Professional linkages at the transition to school: Boundaries and linked ecologies

Abstract

The transition to school brings early childhood and school educators together in the common aim of promoting a positive start to school. This transition also highlights the boundaries and professional linkages that contribute to this aim. Conceptualising boundary spaces as sites of professional identity construction and negotiation, we explore professional linkages between early childhood education and care and school educators during transitions to school, using Abbott’s linked ecologies framework. To do this, we examine data from two studies, exploring the proposition that collaboration – in the forms of professional networks and transition statements (shared documentation) – have the potential to act as linkages across the ecologies of early childhood education and care and school education. Our conclusions support this potential but note that the nature and impact of these linkages is variable. Further, we argue that contradictions and tensions in the perceived professional roles of educators are evident within these linkages.

Keywords

Transition to school linked ecologies professional networks collaboration teacher professional identities

Introduction

The transition to school is a focal point for educational policy in many parts of the world. Addressing transitions to school, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2017: 3) noted that increased commitments to early childhood education and care (ECEC) would have limited impact if ‘transitions between ECEC and primary schooling are not well-prepared’. Further, the report argued for the importance of collaboration among educators as a key element in supporting quality transitions. In this paper, we explore collaboration and the professional identities of educators at the time of transition to school.

Several approaches have been advocated to promote collaboration during transitions to school (Huser et al., 2015; Peters, 2014). These include the formation of networks, bringing together educators from different sectors, and the introduction of transition statements (Astbury, 2009; O’Kane, 2016), designed to transfer information about children and promote continuity of learning.

Networks, defined as ‘a set of people and the direct and indirect connections that exist among them’ (Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016: 5), are recognised as a promising practice to support transitions to school, based on their potential for collaboration (Astbury, 2009; Dockett and Perry, 2014). While networks can vary in their formality and structure, transition statements introduced in several Australian states follow a template established at the jurisdictional level (see, for example, Department of Education and Training, Victoria, 2020; Department of Education, NSW, 2020; Department of Education, Queensland, 2019). Each template includes a ‘snapshot’ of the child’s learning and development, prepared by ECEC educators for parents according to the outcomes from Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2017). The aim of the statements is for parents to ‘share information with their child’s school to support continuity of learning’ (Department of Education, NSW, 2020). When completing the statements, ECEC educators utilise strengths-based approaches to reporting (Hopps-Wallis et al., 2016). In some states, it is mandatory for ECEC educators to complete transition statements for all children starting school who attend their ECEC settings. In some instances, part of the work of transition networks involves coordinating the sharing of transition statements between ECEC settings and schools.

Both networks and transition statements aim to promote cross-setting collaboration, which has been established as a key element of effective transitions (Dockett and Perry, 2014; Hopps, 2014). They also create professional linkages across the boundary spaces that exist between ECEC and schools. Educators’ actions in these boundary spaces are influenced by different authorisations – deriving from such things as policy, regulations, institutional requirements and industrial agreements. It is in boundary spaces that people ‘struggle over and come to agree upon definitions of reality’ (Lamont and Molnar, 2002: 168). Boundaries are both inclusive and exclusive; they categorise people and practice – for example, defining schools as places of learning and teachers as those responsible for promoting learning. Boundary spaces are also sites of identity construction and negotiation as those within and without the boundaries claim ‘occupational space’ (Seddon, 2014: 17) based on professional knowledge.

Boundaries are dynamic spaces, and interactions at boundary spaces can be challenging and provocative, as ‘boundary talk is rarely neutral; there are strong emotional elements which reflect how discourses connect with identities’ (Edwards, 2011: 37). At the same time, such interactions can provide the impetus for major change as educators ‘experience the uncertainties that accompany profound changes in teaching practice and identities’ and ‘harness these uncertainties in ways that strengthen the profession’ (Skattebol, 2010: 75). Examining boundaries at the time of transition to school promotes consideration of how contexts are connected, what happens at intersections, the nature of educators’ professional identities, and how those who find themselves at such intersections navigate various pathways.

Professional linkages

Several conceptualisations of professional linkages contribute to our understandings of the work of educators as they engage in boundary spaces at times of transition (Abbott, 2005; Boyle and Petriwskyj, 2014; Edwards, 2011; Moss, 2013). Moss (2013) outlined three forms of professional relationships: readying for school; a strong and equal partnership; and a meeting place. These have some affinity with the relationships outlined by Boyle and Petriwskyj (2014): functional linkages; systemic linkages; partnership interactions; and dialogic interactions. The first form of relationship in both typologies infers a connection where the purpose of professional interactions is to ensure that children are ‘readied’ for school. More complex professional relationships support strong and equal partnerships between educators in ECEC and school contexts. Reciprocal interactions between and among those engaged in different systems – ECEC and school – underpin these linkages. The most complex form of professional linkages has been characterised as a ‘meeting place’ (Moss, 2013) which provides a context for dialogic interactions (Boyle and Petriwskyj, 2014), where educators from different sectors engage in reflection and critique, generating agreed understandings as they share resources, experiences and practice, and explore what has been taken for granted in each setting.

Edwards’ (2011) conceptualisation of boundary spaces as locations for developing common knowledge is drawn from studies of professionals working together, such as through interagency work. In these situations, the different backgrounds and professional expertise of those involved can highlight a lack of common knowledge and critical reflection can provoke challenges to taken-for-granted knowledge.

