise is out of control as the building is so poorly designed and there is no understanding of how the noise affects everything.”
“Resources are scarce or broken and cracked. We have a lot of stuff from Kmart etc. I regularly clean out my older children’s things and drop them into the rooms.”
Service practices and pedagogical priorities
Respondents said that service norms and policies could act as constraints on what they could achieve and do for children.
“Children are not challenged. Only a limited number of resources are put out each week and if extras are put out, rather than embracing the fact that children are enjoying and learning, the feedback we get from management is that it is ‘too much work!’”
3. Do services fall below minimum adult-to-child ratio requirements?
Of the 2,924 respondents from teacher-led centres who detailed how often their service fell below minimum adult-to-child ratio requirements almost half reported their service has fallen below minimum ratios
The results were broadly similar to 2023, when 5% answered “all the time”, 7% “often”, 14% “sometimes”, 19% “rarely” and 55% “never”.
Under the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2028, an adult only counts towards ratios if they are “involved in duties other than food preparation and serving, administrative duties, and maintenance”. A person also does not count towards ratios “while at lunch, or while having a break, or during non-contact times “(except in homebased services).
In their own words
“Expected to be in the kitchen to clean kids’ dishes and that is ok as “on the floor”
“They expect some of the children to be away, but they are not, and this puts morning tea breaks and no- contact time out of ratio.”
“Sometimes we are asked to count student teachers who are not paid as in ratio. Other times we are told that someone is watching from the other side of the office.”
“I’ve been on own for up to three hours with 6 to 7 children (one being under 2 years of age)”
“Relievers are hard to find when staff are sick or away, so the figures are just fudged to make it look like we meet ratios.”
Legal ratio does not necessarily mean adequate supervision
“Often see 15-20 children outside with 1 teacher present, while another teacher is on their break or on a toilet break. When questioned, I’m told, “we’re in ratio as other teachers are in the centre”. This is SO dangerous. Teachers not in the same room or area as you are should NOT be allowed to be counted as being in ratio.”
“They follow ratios but if one teacher is busy nappy changing and you need two teachers inside, only one teacher is left to supervise even though on paper you are meeting the ratio”.
4. Are staff concerned about children’s safety?
More than one-quarter (26%) of respondents reported concerns about children’s safety at their service.
They said:
“With current ratios it’s hard to supervise children alone while other kaiako are tasked to do some specific “routine” roles. That’s the reality. And, if I’m engaging with 5 children outside and the other 5 are doing something else far from me and something happens… accident or incident I only have one body.”
“Aggressive behaviour, children with high needs and trauma who need 1-1 teacher attention when we have ratios 1-10. These ratios are not safe. They do not support the children with needs or the teachers who are all trying to work 1-1 to keep others safe.”
Participants highlighted how environments that are unsuitable for younger children and facilities or premises, such as inadequate fencing and lack of shade, were hazardous.
“Safety of young two-year-olds in space designed for 3/4-year-olds.”
“Sandpit wood with exposed splintered edging. Old and broken toys.”
“There is also nearly zero shade in summer.”
Many staff were concerned about children’s emotional safety, as well as their physical wellbeing.
“We don’t have the capacity to intervene to stop injuries or even properly comfort. I worry about children’s emotional safety as even the babies have to wait to be comforted when they are upset.”
“Emotional safety is constantly at risk, noise, not having their needs met, targets of other children who bite, hit, push because they are in an overcrowded and stressful environment.”
“Violent behaviours and children yelling who are scaring other children who have quieter personalities. I worry it could be giving other children anxiety.”
WHAT THE FINDINGS TELL US
The 2026 findings indicated that, on the whole, ECE service quality for children has declined. New Zealand’s ECE system is not consistently ensuring that all children experience safe, high-quality education and care.
Most notably, the proportion of staff who said they did not have enough time to form individual relationships with children had increased by 17 percentage points in just three years, rising from 30% in 2023 to 47% in 2026.
Staff were also significantly less likely to endorse the quality of their service than they were in 2023. More than one-third (35%) said they would not be happy for their own child to attend an ECE service of the same quality as the one where they worked, the highest proportion recorded since the survey began.
Moreover, just over a quarter of respondents reported concerns about children’s safety while almost half of respondents working in centre-based services reported that their service had fallen below minimum adult-to-child ratios all the time or at least rarely.
WHAT CHANGES WOULD TURN THESE FINDINGS AROUND AND IMPROVE ECE FOR CHILDREN
Adult-to-child ratio was the single biggest problem touched on by staff. The current way of determining if ratios are met does not support safe and quality ECE for children. Group-based ratios could be an answer to this problem. That way, adult-to-child ratios would be calculated according to the number of children an adult was directly working with and supervising, instead of across the licensed premises. This would require a regulation amendment.
Also, the availability and retention of experienced ECE-qualified teachers was a recurring concern. Respondents frequently referred to staff turnover, reliance on inexperienced staff, and situations where staff lacked specialist ECE knowledge. Current regulations allow adults to be counted in ratio without an ECE qualification. A person aged 17 or older can contribute to meeting staffing requirements even if they are not an ECE-qualified teacher. Explicitly linking adult-to-child ratios and the presence of ECE-qualified teachers in the regulations could help strengthen ECE quality for children.
Although some flexibility related to ratios can help services adapt to unexpected day-to-day changes, the findings suggest some services were using ratio loopholes as a standard way of operating, instead of only in emergencies. These loopholes are possible because the regulations do not explicitly state that adults must be actively supervising children to be counted towards ratios.
A “carrot” is needed to encourage all centre service providers to staff above regulatory minimums so they can better support children with additional learning or behavioural needs and enable staff to respond safely and appropriately to all children attending. One way to achieve this would be to provide higher funding rates to centres with better staff-to-child ratios. However, increasing the number of adults alone is unlikely to benefit children – it is also important to ensure that adults are counted in ratio only when they are actively supervising and engaging with children, that ratios are based on the number of children the adult is supervising, and at least some or all adults are ECE-qualified teachers.
Regular unannounced compliance and quality inspections of each licensed service should be introduced, conducted annually or at least every two years. These spot checks would encourage services to meet regulated standards at all times and support staff to deliver high-quality practice for children every day.
The Government also needs to address how funding intended for children’s education and care and to reduce the cost of ECE for families is spent by ECE operators. Respondents were worried about how inadequate physical environments and resources could impact the safety and quality of children’s experiences. They also raised concerns about cost-saving practices, and some described situations where non-contact time was restricted, resources were not replaced, and staffing was kept at minimum levels despite significant pressures on teachers and children. Requiring all ECE services to be financially transparent would provide a clearer picture of how public funding, parent fees, and other revenue are allocated, including the proportion spent on staffing, resources and support for children’s learning, wellbeing, safety, and care versus other purposes, such as profit and property investment. Greater transparency could help policymakers assess whether additional investment is required and whether existing funding is being directed in ways that best support high-quality ECE for children.
FURTHER REPORTS FROM THE 2026 SURVEY
The OECE will release more reports from the survey about staff working conditions, pay, safety and wellbeing, management support, and intentions to remain in ECE. These topics impact the quality of ECE for children. Young children’s education, care and safety depend on the adults responsible for them having the time, support, working conditions and professional capacity to do their jobs well.
