TCHR3004 Leadership and Advocacy in Early Childhood: Assessment 2 Portfolio

Unit Context and Purpose

Southern Cross University runs TCHR3004 Leadership and Advocacy in Early Childhood as a 12 credit point undergraduate unit in the Faculty of Education, and Assessment 2 for TCHR3004 is a portfolio built from a critical review of one recorded interview with a practising educational leader. The task carries 50 per cent of the unit grade and sits in Week 6, with the Assessment 1 report holding the other 50 per cent. Teaching runs across Terms 1, 3, 4 and 5 at Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and online, so the due date shifts with the teaching period; the week number stays fixed at Week 6. This brief is prepared for the current Term 3 teaching period and should be re-dated against Blackboard before release. Pre-service teachers in this unit convert leadership theory into a reading of one person’s actual practice, which is harder than summarising a model because the evidence sits in what the leader said, hesitated over, and left out.

Assessment Snapshot

Unit code and title	TCHR3004 Leadership and Advocacy in Early Childhood
Institution	Southern Cross University, Faculty of Education
Task number	Assessment 2 of 2, portfolio
Weighting	50 per cent of the unit grade
Length	1,500 words, with 10 per cent leeway above and below
Due	Week 6, 11:59 pm local time; confirm the calendar date in Blackboard
Submission	One Word document through the Assessment 2 Turnitin folder
Referencing	APA 7th edition, minimum ten references including the set text, the National Quality Standard and the Early Years Learning Framework V2.0
Evidence base	One interview selected from the three supplied in the Assessment 2 information booklet
Mode	Individual work

Assessment Task

Three interviews with educational leaders in early childhood education and care are supplied in the Assessment 2 information booklet. Select one interview and write a critical review of that leader’s role, responsibilities and expectations, together with the challenges the role produces. Concrete examples from the transcript must carry the analysis. A review that describes the leader without testing their claims against the National Quality Standard, the Early Years Learning Framework V2.0 or published research will not reach a passing standard.

Focus One: Role, Responsibility and the Definition of Quality

Explain how the selected leader defines and promotes quality in relation to educational outcomes for children. Identify the specific strategies the leader uses to build supportive and collaborative environments across children, families, staff and community. Attach each strategy to a named concept from leadership or management theory, and show where the leader’s stated practice diverges from that concept.

Focus Two: Challenges, Style and Ethical Practice

Analyse the challenges the leader describes in relation to leadership style, the processes the leader uses and the practices the leader employs. Address how the leader manages relationships and staff expectations, and how the leader keeps practice ethical when pressure builds. Distinguish challenges that sit with the individual leader from challenges created by staffing, funding, regulation or organisational structure.

Focus Three: Advocacy for Children’s Learning and Development

Discuss the measures the leader takes to advocate for children’s learning and development. Explain how the leader promotes children’s rights, wellbeing and educational outcomes inside the role, and name the skills the leader displays while doing it. Advocacy claimed without evidence from the transcript counts for nothing; quote or closely paraphrase the moment.

Submission Requirements

Select one interview only. Writing across two or three interviews breaches the task design.
Use the SCU Faculty of Education cover sheet and record the extent of any generative AI use on it.
Apply APA 7th formatting throughout, including a title page, in text citations and the reference list.
Include clear headings that match the three focus areas, and introduce the selected leader in a short opening paragraph.
Cite the set text, the National Quality Standard and the Early Years Learning Framework V2.0 at minimum, then add peer reviewed sources of your own.
Place the reference list on a new page and keep the body within 1,350 to 1,650 words.
Write in third person about the leader, and reserve first person for the moments where you position your own emerging leadership stance.

Response Architecture

Open with two or three sentences that locate the service context, the leader’s title and the leadership model you will use as your analytical frame.
Move into the quality section, pairing each claim by the leader with either supporting or contradicting evidence from the transcript.
Shift to challenges, and separate personal style from structural pressure in the same paragraph so the analysis shows judgement rather than sympathy.
Close the body with advocacy, drawing on the leader’s own words about children’s rights and naming the advocacy skills on display.
Finish with a short paragraph that states what you take from the review into your own leadership identity.

