Next Article in Journal
Developing and Validating an AI-TPACK Assessment Framework: Enhancing Teacher Educators’ Professional Practice Through Authentic Artifacts
Previous Article in Journal
Entrepreneurial Career: A Critical Occupational Decision
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mindsets for Preschool Inclusion: Preschool Teachers’ Perspectives on Disability in Early Childhood Education
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/educsci15111451
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cultivating Collaborative Practice to Sustain and Retain Early Childhood Educators

by
Belinda Downey
1,*,
Leanne Gibbs
1,
Will Letts
1 and
Sharynne McLeod
2
1
School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia
2
Children’s Voices Centre, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(11), 1451; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111451
Submission received: 2 October 2025 / Revised: 24 October 2025 / Accepted: 27 October 2025 / Published: 1 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Teachers and Teaching in Early Childhood Education and Care: Time to Think Otherwise)
Versions Notes

Abstract

The retention of educators is foundational to the provision of high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC), yet the sector continues to face significant workforce challenges. This study explores how organisational climate and leadership influence collaborative practice and, in turn, educator retention. Using a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach, data were collected through focus groups and interviews with 34 educators across diverse service types in the Northern Territory, Australia. In accordance with CGT, analysis revealed two core categories—‘struggle’ and ‘hope’—reflecting the impact of workplace relationships on collaborative practice. In ECEC settings where communication was limited and psychological safety was lacking, participants described resistant behaviours and horizontal violence, which contributed to educator stress and attrition. Conversely, environments that fostered open communication, reflective practice, and trusting relationships enabled collaborative practice that supported educator wellbeing and retention. The findings suggest that intentional leadership and an organisational climate that embodies ‘care’ are essential for cultivating collaboration, enhancing job satisfaction, and improving workforce stability. This paper proposes that ‘building connection builds retention,’ highlighting the importance of relational and reflective practices in sustaining the ECEC workforce.

1. Introduction

Children’s wellbeing, development, and their potential to achieve equitable outcomes later in life depend on accessing high-quality pedagogical environments within early childhood education (ECE) (Melhuish et al., 2013; OECD, 2012, 2016, 2020). Furthermore, the quality of early childhood education (ECE) is shaped by the interactions and ECE environments educators create (McNally & Slutsky, 2017; OECD, 2012, 2016, 2020). This means that children’s wellbeing and development can be affected by educator attrition as adult–child interactions are impacted (Phillips et al., 2016; Press et al., 2015; Totenhagen et al., 2016). Additionally, organisational climate and leadership within a service influence the quality of educator–child interactions, educator collaborative practice, and educator well-being (Douglass, 2019; Fenech & Watt, 2023; OECD, 2017b; White, 2024). The impact of educator retention, organisational climate, and working conditions in ensuring the provision of high-quality ECE highlights the significance of these elements in shaping children’s educational outcomes.
Organisational climate refers to individuals’ perception of, or feeling towards, the overall atmosphere of the work environment, including the language used, the interactions that occur, the implicit standards, and the shared meanings that exist within the organisation (Bloom, 2015; Hewett & La Paro, 2020; Slot, 2018). Quality work environments are those where employees feel psychologically and physically safe and supported (OECD, 2017a). However, poor work environments where educators have low job satisfaction and well-being, high demands, heightened stress, and lower resources can negatively affect educators’ work engagement, their retention, and the quality of ECE (Bull et al., 2024; Jones et al., 2017; OECD, 2020). The retention of educators and their attraction to the ECE profession rely on educators’ ability to access quality working conditions that foster job satisfaction and well-being (OECD, 2020). Positive educator relationships with the children, families and colleagues increase job satisfaction and well-being (Cumming, 2017; Cumming & Wong, 2019; Jones et al., 2017; McMullen et al., 2020). Leadership approaches that focus on the development of cohesive collegial relationships between the leaders and their team and team members can assist in supporting positive organisational climates, higher-quality ECE care, and improved educator retention (Douglass, 2019; Douglass et al., 2021; Fenech et al., 2022; Slot, 2018).

