Transitions in the Early Years

Debating Continuity and Progression for Children in Early Education

Aline-Wendy Dunlop, Hilary Fabian

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781134475056
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

By the time young children enter statutory education, they may have already attended a number of different educational settings, from entry to group settings outside home, to joining playgroup or nursery school. Each of these experiences is likely to affect children's capacity to adjust and to learn.
This book focuses on children's experiences of personal and curricular transitions in early childhood. The authors are all academics with international reputations in the field of early childhood education. They draw on their research in Europe, Australasia and the USA to consider issues such as:
*the optimum environment and appropriate pedagogy for young children's learning
*how children, parents and educators cope with the transition from home to the first educational settings
*the ways in which professionals can better support and empower children in transition
The perspectives of children, parents and early years educators are all considered and case study examples are used throughout.
This book will be essential reading for anyone involved in working with young children and their families, including students on early years courses, early years practitioners and early years policy makers.

Chapter 1
The wider context
An international overview of transition issues

Michelle J.Neuman

The OECD has documented an unprecedented surge of international policy attention to the early years of children’s lives (OECD, 2001). Policymakers are recognising the importance of quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) provision for children’s short-term and long-term well being, as well as an essential tool to support working parents. Increasingly, ECEC is being viewed also as a tool for social integration. Over the past five years, countries have expanded provision toward universal access, raised the quality of provision, and increased investment in the system. Growing international attention to ECEC has generated increased awareness of the importance of providing continuity and coherence in children’s early development and learning. Drawing on the findings of the OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care policy (OECD, 2001) in twelve countries¹, this chapter will frame children’s transitions within the wider context of the cross-national development of early childhood policies and provision: How coherent are children’s early childhood experiences? At what age do children make the transition to ECEC and from ECEC to school in OECD countries? What are some of the barriers to developing smooth transitions? What are some promising strategies to promote links between home and ECEC and between ECEC and schools? The chapter provides diverse country examples to illustrate approaches to facilitating transitions in four main areas: (1) structural continuity; (2) pedagogical and programme continuity; (3) professional continuity; and (4) continuity with the home.

Main transition issues

Within the context of expansion and improvement of ECEC policy and provision, there has been growing attention to the coherence of children’s early development and learning on a given day and over time. Children may experience several vertical transitions—e.g. when they move from home to ECEC, from one ECEC setting to another as they get older, or from home or ECEC to primary school. In addition, children may also experience horizontal transitions in the early years, those which occur during a given day (Kagan, 1991). Children attending part-day (e.g. play groups and some nursery provision) or school-based programmes—which do not cover their parents’ work day—may experience horizontal transitions to another form of ECEC, perhaps out-of-school or leisure-time provision. Children with disabilities may face another kind of horizontal transition—the transition from special services to mainstream classrooms. Just as there is need to link across ECEC and school settings, there is often the need to link within settings around the needs of particular children.

How coherent are children’s ECEC experiences?

In order to better understand current transition issues it is essential to look at children’s early childhood experiences—the types of policies and provision for children—before primary education begins. The number and nature of children’s transitions in their early childhood is linked, in part, to the structure, quality, and coherence of ECEC services in the country concerned. In some countries—including Belgium, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal—policies and provision for children under compulsory school age are divided into education and welfare systems. This division generally follows the age of the child, with publicly-funded arrangements for children over three (or four) based in education departments; these services are usually open during the school day and are usually free. In these countries, the welfare services tend to be far less developed in terms of coverage, and usually require a parental contribution. Often the two systems of services differ in terms of staffing, funding, and programme orientation as well. These differences may create inequalities and lack of coherence for children and families (European Commission Childcare Network, 1996). In other countries—such as Denmark, Finland, Norway, Spain and Sweden—services for children under compulsory school age are part of a coherent system of ECEC provision, with unified national administration, and consistent staffing, funding and regulatory regimes. Services also tend to be open the full-day, eliminating the need for any ‘wrap-around’ provision.

Even within settings, coherence for children may vary, depending on how services are organised. In the first pattern, children are grouped according to age, often called the ‘school model.’ The second pattern is called the ‘family model’ because children of different ages are placed in the same group. ECEC in Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, UK (England and Wales) and the US tend to follow the school model of same-age grouping (at least for older children), while in Denmark, Germany, Finland, Norway and Sweden, the family model is more common. Some countries—such as Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal—may adopt either model (European Commission, 2000). The age-integrated approach means that children may be part of the same group of several years before beginning school, and may give children and parents opportunities to establish important relationships with professionals and other children over time. The ‘school model’, however, leads to more frequent transitions, but anticipates the organisation that children will experience in most primary schools. In some countries, including Italy, Germany and Portugal, pre-schools and schools try to increase the continuity of children’s educational experiences by encouraging teachers to move with their students to the next class or group for two or more consecutive years. This approach is known as ‘looping’ (Burke, 1997).

While coherent early childhood experiences are more likely to facilitate children’s transitions from one sphere of life to another, and provide more continuity in their early learning and development, there is no guarantee that the relationship between these services and the compulsory school system will be coherent (EC Childcare Network, 1996).

When does the transition to primary school take place?

School starting age influences the timing and nature of children’s transitions. First, it is important to look at what age children are required to attend primary school in different countries. While the starting age for compulsory primary education varies from four (Northern Ireland) to seven (Denmark, Finland and Sweden), children in most OECD countries make the transition to compulsory education at the age of six. In some countries, particularly those with less-developed ECEC provision, children may typically begin primary school prior to reaching compulsory school age. In the Netherlands and Great Britain statutory school age is five, but it is common practice for almost all young children to enrol in primary school on a voluntary basis at age four.² In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US primary schools commonly provide for children under six in pre-school or (pre-) kindergarten classes.

There is currently some debate concerning the appropriate age for children to start primary school. In Great Britain, there has been some concern about the suitability of learning environments for four-year-olds in reception classes where staff-child ratios may reach 1:30. In Italy and Portugal, lowering the compulsory school age to five has been discussed, and later rejected, as a means of providing equal educational opportunities for socially disadvantaged children, especially ethnic minority groups (Oberhuemer and Ulich, 1997). Lowering the age of school start is also a strategy to provide more places for younger children in ECEC. In Norway, when the six-year-olds began attending the free public schools, the supply of ECEC for children under six increased by 20,000 places. However, in countries that have adopted market approaches to ECEC (e.g. the UK and US), there is concern that as three- and four-year-olds move into free public education, the unit cost of provision for infants and toddlers will increase and consequently restrict access.

The most widespread criteria used to determine access to compulsory school is the age of the child. In only a few OECD countries is the child’s maturity an additional criterion taken into account for admission to compulsory primary school, often for children who are under statutory school age. Maturity is assessed in various ways (e.g. medical or psychological examinations, aptitude tests, opinions of the educational team, future teachers, parents, etc.). Some countries specify the skills that children should master before starting compulsory school. Continuous assessment, particularly observation, is the most common approach adopted to monitor children’s progress before entry to primary school. In parts of Belgium, France, Portugal and the UK, teachers also must record their assessments. In the UK (England and Wales), these skills are evaluated in the ‘baseline assessment’ at the beginning of primary school (European Commission, 2000).

Usually, school starting age must be reached during the calendar year in which the child starts school. In some countries, the required age must have been reached before a date which generally precedes or corresponds to the start of the school year. In Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK (England and Wales), children may start school during the school year, rather than at the beginning (e.g. first of the month or the term following the child’s birthday) (European Commission, 2000). This practice of a rolling start, also common in Denmark and New Zealand, has been supported for pedagogical reasons as a means of making school start an individualised and personal event for the child, and for economic reasons, as a means of reducing the financial burden for municipalities (and parents) of having the child stay in the more expensive ECEC provision for a few extra months.

Although most children begin primary school at six, many are entering the school system much earlier. Most countries provide some form of non-compulsory school-based ECEC to provide a bridge to formal schooling. Pre-primary schools are the only form of ECEC provision for children from the age of two-and-a-half in Belgium and from the age of three in France and Italy, and nearly all children in these countries attend by age three. Many of these services are connected to, or co-located with, primary schools. In the Nordic countries, where a wide range of ECEC provision is available for children below compulsory school age (e.g. centre-based and family day care), children start school-based provision later, but there are moves toward the European norm of age six. In 1997, after 30 years of debate, Norway lowered its statutory school start from seven to six. Denmark and Sweden have kept compulsory school age at seven, but have introduced a free, voluntary pre-primary class in the primary schools for six-year-olds. In practice, therefore, almost all children enter the school system at age six. Since 2000, all six-year-olds in Finland, too, have a right to attend free pre-primary education, either in ECEC settings (e.g. day care centres) or in the primary schools.

What are the barriers to ensuring smooth transitions?

The obstacles to ensuring smooth transitions vary depending on the individual contexts and relationships that have developed among schools, families, and ECEC. However, information collected for the OECD project suggests that several main barriers to improved co-operation seem to be common across countries (Neuman, 2000). First, there may be different visions and cultures in ECEC and primary school. In many countries, ECEC and schools have developed independently of each other, without coherent or shared goals. Often, ECEC and primary school staff are trained in different pre-service and in-service training programmes, with varying content and orientation. As a result, ECEC and schools have adopted different objectives, pedagogical approaches and methods. Both professional groups may perceive increased co-operation as a threat to their different ways of working with children. The early childhood community has been concerned that more collaboration with the schools will lead to a downward pressure from the primary schools leading to a more narrow focus on literacy and numeracy. At the same time, many primary teachers are worried about the children who are not ‘prepared’ for formal schooling, and feel that pre-schools could benefit from a more educational focus. Not surprisingly, children may find it difficult to adjust to the new rules and routines, environment, teacher expectations and styles of interacting when they move from one culture to another (Shore, 1998).

Second, these philosophical differences are often reinforced by structural divisions. Not only is there often a break between services for children over and under three, but pre-school and primary programmes often fall under different administrative auspices, regulations, and inspection and monitoring regimes. These structural divisions may limit, or even prohibit, co-operation and collaboration. In addition, in most countries, teachers in compulsory education have enjoyed greater status and salaries than ECEC workers. Even within the early childhood workforce there may be disparities in training, pay and working conditions for staff depending on the setting and age of children served. These institutional barriers may make it challenging for professionals to form equal partnerships to support young children. Sometimes, it is difficult for ECEC programmes to establish links with schools because children may be assigned to many different ‘feeder’ schools in a wide geographical area. Yet, even when schools are located near ECEC settings (or even in the same building), structural and philosophical divisions may limit the opportunities for teachers and ECEC staff to discuss and share their goals and expectations concerning children’s early learning and the important links between their respective institutions.

Third, communication barriers between staff and parents may weaken efforts to bridge children’s learning from home to ECEC to school. Parents and teachers may hold different attitudes and beliefs concerning what their children should know and be able to do when they come to school, what they should experience in the first years of schooling, and what are the respective roles of teachers and parents in children’s learning. Moreover, language, values, behavioural codes, and expectations may differ between children’s homes or ECEC programmes and the school, making it difficult for children to adjust without efforts by both teachers and families to make them feel comfortable and supported. These different perspectives may remain buried without attention to ensuring open lines of communication. Since both teachers and parents play a large role in facilitating children’s transitions, their disparate goals and attitudes may have far reaching effects on continuity in children’s development and learning—especially when they begin primary school (Kagan and Neuman, 1997).

Strategies to improve children’s transitions

Despite the challenges, many countries have explored and adopted strategies to promote coherence and continuity in the lives of young children. This section will discuss some of the approaches to smooth children’s vertical and horizontal transitions in the following inter-connected areas: (1) structural continuity; (2) pedagogical and programme continuity; (3) professional continuity; and (4) continuity with the home. Under each area, several examples have been profiled in order to illustrate different approaches adopted in different countries.

Structural continuity

Driven by efforts to facilitate children’s transitions, there has been a trend in initiatives to achieve more structural coherence across ECEC and compulsory education. In Belgium, the Czech Republic, Italy and Portugal, for example, the education system plays an important role in providing ECEC for children over three, and consistent regulations, funding and curricula have been developed across the education system. However, since policy and provision for children under three and out-of-school activities fall under different administrative auspices, there is still the risk of fragmentation. In Sweden, integrating responsibility for all forms of ECEC into the education system with compulsory schooling has led to an increasing public understanding that early childhood services combine care and learning—and represent a first and important phase of lifelong learning. There are signs that other countries, such as UK and Italy, may follow this model.³

In the context of decentralisation, regional and local governments may have more flexibility to experiment with integrating administration and policy development across age groups and sectors. In Australia, three states and territories—South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania—have integrated children’s services and education portfolios to facilitate structural continuity for young children. In Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden and the UK, an increasing number of local authorities have reorganised local administrations and political committees to bring together ECEC and schools (and sometimes other children’s services), often within education departments. Some municipalities in Norway have integrated barnehager for children under six, leisure-time activities, schools and child welfar...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures
• Tables
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: The wider context: An international overview of transition issues
• Chapter 2: The importance of social adjustment for future success
• Chapter 3: From home to childcare centre: Challenges for mothers, teachers and children
• Chapter 4: Communication and continuity in the transition from kindergarten to school
• Chapter 5: Co-constructing transition into kindergarten and school by children, parents and teachers
• Chapter 6: Parents’ views of transition to school and their influence in this process
• Chapter 7: Teachers’ perspectives of transition
• Chapter 8: Perspectives on children as learners in the transition to school
• Chapter 9: Planning transition programmes
• Chapter 10: Empowering children for transitions
• Chapter 11: Transitions without school
• Chapter 12: Conclusions: Debating transitions, continuity and progression in the early years
• Further reading