Linked ecologies and boundary work

Emphasising the fluidity of professional boundaries, Abbott (2005: 252) explored the notion of linked ecologies, where an ecology is defined as consisting of three components: ‘a set of actors, a set of locations and a set of links between them’. The construct of linked ecologies considers ‘the simultaneous existence of numerous adjacent ecologies, all of whose actors seek alliances, resources, and support across ecological boundaries’ (Abbott, 2005: 247). It focuses attention on professional interactions in boundary spaces by exploring the identification of issues that connect ecologies and the ways these issues are approached and managed. In this paper, we consider ECEC and school educators as actors, the ECEC and school settings as locations, and explore the links between them around the issue of transition to school. Our aim is to add to conceptualisations of boundary work and alternative ways of understanding this.

Abbott emphasises two types of alliance: hinges and avatars. Hinges are described as strategies that can be applied – albeit in different ways – in each ecology. Hinges can facilitate professional collaboration but can also reinforce professional boundaries by highlighting how the same issue is addressed in different contexts (Seabrooke and Tsingou, 2015). Hinges are effective in each ecology – that is, they work in each context. Professional networks can act as hinges (Stone, 2013), creating opportunities for alliances and the construction of common ground, and common knowledge, among participants. Hinges are created when actors define the issues to be addressed and develop strategies to achieve these. For example, where transition to school is identified as an issue, a network may promote a transition programme that can be implemented in each setting. In this example, the network acts as the hinge, as it is through the network that a connected transition programme is implemented in each setting. While the programme need not look the same, the principles underpinning it could reflect common knowledge and aims among educators.

Avatars are described as ‘institutional hinges’ (Abbott, 2005: 265), involving efforts to enforce a copy of a strategy from one ecology into another. Avatars seek to replicate the skills and ideas of one professional setting in another, effectively expanding its work into other ecologies. As examples, the incorporation of economic methods and logic into ECEC through concepts of ‘investments and returns’ constitutes an avatar, and references to ECEC in terms of ‘treatments’ and ‘dosage’ suggest the incorporation of medical methods and ideas. In this paper, we propose that efforts to incorporate the skills and ideas underpinning primary school education into ECEC – as reflected in transition statements – has the potential to serve as an avatar.

Stone (2013: 244) notes that

the production of hinges and avatars is neither straightforward nor automatic; instead it is a political process emerging from the mobilization of individuals and institutions around particular projects and strategies of legitimation. The process involves everyday power plays, allocations of resources and struggles over the terms of the debate. It establishes which group or profession has jurisdictional authority over a problem and why some organisations or data are included, and others excluded.

The political nature of linkages across ecologies is a reminder that they often occur in contested spaces. In transition to school, for example, there are claims that ‘schoolification’ (Moss, 2013) and school readiness agendas transform ECEC spaces. Examining the forms of linkages across ecologies draws attention to the claims of different actors, the ways in which a specific task is defined, and helps to identify how positions of authority are adopted and maintained.

In their elaboration of Abbott’s model of linked ecologies, Blok et al. (2019) introduce the concept of proto-professions. While it is possible to argue that education constitutes one profession, reference to proto-professions and proto-jurisdictions allows us to consider different sets of actors and interactions in ‘relatively elastic and ambiguous arenas where two or more professions lay hold on certain degrees of control’ (Blok et al., 2019: 589). We propose that such a situation exists between ECEC educators and school educators around the issue of transition to school.

Further elaboration describes three different forms of boundary work between proto-professionals. Pragmatic reshuffling involves professionals moving between ‘blurring and enforcing occupational boundaries’ (Blok et al., 2019: 602), demonstrating willingness to compromise and collaborate on the task at hand. Pragmatic reshuffling is most likely to occur at the local level – for example, as educators in different settings work on local transitions practices.

Tactical renegotiation describes interactions designed to leverage boundary work in strategic ways. In transition to school, it could involve educators in one setting seeking additional funding or resources to retain control and/or direction of transition programmes. At this level, it is possible to see the introduction of standards of expectation or operation and organisational scripts as positions are reified.

Cross-ecological alliance seeking ‘relies on actors forging alliances not only among professionals, but also in wider political and institutional settings’ (Blok et al., 2019: 605). This may involve the adoption of hinges or avatars to formalise initiatives and projects and to generate wider political or institutional alliances.

Professional linkages and professional identities

While much research has investigated transitions to school, relatively little consideration has been given to educators’ perceptions of their professional roles and identities at this time. Drawing on a study of secondary school teachers (Cuconato et al., 2015) we consider three professional identities for educators as they engage in transition to school work.

The first of these relates to educators who define their professional identity around transmitting specific knowledge – in this instance, that required for children to be ready for school. In enacting this identity, educators may act as gatekeepers, incorporate readiness activities within ECEC programmes, identify and assess skills considered necessary to start school and, if children are deemed ‘unready’, recommend delayed entry to school. Underpinning this role can be concerns that children and/or families need expert assistance in preparing children for school and that without the focus on readiness, some children will be set up for school failure.

The second role considers educators whose professional identity derives from advocacy for equity and access for all children. Key to this identity is the belief that access to education links with future social and cultural opportunities. In transition to school contexts, this may involve developing and implementing transition programmes, ensuring that children and families have the knowledge and resources to access these, and ECEC educators mediating family–school interactions.

The third professional identity sees educators prioritise children’s wellbeing above systemic or economic considerations. Key roles for educators who enact this identity at times of transition to school involve promoting holistic approaches to education and helping children and families manage change. While each of these identities is described separately, Cuconato et al. (2015) emphasise the context dependent nature of these, and the notion that professional identity is fluid, rather than fixed.

Our aim in this paper is to explore the ways in which professional networks and transition statements might act as linkages connecting ECEC and school contexts as children start school and, within these, to consider the professional identities of educators. From this, we examine how the issue of transition to school and the tasks around it are defined, and who is regarded as having jurisdictional authority around these. Existing transitions literature (Ballam et al., 2017) suggests that networks create alliances which have the potential to act as hinges – supporting professional collaboration and the development and implementation of strategies that work effectively in each setting to support those involved in transitions. There is mixed reporting of the effectiveness of transition statements in sharing information and promoting continuity (Hopps, 2014; O’Kane, 2016). Our exploration of the nature of professional linkages and professional identities as children start school contributes to understandings in this area.

Methods and methodology

In this paper we draw on data from two qualitative studies of transition to school involving educators in both ECEC and school settings. The studies were conducted in two states of Australia. Each involved the authors working with groups of ECEC and school educators over at least six months as they planned, developed and evaluated approaches to support children’s transition to school. The researchers visited each site at least three times, meeting with educators and observing practice.

Study 1 was conducted in 2015–2016 and Study 2 in 2018. Data were generated through conversational interviews with educators over the duration of the projects. Most were group interviews lasting between 1 and 2 hours; the only individual interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. With consent, interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Participants in Study 1 consisted of 18 educators (9 ECEC and 9 school educators) who were members of 2 community transition networks. Participants in Study 2 consisted of 7 ECEC and 15 school educators from 5 small local networks each formed to enhance transition practices.

Using an interpretive paradigm to explore text data prompted the use of content analysis to identify patterns across educators’ experiences. Specifically, we applied a directed approach to content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), with the aim of exploring the potential of using Abbott’s linked ecologies framework to understand professional linkages and the identity descriptions derived from the work of Cuconato et al. (2015) at the time of transition to school. These frameworks provided the starting point for deductive analysis, as we identified characteristics of hinges and avatars and analysed the data set for evidence of these (Mayring, 2000).

The processes of data analysis began with reviewing transcripts to ensure data familiarisation. Sections of text referring to transition statements, networks, transition to school, professional alliances, professional boundaries and boundary work, identity, common knowledge and common strategies were highlighted. These were used to form examples of codes and categories, which informed continued coding and identification of themes.

Applying the characteristics outlined by Abbott (2005), we propose that networks may act as hinges when they involve ECEC and school educators and promote transition strategies that can be applied in each setting. Transition statements may act as avatars when there is evidence that school practices have been adopted in ECEC. The themes identified are used as organisers in the reporting of results. The professional identities and roles of educators involved in these linkages provide a further frame for analysis.

Results

The claim that hinges and avatars are potentially at play in interactions between ECEC and school settings rests on the proposition that these settings represent different ecologies, with different actors, locations and links between them. For this reason, we start our reporting of results with consideration of this proposition. We follow this with evidence for the identified themes which provides the basis for the subsequent discussion of different types of boundary work and professional identities. As there were varying numbers of participants across each site and involved in each discussion, we report data by identifying the issues discussed in sites, rather than the frequency of comments. Sites 1 and 2 derive from Study 1, and Sites 3–7 from Study 2.

Different ecologies

In each site, much time was devoted to considering the differences between ECEC (referred to in comments as kinders or kindergarten) and schools. These included some differences in the professional requirements of educators, but mainly addressed systemic differences:

We’re talking about two completely different systems and operational aspects … how we operate and primary school settings (operate), there’s a lot more routines and structures in a primary school, they’re completely different … the curriculum is isolated for kinders, this is what they do, this is what we do. There’s no marriage between the two. (Site 3)

(ECEC) talk in a different professional language to what we do, the words, the kindy words and the school words, are different … the curriculums are so different … the language is not common … they’re two segregated organisations. (Site 4)

Participants across the sites were clear in their perspectives that ECEC and school were separate systems, functioning in quite different ways. Despite this, participants noted that they worked towards the same aim of children ‘having a good start in life’ (Site 6).

Networks as hinges

Structure and functioning of the network

The structure of transition networks depended on their purpose. The networks developed in Sites 1 and 2 were characterised as community networks, aiming to bring together ‘all of the stakeholders’ to build a ‘community transition plan’ (Site 2). Stakeholders included ECEC and school educators, community professionals, parents, and sometimes government representatives and politicians. Each network had the main aim of supporting transitions to school for their local constituents. However, they also recognised the political imperative of making transition a community issue and sharing a common message about ‘working collaboratively for all children’ (Site 2). Attendance at Site 2 network meetings averaged around 50 people. Notes from the meeting were distributed widely, raising community consciousness that this was an active group ‘building connections and working collaboratively’ (Site 2). As the network progressed, school educators noted that it had moved from being a network to support children attending their school, to one aiming to support ‘all the children transitioning’ in the local area.

The aim of the Site 1 network was to ‘build a bridge across from kindy to school, preparing the children to be ready for school’. The motivation for the network, as explained by a school educator, was

seeing the kids that come to us ready, or prepared or ready to go with what (first year of school) requires them to do … and not having that was probably the initiation … everyone on board from the other side of the fence agreed. (Site 1)

The rationale for the network in Site 2 was informed by feedback from parents and educators about the importance of building connections across the community. One strategy to support this was for the school to offer professional development opportunities for all educators of young children exploring

optimal transition practices and what that looks like and how we do that … to build in multiple perspectives across the 0–8 educator space and … shared responsibility – that it’s not that schooling do it or ECEC do it, we should all be doing it. (Site 2)

Networks in Sites 1 and 2 were led by school educators, largely because systemic funding was available to support these initiatives. The networks met regularly, followed an agenda and produced records of the meetings and action plans identifying strategies and practices applicable across settings. One shared practice that was promoted involved ‘asking the kids what we could do in transition, valuing their voice, thinking about multiple perspectives and planning with children for transition’ (Site 2).

In contrast, the local transition networks generated in Study 2 were informal, operated without financial support and met on an ad hoc basis. In several sites the purpose of meeting was functional:

We meet one or two times a term. It just depends on what is happening. Mostly we work out dates for visits to kindy or school, and to hand over transition statements. We share dates for visits, but not what goes on in the visits. (Site 5)

We meet at the end of the year and people come because they want to know numbers for next year. (Site 7)

In Site 4, educators were eager to explore the possibility of a broader, multi-disciplinary network that could present common messages to the community about the value of ECEC and connections with school. However, they noted the ‘big task’ involved in developing such a network, particularly in building the ‘set of relationships’ needed.

The essential element of this theme is that both ECEC and school educators were involved in the networks and were talking about transition to school practices. The extent of the networks varied, as did the nature of the conversations around transition. In most instances, networks were initiated by school educators, sometimes supported by systemic funding programmes. However, ECEC educators played active roles and, in the more informal networks, facilitated meetings.

Strategies across ecologies

While the community networks from Study 1 promoted broad initiatives, some informal networks in Study 2 involved strong local connections between a small number of ECEC settings and a school. These two forms achieved similar outcomes. For example, the small network in Site 6 met regularly and planned multiple visits across settings, participated jointly in community events and participated in joint professional development.

Shared professional development was also a feature of other networks, with the rationale that this provided opportunities for ECEC and school educators to access the same information and reflect on its relevance across different settings. In Site 1, these opportunities

helped schools understand the role of kindergarten, what we do and why we do it. It’s taken away the pressure of expectations, like they don’t expect us to teach children to write their name now. Now we have consistent expectations … we can discuss our different curriculums – ours is not subject-based like theirs. But they respect and value what we do, even though we do it differently … The network helps us understand what different places are doing. We come from different places ECEC and school, but now we feel our curriculum is valued, like we’re not being told what to do to prepare children for school. The school is willing to find out about ECEC, about play based curriculum, as well as tell us what children are doing at school.

As these examples illustrate, the connections among educators, rather than the size of the network, influenced the practice linkages across ECEC and school. While larger networks offered broad opportunities to share practice, the more local connections also offered opportunities to generate common knowledge and contribute to educators’ identities.

Challenges and limitations to the work of networks

Despite the willingness of those involved to build common knowledge and share transitions practices, several challenges and limitations to the work of networks were identified. These included lack of clear leadership, ad hoc organisation, limited opportunities to share or build pedagogical understanding, perceived ‘ownership’ of transition, staff turnover, and networks being seen as unprofessional or divisive. These characteristics inhibited the potential of networks to operate as hinges.

While the networks provided an important opportunity for ECEC and school educators to meet, some participants noted that the meetings were not ‘always purposeful’ (Site 5), which impacted on attendance:

Teachers have to have a really good reason to go, it’s outside of hours, they don’t have to go. Sometimes there’s not much point going. You need to know what’s going to be spoken about. There’s a facilitator, who organises the meeting, but no real leader, no agenda. (Site 7)

Participants in Site 5 noted that

we meet, but we’re not sharing pedagogical knowledge. School and kindy are doing play, but there’s no pedagogical sharing at the network – it’s just deciding on dates for visits, not what goes on in the visits or in pedagogy or curriculum.

Part of the reason for this – as expressed by both ECEC and school educators – was that schools regarded transitions as their responsibility, rather than a collaborative endeavour.

What had started off as a broad, inclusive network in Site 4 had changed as key people had left. What remained was a list of tasks to be done, such as organising the handover of transition statements, but without the personal connections among network participants. Changes in the educators across settings contributed to the challenges, ‘stopping the momentum of the group’ (Site 5) and involving ‘extra work to find out who the new teachers are, talk with them and get them involved’ (Site 4). A further challenge across sites was the timing of meetings – with different settings operating on different schedules. It was noted that networks often met according to the ‘rhythm of the (education) department’ (Site 1).

Some networks sought involvement from a wide range of stakeholders, aiming to articulate common positions about systems and organisations working together. Others promoted more limited, local connections, noting that some groups could become ‘too big to do anything’ (Site 4). Still others were very specific in the membership, with only those directly involved in the movement of children from ECEC to school invited to participate. In one site, initially this had resulted in ECEC educators from childcare settings not being invited to meetings, on the assumption that any children starting school would be attending kindergarten programmes. While this was rectified, ‘it felt divisive … we needed to have a voice in the network’ (Site 7).

Transition statements as avatars

All networks in Study 2 had roles involving transition statements. In some instances, the network existed only to organise the handover of statements. Sometimes this occurred during ‘speed-dating’ where ECEC educators identified teachers from schools their children would attend, shared the statements and briefly discussed the children before moving on to the next school and next group of statements. Other networks organised meetings with more time for discussion, particularly the ‘things that can’t be written in the statements’ (Site 7). This was possible once parental consent to communicate with school educators had been received. While the networks in Study 1 identified transition statements as important, developing and sharing these constituted only part of their work.

Transition statements as a form of school practice

Evidence that transition statements are considered a school practice inserted into ECEC settings is needed to regard the statements as an avatar. School educators in four sites referred to the statements as ‘reports’ written primarily for parents ‘at the end of the year’, similar to school reports. Educators in Site 3 made the most explicit comparison:

Like any school report, you have to be careful about what you write, about your strategy in your writing, the wording and how they are written, trying to put things in a positive light and adult speak, not teacher speak … it’s part of the professional duty to report to parents.

ECEC educators less often referred to transition statements as reports, but did describe them as ‘about the children’s learning and their outcomes’ (Site 4), with descriptors that were ‘what school teachers want to know, not what we teach’ (Site 7).

The school educators in Site 2 were very eager to receive transition statements. To this end, they contacted parents requesting copies of the statements when they attended enrolment interviews. ECEC educators reported feeling pressured to produce the statements earlier than planned when parents noted that ‘we need them for the school’. While transition statements were not necessarily intended to act as a form of school report, these comments suggest that several educators and parents regarded them in this way.

Jurisdictional commitment to transition statements

At the time of Study 1, ECEC educators were encouraged but not required to complete transition statements. In contrast, educators in Study 2 were required to complete a transition statement for all children attending their ECEC setting who were commencing school the following year. In each study, the sharing of transition statements was dependent on parental consent. To some educators, this was another sign of the separateness of ECEC and school settings, with one commenting that ‘you don’t need permission to send the report to the next grade teacher, but you need parents’ permission for statements. What’s the difference?’ (Site 6).

When asked why they wrote transition statements, ECEC educators at Site 4 indicated ‘because we have to. We wouldn’t write them if we didn’t have to.’ Another consequence of the jurisdictional mandate for transition statements was noted by educators in this site, where the function of the network had changed:

when transition statements came in, attendance dropped off a lot, schools dropped off and … all of a sudden people said, ‘we’ll just do the transition statements – that’s all we have to do’. When you put a formal situation in place, that gets done because its required, but not the other things. Relationships disappear.

Development and application of transition statements

In each site, there was much discussion about transition statements, particularly their development and use. Some sites regarded the statements as ‘really valuable’ (Site 2), providing ‘the first glimpse’ of the child about to start school (Site 6). Educators in other sites were sceptical about their value, noting that they provided ‘different types of information, not the information we’re looking for about what knowledge children actually bring to school’ (Site 3) and ‘schools want to know the nitty-gritty and the transition statements don’t do that’ (Site 4). ECEC educators concurred that the statements did not always provide the opportunity for them to share ‘what we think schools need to know’ (Site 7).

The majority of ECEC educators reported that they received no feedback about the ways in which statements were received and used. In Site 3, where such feedback did occur, educators described the sharing of statements as a ‘basis for professional respect. We’re not trying to do the same job, and we believe what others are saying in different settings. So, it’s about professional respect.’

Across the networks, transition statements were used in various ways to inform practice as children started school. School educators in five sites described using information from the statements to welcome children, while educators in the other two sites indicated that the statements were neither read nor used, preferring to assess children themselves early in the school year, according ‘more weight’ (Site 7) to their own assessments. Even those educators who did use the statements did not want ‘too much information, we want to see (for) ourselves and make judgements, then tap into what the kinder teachers see’ (Site 6) and noted that ‘they become useful once you know the child because then you can read between the lines’ (Site 5).

The ways in which transition statements were developed and applied suggests tensions in educator identity: some ECEC educators felt forced to complete statements that did not allow them to share what they considered valuable information, and some school educators acknowledged that they ignored statements, even when acknowledging the amount of work involved in developing these. Where transition statements were valued there was evidence of reciprocal respect among educators across the settings.

Resistance and limitations to the use of transition statements

Transition statements were welcomed in some contexts but resisted in others. Educators agreed that transition statements used a ‘different language’ (Site 4) from that of schools and needed to be ‘deciphered’ (Site 3) by educators ‘reading between the lines’ (Site 5). For some, this indicated that ‘the things you need to know about can’t be written in the transition statement’ (Site 4) because of the strengths-based focus and the different curriculum. Educators in several sites referred to the strengths-based approach as ‘airy-fairy’ (Site 3), ‘fluffy’ (Site 4) and ‘so positive it doesn’t say much’ (Site 7). In some sites, this difference provided impetus for collaboration among ECEC and school educators to explore their different contexts. In others, transition statements were dismissed: ‘we don’t pay much heed to them, they don’t give us much information. We feel terrible because we know how much work goes into them for so little value’ (Site 4).

Professional roles and identities

Interactions in boundary spaces involve processes of negotiation and legitimation that link to educators’ perceived professional roles and identities. While transition to school was regarded as a context for collaboration, in most instances this collaboration was initiated or led by school educators. This extended to the operation of networks and determining the ways in which transition statements were shared. Collaboration based on professional respect was evident in the positive regard for the information provided by ECEC educators that was reported across most of the sites. However, there were instances where ECEC educators had been excluded from networks and the information provided in transition statements was disregarded.

Preparing children for school

Educators in four sites referred to the role of ECEC as preparing children for school, positioning ECEC educators as gatekeepers responsible for ensuring children’s readiness for school. One ECEC educator commented:

all I want to know is what the schools want us to do to get the children ready … can they sit on the mat … give us a checklist of what they want so we can teach it and make sure the children are ready. (Site 5)

The same expectation was expressed by some school educators:

(We) look at what essential learnings children should come to school with … our children come without basic language development. If they don’t have the basic concepts, they can’t access early level texts. (Site 3)

We think it’s reasonable to expect they are doing some readiness in sound recognition, fine motor skills as preparation for handwriting … pre-writing skill, hold pencil, use scissors. (Site 1)

In some instances, the reason for a transition programme was to ensure children were, in terms of knowledge and skills, ‘ready to go’ to school. In others, the focus of transition programmes was more about relationship building than skill development. While the exception rather than the rule, there was some evidence of school educators imposing, or seeking to impose, school practices in ECEC settings:

(A school educator) visited and taught us early childhood educators some of the techniques used at school, so we can teach them how to sit down quietly and listen. (Site 1)

A principal came to look at the kindy – a really tall, big man, black coat, stood back, volatile discussion about what he didn’t like about our curriculum and how we were not teaching the children the things he needed them to know when they started school. (Site 4)

Accompanying references to readiness – and often in the same sites – was resistance to the school readiness discourse:

I’m just going to allow my children to play as much as they can, to just play. I do care what the school wants, but I don’t think it’s my role to get the children ready for school. For me, it’s about what’s happening for that child on that day. (Site 5)

It’s not our style of program to teach children to read and write – we’re more play-based. (Site 4)

Promoting equity and access

There was consensus among the educators that transition programmes were important for all children and that they (the educators) were responsible for promoting access to the programmes. Educators noted that not all children attended the transition programme prior to starting school, and some advocated for transition programmes that continued into the school year:

We have a lot of children who just come in (to start school at the beginning of the year). We have a beginning of the year program for all of them, even the ones who have come to the transition program. All our teaching and learning programs are around beginning school … we start from scratch … we do a tour … every day we begin with play and slowly transition from a play-based learning curriculum to a more formalised literacy and numeracy curriculum. (Site 6).

ECEC educators often did not see their roles ceasing when children started school. In particular, several saw a continuing role for them to act as mediators for the families:

Our community is low SES (socio-economic status), there is trauma and vulnerability. We work a lot with families and schools. Some schools have an image of what a family should be, what a child should be and should be able to do. They call us, ‘What is wrong with the family?’ We work between the school and family – even though the child isn’t with us anymore. The family isn’t always aware of how much work we do in the background with the school. (Site 4)

Educators in several sites noted the importance of the transition networks in promoting equity and access. For example, educators in Site 2 reported that interactions with other professionals afforded opportunities to have a ‘voice in the other sectors’ where their knowledge about children and families was respected and valued.

Focus on wellbeing

ECEC educators’ focus on wellbeing was perceived by some as a counter to pressure they felt to prepare children for school. One educator noted: ‘it’s my job to get them socially and emotionally ready, not to teach them how to read’ (Site 5), while others indicated that transition statements prioritised readiness attributes rather than wellbeing:

The transition statement is all around outcomes and learning – but really what’s important is how children function socially and their emotional capacity – that’s what we’re teaching them at kinder – we’re not teaching them to read and write, that’s not our role, that is not our focus, but that’s where the transition statements are leaning. (Site 4)

Their school educator colleagues affirmed this:

We don’t want to know if they can write their name … we want to know more about the child’s personality and characteristics, so you know how they’re going to go in that setting, if anything triggers them and so on. (Site 4)

Other school educators described the importance of wellbeing and interactions that helped children feel comfortable in school, such as focusing on

social interaction, like being able to leave Mum, Dad, Aunty, and come and sit down with a group of young children. Being able to share their ideas, voice their opinions. (Site 2)

belonging and feeling comfortable being here, not being scared. (Site 3)

balancing nurturing and that slow release of responsibility, so children can start to be more independent at school. (Site 5)

Educators across these sites variously positioned themselves as gatekeepers, advocates for equity and access, and promoters of children’s wellbeing. These positions framed their interactions and contributed to their professional identities and the roles they undertook around transition to school. Even when describing resistance, the prevalence of readiness discourses was noted and some ECEC educators experienced jurisdictional markers, as ‘real’ education was situated in schools and ECEC was interpreted as preparation for school. Despite these pressures, educators in both sectors emphasised the importance of children’s wellbeing and advocated for their access to appropriate programmes.

Discussion

Links between ecologies occur at intersections, overlaps and boundaries: ‘when ecologies come into contact with one another we see the emergence of alliances between subgroups in one ecology and subgroups in another’ (Abbott, 2005: 253). Alliances are formed when actors identify the issue/s to be addressed and ‘articulate their positions in “what” is important to address, even if the “how” is not yet clear’ (Seabrooke and Tsingou, 2015: 4).

Across the two studies reported in this paper, ECEC and school educators positioned themselves in different ecologies, marked by different curricula, language and practice. These differences also helped to define the issues around transition to school – setting the parameters for boundary work by identifying what was to be addressed.

The sites involved in Study 1 defined transition as a community issue and sought to gather as many stakeholders as possible to build a community transition plan. In Site 1, this involved building a bridge between kindergarten and school and promoting school readiness. This focus positioned transition as a series of practices that equipped children with the skills and knowledge that prepared them for school. In addition to connecting with parents, strategies to achieve this included shared professional development, reflection about different curricula, and building understanding and respect about the ‘other’ setting.

The Site 2 network also brought together multiple stakeholders – including policymakers and politicians – and offered shared professional development with a focus on engaging with multiple perspectives. Their detailed network planning – invitations, agendas and meeting notes – positioned them as a dynamic, visible community network, working for all children across the local area. This also facilitated the strategy of tactical renegotiation, as they were able to leverage the boundary work to seek additional funding. Individual educators also leveraged these connections to advocate for their children and families.

Both Study 1 sites received systemic funding to support their transition to school work. While they were eager to involve ECEC educators, and did so in many ways, the direction and impetus for the networks came from the institution holding the funds – the school. Perhaps this makes sense, given the schools’ access to resources and expertise. However, it also raises questions about the ‘ownership’ of transition, and the exercise of power in relationships that aim to promote collaboration, echoing Stone’s (2013: 244) caution that professional linkages are political processes that establish ‘jurisdictional authority’.

Educators across the Study 2 sites engaged in small, informal networks. A prime function for most of these networks was the distribution of transition statements. Educators in Site 4 attributed changes in network function to the imposition of transition statements, arguing that their introduction established what ‘had to’ be done and removed the necessity for ongoing network collaboration.

The informal nature of the Study 2 networks meant that they were largely invisible to the broader community, and not well positioned to engage in tactical renegotiation to seek extra funding or resources. Despite this, some networks functioned as forums to promote collaboration around transition experiences. For example, the small network in Site 6 engaged in regular reflection and promoted opportunities to share practices, adapting those for implementation in their settings as appropriate. In this way, this network operated as a hinge, providing the pivot point for discussion, collaboration, and reflection.

Networks across both studies engaged in some forms of pragmatic reshuffling, which involved blurring professional boundaries, collaborating, and being open to compromise. Shared professional development was one form of blurring professional boundaries. Educators in Site 2 adopted some similar transition practices, particularly around seeking children’s and parents’ perspectives about transition to school, sharing these with the intent of working together to make transition practices more responsive to children and parents. While the strategies used differed across settings, the principle of seeking input from children and parents was applicable to both. This practice also demonstrated the qualities of a hinge – something that could be adopted in both settings.

The most obvious instance of cross-ecological alliance seeking came from Site 2. Here, alliances were forged for both local and broader community settings, working not only to improve transitions experiences for local children and families, but also to establish the network as a dynamic and credible entity.

Despite being adopted across several jurisdictions, educators in these studies indicated that the purpose and use of transition statements remained contested. Educators across several sites regarded transition statements as a form of report. However, school educators noted that they did not contain the information they required, and ECEC educators noted that they did not always contain the information they wanted to provide. ECEC educators reported tensions as they promoted play-based programmes but felt that transition statements required them to focus on more academic outcomes. In one site, ECEC educators were resigned to writing the statements, knowing that they were not used by their school colleagues. In other sites, the existence of transition statements reduced the need for educators to meet, collaborate and reflect together and changed the nature of network meetings. Hence, while the insertion of transition statements into ECEC may be considered an avatar, the resistance and limitations to their use raises questions about their effectiveness.

In some sites, the writing and sharing of transition statements generated professional respect – as educators from each setting acknowledged the work and expertise of their colleagues in different settings. In others, the statements were valued for the initial impressions they provided and the information that could be used to welcome children to the school.

Educators’ comments provided some indications of their perceptions of roles and identities at the time of transition to school. Several ECEC educators identified with expectations of preparing children for school; the same expectation was reflected by several school educators. Others resisted this and focused instead on advocating for equity and access in transition and prioritised children’s wellbeing over academic expectations. The tensions experienced as educators navigated their roles and identities serve as a reminder of the political nature of transition collaborations as issues of power, responsibility, accountability and jurisdictional authority come to the fore.

Limitations and future directions

This paper has explored the application of Abbott’s (2005) linked ecologies to the professional collaborations that occur around transitions to school. It offers some alternative possibilities for considering the nature, extent and purpose of professional linkages at this time. However, it also has several limitations that prompt further investigation.

In applying the theory of linked ecologies, we have used the processes of deductive content analysis. While this approach has enabled us to explore the relevance of the theory to transition to school, working from a theoretical base has the potential to generate biased results: when looking for specific evidence, we often find it. It is also possible that seeking evidence to support a theoretical position blinds us to the contextual elements of the data. In recognising these limitations, we position this study as an initial exploration and invite further investigation and critique of the relevance of linked ecologies to transition to school collaborations.

We have proposed ECEC and school education as proto-professions, involving different sets of actors, locations and interactions and therefore occupying different ecologies. However, we see further work to be done in unpacking this conceptualisation, particularly considering whether there may be different, separate ecologies, or several smaller ecologies in the education space which might include overlaps in both actors and locations. Further, the concept of linked ecologies seems to assume homogeneity among actors within a specific ecology. Yet consideration of the professional roles and identities of educators involved in transition indicates that this is not necessarily so. This suggests opportunities for future investigations to consider the dynamic interactions among participants within specific ecologies.

Conclusions

Our aim in this paper was to explore the application of Abbott’s (2005) theory of linked ecologies to the interactions between ECEC and school educators during transitions to school. To do this, we proposed that transition networks act as hinges when they involve ECEC and school educators and promote transition strategies that can be applied in each setting, and that transition statements act as avatars when these are perceived as school practices that have been inserted into ECEC. The data from two separate studies indicate the potential for networks to act as hinges and transition statements as avatars, but note that the nature and impact of these linkages varies. Both studies also identified contradictions and tensions in the perceived professional roles of educators within these linkages.

Variability and identity tensions are linked to the nature of the boundary work that occurs across the sectors. In some sites, transition networks promoted professional collaboration based on common principles and collegial respect as educators adopted similar roles and identities, through implementation of shared transition practices and professional development opportunities. These promoted interactions based on professional respect and prompted future collaboration that enabled one site to leverage their work to attract further funding and resources.

In some sites, the main task of transition networks was to share transition statements. Effective networks need to have a purpose; they need to be ‘about’ something (Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016). This purpose was described in functional, rather than relational, terms and seemed to have limited benefit for those involved. The nature of the information to be shared in transition statements, and overt resistance to this, also contributed to the sense of lack of purpose.

However, in other sites, the sharing of transition statements was only one element of the definition of the tasks associated with collaboration around transitions to school. In these sites, networks shared transition practices and demonstrated willingness to engage with colleagues in professional linkages that incorporated characteristics of both hinges and avatars.

Across all sites, educators reflected upon professional identities that incorporated the roles of preparing children for school, advocating for equity and access, and promoting children’s wellbeing. Movement across these roles related to policy imperatives – such as requirements related to transition statements – and jurisdictional support for cross-sector collaboration.

Our exploration of the linked ecologies framework has prompted us to think critically about the actors, locations and interactions that occur during transitions to school. It has reminded us that boundaries are dynamic spaces: challenging and provocative as well as supportive and stimulating. Multiple perspectives of boundaries and boundary work provide impetus to examine taken-for-granted practices in different ways, as we seek to strengthen professional identities, understandings and practices.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/orpublication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial supportfor the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received financial support for the research from Departments of Education in the relevant states.

ORCID iD

Sue Dockett

Sue Dockett is emeritus professor, Charles Sturt University, Australia and director, Peridot Education Pty Ltd. While recently retired from university life, she remains an active researcher in the field of early childhood education. She has been a long-time advocate for the importance of recognising and responding to young children's perspectives. She maintains this position in her current work with children, families and educators in explorations of transitions to school, children's play, and learning. She has published extensively both nationally and internationally in these areas.

Bob Perry has recently retired after 45 years of university teaching and research. He is emeritus professor at Charles Sturt University, Australia and director, Peridot Education Pty Ltd. In conjunction with Sue Dockett, he continues research, consultancy and publication in early childhood mathematics education; educational transitions, with particular emphasis on transition to primary school; researching with children; and evaluation of educational programmes. He has published extensively both nationally and internationally in these areas.

References

Abbott

(2005) Linked ecologies: States and universities as environments for professions. Sociological Theory 23(3): 245–274.

Astbury

(2009) Evaluation of transition: A positive start to school pilots. Available at: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/research/transitionpilotevaluation.pdf (accessed 14 January 2020).

Ballam

Perry

Garpelin

(eds) (2017) Pedagogies of Educational Transitions. European and Antipodean Research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Blok

Lindstrom

Meilvang

, et al. (2019) Ecologies of boundaries: Modes of boundary work in professional proto-jurisdictions. Symbolic Interaction 42(4): 588–617.

Boyle

Petriwskyj

(2014) Transitions to school: Reframing professional relationships. Early Years 34(4): 392–404.

Cuconato

, D e Bois-Reymond

Lunabba

(2015) Between gate-keeping and support: Teachers’ perspectives of their role in transition. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(3): 311–328.

Department of Education and Training, Victoria (2020) Transition learning and development statement. Available at: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/childhood/professionals/learning/Pages/transitionstat.aspx?Redirect=1 (accessed 7 January 2020).

Department of Education, NSW (2020) Transition to school statement. Available at: https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/early-childhood-education/working-in-early-childhood-education/media/documents/T2S-Statement-interactive-form-2018.pdf (accessed 7 January 2020).

Department of Education, Queensland (2019) Transition statements. Available at: https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/kindergarten/qklg/supporting-transition-school/transition-statements (accessed 7 January 2020).

10.

Department of Education, Skills and Employment (2017) Early years learning framework. Available at: https://www.education.gov.au/early-years-learningframework-0 (accessed 7 January 2020).

11.

Dockett

Perry

(2014) Continuity of learning: A resource to support effective transition to school and school age care. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education. https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/pdf_with_bookmarking_-_continuity_of_learning-_30_october_2014_1_0.pdf (accessed 7 January 2020).

12.

Edwards

(2011) Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in system of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research 50(1): 33–39.

13.

Hopps

(2014) Prior-to-school+school+communication=what for educator relationships? Early Years 34(4): 405–419.

14.

Hopps-Wallis

Fenton

Dockett

(2016) Focusing on strengths as children start school: What does it mean in practice? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 41(2): 103–111.

15.

Hsieh

H-F

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

16.

Huser

Dockett

Perry

(2015) Transition to school: Revisiting the bridge metaphor. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 24(3): 439–449.

17.

Lamont

Molnar

(2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.

18.

Mayring

(2000) Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1(2): Art. 20. Available from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385 (accessed 14 December 2019).

19.

Moss

(2013) The relationship between early childhood and compulsory education: A proper political question. In: Moss

(ed.), Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the Relationship. London: Routledge, pp.2–49.

20.

O’Kane

(2016) Transition from preschool to primary school. Research report 19. Dublin. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Available from: https://ncca.ie/media/1504/transition_to_primary_research_report_19.pdf (accessed 30 September 2019).

21.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017) Starting strong V: Transitions from early childhood education and care to primary education. Paris: OECD.

22.

Peters

(2014) Chasms, bridges and borderlands: A transitions research ‘across the border’ from early childhood education to school in New Zealand. In: Perry

Dockett

Petriwskyj

(eds) Transitions to School – International Research, Policy and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.105–116.

23.

Rincón-Gallardo

Fullan

(2016) Essential features of effective networks in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community 1(1): 5–22.

24.

Seabrooke

Tsingou

(2015) Professional emergence on transnational issues: Linked ecologies on demographic change. Journal of Professions and Organization 2: 1–18.

25.

Seddon

(2014) Making educational spaces through boundary work: Territorialisation and ‘boundarying’. Globalisation, Societies and Education 12(1): 10–31.

26.

Skattebol

(2010) Affect: A tool to support pedagogical change. Discourse 31(9): 75–91.

27.

Stone

(2013) ‘ Shades of grey’: The World Bank, knowledge networks and the linked ecologies of academic engagement. Global Networks 13(2): 241–260.