DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OPERATIONAL POLICY
Determining a rating of significant improvement required
Responsibility
Effective Date:
Next Review Date:
Quality Education and Care NT
August 2013
December 2014
TRIM ref: EDOC2013/8923
1. POLICY
Quality Education and Care NT (QECNT) will apply a fair, transparent and consistent
approach when determining whether or not to issue a rating of Significant Improvement
Required (SIR) against the National Quality Standard (NQS).
2. BUSINESS NEED
The purpose of the assessment and rating process is to determine at what rating level the
service meets the NQS and the requirements of the Education and Care Services (National
Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 and prescribed regulations.
During an assessment and rating visit if the authorised officer observes an unacceptable
risk to a child or children’s health, safety or wellbeing that service will receive a rating of
SIR.
Under regulation 59 of the Education and Care Services National Regulations:
(1) A Significant Improvement Required rating may be given for a quality area stated in the
National Quality Standard if the education and care service does not meet that quality
area or a relevant regulation for that quality area in a way that the regulatory authority is
satisfied constitutes an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of any child
or children being educated and cared for by the service.
(2) If an education and care service has a Significant Improvement Required rating for any
quality area stated in the National Quality Standard, the overall rating of the service is to
be Significant Improvement Required.
Note that “unacceptable risk” is not defined but is the trigger for some offences against the
National Law and may provide the basis for suspending or cancelling a service and/or
provider approval.
It is important that QECNT apply a consistent approach when determining whether the risk
identified at the time of the visit constitutes an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or
wellbeing of a child and results in the issue of a Significant Improvement Required rating.
SCOPE
This policy applies to all authorised officers within QECNT.
Page 1 of 7
QECNT Operational Policy: Determining a rating of Significant Improvement Required
3. DEFINITIONS
QECNT refers to Quality Education and Care NT, the NT regulatory authority.
Authorised Officer refers to all assessors and compliance officers within QECNT.
Assessor refers to QECNT Officers responsible for conducting assessment and rating of
education and care services under the NQF.
Compliance Officer refers to QECNT officers responsible for conducting compliance and
monitoring activities for education and care services under the NQF.
National Quality Framework (NQF) refers to the system agreed to by all Australian
governments through the Council of Australian Governments to raise quality and drive
continuous improvement in education and care services. It replaces state and territory
licensing and quality assurance processes.
National Quality Standard (NQS) refers to schedule 1 of the national regulations. This
defines the standards and elements that are assessed and rated. It is a key aspect of the
NQF.
Assessment and Rating means the process by which a rating is determined for services
reflecting whether and at what level the service is meeting the NQS and the requirements of
the national regulations.
A Significant Improvement Required rating may be given for a quality area stated in the
NQS if the education and care service does not meet that quality area or a relevant
regulation for that quality area in a way that the regulatory authority is satisfied constitutes
an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing or any child or children being
educated and cared for by the service (regulation 59 (1)).
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Assessors are responsible for determining the quality rating of a service against the NQS.
The Assistant Director Quality is responsible for engaging in further discussion with the
assessor to determine if the rating has been calculated fairly and is consistent with the
NQS.
Compliance Officers are responsible for engaging in discussion with assessors to support
the development of a risk matrix in order to determine whether or not the risk identified was
at an unacceptable level. Officers will also be responsible for conducting appropriate followup actions to ensure the approved provider is making satisfactory progress towards
addressing the unacceptable risk identified.
The Assistant Director Compliance is responsible for overseeing risk assessment processes
in order to determine that processes followed are fair and consistent.
The Director QECNT is responsible for approving the final rating before it is issued to the
approved provider.
Page 2 of 7
QECNT Operational Policy: Determining a rating of Significant Improvement Required
5. GUIDELINES
The following guidelines will be used when determining whether a risk identified during an
assessment and rating visit posed an unacceptable risk/s to the safety, health or wellbeing
of any child or children being educated and cared for by the service (regulation 59 (1)).
1. During the assessment and rating visit
Assessors follow a uniform process when gathering the evidence required to assess and
rate a service. They use 'observe', 'discuss' and 'sight' techniques to assess the service
against each element of the NQS.
It is the responsibility of the assessor to collect evidence during the visit in order to
determine the quality ratings. As much as possible, the assessor must observe practice
which is typical of the service and minimise times that intervention is provided.
Intervention may be necessary during the visit if, based on their professional judgment
and the risk matrix guidelines outlined in the Operational Policy Manual for Regulatory
Authorities, an authorised officer identifies that an accident is likely or very probable
given the circumstances or event/s observed. In this instance, the authorised officer
should raise their concern with the educator/s involved, who would then be responsible
for determining an appropriate response. If the authorised officer does not consider the
response to be appropriate they may need to provide educators with further direction in
order to address the unacceptable risk.
In the case of both an assessor and a compliance officer being present at the service
when an incident with unacceptable risk occurs, it is the responsibility of both officers to
inform each other of the circumstance or event observed and any subsequent action
taken. In this instance, the compliance officer will lead the process for gathering evidence
and discussing the incident with the educator/s involved.
If an authorised officer observes an issue which poses an unacceptable risk to the
health, safety or wellbeing of a child or children, the following procedure will be followed:


collect detailed and direct evidence of the facts which include the common elements
of:
o the time of the incident
o the date of the incident
o the place of the incident
o the identity of the educators and children involved; and
discuss the issue with the key contact person at the time of the visit.
Depending on the nature of the non-compliance matters identified, the authorised
officer/s may contact the Director or Assistant Directors QECNT to determine whether or
not the issue warrants suspension of the assessment and rating visit.
Where a risk with potentially catastrophic consequences is identified or where the state
of mind of those involved is seriously affected, the regulatory authority will likely stop the
assessment and rating visit as immediate action will be required to address the risk to a
child or children. However, if the risk can be rapidly addressed, the visit may be
continued.
Page 3 of 7
QECNT Operational Policy: Determining a rating of Significant Improvement Required
2. Determining an SIR rating
After an assessment and rating visit, the assessor will consider all evidence collected.
Minor adjustments may also be requested from the approved provider. This evidence will
be considered when drafting the report and determining the quality ratings.
If an assessor believes that the evidence collected is likely to result in the issue of an SIR
rating, the matter will be discussed with the assistant director quality, assistant director
compliance and service compliance officer.
A risk matrix provided in the Operational Policy Manual for Regulatory Authorities will be
used to classify the risk on a consequence scale from low to extreme and a likelihood
scale from rare to almost certain (Appendix A refers). This analysis will help to determine
if it is reasonable to issue the service with an SIR rating.
Depending on the level of risk measured, QECNT will use the following guidelines to
address issues identified and how they may impact the quality rating of a service:
Low: low to medium risk with a likelihood of rare to possible:
This type of risk can typically be addressed immediately and is unlikely to be on-going. In
this instance the service will be monitored through tailored compliance activity. This type
of risk will not result in the issue of an SIR rating.
Moderate: medium to high risk with a likelihood of rare to possible:
This type of risk is typically a result of operational issues which can be addressed either
immediately or within a reasonable timeframe and is considered unlikely to significantly
impact a child or children’s health, safety or wellbeing. A compliance notice or direction
will be issued to the approved provider and the service will be closely monitored by
compliance officers. This type of risk is unlikely to result in the issue of an SIR rating.
High: high risk with a likelihood of likely to almost certain and very high to extreme
risk with a likelihood of possible to almost certain:
A rating of Significant Improvement Required will be issued.
If the unacceptable risk is identified as very high to extreme risk with a likelihood of
possible to almost certain, QECNT will implement a range of compliance actions outlined
in its operational policy: Regulatory approach when a Significant Improvement Required
is issued.
If the unacceptable risk is identified as high risk with a likelihood of likely to almost
certain, QECNT will implement a range of compliance actions outlined in its operational
policy: Regulatory approach when a Significant Improvement Required is issued.
During this time the assessment and rating process will continue in order to finalise the
report and if desired the rules around requesting a review will still apply.
6. RELATED POLICY, LEGISLATION AND DOCUMENTS



Education and Care Services (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011
Education and Care Services National Regulations
Guide to Assessment and Rating for Regulatory Authorities
Page 4 of 7
QECNT Operational Policy: Determining a rating of Significant Improvement Required





Guide to Assessment and Rating for Services
National Quality Standard
ACECQA Operational Policy Manual for Regulatory Authorities
QECNT operational policy: Regulatory approach when a Significant Improvement
Required rating is issued
QECNT operational policy: Frequency of the Assessment and Rating Cycle
7. EVALUATION
This policy will be reviewed in July 2014 to ensure it is effective and adequate.
8. POLICY ENDORSED
Name: Averill Piers Blundell
Position: A/General Manager Early Childhood Policy and Regulations
NT Early Childhood Development Working Group Representative
August 2013
Page 5 of 7
QECNT Operational Policy: Determining a rating of Significant Improvement Required
APPENDIX A
Likelihood Scale
A likelihood scale refers to the potential of a risk occurring in an education and care service.
The likelihood of non-compliance has five levels as outlined below. Likelihood takes into
account factors such as history of non-compliance, as well as readiness, willingness and
ability to comply.
Likelihood
Almost Certain
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Rare
Consequence Scale
A consequence scale refers to the seriousness of safety, health and wellbeing of
child/children should the event or incident happen within an approved education and care
service. The consequence of non-compliance also has five levels as outlined below. This
takes into account the actual or potential impacts of non-compliance, including the risk of
harm to children and/or the community, as well as its scale and duration.
Consequence
Extreme
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Risk Matrix
A risk matrix is used to combine the likelihood and consequence to determine a risk level.
See risk matrix diagram in the Operational Policy Manual for Regulatory Authorities on page
24.
Examples of incidents where a low risk to the safety, health and wellbeing or child/children
may be present, but are not limited to:








Page 6 of 7
A child sustains a minor injury at an education and care service.
Minimal outdoor play equipment is available to children.
An educational leader has not been identified in writing.
A child is not encouraged to communicate to resolve a conflict.
The service restricted parental access during certain times of operation.
The service fails to notify change of address for the approved provider.
Some operational procedures or documents are not in place.
Minor maintenance issues.
QECNT Operational Policy: Determining a rating of Significant Improvement Required
Examples of incidents where a moderate risk to the safety, health and wellbeing or
child/children may be present, but are not limited to:












The learning program does not demonstrate the assessment of children’s learning
and development; inadequate implementation of the children’s program.
Nappy rash as a result of infrequent nappy changing.
Sunburn due to damaged sun shade.
Educator assistant left alone with children at a FDC home.
Babies were left for an extended time in high chairs.
Intoxicated parents were allowed access to their children.
Children’s personal details are accessible to all parents.
Lapse of supervision of child/children with no risk or trauma to a child.
Injury from unforeseen hazard (accident).
Observed escape.
Lapse in meeting educator/child ratios.
Half the toilets are not in working order.
Examples of incidents where a high or unacceptable risk to the safety, health and wellbeing
or child/children may be present, but are not limited to:
 The service has not implemented an educational program and there is high risk of
consequences, for example children with additional needs are not engaged and
stimulated with relevant activities
 Failing to protect children from harm or hazard for example dangerous/unmaintained
equipment/materials used by children
 Children were highly distressed when left alone with one educator at the end of the
day.
 Unreasonable discipline was used by educators, for example restraining a child with
physical force, threats or isolating a child.
 A parent prohibited from contacting their child by a court order is allowed to access
their child.
 A person with child related offences is residing at a Family Day Care Educator’s
home.
 Inadequate supervision, for example children accessing areas that are not child safe
such as storerooms with chemicals, climbing on shelving, scaling a fence to leave the
premise or educators closing a service, and leaving the premise while a child
remains at the service.
 No first aid applied to child as first aid kit is not available on an excursion.
 Storm washes away soft fall and children continue to play on high play equipment.
 Inappropriate action is taken towards a child at risk of abuse and/or neglect with high
risk of consequences.
 Educators without Working with Children Checks, with high risk of consequences for
example a person may have committed and been convicted of child related offences.
 No evidence of evacuation procedures or practices of these and no knowledge of
action that may be taken in an emergency, with high risk of consequences.
Page 7 of 7