Marking Rubric

Criteria and marks	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Fail
Critical analysis of the leader’s role and responsibilities in relation to quality (15)	Quality is interrogated, not accepted, and the leader’s claims are tested against theory and evidence	Clear analysis of role and quality with strong theoretical framing	Sound description with some analysis and a workable frame	Mostly descriptive, theory named but not applied	Summary of the interview only, no analysis
Analysis of challenges, leadership style and ethical practice (12)	Personal and structural challenges separated with precision, ethics argued rather than asserted	Challenges well analysed and linked to style and process	Challenges identified with reasonable analysis	Challenges listed with thin analysis	Challenges absent or misunderstood
Advocacy for children’s learning, rights and wellbeing (10)	Advocacy evidenced from the transcript and theorised, with skills named and demonstrated	Advocacy well evidenced with clear skill identification	Advocacy discussed with adequate evidence	Advocacy asserted with weak evidence	Advocacy claimed without support or omitted
Use of interview evidence and integration of the NQS, EYLF V2.0 and scholarship (8)	Evidence and framework links woven into argument at the sentence level	Consistent evidence and accurate framework linking	Adequate evidence and mostly accurate linking	Sparse evidence, framework references decorative	Framework documents absent or misused
Academic writing and APA 7th referencing (5)	Precise prose, flawless APA 7th, ten or more purposeful sources	Minor errors, clear prose, sources well chosen	Some errors, readable prose, credible sources	Frequent errors, sources minimal	Referencing unreliable or missing

Academic Integrity and Generative AI

Generative AI tools may support preparation in this assessment when the use is declared on the cover sheet. Fabricated quotations from the interview, invented page numbers and unattributed borrowed analysis breach the Southern Cross University academic integrity policy. Cite the interview transcript itself as an unpublished source in APA 7th, and follow the SCU library guide when citing AI output.

References and Learning Materials

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2023). National Quality Standard. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard

Australian Government Department of Education. (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf

Fabry, A., Barblett, L., & Knaus, M. (2022). The role of early childhood pedagogical leaders in schools: Leading change for ongoing improvement. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 47(4), 275-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391221130788

Fenech, M., & Watt, H. (2023). Quality early childhood education through self, workplace, or regulatory support: Exploring the efficacy of professional registration for early childhood teachers in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 50(4), 1145-1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00575-8

Gibbs, L. (2022). Leadership emergence and development: Organizations shaping leading in early childhood education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 672-693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220940324

Nuttall, J., Henderson, L., Wood, E., & Martin, J. (2023). Reconceptualising pedagogical leadership for quality in early childhood education: From individual dispositions to systemic creativity. In L. S. Hansen & C. Ringsmose (Eds.), Quality in early childhood education and care through leadership and organizational learning (pp. 221-237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39419-5_13

White, M. (2023). Leadership in Australia’s early childhood workforce policy: Silences and ambiguities as missed opportunities. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 48(4), 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391231202841

Sample Answer: Opening of the Critical Review

The educational leader interviewed for this review holds the designated role in a 74 place long day care service on the New South Wales far north coast, and she describes quality as something her team produces in planning meetings rather than something an assessor hands down. Her account rests on four moves. First, she runs a weekly thirty minute planning conversation with each room team and treats the conversation itself as the quality mechanism. Second, she asks educators to bring one piece of documentation and one doubt, which turns reflection into routine practice instead of an annual event. Third, she holds curriculum decisions with the team rather than for it, which distributes the work of leading across the service. Fourth, she reports upwards to the approved provider with the same evidence she gives educators, so the account of quality does not change with the audience. Research on early childhood pedagogical leaders leading change identifies relational trust, communities of practice and teacher decision making authority as the conditions that make such practice hold, and all three appear in her account (Fabry, Barblett & Knaus, 2022). Her strongest claim concerns retention: she argues that educators stay when they are treated as decision makers, and she ties turnover data directly to the planning structure she built. That claim warrants scrutiny, because attribution of retention to a single practice oversimplifies a workforce problem with structural causes.

Sample Answer: Challenges, Ethics and Advocacy

Two challenges dominate her interview, and they differ in kind. The rostering challenge belongs to her: she admits that she protects planning time by shortening her own non contact hours, which she names as a personal sustainability risk. The second challenge belongs to the system: unqualified relief staff arrive without induction, and she describes rewriting the same induction three times in one term. She manages relationships by naming the pressure openly in team meetings, and she describes a rule she will not bend, which is that no educator is asked to sign documentation they did not write. Ethical practice in her account is procedural rather than noble, visible in the way she handles a dispute about a child’s diagnosis and the way she refuses to let a family be discussed in a corridor. Australian research on how organisations shape the emergence of leading supports her instinct that cultures of trust and democratic allocation of resources matter more than individual charisma (Gibbs, 2022). Her advocacy for children narrows to one repeated act, which is translating what a child can do into language that families and school teachers can use. She describes preparing transition statements that name capability rather than deficit, and she describes coaching educators to say the same thing in the same words to families. Listening to that section of the interview, the skills on display are translating, persisting and holding a line when a family pushes back. Turning those skills into a rubric answer requires naming them as advocacy rather than as communication, since the criterion rewards the first reading.

Distributed Leadership Under Constraint

The evidence in this interview sits awkwardly beside heroic models of the educational leader as a single improvement engine. Fabry, Barblett and Knaus (2022) found that pedagogical change held when leadership was shared with principals and early childhood champions, and the leader in this transcript builds the same distribution from the other direction by handing curriculum authority to room teams. Reading her weekly planning conversation as a practice architecture, rather than as a meeting, explains why it survives staff turnover while her written improvement plan does not. Culture, language and the allocation of time are the arrangements that carry practice, which is the argument Gibbs (2022) develops from three high-quality Australian settings. A reviewer who only counts the strategies the leader lists will miss the mechanism entirely. The mechanism is the routine, repeated at the same time each week, with the same invitation to bring a doubt. Stating that mechanism in one clear paragraph does more for the analysis criterion than three paragraphs of leadership theory applied loosely.

Which Leadership Frame Scores Best

Students reach for transformational leadership because it sounds impressive and is easy to describe, although the transcripts reward distributed and pedagogical frames far more reliably. Transformational leadership centres the individual leader’s vision and charisma, which is difficult to evidence from a forty minute interview unless the leader talks about vision at length. Distributed leadership centres how authority, expertise and decisions move across a team, and the transcripts are full of that movement. Pedagogical leadership centres the leader’s work on curriculum, planning and educator capability, which lines up with the first focus area almost word for word. Pick the frame that matches what the leader actually described, and say plainly where the evidence weakens it. Three checks keep the frame honest:

Name one moment in the transcript where the frame explains what happened better than a competing frame would.
Name one moment where the leader’s practice contradicts the frame, since the contradiction shows critical reading rather than loyalty to a model.
Name the structural condition that constrains the frame, such as staffing, qualification mix or funding model.

A review that passes those three checks does not need long quoted extracts. One short quotation per focus area, accurately transcribed, outperforms a page of block quotes in the evidence criterion.

Where Policy Pressure Enters the Review

Leadership in early childhood education and care rarely sits inside the leader’s control, and the strongest reviews say so. White (2023) argues that Australia’s national workforce strategy addresses leaders as part of a general workforce problem rather than as a distinct group with distinct retention and wellbeing needs, which leaves the educational leader absorbing structural strain as a personal failing. The leader in this transcript does exactly that when she shortens her own non contact hours to protect team planning. Recent evidence also questions how much professional registration and external regulation actually drive quality practice, with Fenech and Watt (2023) reporting that early childhood teachers rate their own professional commitment and their immediate workplace above regulatory mechanisms as influences on practice. A review that acknowledges this evidence avoids two common errors. The first error treats every challenge as a management failure the leader could fix. The second treats every challenge as systemic and removes the leader’s agency entirely. Nuttall and colleagues (2023) offer a middle path by reframing pedagogical leadership as organisational capacity rather than individual disposition, which lets the review credit the leader for what she built while naming what the organisation did not provide.

Closing Note on the Portfolio

Reading the transcript closely takes longer than reading the rubric, and it is the part that decides the grade. I would listen once for what the leader says about quality, once for where her voice changes when challenges come up, and once for what she says about children. Those three passes map onto the three focus areas without any need to force structure. The rubric asks for concrete examples, so marking up the transcript with timestamps before drafting saves a lot of rewriting later. Theory comes after the evidence in this task, not before, because a model chosen first will bend the interview to fit it. Word count disappears quickly when quotes run long, so paraphrase most of the transcript and quote only the lines that carry the argument. Keeping the reference list at ten to twelve sources, including the National Quality Standard and the Early Years Framework V2.0, leaves room for two or three sources that genuinely challenge the leader’s account.

======================================================

Topic 1: Historical Childhood Influences

Digital technology has changed the conditions under which Australian children grow up, learn and maintain relationships. Over the past 20 to 50 years, childhood has shifted from a largely local, adult-mediated experience to one shaped by connected devices, online platforms and digital services. This change does not affect all families in the same way. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model helps explain why the same technology may support learning and connection for some children while limiting interaction, rest or safety for others (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The central argument is that digital technology has expanded children’s access to information and relationships, but its benefits depend heavily on family resources, educator practice and social inequality.

At the microsystem level, digital devices now sit within children’s closest relationships. In the past, play, family conversation and neighbourhood activity occurred mainly in shared physical spaces. Today, a child may use a tablet to video-call a grandparent, watch educational content, play games or access school material. These uses can strengthen family ties and extend learning beyond the classroom. Research on Australian digital childhoods similarly treats technology as part of children’s social and material environments, rather than as a separate influence on development (Australian Educational Researcher, 2026). However, the quality of adult involvement matters more than access alone. A parent who watches, talks about and sets limits around content can turn screen use into a shared learning experience; unsupervised use may instead replace responsive interaction.

The mesosystem shows how family practices and early childhood settings connect. Digital technology can support communication between educators and families through learning portfolios, photographs, messages and online enrolment systems. Australian research found that digital tools were widely used in early childhood education and care settings, particularly for educational programming, family partnerships and service management (Edwards et al., 2023). For working parents, these systems may make it easier to follow a child’s day and contribute to learning. Conversely, families with limited internet access, low digital confidence or unstable work schedules may find the same systems exclusionary. A service that assumes every family can respond online may unintentionally privilege households with time, data and digital skills.

At the exosystem level, parents’ employment conditions shape children’s digital experiences even though children do not directly participate in the workplace. Shift work, insecure employment and long commuting times can reduce the time adults have for shared play, reading and conversation. Screens may then become a practical form of supervision. This does not mean that parents are careless; it shows how economic pressures enter children’s everyday lives through family routines. In contrast, families with flexible work, stable income and quiet home spaces may use technology more deliberately, alongside outdoor play, books and face-to-face interaction. The same device therefore carries different developmental meanings across households.

The chronosystem is particularly useful for comparing past and present childhood. Historical change has produced greater connectivity, but it has also created new risks, including commercial advertising, algorithmic content, cyberbullying and reduced opportunities for unstructured outdoor play. Earlier generations faced different constraints, such as limited access to information, narrower communication networks and more rigid gendered expectations. Neither period is simply better. Contemporary childhood offers children broader cultural exposure and new ways to express identity, whereas past childhoods sometimes offered more sustained, low-pressure contact with local peers and adults. A critical account must recognise both gains and losses rather than treating technology as uniformly harmful or beneficial.

The EYLF V2.0 supports a balanced response. Its emphasis on belonging, being and becoming requires educators to recognise children’s present experiences, including their digital lives, while supporting agency, wellbeing and learning (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022). Educators should therefore avoid moral panic about screens and instead teach children how to use technology purposefully. Practical strategies include co-viewing digital content, discussing online safety, balancing screen-based activities with sensory and outdoor play, and inviting families to share their own digital practices. These approaches treat children as active participants rather than passive consumers.

Digital technology has therefore reshaped childhood across several ecological levels. Its effects are unequal because families differ in income, time, digital literacy and access to safe public spaces. The most useful educational response is not to ban technology or celebrate it uncritically, but to build responsive relationships around it. When educators and families guide children’s digital use, technology can extend belonging, communication and learning; when it replaces those relationships, it may narrow children’s opportunities to develop.

References for Topic 1

Australian Government Department of Education. (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia V2.0. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Edwards, S., Mantilla, A., Grieshaber, S., Skouteris, H., & Lumsden, E. (2023). The role of digital technologies in supporting quality improvement in early childhood education and care. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks2022-2026/2028/

Topic 2: First Nations Perspectives

Early childhood services have a responsibility to embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, histories and perspectives in everyday practice. This responsibility extends beyond celebrating NAIDOC Week or displaying Aboriginal art. The EYLF V2.0 identifies Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives as a principle that should shape relationships, curriculum, environments and partnerships with families (AGDE, 2022). Genuine integration requires services to recognise First Nations knowledge systems as living, contemporary and relevant to all children. The argument here is that tokenistic inclusion persists because services often treat First Nations perspectives as an occasional addition rather than a foundation for practice.

A major barrier is shallow or one-off consultation. Services may invite an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community member to deliver a cultural activity, then return to business as usual once the event ends. Research on engagement with local Aboriginal communities identifies this pattern as a barrier to sustainable relationships, because communities are asked to contribute cultural knowledge without having ongoing influence over curriculum, governance or service decisions (Skattebol et al., 2024). Such approaches can place an unfair burden on individual community members. They may also present Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures as fixed, historical or separate from children’s daily lives. In reality, cultures are diverse, dynamic and connected to Country, language, family and community.

Trust is another condition for genuine engagement. Evidence reviewed for the Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership found that trust was central to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families’ participation in early childhood education and care (SNAICC, 2024). Families may be hesitant to engage with mainstream services where they have experienced racism, judgement or cultural misunderstanding. Barriers to participation can also include cost, transport, limited local services and concerns that staff will not understand cultural obligations or family structures (Productivity Commission, 2024). A service cannot build trust through a single cultural event. It must demonstrate respect through consistent relationships, accessible communication and visible accountability.

A practical strategy is to establish a reciprocal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reference group. The group should include local Elders, community members, families and, where appropriate, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators. Its role should not be limited to approving artwork or advising on cultural events. It should inform curriculum planning, family engagement, staffing priorities, resource selection and service improvement. The group should receive fair payment or recognition for its expertise, meet regularly and have a clear process for providing feedback. This approach shifts power from the service to the community. It also creates opportunities for educators to learn from local knowledge rather than relying on generic resources.

Educators can also embed First Nations perspectives through everyday materials and routines. They can audit books, puzzles, dolls, music, dramatic-play resources and visual displays for accurate, respectful and contemporary representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. They can learn the Traditional Owners of the land on which the service stands and use appropriate Acknowledgement of Country practices. Local language words, seasonal knowledge, storytelling and connections to Country can be included when community members agree and guide the process. These practices should be ongoing, not confined to Reconciliation Week or NAIDOC Week.

The EYLF V2.0 frames this work as part of children’s belonging, being and becoming. Children need to see their identities reflected in the service, while non-Indigenous children need opportunities to learn respectful ways of understanding Country, culture and history (AGDE, 2022). Genuine integration therefore benefits the whole learning community. It also supports reconciliation by moving beyond symbolic recognition towards shared responsibility. Services that build sustained, community-led relationships are more likely to create environments where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families experience belonging rather than exclusion.

References for Topic 2

Skattebol, J., Hind, P., Blaxland, M., & Newton, B. J. (2024). Smoke: Enablers and barriers for sustainable engagement with local Aboriginal communities. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 49(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391241236499

SNAICC. (2024). Evidence on optimal hours of early childhood education and care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. https://www.snaicc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/240715-Evidence-review-on-optimal-hours-of-ECEC.pdf

TCHR2002 Assessment 1 Portfolio: Childhood, Families and Communities

Topic 3: Gender Equity in Early Childhood

Gender equity in early childhood settings requires more than removing obviously sexist toys or posters. Gender expectations often operate through ordinary routines: who is encouraged to build, who is asked to help, whose emotions receive attention and which stories children hear. The EYLF V2.0 promotes equity, inclusion and high expectations for every child, which means educators must actively challenge assumptions about what boys and girls can do, feel and become (AGDE, 2022). The argument is that gender equity improves when educators examine everyday practices, rather than relying on gender-neutral intentions.

A common practice that can reinforce stereotypes is assigning children to activities according to perceived gender. Educators may direct girls towards quiet, caring or creative play while encouraging boys towards construction, physical activity or leadership roles. These patterns can appear harmless because they respond to children’s apparent preferences. However, preferences are shaped by repeated social messages at home, in media and in the service itself. Research with Victorian educators found that gender stereotypes remained common even in programs that educators considered gender neutral, and that assumptions about responsibility and decision-making authority were influenced by gendered expectations (Casey et al., 2025). A child who repeatedly hears that boys are “naturally” physical or girls are “naturally” caring may limit their own choices before recognising that these limits are social rather than natural.

An alternative approach is to audit and redesign the daily organisation of the room. Educators can observe for one week which children access blocks, dramatic play, climbing equipment, art materials and caregiving props. They can also record who receives praise, who is asked to move heavy equipment and whose emotional expression adults respond to. The purpose is not to force children into particular activities. It is to remove barriers that make some choices feel unavailable. For example, an educator might rotate responsibility for carrying equipment across all children, ensure that caring roles are valued alongside construction and physical play, and offer books showing diverse genders in varied roles.

Language is equally important. Comments such as “boys will be boys” or “she is such a little mother” may seem affectionate, but they attach fixed expectations to children’s behaviour. Educators can instead describe what they observe: “You carried the heavy basket carefully,” “You noticed your friend was upset,” or “You built a tall tower.” These responses recognise the child’s action without linking it to gender. They also give children language for a wider range of identities, interests and emotions. Small changes in adult language can therefore alter the relational environment of the room.

Gender equity also depends on the educator workforce. Men remain underrepresented in Australian early childhood education, making up less than 4 per cent of the workforce, and stereotypes about men’s suitability for caring work continue to affect recruitment and retention (University of South Australia, 2025). A more gender-diverse workforce can expose children to different models of care, leadership and professional identity. It does not solve inequity on its own, but it challenges the assumption that caring work belongs to women. Services should therefore examine recruitment practices, workplace culture and the way educators are represented in children’s play and learning materials.

The EYLF V2.0 links equity with children’s developing identity and sense of belonging. Children are more likely to participate confidently when they see that their interests, family structures and ways of expressing themselves are respected (AGDE, 2022). An educator who challenges gendered assumptions helps children understand that they can be gentle and strong, nurturing and adventurous, expressive and analytical. Gender equity is therefore not an add-on to early childhood practice. It is part of creating conditions in which every child can develop agency, relationships and a secure sense of who they may become.

References for Topic 3

Casey, E., Kim, M., & Reid, A. (2025). Connecting gender equality with sustainability in early childhood: Educators’ understandings in Victoria, Australia. Environmental Education Research, 31(2), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2418310

Smith, K., Hurst, B., & Cartmel, J. (2025). Complexities of programming for gender equity in outside school hours care. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 50(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391251358014

University of South Australia. (2025, October 23). The elephant in the classroom: Why children need more male teachers. https://www.unisa.edu.au/media-centre/Releases/2025/the-elephant-in-the-classroom-why-children-need-more-male-teachers/

Reference list