Three Western Regions 1990-2004

QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ Petriwskyj, Anne and Thorpe, Karen J. and Tayler, Collette P. (2005) Trends in construction of transition to school in three western regions 1990-2004. International Journal of Early Years Education 13(1):pp. 55-69. © Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis This is an electronic version of an article published in [International Journal of Early Years Education 13(1):pp. 55-69.]. [International Journal of Early Years Education ] is available online at informaworldTM. Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three Western Regions 1990-2004 A. Petriwskyj, K.Thorpe & C. Tayler School of Early Childhood Queensland University of Technology 152 Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove 4059 Australia Contact : Anne Petriwskyj [email protected] Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three Western Regions 1990-2004 A. Petriwskyj, K.Thorpe & C. Tayler Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia The construct of school readiness that focuses on children's maturation and homogeneity of their attainment at school entry has been challenged by recent research. This research indicates that there are difficulties in assessing young children's abilities, and there are limitations to the concomitant practice of retention. These challenges have prompted attempts to re-conceptualise entry to school as a process of transition. However, transition has variously been conceptualised as: a set of teacher practices in a time-limited period around school entry; a process of establishing continuity from home to school; and a multilayered, multi-year experience. An analysis of academic literature from 1990-2004 in U.S.A., Australia/New Zealand and Europe was undertaken to identify trends in the conceptualisation of transition to school. The analysis suggests a trend towards more complex understandings of transition emphasizing continuity of children’s experience, partnership with stakeholders, and system coherence across extended time periods. However, more limited constructions persist in the academic literature, particularly in U.S.A. and Australian/New Zealand. Une étude récente a mis au défi l idée de la capacité des écoles à accueillir des enfants qui soit basée sur le degré de maturité des enfants et l homogénéité de leurs niveaux d éveil à leur entrée à l école. Cette recherche indique qu il est difficile d évaluer les aptitudes des jeunes enfants avant l'entrée à l'école primaire , et qu il y a en même temps des limites à la pratique de les retenir à l'école maternelle. Ces questions ont amené à repenser l entrée à l école comme un processus de transition. Pourtant, la transition a été considérée à différents moments comme : un ensemble de pratiques pédagogiques dans une période limitée après l entrée à l école, ou un processus de mise en place d une continuité de la maison à l école, ou une expérience à plusieurs niveaux, sur plusieurs années. Une analyse des recherches universitaires menées entre 1990 et 2004 aux Etats-Unis, en Australie/Nouvelle-Zélande et en Europe a permis d identifier des tendances dans la définition de la transition à l école. Cette analyse suggère une orientation vers des explications plus complexes de la transition en mettant l accent sur la continuité de l expérience de l enfant, un partenariat avec les parties prenantes, et une cohérence du système à travers des périodes plus étendues. Cependant, des interprétations plus limitées persistent dans la recherche universitaire, particulièrement aux Etats-Unis et en Australie/Nouvelle-Zélande. El concepto del desarrollo de la preparación infantil a la escuela, enfocada en la maduración y la homogeneización de resultados en el acceso se ha visto desafiada por la investigación recientemente. Esta investigación apunta que hay dificultades en calibrar las capacidades de los pequenos, y que hay limitaciones en la práctica de la rentención. Estos retos han llevado a iniciativas para reconceptualizar la entrada a la escuela como un proceso de transición. Sin embargo, la transición se conceptualiza como: un sistema de prácticas de profesores en un tiempo limitado durante el acceso a la escuela; un proceso de establecer continuidad entre el hogar y la escuela; y una experiencia plurianual y con muchas capas. Un análisis de la literatura académica de 1990 a 2004 en Estados Unidos, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y Europa se realizó para identificar tendencias en el concepto de transición a la escuela. El análisis sugiere una tendencia hacia un entendimiento más complejo de la transición, que apunta la continuidad de la experiencia de los ninos, el trabajo conjunto con los interesados y la coherencia del sistema durante periodos más amplios. Sin embargo, construcciones más limitadas persisten en la literatura académica, especialmente en los Estados Unidos, Australia y Nueva Zelanda. Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three Western Regions 1990-2004 Introduction While for some time the focus around school entry has been couched in terms of children’s readiness for school, re-conceptualisations of school entry as a longer-term and more complex process began to emerge in the 1980s. This was in response to professional concerns about the incompatibility of readiness constructs with inclusive educational policies (Wolery, 1999), uncertainty about the validity and reliability of assessments of young children’s abilities (Meisels, 2001) and concern that educational practices of grade retention were potentially harmful (Holloway, 2003). While support continued for compensatory preschool and care programs (Kagan & Neuman, 1998), the evidence-based practice of later school entry was challenged on the grounds that delayed school commencement might further disadvantage children whose home circumstances increased exposure to life hazards (Zill,1999). Since the 1990s there is increasing evidence in Australia/New Zealand, Europe and the U.S.A. of attempts to reconceptualise the issue as transition to school. Ramey and Ramey (1999) define transition as an ongoing process of mutual adaptations by children, families and schools to facilitate children moving successfully from home and