1.1. Impact of Organisational Climate and Leadership on Collaborative Practice Within Early Childhood

Collaborative practice involves educators working together to observe, plan, evaluate, and reflect on jointly developed education and care goals. This type of collaboration requires educators to effectively communicate and share their knowledge and skills (Baeten & Simons, 2014; Pfeiffer et al., 2019; Sanders-Smith et al., 2021). An organisational climate and leadership approach that encourages open communication and collaborative practice can assist in fostering a positive team dynamic (Fenech et al., 2022; OECD, 2017a). The collaborative practice enacted by leaders and educators is influenced by the organisational climate of an early childhood setting (Hewett & La Paro, 2020). Harrison et al. (2019) identified a link between collaborative practice and quality in ECE. The contributing factors related to high-quality ECE included the following: leadership, effective teamwork, a shared commitment to the service philosophy, and an aim for continuous improvement. Additionally, positive collaborative and collegial relationships were critical to achieving sustainable quality improvement, with leadership holding a key role in cultivating that environment (Harrison et al., 2019; Schlieber et al., 2023).
An organisational climate reflects the interactions and relationships that exist within an ECE service (Bloom, 2015; Hewett & La Paro, 2020; Slot, 2018). Leadership structures, resources and support structures, positive or negative language used, and the educational philosophies and values that are held by educators can all influence organisational climate (OECD, 2018). Leadership models that prioritise relationships as core to the leadership approach encourage a culture of learning and collaboration that can assist in fostering ethical, purposeful, respectful, and compassionate teaching practices (Fasoli et al., 2007; Hard & Jónsdóttir, 2013; Waniganayake et al., 2023). These leadership models are important as the development of individual relationships with colleagues can support collaborative practice with other educators and the service as a whole (Degotardi, 2017; Vardaman et al., 2015). The development of strong relationships fosters mutual trust, respect, and collaboration, which enables more open and honest communication between colleagues. Open and honest communication increases context-based decisions around children’s and educators’ needs, which further fosters team growth and collaborative practices (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). As collegial interactions form a central aspect of daily working relationships in ECE settings, these interactions can affect educator well-being and attrition intentions (OECD, 2020; Schlieber et al., 2023; Van den Borre et al., 2021). While collaborative environments increase the likelihood of educator retention, individual attitudes and behaviours within a team are still shaped by the leadership approaches and broader organisational climate (Colmer, 2015; Hewett & La Paro, 2020; Morris, 2020; Ng et al., 2019).
Collaborative practices include opportunities for engaging with colleagues in pedagogical discussions, fostering a strength-based approach to teamwork, and the development of relationships within the ECE setting and broader community (Jones et al., 2019; Melzak et al., 2025). Positive collegial relationships have been identified as protecting educators against increased stress and burnout, contributing to improved educator wellbeing (Jones et al., 2019). Within an Australian context, ECE regulatory requirements have established an educator–child ratio that governs the number of adults required based on the number and age of children (ACECQA, 2021). The ratio also specifies the necessary qualifications, which typically necessitate two or more educators to work together in a room. As a result, a team-teaching approach is often adopted, which requires collaborative practices (ACECQA, 2021; Schaack et al., 2020). Due to the importance of educator collaborative practice for quality education and care, this paper focuses on how the cultivation of collaborative practices within organisational climates can support educator retention.

1.2. Background to Study

Staff shortages in the Australian ECE profession are reaching crisis levels. Recent estimates regarding educator retention and attrition in Australia indicate that the ECE workforce must grow by 8% (approximately 21,000 educators) to meet current workforce demands, with approximately 36,000 more educators needed by 2034 (Job and Skills Australia, 2024; Australian Government Department of Education, 2025; National Children’s Education and Care Workforce Strategy, 2021). Early childhood educator teams in Australia include vocationally qualified educators, tertiary qualified educators, and educators working towards either of these qualifications. Educator roles can vary depending on the qualifications held (ACECQA, n.d.-b). ECE services differ in type: long day care, family day care, after-school hours care, and preschool. ECE services also differ in management structures: for-profit or not-for-profit, a single entity managed service, multiple entities managed by one company, or a community-based service managed by parent or community volunteers (Early Learning Association Australia, 2021). Additionally, the number of educators and children varies according to the service type, size, and educator qualifications. These factors, as well as the age and ability of children in the room, can affect educators’ stress, workloads, and confidence to support children’s needs (Amstad & Müller, 2020). Within this study, participants were working in long-day-care not-for-profit multiple-entity managed services; for-profit single-entity managed services; and not-for-profit community-based managed services. The qualifications of participants included vocational and tertiary qualified educators and educators working towards these qualifications, offering a diversity in their experience of organisational climate and leadership.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper presents one component of the study titled “Staying in the early childhood education and care profession: Struggle, hope and connection” (Downey, 2023). The study used an interpretivist, constructivist paradigm that explored retention of 34 early childhood educators in the Northern Territory of Australia. The educators were selected through random purposive sampling (Bryman, 2016; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Ethics approval for the study was received (Removed to facilitate the review process), and signed consent was obtained from participants. The study involved 11 small focus group discussions of approximately two to four educators in their workplaces. Participants chose the time and location of the interviews, which were predominantly in their workplace lunchroom and during their lunch break, resulting in unplanned small focus groupings of participants. Two participants chose to be interviewed individually. Focus group discussions were 20–30 min in duration, with some extending to 60 min. All interviews were open-ended, with the direction of the interview driven by the participants. The discussions were recorded with participant permission. Interviews were transcribed, and data were analysed using a constant comparative analysis, which is a constructivist grounded theory approach (CGT). The data analysis was also member checked by participants (Charmaz, 2017; Tracy, 2010). Categories were generated from the data analysis that reflected the educators’ reports of what enabled and constrained retention. CGT was used in the research design, methods, and data analysis as CGT acknowledges that researchers and participants hold multiple views and roles and that the data must be considered within the situated context (Charmaz, 2017).

2.1. Aim

The literature review highlighted a range of factors influencing educator retention, which led to the development of this study’s aim—to identify the factors that enable or constrain educator retention in the early childhood education (ECE) sector. This paper focuses specifically on the professional and organisational factors that ECEs identify as challenges and supports in their role.
What professional and organisational factors do early childhood educators identify as enabling or constraining their retention in the sector?

2.2. Participants

Thirty-four educators from Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia, and the surrounding suburbs and townships participated in the study. Participants were employed across eight unique workplaces (Table 1). Nineteen participants held vocational and tertiary qualifications, with 25 participants working towards a qualification (Table 2). Participants ranged in age and experience. Participants were at different career stages. Table 2 provides a summary of the participants’ qualifications, ECE service, and experience. To ensure participants’ privacy and confidentiality, pseudonyms are used in this paper.

2.3. Data Analysis

The data set was analysed, compared, and categorised using a CGT approach (Charmaz, 2015). A CGT approach explains the phenomenon or phenomena being explored with an aim to generate a constructed theory for new knowledge on an under-researched area (Birks & Mills, 2015). Data collection and data analysis occurred concurrently, which meant that future interview questions were informed by previous interview sessions to ensure further understanding (Birks & Mills, 2015). This constant comparative analysis is a core process of CGT where data are compared across groups and incidents throughout the process. However, the open-ended interview style and participant-led direction of this study’s focus groups meant that not all topics raised were discussed by all participants.
In CGT, a core category is generated through the data analysis process, which becomes the overarching category of all coding that occurs. Memos (i.e., analytical notes) were also recorded during analysis and continually reflected upon during the generation of conceptual data categories to review and refine categories (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014). Testing occurred to ensure that a logical relationship pattern existed between the codes and the core category, which supports a theory-driven analysis (Birks & Mills, 2015; Saldaña, 2015). The core category identified was the participants’ need to adjust their practices or accommodate educational values. Additionally, two properties were identified within the core category code: ‘hope’ and ‘struggle’. The properties identified that participants either found hope in their ability to adjust their practices based on reflection of the educational values of their service as a whole, or they struggled to accommodate their own or others’ educational values. This paper presents the findings that relate to how the organisational climate and leadership within services enabled or constrained collaborative practice and the connection this had to educators’ intention to stay or leave the ECEC setting. In accordance with the aim of CGT, to generate a theory grounded in data, the substantive theory that was generated was ‘building connection builds retention’. The results shared in this paper illustrate the substantive theory with an explanation of the connections built through collaborative practice and how this contributes to increased educator retention.

3. Results

The results are categorised within the two properties of struggle and hope. The two themes relate to the practices that occurred or did not occur within the organisational climate of different ECE settings. The results of the first property, struggle-comprising resistant educator tactics and horizontal violence, are discussed, followed by the results of the second property, hope—comprising trusting relationships and collaborative practice. In the ECE settings where participants identified as struggling, there appeared to be limited collaborative practice or direct communication. These participants identified that they or their co-workers employed resistant tactics and/or horizontal violence. Whereas in the ECE settings, where participants found hope, they identified trusting relationships that fostered collaborative practices as characteristics of their practice. The following detailed participant perspectives and vignettes illuminate these core categories of struggle and hope.

3.1. Struggle: Resistant Educator Tactics and Horizontal Violence

The term ‘resistant educator tactics’ describes a set of behaviours enacted by participants where they passively or assertively contested instructions, directions or practices being asked of them. The results indicate that participants resisted instructions when they disagreed with their co-workers’ pedagogical practices, particularly when there was a lack of open and transparent communication between the participant and their co-worker. This practice could be described as horizontal violence. Hard (2006) described horizontal violence as a form of psychological harassment that creates hostility and vulnerability. It is important to note that this paper presents findings from the participants’ point of view; therefore, co-workers’ behaviour towards them is interpreted as horizontal violence as opposed to resistance. However, the perspective that the actions are viewed from (the participant or the co-worker) could easily reverse the understanding of who was using what tactic (e.g., resistance or horizontal violence).
One participant, Sophie, explained how her co-worker used a communication approach that was ‘very dismissive’ and that did ‘not [have] much give or understanding’ to other educators’ perspectives or pedagogical practices. Sophie identified that her co-worker would often use verbal ‘railroading’ (i.e., bullying) techniques with other staff to encourage their compliance. Initially, Sophie tried to advocate for her pedagogical practice by highlighting the ‘positive[s]’ of her practice, such as ‘what we are doing in this space has worked really well.’ This positive communication approach was unsuccessful. Sophie identified that she felt unable to communicate with her co-worker. With limited options, she became more assertive and began to ‘stand my ground.’ Sophie stated she would not engage in the practices she did not agree with, nor would she allow the co-worker to enact the practices without questioning them. This change in tactics was interpreted as Sophie beginning to enact tactics of resistance.
Sophie shared that when she started to question her co-worker’s practices, the relationship deteriorated further. Sophie’s co-worker began to escalate minor technical disagreements to their area manager, which has been interpreted as horizontal violence. These escalated incidents included ‘the detergent we used for washing the dishes’ or ‘[the] terminology on the [cleaning] bottle[s]’ not being aligned with the National Quality Standards (ACECQA, n.d.-a). Sophie stated she would always explain ‘how it [the practice or terminology] was correct, … [and] she [the co-worker] seemed happy enough’; however, the issue would still be reported. Sophie noted she would then be ‘contacted by the area manager’ to justify her actions. Sophie described the situation as ‘hard’ and ‘stressful’, leading to her decision to resign from the service.
Maree recalled a previous ECE service she had worked in, where the staff she worked with ‘had been there for quite some time’ and Maree was new to the service. She tried to encourage her co-workers to consider the children’s needs individually as opposed to applying a group approach. Maree explained that her co-workers immediately responded that an individual approach would ‘never work.’ Maree’s resistance tactic was interpreted as her continuing the practice of individually attending to each child’s needs, which she valued pedagogically, while the other staff in the room continued their group approach. Maree described her work environment as a ‘trial by fire [a very difficult time]’ but ‘after about four months … the staff agreed that it [the individualized approach] worked.’
While Joanne did not discuss her own resistant tactics, she recalled a co-worker, Brad, whom she described as ‘a bit demanding.’ Joanne’s description of Brad not only identifies his acts of resistance but also how he was perceived by other educators. Joanne explained ‘you’d try to get him to take his breaks’ but as his shift had only started an hour earlier, he would refuse, stating a ‘break is supposed to break up your day’; Joanne agreed this was a fair comment ‘but other staff wasn’t [sic] happy with it’. When he was asked to clean, Joanne stated he would refuse, declaring he was ‘not a cleaner, I look after children.’ Again, Joanne said she understood his sentiments, but soon after, management ‘drop[ed] his hours’, so he resigned.

3.2. Hope: Trusting Relationships and Collaborative Practice

Trusting collegial relationships within ECE settings can provide intrinsic motivation that contributes to the development of a positive workplace ethos (Thorpe et al., 2020). Participants discussed how the relationships they developed supported or rewarded them by assisting them in achieving learning goals for the children or themselves. The relationships that were developed also provided intrinsic motivation in their role, fostering their ability to build a more inclusive ECE environment. Leadership was a large part of the development of relationships, with several participants identifying their service directors, or themselves as service directors, as a key figure in guiding collaborative practice. Olivia and Shaye discussed their director, Lorraine, and her encouragement of the team engaging in reflective practice, assisting their knowledge to know ‘what you’re looking for [in your observations],’ ensuring they could better support the children’s needs. Olivia commented that the educators at ECS 4 ‘gel’ and are ‘such a good team … such a solid team’. Olivia discussed the open communication between the educators to ensure that every child’s ‘needs are known by every carer’ and that the organisational climate was ‘a supportive environment.’ Shaye agreed that working at ECS4 was ‘work with friends rather than going to work with work co-workers’. In addition to the collaborative organisational climate, Olivia identified that the teams’ overall educational values and philosophies were aligned, which was key to her retention at the service. Olivia did not want to work where ‘people aren’t feeling the same way … [where] your philosophy is completely different, [and] the way you feel about teaching.’
Erin, who held a leadership role, discussed the importance she felt critical reflection held in pedagogical practice. Initially, Erin’s team had found pedagogical programming as an area that was ‘difficult’ because the team had previously planned learning experiences without learning goals: for example, ‘9.30 a.m. sandpit play’. However, Erin’s engagement of reflective practice with her colleagues was to ensure the children’s learning was ‘intentional’ and ‘visible’ to others, which Erin felt was pedagogically important. Furthermore, by encouraging intentionality in the program through collaborative reflective practice, Erin found that the team were able to make ‘huge progress’ in terms of pedagogical practice. Staff’s progress continued, and the pedagogical conversations became embedded in the practice of the organisational climate. Erin identified that the conversations assisted with staff agency and autonomy in relation to programming as staff developed more confidence and agency in their pedagogical skills, which Erin attributed to her ability to maintain a ‘stable work[force]’ in their ECE service.
Julie also commented on the importance of a leader who ‘values professional development and … values early childhood’ and the need for ‘working with people collaboratively in the same environment’. Julie noted that ‘in an ELC [early learning centre] you’ve actually got to talk, to negotiate and talk to other people and work as a team.’ Rachel’s and Audrey’s conversation in a separate interview concurred with Julie’s point. Rachel identified that her role was ‘easier’ in terms of workload because she had another group leader in the room, Audrey. Audrey confirmed that the two colleagues ‘share the workload.’ Audrey discussed how the two colleagues ‘just work it out [their programming] between us’, and Rachel added that they ‘just change each week who goes [to take the programming]’, but Audrey clarified ‘it depends on … [for example] if I had a day off [we need to change who takes what time]’. The conversation with Audrey and Rachel highlighted the changes that occur depending on staff availability and how flexibility and open communication can support collaboration and ease workload stress when working together.

4. Discussion

The practices discussed above appeared to be connected to existing relationships, guidance from leaders and the organisational climate of the ECE service. The two properties of struggle and hope identified the different practices that different organisational climates and relationships created. The theme of resistant educator tactics and horizontal violence was evident in organisational climates where trusting relationships or open communication did not appear to have developed. In contrast, collaborative practice was evident in the organisational climates where educators openly communicated and developed reciprocal trusting relationships. Participants identified that leadership had a role in guiding these practices.
A lack of open communication and critical reflection on pedagogy in the organisational climates of Sophie and Maree appeared to have a negative effect on the relationships and collaborative practices between co-workers. These relationships appeared to limit options for a discussion to arise so that an understanding or compromise could be reached between the co-workers. Conversely, in the organisational climates described by Shaye, Olivia and Erin, open communication through critical reflection was encouraged and supported by intentional leadership. This practice and openness appeared to foster collegial relationships, which may also have assisted compromise if conflict arose.
Open communication is more likely when leadership approaches or organisational climates foster a sense of psychological safety (Cho et al., 2023). In organisational climates where excessive criticism, intimidation, discouragement, or disinterest occur, individual staff can hold feelings of being undervalued by co-workers and experience distress around the interpersonal conflict that is present (Hard, 2006). Psychological safety can only exist when all team members hold similar perceptions of feeling safe (Edmondson, 1999). A psychologically safe organisational climate is one where interpersonal trust and mutual respect between individuals on a team exist (Jha, 2019). Shaye’s and Olivia’s excerpts refer to the support they both felt from their leader and their team, indicating that mutual trust existed, making them feel safe. Conversely, Sophie’s comments about her co-worker being ‘dismissive’ and using ‘railroading’ techniques confirm that mutual trust did not appear to be present in their relationship. Subsequently, the conversations necessary to build a trusting and respectful relationship did not occur because the organisational climate was not psychologically safe for Sophie or her co-worker.
In a report by Hall (1996) over 25 years ago, resistance behaviours were found to be common amongst educators who held leadership qualities. These acts of resistance are often acts of agency when educators perceive a practice as negatively impacting the care of children (Fenech & Sumsion, 2007; Osgood, 2006). Acts of agency in the form of resistance resonate with both Maree’s and Sophie’s actions. Sophie’s and Maree’s co-workers were interpreted as enacting horizontal violence, which does hold similarities to an act of bullying. Bullying has been defined as when ‘a person or group of people repeatedly behave unreasonably towards another worker’ (Fair Work Ombudsman, n.d., n.p.). Bullying is more likely to be enacted by individuals in established roles or in management positions. Additionally, individuals are more likely to enact bullying behaviour when they have been exposed to, or indoctrinated into, organisational climates that model or enable bullying behaviour (Jönsson & Muhonen, 2022; McFarland et al., 2024; Wilson, 2016).
Bullying can occur over a period and in different forms, often because of frustration around a situation or conflict that has been escalated and not resolved (Ng et al., 2019). Sophie’s experience of horizontal violence, where her co-worker continually escalated issues, was consistent with both the occurrence of the behaviour over a period and the change in the forms of behaviour (Ng et al., 2019). Both Sophie and her co-worker also appeared to hold pre-existing frustration and unresolved conflict. However, an absence of open communication, critical reflection, and psychologically safe spaces for conversations to be held may provide an explanation of why resistance or horizontal violence could have arisen. Similarly, in Maree’s situation, her co-workers continued their behaviour over a period, and an initial lack of a psychological safe space may have been why resistance or horizontal violence arose. However, as time continued for ‘about four months’, it is possible that Maree and her co-workers started to develop trusting relationships, creating a psychologically safe space for dialogue around Maree’s practice and theirs.
Collaborative practices stem from a leader’s ability to be empathetic to different viewpoints and their encouragement of open communication and discussion (Bloom, 2015). Furthermore, a leader’s trust in their team influences leadership collaboration and delegation (Moshel & Berkovich, 2021). The findings in this study, illustrated by Erin’s comments about her team and Shaye’s and Olivia’s comments about their leader, suggest that the leader’s relationship with the team and their communication style can support collaborative practice. The organisational climates described, where collaborative conversations were encouraged, supported confidence as participants and their colleagues felt safe to voice their opinion (Wilson, 2016). These results suggest that intentional leadership approaches and organisational climates where educators cultivate a culture of caring and trust, such as the conversation held with Audrey and Rachel, encourage collaborative practice and decisions that prioritise the well-being of everyone (Hard & Jónsdóttir, 2013; Moshel & Berkovich, 2021; Nodding, 2013; Wang & Hsieh, 2011). The deliberate cultivation of relationships also provides social support that assists collegiality, communication, and the creation of a positive organisational climate (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017; Heikka & Hujala, 2013; Heikka & Waniganayake, 2011). While these relationships benefit the participant retention and wellbeing, they also support the quality and continuity of care children receive (Hewett & La Paro, 2020; Hur et al., 2015).
This paper reports on what professional and organisational factors ECEs identified as challenges and supports in their role. The results highlighted that safe, supportive organisational climates and reciprocal, respectful relationships were important for collaborative practice to occur. Additionally, open communication and critical pedagogical reflection were fundamental to shaping collaborative relationships. In their absence, behaviours of resistance and horizontal violence were evident in the relationships where participants struggled to build mutual respect or trust.
The application of tactics such as resistance and horizontal violence left participants describing that they felt unsupported and increased their work stress. Increased work stress and a lack of support can reduce job satisfaction (Foy et al., 2019; Labrague et al., 2021). The results in this paper provide insight into educator behaviours when a disconnection between co-workers existed. Furthermore, intentional leadership approaches that focus on open communication and pedagogical reflection can influence the connection that individuals feel to their co-workers (Bloom, 2015; OECD, 2017a). A silence around leadership support in Sophie’s and Maree’s excerpts highlights a need to further examine leaders’ awareness of strategies for change within ECE organisational climates. This is important given the diverse cultural nature of ECE services, where leadership styles and behaviours are shaped by cultural differences (Martin & Cullen, 2006).
In contrast, an organisational climate focused on creating a culture of caring can assist in encouraging open communication, the trying of new practices, and relationship development (Nodding, 2013; Wang & Hsieh, 2011). Moreover, the reflective pedagogical conversations supported intrinsic motivation for the participants in their roles, which is a form of job crafting (Bakker & Demerouti, 2018; Bakker et al., 2016). Job crafting has been defined as proactive choices and changes made by an individual within their roles and relationships to promote a greater sense of intrinsic motivation and meaning from their work (Bakker et al., 2016).
Proactive choices were evident in this study when participants sought support, held discussions, and adapted their communication or practices. These proactive choices can also influence colleagues and positively affect the overall team (Bakker et al., 2016). Bakker and Demerouti (2018) determined that when employees feel engaged in what they do and believe that their work holds meaning they have fewer turnover intentions. The participants described their engagement in their role through the proactive choices and changes they made, which further supported their wellbeing, providing higher-quality care and increasing the likelihood of their retention (Eadie et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2020; Leana et al., 2009; McKinlay et al., 2018).

Limitations

In this paper, limitations common in qualitative research are highlighted. These limitations include generalizability and the results’ reliance on the researchers’ interpretation of the data. The data analysis focused on the challenges and supports within the educator’s role, not organisational climates, leadership, or collaborative practice specifically. Despite these limitations, the data were indicative cases from a particular place and time and gave general implications for practice. The findings therefore provide a reflective point for teams, colleagues, and organisations on approaches to supporting collaborative practice, cultivating caring organisational climates and ultimately educator retention.

5. Conclusions

Organisational climates can influence individual behaviours and collaborative practice. According to this study, in organisations where collaboration was not actively encouraged, behaviours of resistance and horizontal violence ensued. These behaviours impacted communication, relationships, and retention. Conversely, open communication and intentional leadership strategies cultivated a culture of caring, and mutually trusting and respectful relationships occurred. Trusting relationships fostered cohesive cultures where early childhood colleagues worked collaboratively together. These relationships benefit participants’ well-being, increasing their job satisfaction and the likelihood of their retention while also contributing to high-quality education and care for children (Cumming, 2017; Cumming & Wong, 2019).

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, B.D., L.G., S.M., and W.L.; methodology, B.D., L.G., S.M., and W.L.; software, B.D.; validation, B.D.; formal analysis, B.D.; investigation, B.D.; resources, B.D.; data curation, B.D.; writing—original draft preparation, B.D. and L.G.; writing—review and editing, B.D., L.G., S.M., and W.L.; visualisation, B.D.; supervision, W.L., S.M., and L.G.; project administration, B.D.; funding acquisition, B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Charles Sturt University (protocol code 2012/178, with approval granted on 2 November 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ACECQAAustralian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority;
BEdBachelor of Education;
BScLBachelor of Science and Law;
CDUCharles Darwin University;
CEOCatholic Education Office;
Cert IIICertificate III in Children’s Services;
CGTConstructivist Grounded Theory;
DEdDiploma of Education;
DipDiploma in Children’s Services;
ECEEarly childhood education;
OECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

References

  1. Amstad, M., & Müller, C. M. (2020). Students’ problem behaviors as sources of teacher stress in special needs schools for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Frontiers in Education, 4, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2021). National law and regulations. Available online: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-law-regulations (accessed on 12 October 2021).
  3. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (n.d.-a). National quality standards. Available online: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard (accessed on 19 October 2023).
  4. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (n.d.-b). Qualification requirements. Available online: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/qualifications/qualification-requirements (accessed on 19 October 2023).
  5. Australian Government Department of Education. (2025). Early childhood education and care national workforce census: 2024 national report. Australian Government.
  6. Baeten, M., & Simons, M. (2014). Student teachers’ team teaching: Models, effects, and conditions for implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: Implications for employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Sanz Vergel, A. I. (2016). Modelling job crafting behaviors: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69(1), 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloom, P. J. (2015). Blueprint for action: Leading your team in continuous quality improvement. New Horizons. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bøe, M., & Hognestad, K. (2017). Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: Best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bull, R., McFarland, L., Cumming, T., & Wong, S. (2024). The impact of work-related wellbeing and workplace culture and climate on intention to leave in the early childhood sector. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 69, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  15. Charmaz, K. (2015). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology (pp. 53–84). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  16. Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cho, H., Steege, L. M., & Arsenault Knudsen, É. N. (2023). Psychological safety, communication openness, nurse job outcomes, and patient safety in hospital nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 46, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Colmer, K. (2015). Leading professional development and learning in early childhood centres: A social systems perspective. In M. Waniganayake, J. Rodd, & L. Gibbs (Eds.), Thinking and learning about leadership: Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and Norway (pp. 32–48). Community Child Care Co-opertive. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cumming, T. (2017). Early childhood educators’ well-being: An updated review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cumming, T., & Wong, S. (2019). Towards a holistic conceptualisation of early childhood educators’ work-related well-being. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(3), 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  22. Degotardi, S. (2017). (Re)conceptualising relationships in infant-toddler pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  24. Douglass, A. (2019). Leadership for quality early childhood education and care. Available online: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/leadership-for-quality-early-childhood-education-and-care_6e563bae-en (accessed on 23 October 2023).
  25. Douglass, A., Chickerella, R., & Maroney, M. (2021). Becoming trauma-informed: A case study of early educator professional development and organizational change. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42(2), 182–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Downey, B. (2023). Staying in the early childhood education and care profession: Struggle, hope, and connection [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Charles Sturt University]. [Google Scholar]
  27. Eadie, P., Levickis, P., Murray, L., Page, J., Elek, C., & Church, A. (2021). Early childhood educators’ wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(5), 903–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Early Learning Association Australia. (2021). The strength of the community not for profit early education sector. Available online: https://elaa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Strength-of-Community-based-ECEC-Services-March-2021-2.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2023).
  29. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fair Work Ombudsman. (n.d.). Bullying in the workplace. Available online: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/bullying-sexual-harassment-and-discrimination-at-work/bullying-in-the-workplace (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  31. Fasoli, L., Scrivens, C., & Woodrow, C. (2007). Challenges for leadership in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australian early childhood contexts. In L. Keesing-Styles, & H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood practice—Emerging dialogues. Pademelon Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fenech, M., & Sumsion, J. (2007). Early childhood teachers and regulation: Complicating power relations using a Foucauldian lens. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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, 1629–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fenech, M., Wong, S., Boyd, W., Gibson, M., Watt, H., & Richardson, P. (2022). Attracting, retaining and sustaining early childhood teachers: An ecological conceptualization of workforce issues and future research directions. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Foy, T., Dwyer, R. J., Nafarrete, R., Hammoud, M. S. S., & Rockett, P. (2019). Managing job performance, social support and work-life conflict to reduce workplace stress. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(6), 1018–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling. Paul Chapman Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hard, L. (2006). Horizontal violence in early childhood education and care: Implications for leadership enactment. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hard, L., & Jónsdóttir, A. H. (2013). Leadership is not a dirty word: Exploring and embracing leadership in ECEC. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(3), 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Harrison, L. J., Wong, S., Press, F., Gibson, M., & Ryan, S. (2019). Understanding the work of Australian early childhood educators using time-use diary methodology. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33(4), 521–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Heikka, J., & Hujala, E. (2013). Early childhood leadership through the lens of distributed leadership. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(4), 568–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Heikka, J., & Waniganayake, M. (2011). Pedagogical leadership from a distributed perspective within the context of early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(4), 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hewett, B. S., & La Paro, K. M. (2020). Organizational climate: Collegiality and supervisor support in early childhood education programs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(4), 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hur, E., Jeon, L., & Buettner, C. K. (2015). Preschool teachers’ child-centered beliefs: Direct and indirect associations with work climate and job-related wellbeing. Child and Youth Care Forum, 45(3), 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jha, S. (2019). Team psychological safety and team performance: A moderated mediation analysis of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 903–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Job and Skills Australia. (2024). The future of the early childhood education profession: Early childhood education and care workforce capacity study summary report. Available online: https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/the_future_of_the_early_childhood_education_profession_-_summary_report.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  46. Jones, C., Hadley, F., & Johnstone, M. (2017). Retaining early childhood teachers: What factors contribute to high job satisfaction in early childhood settings in Australia? New Zealand International Research in Early Childhood Education, 20(2), 1–18. Available online: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=675331854507798;res=IELFSC (accessed on 26 October 2025).
  47. Jones, C., Hadley, F., Waniganayake, M., & Johnstone, M. (2019). Find your tribe! Early childhood educators defining and identifying key factors that support their workplace wellbeing. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(4), 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jones, C., Johnstone, M., Hadley, F., & Waniganayake, M. (2020). Early childhood educators’ workplace well-being: It’s everyone’s right! Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 45(4), 322–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jönsson, S., & Muhonen, T. (2022). Factors influencing the behavior of bystanders to workplace bullying in healthcare-A qualitative descriptive interview study. Researching in Nursing and Health, 45(4), 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Labrague, L. J., Ballad, C. A., & Fronda, D. C. (2021). Predictors and outcomes of work-family conflict among nurses. International Nursing Review, 68(3), 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. McFarland, L., Bull, R., Cumming, T., & Wong, S. (2024). Workplace bullying in early childhood education settings: Prevalence and protective factors. International Journal of Early Childhood, 56, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McKinlay, S., Irvine, S., & Farrell, A. (2018). What keeps early childhood teachers working in long day care? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(2), 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. McMullen, M. B., Lee, M. S. C., McCormick, K. I., & Choi, J. (2020). Early childhood professional well-being as a predictor of the risk of turnover in child care: A matter of quality. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34(3), 331–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McNally, S., & Slutsky, R. (2017). Teacher–child relationships make all the difference: Constructing quality interactions in early childhood settings. Early Child Development and Care, 188(5), 508–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2013). Preschool affects longer term literacy and numeracy: Results from a general population longitudinal study in Northern Ireland. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(2), 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Melzak, E., Allen, K.-A., Jain, R., & Pruyn, M. (2025). A scoping review of the factors contributing to a sense of belonging in early career teachers. Educational Research Review, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Morris, L. (2020). Love as an act of resistance: Ethical subversion in early childhood professional practice in England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 22(2), 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moshel, S., & Berkovich, I. (2021). Supervisors as definers of a new middle-level managers’ leadership model: Typology of four middle-level leadership prototypes in early childhood education. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(2), 330–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. National Children’s Education and Care Workforce Strategy. (2021). Shaping our future: A ten-year strategy to ensure a sustainable, high-quality children’s education and care workforce 2022–2031. Available online: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/ShapingOurFutureChildrensEducationandCareNationalWorkforceStrategy-September2021.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  62. Ng, K., Niven, K., & Hoel, H. (2019). ‘I could help, but …’: A dynamic sensemaking model of workplace bullying bystanders. Human Relations, 73(12), 1718–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nodding, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. OECD. (2012). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. OECD. [Google Scholar]
  65. OECD. (2016). Education indicators in focus: What are the benefits from early childhood education? Available online: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/what-are-the-benefits-from-early-childhood-education_5jlwqvr76dbq-en#page1 (accessed on 27 October 2023).
  66. OECD. (2017a). OECD guidelines on measuring the quality of the working environment. OECD. [Google Scholar]
  67. OECD. (2017b). Starting strong 2017: Key indicators on early childhood education and care. OECD. [Google Scholar]
  68. OECD. (2018). Engaging young children. OECD. [Google Scholar]
  69. OECD. (2020). Building a high-quality early childhood education and care workforce. OECD. [Google Scholar]
  70. Osgood, J. (2006). Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pfeiffer, D. L., Pavelko, S. L., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Dudding, C. C. (2019). A national survey of speech-language pathologists’ engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice in schools: Identifying predictive factors and barriers to implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 639–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Phillips, D., Austin, L. J. E., & Whitebook, M. (2016). The early care and education workforce. The Future of Children, 26(2), 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Press, F., Wong, S., & Gibson, M. (2015). Understanding who cares: Creating the evidence to address the long-standing policy problem of staff shortages in early childhood education and care. Journal of Family Studies, 21(1), 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sanders-Smith, S. C., Lyons, M. E., Ya-Hsuan Yang, S., & McCarthey, S. J. (2021). Valuing relationships, valuing differences: Co-teaching practices in a Hong Kong early childhood center. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schaack, D. D., Le, V.-N., & Stedron, J. (2020). When fulfillment is not enough: Early childhood teacher occupational burnout and turnover intentions from a job demands and resources perspective. Early Education and Development, 31(7), 1011–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Schlieber, M., Copeman Petig, A., Valencia López, E., & Pufall Jones, E. (2023). Early educator voices in Florida: Flagler and Volusia counties. Work environment conditions that impact early educator practice and program quality. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. [Google Scholar]
  78. Slot, P. (2018). Structural characteristics and process quality in early childhood education and care. OECD. [Google Scholar]
  79. Thorpe, K., Jansen, E., Sullivan, V., Irvine, S., McDonald, P., Thorpe, K., Irvine, S., McDonald, P., Lunn, J., Sumsion, J., Ferguson, A., Lincoln, M., Liley, K., & Spall, P. (2020). Identifying predictors of retention and professional wellbeing of the early childhood education workforce in a time of change. Journal of Educational Change, 21(4), 623–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Totenhagen, C. J., Hawkins, S. A., Casper, D. M., Bosch, L. A., Hawkey, K. R., & Borden, L. M. (2016). Retaining early childhood education workers: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(4), 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Van den Borre, L., Spruyt, B., & Van Droogenbroeck, F. (2021). Early career teacher retention intention: Individual, school and country characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vardaman, J. M., Taylor, S. G., Allen, D. G., Gondo, M. B., & Amis, J. M. (2015). Translating intentions to behavior: The interaction of network structure and behavioral intentions in understanding employee turnover. Organization Science, 26(4), 1177–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, Y.-D., & Hsieh, H.-H. (2011). Toward a better understanding of the link between ethical climate and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Waniganayake, M., Cheeseman, S., Fenech, M., Hadley, F., & Shepherd, W. (2023). Leadership: Contexts and complexities in early childhood education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  86. White, M. (2024). Leadership in Australia’s early childhood workforce policy: Silences and ambiguities as missed opportunities. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 48(4), 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: A review of the literature. British Journal of Nursing, 25(6), 303–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Workplace information.
Table 1. Workplace information.
WorkplaceOrganisation InformationService PlacesAge Range of Children
CEOCharitable organisation--
CDUNot-for-profit organisation--
CISSGovernment funded-
ECS 1Not-for-profit independent LDC90Birth–5 years
ECS 2CEO LDC453–5 years
ECS 3Not-for-profit national LDC82Birth–5 years
ECS 4Not-for-profit community LDC486 months–5 years
ECS 5Not-for-profit national LDC75Birth–5 years
Note. ECS, Early childhood service; CEO, Catholic Education Office; CDU, Charles Darwin University; CISS, Children’s Inclusion Support Service; LDC, long day care.
Table 2. Participant information.
Table 2. Participant information.
PseudonymWorkplace (Current)Age *Years of
Experience in ECEC		Qualification
(Completed)		Qualification
(Working Towards)
ErinECS 14025BScL, Diploma-
MareeECS 16035Diploma of Teaching-
SophieCISS4015Diploma BEd
SamECS 23015Bachelor
(Secondary)		BEd
JulieCEO5035Diploma BEd
RubyCDU6025Diploma BEd
GeorginaECS 3325-Cert III
EmmaECS 3235 months-Cert III
JenniferECS 3195 months-Cert III
LisaECS 3165 months-Cert III
MargaretECS 33310Cert IIIDiploma
BrookeECS 3201-Cert III
JoanneECS 33012Cert IIIDiploma
AlisonECS 3356Cert III-
ColetteECS 4354Cert III-
BernadetteECS 4297Cert III-
BronwynECS 43210Cert III-
ToniECS 4407Diploma-
ZoeyECS 4172Cert III-
ShayeECS 4288-BEd
SuzanneECS 4252-Cert III
OliviaECS 43012-BEd
ElouiseECS 5268Cert IIIDiploma
ChloeECS 5174 months-Cert III
AudreyECS 5257Diploma -
CrystalECS 5173 months-Cert III
GraceECS 5182 months-Cert III
KayECS 5455-Cert III
HannahECS 5283-Cert III
JaneECS 5268DiplomaBEd
KristieECS 5202-Cert III
LucieECS 5176 weeks-Cert III
PaigeECS 5173 monthsDiploma BEd
RachelECS 5171.5Cert IIIDiploma
Note. ECEC, Early Childhood Education and Care; ECS, Early childhood service; CEO, Catholic Education Office; CDU, Charles Darwin University; CISS, Children’s Inclusion Support Service; ISA, inclusion support assistant; Cert III, Certificate III Children’s Services; Diploma, Diploma Children’s Services; BEd, Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood Education); BScL, Bachelor of Science and Law. * Some participants provided approximate ages.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Downey, B.; Gibbs, L.; Letts, W.; McLeod, S. Cultivating Collaborative Practice to Sustain and Retain Early Childhood Educators. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111451

AMA Style

Downey B, Gibbs L, Letts W, McLeod S. Cultivating Collaborative Practice to Sustain and Retain Early Childhood Educators. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(11):1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111451

Chicago/Turabian Style

Downey, Belinda, Leanne Gibbs, Will Letts, and Sharynne McLeod. 2025. "Cultivating Collaborative Practice to Sustain and Retain Early Childhood Educators" Education Sciences 15, no. 11: 1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111451

APA Style

Downey, B., Gibbs, L., Letts, W., & McLeod, S. (2025). Cultivating Collaborative Practice to Sustain and Retain Early Childhood Educators. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111451

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop