Independent schools could face increased scrutiny under reforms to the Education Act which are expected to be progressed this year.
ACT Education Minister Yvette Berry said early consultation with the sector had begun to modernise the legislation.
The amendments could include a more direct assurance process after a memorandum of understanding between non-government schools and the directorate lapsed at the end of 2019.
The end of the MoU meant that private school principals no longer needed to submit an annual statement declaring their compliance with legislation.
The MoU was struck with Catholic and independent schools in 2015 following a review of the approval processes for private schools under former education minister Joy Burch.
Under the agreement, the Association of Independent Schools in the ACT (AISACT) executive director was required to inform the minister of critical incidents at independent schools every six months.
He was also required to send written confirmation to the education minister that each principal had signed a statement affirming that the school was compliant with all relevant legislation by December 31 each year.
A ministerial briefing prepared by the Education Directorate in July 2020 and released under freedom of information lists a number of opportunities to reform the school registration and renewal system, including reviewing the powers the government has to check, investigate and determine that a school is not meeting a condition of registration.
"Through the Future of Education community conversation, it was made clear to me that the Education Act 2004 needs to be updated to align with modern practices," Ms Berry said.
"Education has evolved and it's important that the legislation evolves too."
Executive director AISACT Andrew Wrigley said he would push back against the suggestion that there needed to be more oversight of independent schools.
"We need to have a holistic view of legislation, not changing legislation as a reaction," he said.
An Education Directorate spokesperson said there was no penalty under the MoU if the assurance statements were incorrect or if the AISACT did not compile statements on time, however legislative penalties apply for non-compliance with legislation and a general crime existed for giving false or misleading information to the territory.
Assurances were given for 2016, 2017 and 2018, but not for the 2019 school year.
Mr Wrigley said he did not send the letter of assurance to the Education Minister for 2019 because of a misinterpretation of the dates of when the MoU lapsed and when information had to be submitted.
He said the MoU was a mechanism for schools to be able to remind themselves of their responsibilities, but schools were required to comply with legislation regardless of whether the assurance statement was submitted.
Mr Wrigley said in relation to reporting critical incidents, the MoU did not change the existing practices where the Education Minister, Director-General of the Education Directorate and any other affected schools were notified at the time of the incident.
The Education Directorate wrote to non-government schools in February 2020 seeking an extension of the MoU, however it was never finalised as officials turned their attention to remote learning at the of the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.
Education Minister Yvette Berry said elements of the MoU were not well aligned with contemporary regulatory practice.
"The government is considering whether a more direct assurance process is warranted and will consult schools, parents and the community on this as part of review of the Education Act 2004."
Ms Berry said since the MoU was struck the ACT government had passed legislation to strengthen child safety laws and introduced the Reportable Conduct Scheme.
"Under the Reportable Conduct Scheme, all schools must report allegations or convictions of child abuse or misconduct toward children to the ACT Ombudsman."
Mr Wrigley said the association had been heavily involved in consultation for the first tranches of changes to the Education Act and members wanted to be assured they would be part of the conversation before decisions were made.