early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings into the early years of school. This paper outlines several conceptualisations located in English-language academic literature from19902004 in these three Western regions suggesting several key meanings for transition to school: a set of teacher practices around a time-limited change event, a multi-layered and multi-factorial process and increasing intertwining of the constructs of transition and continuity. A review of 75 peer-reviewed academic publications was followed by analysis of the time frames, regions, frequency and key foci of various constructions. This paper focuses not on readiness, but on the trends in how the notion of transition is constructed. It uses the term reception for the initial school year preceding the first primary grade, as the term kindergarten has been attached to a range of service types in various school systems and may be confusing. Transition as Set of Teacher or School Practices Continuing interest in school readiness and initial adjustment, particularly in the early 1990s supported a focus on school practices such as raising the age of school entry, implementation of transition classes, retention of some children in preschool and compensatory preschool programs to enhance school entrant homogeneity (O’Brien, 1991), some of which have been criticised for their negative effect on children (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). It also supported a focus on practices teachers undertook within a limited time frame at the end of preschool or at the beginning of a school year to assist children and families in developing familiarity with the new context. Those involved included special education teachers, ECEC staff in prior-to-school settings and junior primary school teachers, although the major responsibility appeared to be taken by the sending setting (e.g. preschool) and less by the receiving setting (e.g. school). The emphasis appeared to be on introducing families to the school, transferring information about children and orienting children to the physical facilities (Bruder & Chandler, 1995; Patterson & Fleet, 1999). Family-school interviews, family induction meetings and orientation visits to school by groups of preschool children and families were key components of these introductory practices, but there was considerable variability in their use (Brostrom, 2002; Einarsdottir, 2003; Kagan & Neuman, 1998). Sharing of information between ECEC and reception teachers through meetings, transfer of children’s assessment records and other communications about individuals and curriculum were less frequent than parent-child orientation programs, perhaps because teachers worked in different systems (La Paro et al, 1998). La Paro found that connectedness and communication were limited between reception and first grade teachers within a system, but that they were more frequent than transition practices involving parents at entry to first grade (La Paro et al, 1998). Fabian (2002), Pianta and Kraft-Sayre (2003) and Dockett and Perry (2003) continue to recommend use of transition practices as part of a multi-layered process because their data indicates that these practices facilitate adjustment between home-school contexts or ECEC-school contexts. However, these more recent considerations of teacher and school practices have incorporated wider communication linkages between families, schools and ECEC services together with processes for supporting children through the changes accompanying school entry. Limited attention to the unequal family-school power relationships, implicit in literature on teacher practices, indicates that this aspect warrants further consideration if family requirements are to be met effectively. Transition as a Time Limited Change Event The construction of transition to school as a single-time change event for children and families conforms to a focus on initial adjustment to the school context, and to practices that could improve either preparedness or adjustment. The majority of the literature in this category focussed on entry to reception classes with less emphasis on entry into the first primary class, on an assumption that the most significant changes occurred between home/preschool/child care and school entry (Love, 1992; Richardson, 1997; Van den Oord & Rossem, 2002; Westcott et al, 2003). The concept of preparedness for transition to school has arisen out of underlying theories of social maturation or academic content knowledge readiness of children, which remains prevalent in some areas of Australia, U.S.A. and a number of the OECD countries where school-like reception programs are implemented to respond to the concern about equality of opportunity for immigrants and the socially disadvantaged (Bowman, 1999; Neuman, 2001; Zill, 1999). However, Dockett and Perry (2003) define preparedness as being interactionist in nature, more context specific and containing assumptions of preparation of schools and families as well as of children. Whether this is, in fact, a new construct or merely a more palatable form of traditional school readiness with its implied expectations of homogeneity of school entrants warrants further investigation, but Dockett and Perry (2003) and Hopps (2004) point out its persistence in the minds of teachers and parents. This retention of readiness constructs may be connected to perceptions of specific school systems as being inflexible or to deeply held beliefs about child development and the nature of schooling. Studies on adjustment to school in Australia/New Zealand and Europe have emphasised social and emotional aspects, either because of the research program emphasis on children from minority backgrounds with limited awareness of the rules and culture of schools or because of a perceived need to balance academic readiness pressures from schools (Keinig, 2002; Margetts, 2000; Patterson & Fleet, 1999; Peters, 2000). Skinner et al (1998) indicated that teachers constructed as challenging the behaviour of children with delayed development or children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and used frequent, firm discipline, which resulted in unhappiness and lowered self-esteem amongst these children. The contribution of social relations in the classroom and the playground, including teacher-child relationships, peer relations and friendships, appeared to be vital not only to social-emotional adjustment but also to academic achievement (Belsky & McKinnon, 1994; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Corsaro et al, 2003; Cronin & Diezmann, 2002; Smith, 2002; Van den Oord, 2002). However, Ledger et al (2000) found that friendships did not necessarily make school transition easier. The period of time constructed as transition was analysed using the stated adjustment phase within the remit of the research as an indicator. The transition phase for children entering school appears to range from just the first days of school attendance (Podmore et al, 2003; Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Weihen, 2001) through to a few months, as was the case in the majority of the Australian literature (Dockett & Perry, 2003; Margetts, 2000; Richardson, 1997; Sims & Hutchins, 1999). Short time frames (days or weeks) appeared in those studies or publications investing heavily in consideration of transition practices, change events and adjustment indicators. In literature where a longer adjustment period (months or years) appears, the change of frame from transition as a single change event to transition as a longer process of continuity became evident (Booker, 2002; Fabian, 2002; Peisner-Feinburg et al, 1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999). Broader constructions of transition to school involving extended time frames, social as well as academic indicators of success and interactions between children, families and schools shift the focus from children’s maturation and skills at school entry to a more complex interweaving of facets of transition and to the role of the school. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Australia/NZ Europe 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 USA 1991 number of papers Number of papers defining transition as time limited 1991-2004 Transition as Continuity of Experience Transition to school as a continuity issue has been framed in three different ways – 1) communication linkages, 2) coherence of experience and 3) system coherence. The value of each to child progress is supported in the literature. While some level of dissonance can stimulate or positively challenge young children, the negative impact of extreme discontinuity on children in the early years of school has been the subject of particular attention, especially in Europe, and in relation to children from non-mainstream socioeconomic and cultural groups (Booker, 2002; Glover, 1994; Raban & Ure, 2000;). Communication linkages between the home and school and between the child’s previous ECEC service and the school offer opportunities for the sharing of professional information between teachers, for exchanging understandings between all adults close to the individual child, for developing increasing trust and cooperation, and for negotiating differences of perspective amongst stakeholders (Kakvoulis, 1994; Lombardi, 1992). Tayler (1999) and Hopps (2004) proposed the development of these linkages, particularly between home and school, in order to provide a more supportive environment for children, and considered issues of coherence of children’s experience in curriculum, pedagogy and culture. Pedagogical and curricular discontinuity for children moving from ECEC services to school, and/or significant discontinuity between home and school experience has been foregrounded as an issue of concern in recent Australasian and European literature (Fabian, 2002; Margetts, 2002; Neuman, 2001). Initially this interest concentrated on the alignment of curriculum between services (Barbour & Seefeldt, 1993; DECS, 1996). The gap between preschool and traditional school curricula can be significant, particularly regarding the use of formal approaches to pedagogy in schools. Some of the top-down changes in the preschool sector, where practices have become more formal as a result, have been the subject of criticism (Neuman, 2001). However, an emerging focus on pedagogy has resulted in more concern for coherence between school approaches and family interaction patterns, as well as between the play pedagogies of ECEC and more didactic pedagogies of the school (Skinner et al, 1998; Yeom, 1998). Cultural coherence and continuity of experience for parents and children are features of current literature on early childhood transitions for cultural minorities, with a particular focus on partnership with families and language continuity (McCrae et al, 2000; Podmore, et al, 2002; Sauvao et al, 2000; Sy, 2003). Continuity of experience for children and families who have been utilising specialist early special education services has also gained increasing attention as inclusive policies have been implemented (Brewer, 1995; Newman, 2000). Discontinuities created by the change in culture and expectations between specialist and mainstream services, and between schools and homes have increased the challenge of children with developmental delays or disabilities entering mainstream services (Bruder & Chandler, 1995; Fowler & Ostrosky, 1994). The need for increased structural or system coherence for all children and families, not just those with cultural or developmental concerns, has been raised in response to the lack of continuity of processes, policies, expectations and quality between systems (Kagan & Neuman, 1999). Early childhood programs focussing on transition and continuity have tended, in the U.S.A, to emerge from a range of agencies under different jurisdictions and with significantly different mandates. Bauch (1993) recommended the full-service school or a school with a central community role as a potential solution to this fragmentation. The situation in some O.E.C.D. countries, however, is more coordinated and systematically planned to ensure higher levels of system coherence for families and children (Neuman, 2001). Some approaches to developing system integration within a limited geographic area as a means of smoothing transition appear to contain an underlying assumption about family stability; an assumption which may not be warranted in times of increasing family mobility (Peters, 2002). This concern has been mirrored in political comments in relation to an Australia-wide system coordination and pressure for national curricula and assessment. Whether or not national or state system coordination is possible, enhancement of continuity within schools or within local educational communities through communication linkages and connections in curriculum and pedagogy may be negotiated to support children and families through the transition into school. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Australia/NZ Europe 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 USA 1991 number of papers Number of papers defining transition as continuity 1991-2004 Transition as Multi-Layer Multi-Year Process Recent literature from Europe and Australia appeared to frame transition into school as an extended process, ranging from 6 months to 2 years (Booker, 2002; Fabian, 2002; Griebel & Niesel, 2002; Keinig, 2002; Raban & Ure, 2000) while some U.S.A. literature has considered the first 2 to 3 years of school and sometimes the preceding preschool years (Kagan & Neuman, 1998; Mangione & Speth, 1998; Peisner-Feinburg at al, 1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1999). This longer frame of reference may have its foundation in the U.S.A. experience of differences between short-term effects on school adjustment and performance and longer-term life outcomes in programs such as Headstart: that is, the difference between initial school adjustment and developmental trajectory (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Kagan & Neuman, 1998; La Paro et al, 2000; Peisner-Feinburg et al, 1999). The reframing of school transition as a multi-year experience appears to have emerged alongside conceptualisation of transition as a multi-faceted process engaging a range of stakeholders (Burchinal et al, 2002; Neuman, 2001; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003; RimmKaufmann & Pianta, 2000; Yeboah, 2002). The models of transition developed by Ladd (1996), Ramey and Ramey (1999), Rimm-Kaufmann and Pianta (2000), Fabian (2002) and Pianta and Kraft-Sayre (2003) share an ecological frame of reference that considers the relationships of factors in the child and family, the community, the school and ECEC services. This reconceptualisation of transition as both multi-year and multi-faceted is evident in broader investigations of the developmental trajectories of high-risk groups in U.S.A., which have focussed well beyond the earlier readiness issue into a variety of ameliorating effects on potential educational disadvantage, including quality ECEC programs for young children prior to school entry (Burchinal et al, 2002). Horizontal and Vertical Transitions A typical construction of transitions in the literature relates to vertical transitions: that is, transitions across time between education levels, for example preschool, reception and the first grade of school. The core focus, particularly for children with perceived environmental or developmental disadvantage, has been on the transfer into reception class from home or ECEC services such as preschools (Dockett & Perry, 2001; Pianta & Cox, 1999). However, the ages at which this major change in context occurs is extremely varied, ranging from 4 to 6 or 7 years of age, making comparisons difficult (Fabian, 2002). The transition into the first grade of school from reception class has been noted by Entwisle and Alexander (1998) and La Paro, Pianta and Cox (2000) to have been given little attention, despite the major shift in expectations that accompanies this change in context. Fabian (2002) drew attention to the increasing prominence of another form of vertical transition: that is, transfers between schools for children of geographically mobile families (e.g. refugees, immigrants, families in breakdown, employment transferees) which, in countries such as Australia, can involve a major change in school system and curriculum. Kagan and Neuman (1998) noted that young children can experience not only vertical transitions but also horizontal transitions: that is, across one point in time such as within one day. Neuman (2001) suggested that horizontal transitions within the school pose significant challenges for many children as they are superimposed on other transitions in children’s family lives and on vertical transitions (e.g. reception into first grade) occurring simultaneously. Wolery (1999) pointed to additional contextual transitions for children with disabilities between mainstream and specialist services and in-class transitions between areas or activities which, Bruder and Chandler (1995) indicated, could compound stress by adding to the complexity of the lives of children and families. Skinner et al (1998) suggested that horizontal over-differentiation, that is, excessive division of learning areas or of time blocks in the school day, created particular challenges for children with atypical development, social disadvantage or minority cultural experience. Service over-differentiation and lack of service coordination also created difficulties for these children and their families because of uncertainty about processes and the effort required for accessing appropriate supports (Fowler & Ostrosky, 1994). Attention to the impact of interactions between multiple transitions is required in research, policy development and educational practices. The implications for teachers in the early years are that children’s responses to multiple, over-lapping transitions need to be considered in curriculum planning and that the minimisation of horizontal transitions is supported. Papers defining transitions as multi-layered 1991-2004 9 number of papers 8 7 6 Australia/NZ 5 Europe 4 USA 3 2 1 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 0 Differences in emphasis on transition constructs by region are evident and may relate to teacher and parent beliefs or perceived realities in specific school systems. Papers from Australia and New Zealand maintain an emphasis on time-limited change, while European papers strongly favour continuity constructs, although the focus on English language publications may be a factor in Europe. In both Australia and U.S.A., papers relating to children’s school readiness continue to be published, indicating that this construct maintains currency in some regions (e.g. Cuskelly & Detering, 2003; Holloway, 2003; Clift, Stagnitti & DeMello, 2000). There may, however, be a policylevel influence, as government reports in U.S.A. and state education authority web sites in Australia refer to school readiness (e.g. Moore, Brown, Halle, Pitzer, & Calkins, 2002; Xiang & Schweinhart, 2002). Number of papers published by country and focus of transition 1991-2004 Focus of transition 16 14 12 10 Australia/NZ 8 Europe 6 USA 4 2 0 Time limited Continuity Multi-layered Defining Successful Transition This redefinition of school transition has given rise to changes in the way successful transition is determined. Success at school entry was initially deemed to be dependent on school readiness, which was a maturational characteristic of the individual child (Dockett & Perry 2002). As the construct of transition to school evolved, success seemed to centre on social and emotional adjustment and normative academic achievement, perhaps because of the link to underlying notions of school readiness and assumptions of homogeneity of school classes. Fields (1997), Richardson (1997) and Margetts (2000) argue from the position that success may simply have meant abiding by classroom rules or behaving in ways that were valued by teachers. While Skinner et al (1998) criticise this viewpoint, adjustment to rules and the classroom culture remains an enduring theme in both Australia and the U.S.A. (Burford & Stegelin, 2003; Perry et al, 2000; Weihen, 2002). A trend towards the recognition of the complexity of transition may be an underlying factor in considering combined child, family and school attributes, and more varied child qualities such as disposition and resilience (Fabian, 2002; Perry et al, 2000). Another factor promoting change may have been the recognition of the differences between initial adjustment success at school entry, medium-term fading of advantage and longerterm improvement in broader life outcomes such as increased adult employment and avoidance of incarceration (Kagan & Neuman, 1998). This recognition of impact in later life appears connected to an interest in U.S.A. and Europe in defining more positive developmental trajectories for atypical children (Burchinal et al, 2002; Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; La Paro et al, 2000; Peisner-Feinburg at al 1999; Skinner et al, 1998). Enhancing Success of Transitions Education programs aimed at enhancing the success of transitions could be grouped according to an emphasis on improving homogeneity of school entrants or accommodating heterogeneity and according to the time frame for transition. Pressure for readiness or homogeneity of school entry behaviours and skills appears to be associated with two transition conceptualisations – transition as prior-to-school practices and transition as a single time change event, both with short time frames. Definitions of success emphasizing rapid adjustment and normative achievement, and the introduction of measures such as raising the school entry age, establishing reception grades, improving home-school or ECEC-school linkages or establishing sets of transition procedures are enacted in a climate of homogeneity and readiness for a type of school that is formal in construction. This kind of transition places emphasis on the child being ready for a particular style of schooling and type of program. Such emphasis increases the pressure for preschools and other prior-to-school ECEC services to adopt more structured academically-focussed approaches in an effort to prepare children for the classroom (Richardson, 1997). However, Patterson and Fleet (1999) found resistance, amongst parents, to narrowing of the curriculum. The academic effectiveness and impact on child self-esteem of earlier structural changes such as grade retention or the provision of additional transition grades have been questioned by O’Brien (1991) and Carlton and Winsler (1999) who have pointed to the lack of empirical support for these practices. Depending on its use by teachers, school entry assessment such as that used in U.K. may be viewed either as a screening process related to readiness constructs or as a broader effort to cater effectively for diverse social and cultural groups. Neuman (2001) pointed out that transition has also been constructed as an equality of opportunity issue in several countries in Europe that offer universal access to ECEC services. Universal access to ECEC services for 2 to 5 year olds can be a means of familiarising children of new immigrants with local language, culture and school structures. However, in Scandinavian countries and parts of Italy, for example, where early childhood is seen as a life phase with its own value and purpose rather than a period of school preparation, ECEC programs are of high quality and have a broad focus. In these countries, formal schooling begins later, mutually respectful collaboration between sectors is emphasised and continuity is a central concept (Neuman, 2001). Whether these programs reflect differing images of childhood, or differential responses to equality demands for economically or culturally marginalized groups, or alternate notions of educational purpose is unclear. The availability of universal, high quality, coherent ECEC services for very young children in areas such as Scandinavia may make specific sector intervention programs unnecessary. These programs may portray an alternative view of support for effective transition, a view that is more complex and multi-layered. Whatever the case, evidence of the outcomes of ECEC programs is increasingly sought and the climate in which this outcomes pressure takes place is one where ECEC programs are heralded as a preventative measure for ameliorating problems for children as they move through the education system. This alternate view of effective support during transition appears grounded in a longerterm view of the transition period as a multi-year process, one that impacts on developmental trajectory. Perhaps, too, there is a realisation of the school’s place in accommodating entrant heterogeneity and working in partnership with the community to develop linkages and continuity. The juxtaposition of longer transition periods and multi-layered concepts focussing on continuity is evident in literature from the late 1990s in the U.S.A. (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Kagan & Neuman, 1998; Mangione & Speth, 1998; Peisner-Feinburg et al, 1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1998), from 2000 in Australian/New Zealand (Peters, 2000: Raban & Ure, 2000) and from 2002 in Europe (Booker, 2002; Fabian, 2002); The value of partnership and continuity in curriculum and pedagogy, including the pedagogy of the home as well as of educational organisations such as preschools and schools, has been highlighted in recent European work (Booker, 2002; Johanssen, 2002). In addition, the complexities of achieving such continuity where significant cultural differences exist within a society, are noted by New Zealand and Pacific Island researchers (Podmore et al 2003; Sauvao et al, 2000) but these may relate to broader issues of home-school and ECEC-school power relations. While there is potential for increased system coherence to contribute to improved partnership and continuity between educational sectors, ensuring mutual respect and partnerships of equality may be an essential factor. Neuman (2001) pointed out that in some areas where curricular integration and joint ECEC-school staff professional preparation have been a feature (e.g. U.K., Netherlands) aspects of early childhood educational philosophy and approach have been lost. However, efforts towards curricular integration continue to be made in some areas of Europe and Australia (Neuman, 2001) as a means of bridging ECEC and school. The ways in which ECEC services come to terms with outcomes based education and schools come to terms with school entrant heterogeneity appear to be key issues. Transition solutions which extend coordination by emphasizing system level coherence and integration of services, reflect a political view of transition being a community responsibility rather than an individual family concern (Brostrom, 2002; Johanssen, 2002). They may also be a more practical reality in government systems that emphasize, at a national level, more integrated services such as in Scandinavian countries. In federated countries, such as Australia and U.S.A., where ECEC policy and provision is segmented into separate federal, state and local departmental jurisdictions (e.g. social welfare, education, and health) the challenge may be greater. However, there is an ongoing discussion in the U.S.A. literature of the potential for system coherence in the education of atypical children (Galper, 1999; Kagan & Neville, 1996; Wolery, 1999) that has relevance for other countries. Conclusion Expectations of homogeneity in school entrants may be yielding to a recognition of the reality of diversity in young children, families and communities, as well as presenting the potential for diversity to be positive in teaching and learning contexts. A consequence of realising diversity, linked to the unlikely reality of having a group of homogeneous learners ready for entry to school, brings broader constructions of transition to school into focus. Flexibility in services and curriculum, and coherence between learner characteristics, cultural contexts and educational provisions offer opportunities to enrich the educational experience of all children while enhancing outcomes for children with developmental, social or cultural differences. A focus on single issues such as teacher practices or time-limited change events has given way to towards more complex, multifaceted views of this phenomenon. The time frames for school transition have also extended from commencing weeks to several years with recent constructions of programs in Australia and other countries grouped as early years. Definitions of successful transition now consider long-term trajectories rather than focussing solely on initial adjustments. The current emphasis on continuity of experience combined with extension of opportunity for children and families, is bringing into focus broader questions of coherence of curriculum, pedagogy and service systems, and of authentic partnerships between the families and schools and within educational systems. The persistence of notions of readiness at a policy and school level indicates that challenges to more limited constructs have not impacted uniformly, and that influences such as teacher beliefs, public perceptions and policy formation require reconsideration. References ALLINGHAM, S. (2002) Policy influences on learning and teaching in the reception year, in: C. NUTBROWN (Ed) Research Studies in Early Childhood Education, pp. 13-22 (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books). BARBOUR, N. & SEEFELDT, C. (1993) Developmental Continuity across Preschool and Primary Grades: implications for teachers (Wheaton: ACEI). BAUCH, J. (1993) Building Bridges from Home to School. Paper presented at Southeastern Symposium on School Restructuring, Nashville, April 27. BELSKY, J. & MCKINNON, C. (1994) Transition to school: developmental trajectories and school experience, Early Education and Development, 5(2), 106-119. BIRCH, S. & LADD, G. (1997) The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment, Journal of School Psychology, 35 (1), 61-79. BOOKER, L. (2002) Starting School: young children learning cultures (Buckingham, Open University Press). BOWMAN, B. (1999) Kindergarten practices with children from low-income families, in: R. PIANTA & M. COX (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 281-304 (Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes). BREWER, L. (1995) Early intervention: transition to school. What do teachers think? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 1-13. BROSTROM, S. (2002) Communication and continuity in the transition from kindergarten to school, in: H. FABIAN & A-W. DUNLOP (Eds) Transitions in the Early Years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education, pp.52-63 (London, Routledge-Falmer). BRUDER, M. & CHANDLER, L. (1995) Transition, in: S. ODOM & M. MCLEAN (Eds) Early Intervention/ Early Childhood Special Education, pp. 287-308 (Austin, ProEd). BURCHINAL, M., PEISNER-FEINBURG, E., PIANTA, R. & HOWES, C. (2002) Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade: family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories, Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 415436. BURFORD, R. & STEGELIN, D. (2003) An integrated approach to teaching social skills to preschoolers at risk, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(4), 22-27 CARLTON, M. & WINSLER, A. (1999) School readiness: the need for a paradigm shift, School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 338-352. CLIFT, S., STAGNITTI, K. & DEMELLO, L. (2000) A developmentally appropriate test of kinder/school readiness, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(4), 22-26. CLYDE, M. (1991) The Transition from Child Care to School. Paper presented at First Years of School conference, Auckland, January 15-18. CORSARO, W., MOLINARI, L., HADLEY, K. & SUGIOKA, H. (2003) Keeping and making friends: Italian children’s transition from preschool to elementary school, Social Psychology Quarterly, 66 (3), 272-292. CRONIN, R. & DIEZMANN, C. (2002) Jane and Gemma go to school: supporting young gifted Aboriginal students, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27 (4), 12-17. CUSKELLY, M. & DETERING, N. (2003) Teacher and student teacher perceptions of school readiness, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 39-46). DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and CHILDREN’S SERVICES (1996) Continuity of Learning Project: strengthening links from kindergarten to school (Adelaide: Author). DOCKETT, S. & PERRY, B. (2003) Children starting school: what should children, parents and school teachers do? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10 (2), 1-12. DOCKETT, S. & PERRY, B. (2002) Who’s ready for what? Young children starting school, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3 (1), 67-89. DOCKETT, S. & PERRY, B. (2001) Beginning School Together: sharing strengths. (Watson, Australian Early Childhood Association). EINARSDOTTIR, J. (2003) Towards a Smooth Transition from Preschool to Primary School in Iceland. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the British Educational Research Association, Edinburgh, September 11-13. ENTWISLE, D. & ALEXANDER, K. (1998) Facilitating the transition to first grade: the nature of transition and research on factors affecting it, The Elementary School Journal, 98 (4), 351-364. FABIAN, H. (2002) Children Starting School (London, David Fulton). FABIAN, H. (2002). Empowering children for transitions, in: H. FABIAN & A-W. DUNLOP (Eds) Transitions in the Early Years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education, pp. 123-134 (London, Routledge-Falmer). FIELDS, B. (1997) Nature and function of rules, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22 (3), 7-12. FOWLER, S. & OSTROSKY, M. (1994) Transitions to and from preschool in early childhood special education, in: P. SAFFORD, B. SPODEK & O. SARACHO (Eds) Early Childhood Special Education, Vol. 5, pp. 142-164 (New York, Teachers College Press). GALPER, A. (1998) Transitions in early childhood, in: C. SEEFELDT & A. GALPER, Continuing Issues in Early Childhood Education, pp.104-118 (Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall). GLOVER, A. (1994) Moving into the system: early childhood programs as a bridge to school for Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal Child at School, 22(2), 12-21. GRIEBEL,W. & NIESEL, R. (2002) Co-constructing transition into kindergarten and school by children, parents and teachers, in: H. FABIAN & A-W. DUNLOP (Eds) Transitions in the Early Years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education, pp. 64-75 (London, Routledge-Falmer). HOLLOWAY, J. (2003) When children aren’t ready for kindergarten, Educational Leadership, 60(7), 89-91. HOPPS, K. (2004) Teacher-parent communication across the preschool-school boundary, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(1), 8-13. JOHANSSON, I. (2002) Parents’ views of transition to school and their influence on the process, in: H. FABIAN & A-W. DUNLOP, Transitions in the Early Years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education, pp. 76-86 (London, Routledge-Falmer). KAGAN, S. & NEUMAN, M. (1998) Lessons from three decades of transition research, The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 365-379. KAGAN, S. & NEVILLE, P. (1996) Combining endogenous and exogenous factors in the shift years: the transition to school, in: A. SAMEROFF & M. HAITH (Eds) The Five to Seven Year Shift: The age of reason and responsibility, pp. 387-406 (Chicago, University of Chicago). KAKVOULIS, A. (1994) Continuity in early childhood education: transition from preschool to school, International Journal of Early Years Education, 2(1), 41-51. KEINIG, A. (2002) The importance of social adjustment for future success, in: H. FABIAN & A-W. DUNLOP, Transitions in the Early Years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education, pp. 23-37 (London, Routledge-Falmer). LADD, G. (1996) Shifting ecologies during the 5 to 7 year shift period: predicting children’s adjustment during the transition to school, in: A. SAMEROFF & M. HAITH, The Five to Seven Year Shift: The age of reason and responsibility, (pp. 363-386 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). LA PARO, K., PIANTA, R. & COX, M. (2000) Kindergarten teachers’ reported use of kindergarten to first grade transition practices, The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 63-78. LEDGER, E., SMITH, A. & RICH, P. (2000) Friendships over the transition from early childhood centre into school, International Journal of Early Years Education,8(1), 57. LOMBARDI, J. (1992) Beyond Transition: ensuring continuity in early childhood services. (Washington, Office of Educational Research and Improvement). LOVE, J., LOGUE, M., TRUDEAU, J. & THAYER, K. (1992) Transition to Kindergarten in American Schools: final report of the National Transition Study (Washington, Office of Policy and Planning). MANGIONE, P. & SPETH, T. (1998) The transition to elementary school: a framework for creating early childhood continuity through home, school, and community partnerships, The Elementary School Journal, 98 (4), 381-397. MARGETTS, K. (2003) Does adjustment at preschool predict adjustment in the first year of schooling? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10 (2), 13-25. MARGETTS, K. (2002) Transition to school: complexity and diversity, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10 (2), 103-114. MARGETTS, K. (2000) Indicators of children’s adjustment to the first year of school, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7 (1), 20-30. MCCREA, D., AINSWORTH, C., CUMMINGS, J., HUGHES, P., MACKAY, T. & PRICE, C. (2000) What Works: explorations in improving outcomes for indigenous students (Canberra, Australian Curriculum Association). MEISELS, S.(2001). Fusing assessment and intervention: Changing parents’ and providers’ views of young children. Zero to Three, 21(4) 4-10. MEREDITH, H., PERRY, B., BORG, T. & DOCKETT, S. (1999) Changes in parent’s perceptions of their children’s transition to school: first child and later children, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 6 (2), 228-239. MOORE, K., BROWN, B., HALLE, T., PITZER, L., & CALKINS, J. (2002) South Carolina’s school readiness initiative, 1999-2002. Program evaluation report. Washington, Child Trends. NEUMAN, M. (2001) Hand in hand: Improving the links between ECEC and schools in OECD countries, in: Early Childhood Education and Care: international perspectives. The report of a consultative meeting, New York, May 11-12, 2000. NEWMAN, L. (1996) Building the Bridges: early intervention to school. Paper presented at First Years of School conference, Hobart, January. O’BRIEN, M (1991) Promoting Successful Transition into School: a review of current intervention practices. Paper presented at New Directions in Child and Family Research, Arlington, June. PATTERSON, L. & FLEET, A. (1999) Multiple realities: change in the first years of school, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 6 (1), 85-97. PEISNER-FEINBERG, E., BURCHINAL, M., CLIFFORD, R., YAZEJIAN, N., CULKIN, M., ZELAZO, J., HOWES, C., BYLER, P., KAGAN, S. & RUSTICI, J. (1999) The Children of the Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study go to School. Technical report (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina). PERRY, B., DOCKETT, S. & HOWARD, P. (2000) Starting school: issues for children, parents & teachers, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7 (1), 4153. PETERS, S. (2002) Teachers’ perspectives of transition, in: H. FABIAN & A-W, DUNLOP (Eds) Transitions in the Early Years: Debating continuity and progression for children in early education, pp. 87-97 (London, Routledge Falmer). PETERS, S. (2000) Multiple Perspectives on Continuity in Early Learning and Transition to School. Paper presented at EECERA conference, London, August-September. PIANTA, R. & KRAFT-SAYRE, M. (2003) Successful Kindergarten Transition (Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes). PIANTA, R. & COX, M. (1999) The changing nature of transition to school, in: R. PIANTA & M. COX (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 363-379 (Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes). PODMORE, V., SAUVAO,L. & MAPA, L. (2003) Sociocultural perspectives on transition to school from Pacific Islands early childhood centres, International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 33-42. RABAN, B. & URE, C. (2000) Continuity for socially disadvantaged school entrants: perspectives of parents and teachers, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7 (1), 54-65. RAMEY, S. & RAMEY, C. (1999) Beginning school for children at risk, in: R. PIANTA & M. COX (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp217-251 (Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes). RAMEY, S. & RAMEY, C. (1998) The transition to school: opportunities and challenges for children, families, educators and communities, The Elementary School Journal, 98 (4), 293-295. RICHARDSON, L. (1997) Review of transition from home to school, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22 (1), 18-22. RIMM-KAUFMANN, S. & PIANTA, R. (2000) An ecological perspective on the transition to kindergarten: a theoretical framework to guide empirical research, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 491-511. SAUVAO, L, MAPA, L. & PODMORE, V. (2000) Transition to school from Pacific Island early childhood services (Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research). SIMS, M. & HUTCHINS, T. (1999) Positive transitions, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24 (3), 12-16. SKINNER, D., BRYANT, D, COFFMAN, J. & CAMPBELL, F. (1998) Creating risk and promise: children’s and teachers’ co-constructions in the cultural world of kindergarten, The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 297-310. SMITH, N. (2002) Transition to the school playground: an intervention programme for nursery children, Early Years, 22(2), 129-145. SY, S. (2003) Parent involvement and children’s transition to school in Asian American and European American families, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 63 (7B), February, pp 3499. TAYLER, C. (1999) Transition in early childhood education, in: F. BRIGGS & G. POTTER, (Eds) The Early Years of School: Teaching and learning, pp. 65-92 (South Melbourne, Addison Wesley Longman). VAN DEN OORD, E. & ROSSEM, R. (2002) Differences in first graders’ school adjustment: the role of classroom characteristics and social structure of the group, Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 371-394. WEIHEN, L. (2001) Exploring Early Childhood (Port Melbourne, Reed Books). WESTCOTT, K., PERRY, B., JONES, K. & DOCKETT, S. (2003) Parents’ transition to school, Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 19(2), 26-38. WOLERY, M. (1999) Children with disabilities in early elementary school, in: R. PIANTA & M. COX, (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 253-280 (Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes). XIANG, Z & SCHWEINHART, L. (2002) The Michigan school readiness program evaluation through age ten. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 8(1), 17-23. YEBOAH, D. (2003) Enhancing transition from early childhood phase to primary education: evidence from the research literature, Early Years, 22(1), 51 –67. YEOM, JI-SOOK (1998) Children’s transition experiences from kindergarten to grade one, Canadian Children, 23(1), 25-33. ZILL, N. (1999) Promoting education quality and excellence in kindergarten, in: R. PIANTA & M. COX (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 67-108 (Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes)