European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

ISSN: 1350-293X (Print) 1752-1807 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Transition to school: revisiting the bridge

metaphor

Carmen Huser, Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

To cite this article: Carmen Huser, Sue Dockett & Bob Perry (2015): Transition to school:
revisiting the bridge metaphor, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, DOI:
10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102414

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102414

Published online: 30 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 114

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recr20

Download by: [Florida Atlantic University] Date: 21 March 2016, At: 17:22
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102414

Transition to school: revisiting the bridge metaphor

Carmen Husera, Sue Dockettb and Bob Perryb*
a
School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia; bResearch Institute for
Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia

Policymakers, researchers and educators around the world have acknowledged the
importance of children’s transition to school, both as a significant life event and as a
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

factor in future engagement with education. As a result, much attention has been
directed towards researching transition experiences, developing policies to
support positive transitions, and implementing a range of transition practices and
programmes aimed to promote effective transitions. At the heart of many of
these has been the notion of transition as a bridge between the worlds of home,
or prior-to-school services, and school. This article explores the metaphor of the
bridge between prior-to-school and school settings, drawing on theories of rites
of passage and border crossing, and the application of this to the transition to
school. Using examples from the German Brückenjahr project (The bridge year
project) and the Australian and international Transition to School: Position
Statement, we critique and examine the bridge metaphor.
Keywords: transition to school; bridge; rites of passage; borderlands; Germany;
Australia

Introduction
The differences between early childhood education in the prior-to-school years and the
compulsory years of school have been highlighted by many researchers and educators.
On one level, prior-to-school and school settings reflect different visions and cultures,
as well as different histories, goals and purposes, different pedagogical approaches and
methods, different demands and expectations (Bennett 2013; Neuman 2002; Organis-
ation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] 2006). Differences are also
evident in governance structures, administrative auspices, regulations and monitoring
regimes (Neuman 2002). In many countries, there are also different professional
requirements, professional recognition and conditions of employment for educators
(Pianta 2010). Further, structural differences can be reflected in preferred ways of com-
munication, both professional and with those engaged in the setting, as well as different
professional languages and expectations (Moss 2013; Neuman 2002).
Given the raft of differences, it is not surprising that a gap (Dunlop 2007; Fabian
2002) or chasm (Peters 2014), has been described as existing between prior-to-
school and school education. Recognising this gap, recommendations of Starting
Strong reports (OECD 2001, 2006), have acknowledged the differences between
prior-to-school and school settings and urged that ‘attention should be given to

*Corresponding author. Email: bperry@csu.edu.au

© 2015 EECERA
 2 C. Huser et al.

transition challenges [with] a greater focus on building bridges and curricula in both
systems’ (2006, 59).
The term bridge has many meanings. In the field of music, a bridge can provide
support for the strings of some instruments, or constitute a passage of music that con-
nects different movements. In nautical terms, the bridge is the position from which a
ship’s movement is controlled. Dentists use bridges to connect replacement and exist-
ing teeth, and engineers construct bridges to provide passages over gaps, rivers and
chasms (Oxford University Press 2006). These meanings highlight notions that a
bridge between preschool and school can promote connections, particularly between
the familiar and the unfamiliar; provide support as a passage is navigated and serve
as a platform for guiding that passage.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

Transition as a bridge
The metaphor of a bridge has many connotations in relation to the transition to school.
For example, Dunlop and Fabian (2007) and Broström (2007) describe transition pro-
grammes as bridging activities that narrow the gap between preschool and school;
Pianta (2004) describes relationships with and around children as providing the
bridge to school; Neuman (2002) outlines the importance of bridging children’s learn-
ing across the different settings, and there is considerable focus on promoting continu-
ity between prior-to-school and school contexts (Barblett et al. 2011; OECD 2006;
Petriwskyj, Thorpe, and Tayler 2005), by providing a bridge, and smoothing the tran-
sition to school (Rosier and McDonald 2011).
Garpelin (2014) applies the bridge metaphor to the Swedish preschool class – ‘a
child-centred and school preparatory preschool experience within the context of
primary school, where children prepare for school in a playful way’ (Ackesjö
2013a). Most Swedish preschool classes are situated on school sites, and guided by
the school curriculum, but with a focus on active and experiential pedagogy (OECD
2006; Skolverket 2004). They represent a move away from preschool, but are not con-
sidered a year of school. Garpelin (2014), asks ‘Does the preschool class have a role as
a “bridge” between the worlds of the preschool and the school?’ or does the child spend
‘a year on the bridge’ between the worlds of preschool and school?
These questions prompt some examination of the bridge metaphor. The various
notions of bridges do suggest that children’s journeys to school may be guided, sup-
ported and smoothed by passage across a bridge. However, the nature of the bridge
is often unexplored. For example: how is the bridge constructed? Is it a temporary,
or permanent structure? Does the bridge support two-way traffic? Are there multiple
lanes on the bridge, or is every journey expected to follow the same path and occur
at the same speed? Are some lanes actually fast tracks? Are there tolls or gates on
the bridge? How do lanes merge on the bridge? What provisions are there for emergen-
cies? Is the bridge a place of transit, or a meeting place?
Garpelin et al. (2008) note that attempts to make the transition as smooth as possible
can also contribute to uncertainty, as children and families find themselves ‘in between’
preschool and school, on the bridge. Using van Gennep’s (1960) description, the tran-
sition to school can be considered a rite of passage, acknowledging the departure from
one phase of life and arrival in another phase. Three phases contribute to thinking about
rites of passage: preliminal rites (rites of separation, as people detach from the existing
group); liminal (or threshold rites, where people are in-between states, having left one
group or status, but not yet become part of another); and postliminal rites (where people
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 3

become incorporated into the new group, assume the new status and identify what goes
with being a member of this group). In this sense, being on the bridge represents, for
Garpelin et al. (2008), the in-between or liminal state, where children are no longer con-
sidered preschool children, but are not yet considered school students.
The notion of being ‘in-between’ as children move from home or prior-to-school
setting to school is also captured in theories of border crossing (Giroux 2005; Peters
2014). From this perspective, children making the transition to school enter borderlands
as they identify borders and move between preschool and school. Labelling transition to
school as a time of border crossing focuses attention on the nature of the borders them-
selves (Newman and Paasi 1998), the potentially inclusive and exclusive functions of
borders, and the credentials required to cross borders (Dockett, Petriwskyj, and Perry
2014).
If transition practices construct a bridge to help cross borders, it is appropriate to
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

question how and with what it is constructed, who owns and maintains the bridge,
and to identify any potential gatekeepers or supporters standing on that bridge.
Equally important are questions of how children experience their time on the bridge
(Ackesjö 2013b). In their New Zealand study, Hartley et al. (2012) addressed some
of these questions as they explored ways of building bridges and enhancing border
crossing experiences. Results highlighted the importance of relationships between edu-
cators in both sectors, strategies for promoting learning connections and a sense of
belonging for children and families at school, as well as community recognition of
the importance of transition.
The focus on relationships features in a range of contemporary research around tran-
sition to school (Dockett and Perry 2009; Griebel and Niesel 2013; Hamre and Pianta
2001). While positive relationships between and among children, peers, families and
educators are all important in supporting transitions to school, relationships between
educators are highlighted in reference to building bridges between prior-to-school
and school settings. In particular, there have been calls for educators in prior-to-
school and school settings to build relationships that support a ‘strong and equal part-
nership’ (Bennett 2013, 52). In his critique of the relationships between settings, Moss
(2013) draws on the work of Dahlberg and Lenz-Taguchi (1994), to incorporate this
notion of partnership into a ‘vision of a meeting place’ (Moss 2013, 19), where educa-
tors work together to ‘illuminate the cultural encounter between school and preschool,
as well as the pedagogical possibilities and risks involved in an integration of the two
school forms’ (Moss 2013, 20). The meeting place is conceptualised as a location for
reflection, analysis and critique, promoting the construction of shared meanings, as the
knowledge, culture and transitions of the different sectors are valued and respected, and
new pedagogical practice is generated:

the concept of an educational meeting place opens up … the possibility of border crossing
… it can help to realise the proposition that … early childhood institutions … should be,
first and foremost, places for political and ethical practice … the meeting place creates a
new space for participatory democratic practice, inviting the inclusion not only of
educators, but of all concerned with education as a public and community project.
(Moss 2013, 45)

The meeting place could well be located on the ‘transition’ bridge.

In the following discussion, we revisit the bridge metaphor and its potential to
inform theoretical and conceptual approaches to transition. We do this through the con-
sideration of two recent projects on transition to school: the German Brückenjahr
 4 C. Huser et al.

project (The bridge year project) (Projekt Brückenjahr 2009, 2012) and the Australian
and international Transition to School Position Statement (Educational Transitions and
Change [ETC] 2011).

Background to educational systems in Germany and Australia

In both Germany and Australia, early childhood education has been characterised as
segmented and structured in such a way as to separate prior-to-school and early
school education. In both countries, prior-to-school and school education have,
until recently, been auspiced by different government departments: social and com-
munity services and education, respectively. Prior-to-school services, such as kinder-
gartens, and school systems are grounded in different histories and approaches such
that prior-to-school services have been regarded mainly as voluntary, supplementary
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

services to families, providing support and care, and schools have involved compul-
sory attendance and a strongly regulated curriculum. One consequence is that two
distinct educational professions are considered to be engaged in early childhood edu-
cation: prior-to-school educators and school teachers. A further consequence is that
‘when children move from preschool to primary school … this involves a transition
between two distinct systems with regard to political responsibility’ (Arndt et al.
2013, 25).
Recently, structures have changed in both Germany and Australia and there have
been developments – structural and curricular – that have aimed to bring the two
early childhood education sectors closer together. In Australia, the first national early
childhood curriculum framework was introduced (Department of Education, Employ-
ment and Workforce Relations (DEEWR) 2009). This curriculum framework promotes
learning outcomes for children from birth to five-years and through to the transition to
school. It describes a number of principles of early childhood pedagogy, including an
emphasis on

‘providing for continuity in experiences and enabling children to have successful tran-
sitions’ (DEEWR 2009, 14).

The term Schulfähigkeit – school readiness – has dominated discussion about the
transition to school in Germany. However, recent concerns about the reliability of
readiness assessments and growing international attention to transition processes
(Dockett and Perry 2009; Griebel 2007; LaParo and Pianta 2000; Minsel and Griebel
2007), have resulted in a change of focus. One consequence has been greater awareness
of ecological perspectives of school readiness, particularly the importance of intercon-
nections between home, kindergartens and schools (Kammermeyer 2004). Within both
Germany and Australia, the notion of ‘bridge’ has been used as a representation for
transition to school. In the remainder of this article, we consider an example from
each of Germany and Australia and investigate the use of the bridge metaphor.

The German Brückenjahr project

The purpose of the Lower Saxony Brückenjahr project is to strengthen the connections
between kindergartens and primary schools and to make early learning the collective
business of educators in both settings. A number of sub-projects fit under the umbrella
of Brückenjahr, and, since 2007, 570 model-projects have been undertaken: all are
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 5

focused on building bridges between kindergartens and schools to support continuity of

learning (Niedersächsischen Kultusministeriums 2013).
The project has focused on building connections among the various participants in
transition. For example, one project has addressed parent engagement in school, pro-
viding a series of workshops for parents and inviting families to participate in school
events and festivals. Another project has promoted connections between children,
with the school children and their teachers writing to the kindergarten children to
explain what school was like and what was likely to happen when they started
school. Outcomes from these projects included building shared understandings of chil-
dren and school among families, educators and the children themselves. Hence a one-
way ‘bridge’ was created from school children to kindergarten children. In some cases,
this ‘bridge’ was made bi-directional through the kindergarten children writing or
sending audio messages to the school children asking them about what it is like to
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

be at school. This has also proved quite successful in a similar Australian project
(Perry and Dockett 2011).
Shared professional stances were the focus of several other projects. In one of these,
educators from both settings formed project teams to observe and document children’s
learning. As a result, the teams embraced the concept of ‘learning stories’ (Carr and Lee
2012), and the kindergarten educators developed portfolios for children, consisting of
learning stories to highlight children’s competence, learning and dispositions. Collab-
oration resulted in the adoption of the same approach by school educators. These port-
folios accompanied the children to school, and were used both as ‘icebreakers’ in
discussions about school readiness, and as the basis for ongoing communication with
educators, families and children. Children, who had been involved in documenting
their own learning, were excited to share the portfolios with school teachers and to
talk about their kindergarten experiences with teachers and new classmates. This
project illustrates the possibility of a multi-lane (children and teachers as complete
groups and perhaps as individuals or smaller groups) and bi-directional ‘bridge’. In
many ways, the learning stories provided a meeting place where all participants
could gather to share their own achievements and celebrate these and those of their col-
leagues and peers.
Key findings from the evaluation of the Brückenjahr projects were that opportu-
nities were provided to:

. implement and institutionalise cooperation at the structural level, across both kin-
dergartens and schools (building bridges between sectors);
. establish complementary educational processes that formed the subject of
ongoing reflection and development (bi-directional bridges);
. develop shared educational understandings and perspectives (bridges as meeting
places);
. generate compatible approaches for observation and documentation of edu-
cational processes (meeting places and removal of barriers on the bridges);
. promote parental involvement, with a focus on assuming some shared responsi-
bility within the transition to school (multi-lane bridges);
. engage in collective professional development, bringing together kindergarten
educators and school teachers (meeting places); and
. support ongoing project work that has the potential to cement ties
(extending beyond the bridges into the borderlands). (Projekt Brückenjahr
2012)
 6 C. Huser et al.

Australian and international Transition to School Position Statement

The Transition to School: Position Statement was developed by an international group
of researchers, during a series of intensive workshops held in Australia in 2010. The
processes involved in developing the statement were designed to stimulate professional
dialogue between researchers, educators and policymakers, generating a document to
inform and guide future research, policy and practice in the area of transition to
school. The statement was both a response to the persistent international focus on
the discourse of readiness, and an attempt to refocus attention to the processes of tran-
sition, as children started school (Dockett and Perry 2014).
The Transition to School: Position Statement introduces the central constructs of:

. opportunities;
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

. aspirations;
. expectations; and
. entitlements

Each of these is explored in relation to children, families, educators, communities

and school systems and the links (‘bridges’) among them.
The Transition to School: Position Statement was developed originally as a text
document. As part of the process of synthesising the research that prompted the
initial document and the feedback it generated, and as a strategy to promote reflexivity,
a visual artist was commissioned to represent transition to school. The image entitled
Many bridges (Figure 1) now forms an essential part of the statement, providing a
visual tool to stimulate reflection and discussion. This image highlights the many
bridges that may be constructed and/or traversed as children make the transition to
school – as well as the many journeys made. In Many bridges, some journeys follow
well-worn paths; some are perilous; some have strong supports; others seem very
tenuous; some children make their way to the bridge alone; others have company.

Figure 1. Many bridges. Cartoon: Bernard Caleo. © 2015 Sue Dockett and Bob Perry.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 7

There is no expectation that all children use the same bridge in the same ways. As well,
consideration is given to how other people traverse the various bridges they meet during
the transition to school process.

Discussion
In both Germany and Australia, the development of relationships between the prior-to-
school and school sectors as children make the transition to school has been seen as a
priority. Strong relationships at this time go well beyond the limited ‘readying for
school’ relationship described by Moss (2013, 9), sometimes generating a ‘strong
and equal partnership’ (Moss 2013, 14), or extending to the ‘vision of a meeting
place’ (Moss 2013, 19).
The bridge metaphor used to describe the actual and potential connections between
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

school and prior-to-school settings in both the Australian and German examples demon-
strates the dynamic and diverse nature of transition experiences, while also acknowledging
the roles of many players. The Brückenjahr project, by its name and actions, has generated
spaces for the cultures of preschool and school to come together. These spaces can be con-
ceptualised in many ways as ‘bridges’, particularly as ‘meeting places’ between the two
sectors; that is, as in integral part of the ‘bridge’ joining them. The Transition to
School: Position Statement has used the notion of many bridges to prompt critical reflec-
tion on transition practices ‘in the context of social justice, human rights (including chil-
dren’s rights), educational reform and ethical agendas’ (ETC 2011, 1). Questions such as
‘Do children choose onto which bridge they embark?’, ‘How do families decide which
bridge suits them?’, ‘Are all bridges seen as equal?’, and ‘Why do the bridges all
appear to be one way, except, perhaps, for the most risky?’ have all been raised in discus-
sion with educators about the imagery contained in Many bridges.
Underpinning both of these projects is recognition that a divide still exists between
prior-to-school and school sectors. The divide reflects many differences in the sectors
and, despite calls for integrated and united services, the different histories, philos-
ophies, structures and cultures of the sectors suggest that the divide will remain
for some time. The need for a bridge or bridges to connect the sectors is clear given
the aim to present transition to school as a time of continuity as well as change
(Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta 2000).
As well, there remains a sense of transition to school as a process of border crossing,
moving from the known to the unknown. This is evident in the image from the Tran-
sition to School: Position Statement, where the ‘destination’ side of the ‘divide’ or
‘chasm’ traversed by the bridges is unknown.
Both the Brückenjahr project and the Transition to School: Position Statement indi-
cate ways in which the metaphorical model of transition to school as a bridge, or
bridges, constructed and traversed by children, families, communities, educators, and
educational systems, is a powerful way of viewing transitions and considering what
makes them successful. However, they also provoke further questions.
The Brückenjahr project highlights the importance of connections between settings
and seeks to provide some shared ground in which these connections can be developed.
The various projects also illustrate the different starting points, or knowledge back-
grounds, that educators from the different sectors bring with them. While the legislative
impetus is to promote collaboration across sectors, the projects demonstrate that it is the
willingness of individuals to share their expertise and to learn from others that are keys
to building connections that support positive transitions to school.
 8 C. Huser et al.

Despite representing many ways to make the transition to school, the Many bridges
image presents bridge-crossing as a one-way activity. This seems to be the way that
children, as well as many adults, conceptualise the transition to school – children
move from home or prior-to-school setting to school and, once at school, there is no
going back – much as the linear notion of rites of passage can be conceptualised.
However, the diagram does not represent the potential for ongoing relationships and
exchange that characterised several of the experiences in Brückenjahr project. Such
interactions may be based on efforts to promote curriculum continuity, continuity in
relationships or support, as well as strategies to facilitate the genuine integration of
prior-to-school and school programmes. The Swedish preschool class could well be
an example of this.
The notion of the bridge as a meeting place, a location for the construction of shared
meanings and new pedagogies, provides potential to explore not only the nature of the
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

bridge, and how it is constructed, but also who is on the bridge – who is there to guide,
steer, or even oversee the process of transition to ensure that all make a safe journey, are
provided with appropriate help on their way, and that any barricades or gates encoun-
tered can be navigated. Rather than suggesting that there is one person to facilitate, or
one way to make the transition to school, this approach urges collaboration between
those engaged in the transition – children, families, educators, other professional and
community members – to co-construct a bridge that is relevant for the context and
those who exist within that context. Such an approach rejects linear or hierarchical
models of transition, and replaces these with a social model of transition, where
relationships and connections are central.

Conclusion
There are many extant models for the bridge metaphor. The iconic Sydney Harbour
Bridge was constructed simultaneously from both shores, with much rejoicing when
it met in the middle. London Bridge has been many bridges, as new replaced old.
The famous Krämerbrücke (grocer bridge) in Erfurt, Germany, has also been rebuilt
many times. The most recent re-construction, around 1500, saw the wooden structure
replaced with stone. As with many other bridges, it has been a focal feature of the com-
munity – a place where people lived, shopped, and met. The subject of the novel, The
Bridge on the Drina (Andrić 1945), has been the object of territorial disputes, witness to
atrocities, the source of conflict and part of the resolution of conflict. Each of these
bridges has also been a meeting place. Much is to be gained from conceptualising
the transition to school as a theoretical, conceptual, pedagogical and professional
meeting place. Such a meeting place can be visualised as being on a bridge, encoura-
ging participants in the transition to school to meet on middle, neutral ground where
participants are involved in the liminal phase of the transition process and are not tres-
passing on the territories of either the source or the destination. The ‘bridge’ takes on
the important role of being the host of such meeting places and the responsibility of all
involved in the transition to school. For, within this metaphor, the bridge is the central
construct that allows the various participants to come together in an equitable manner.
This requires all involved in the transition to work together to build, maintain, repair or
re-construct, the bridges. The strength of the bridges will depend on the connections
made, the interactions encouraged, and the strength of the supports and anchors on
either side.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 9

References
Ackesjö, H. 2013a. “Children Crossing Borders: School Visits as Initial Incorporation Rites in
Transition to Preschool Class.” International Journal of Early Childhood. doi:10.1007/
s13158-013-0080-7.
Ackesjö, H. 2013b. “From Expectations to Resistance and Adaptation: A Swedish Example of
Four Children’s Transitions to and from Preschool Class.” Unpublished paper.
Andrić, I. 1945. The Bridge on the Drina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arndt, A.-K., A. Rothe, M. Urban, and W. Werning. 2013. “Supporting and Stimulating the
Learning of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Children – Perspectives of Parents and
Educators in the Transition From Preschool to Primary School.” European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal 21 (1): 23–38. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2012.760336.
Barblett, L., C. Barratt-Pugh, P. Kilgallon, and C. Maloney. 2011. “Transition From Long day
Care to Kindergarten: Continuity or Not?” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36 (2):
42–50.
Bennett, J. 2013. “A Response from the Co-author of ‘A Strong and Equal Partnership’.” In
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the Relationship, edited

by P. Moss, 52–71. London: Routledge.
Broström, S. 2007. “Transitions in Children’s Thinking.” In Informing Transitions in the Early
Years, edited by A.-W. Dunlop and H. Fabian, 61–73. Maidenhead, UK: Open University
Press.
Carr, M., and W. Lee. 2012. Learning Stories: Constructing Learner Identities in Early
Education. London: Sage.
Dahlberg, G., and H. Lenz-Taguchi. 1994. Förskola och skola - om två skilda traditioner och om
visionen om en mötesplats [Preschool and School – Two Different Traditions and the Vision
of a Meeting Place]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations). 2009. Belonging,
Being & Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Dockett, S., and B. Perry. 2009. “Readiness for School: A Relational Construct.” Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood 34 (1): 20–27.
Dockett, S., and B. Perry. 2014. “Research to Policy: Transition to School Position Statement.”
In Transitions to School: International Research, Policy and Practice, edited by B. Perry, S.
Dockett, and A. Petriwskyj, 277–294. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Dockett, S., A. Petriwskyj, and B. Perry. 2014. “Theorising Transition: Shifts and Tensions.” In
Transitions to School: International Research, Policy and Practice, edited by B. Perry, S.
Dockett, and A. Petriwskyj, 1–18. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Dunlop, A.-W. 2007. “Bridging Research, Policy and Practice.” In Informing Transitions in the
Early Years, edited by A.-W Dunlop and H. Fabian, 151–168. Maidenhead, UK: Open
University Press.
Dunlop, A.-W., and H. Fabian, ed. 2007. Informing Transitions in the Early Years. Maidenhead,
UK: Open University Press.
ETC (Educational Transitions and Change). 2011. Transition to School: Position Statement.
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/education/edu/transitions/publications/Position-Statement.pdf
Fabian, H. 2002. Empowering Children for Transitions. In Transitions in the Early Years, edited
by H. Fabian and A.-W. Dunlop, 123–134. London: Routledge.
Garpelin, A. 2014. “Transition to School – A Rite of Passage in Life.” In Transitions to School:
International Research, Policy and Practice, edited by B. Perry, S. Dockett, and A.
Petriwskyj, 117–128. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Garpelin, A., K. Ekström, P. Kallberg, and G. Sandberg. 2008. “Transitions in Early Childhood
Education.” Paper presented at the ECER meeting, September in Gothenburg, Sweden.
van Gennep, A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Translated by B. V. Minika and G. L. Caffee.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1910).s.
Giroux, H. 2005. The Giroux Reader. Boulder: Paradigm.
Griebel, W. 2007. Vom Kindergartenkind zum Schulkind: Ein Übergang für die Familie. [From
being a Kindergarten Child to being a School Kid: A Transition of the Whole Family].
Speech presented at the opening event of the evaluation team of the project “Das letzte
Kindergartenjahr als Brückenjahr zur Grundschule” [The Last Kindergarten Year as a
Bridge Year to School], July. Hannover: Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium.
 10 C. Huser et al.

Griebel, W., and R. Niesel. 2013. “The Development of Parents in Their First Child’s Transition
to Primary School.” In International Perspectives on Transition to School:
Reconceptualising Beliefs, Policy and Practice, edited by K. Margetts and A. Kienig,
101–110. London: Routledge.
Hamre, B., and R. C. Pianta. 2001. “Early Teacher-Child Relationships and the Trajectory of
Children’s School Outcomes Through Eighth Grade.” Child Development 72: 625–638.
Hartley, C., P. Rogers, J. Smith, S. Peters, and M. Carr. 2012. Across the Border: A Community
Negotiates the Transition From Early Childhood to Primary School. Wellington, New
Zealand: NZCER.
Kammermeyer, G. 2004. Fit für die Schule – oder nicht? Was Erzieherinnen über das heutige
Verständnis von Schulfähigkeit wissen müssen. [Ready for School – Or Not? What
Educators Need to Know About Today’s Concept of School Readiness]. Kindergarten
heute 34 (10) S: 6–12.
LaParo, K., and R. Pianta. 2000. “Predicting Children’s Competence in the Early School Years:
A Meta-Analytic Review.” Review of Educational Research 70 (4): 443–484.
Minsel, B., and W. Griebel. 2007. “Schulfähigkeit – ein Begriff im Wandel [School Readiness –
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016

A Term in Transition].” Theorie und Praxis der Sozialpädagogik 3: 16–20.

Moss, P. ed. 2013. Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the
Relationship. London: Routledge.
Neuman, M. 2002. “The Wider Context: An International Overview of Transition Issues.” In
Transitions in the Early Years, edited by H. Fabian and A.-W. Dunlop, 8–22. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Newman, D., and A. Paasi. 1998. “Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary
Narratives in Political Geography.” Progress in Human Geography 22 (2): 186–207.
Niedersächsischen Kultusministeriums. 2013. Zusammenarbeit Kindergarten und Grundschule –
Brückenjahr. [Cooperation Kindergarten and Elementary school – Bridge year]. http://www.
mk.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=2017&article_id=6365&_psmand=8
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2001. Starting Strong:
Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Author.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2006. Starting Strong 11:
Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Author.
Oxford University Press. 2006. The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary. 5th ed. Melbourne:
Author.
Perry, B., and S. Dockett. 2011. “How ‘Bout we Have A Celebration?’ Advice From
Children on Starting School.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19
(3): 373–386.
Peters, S. 2014. “Chasms, Bridges and Borderlands: A Transitions Research ‘Across the Border’
from Early Childhood Education to School in New Zealand.” In Transitions to School:
International Research, Policy and Practice, edited by B. Perry, S. Dockett, and A.
Petriwskyj, 105–116. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Petriwskyj, A., K. Thorpe, and C. Tayler. 2005. “Trends in the Construction of Transition to
School in Three Western Regions, 1990–2004.” International Journal of Early Years
Education 13 (1): 55–69.
Pianta, R. C. 2004. “Teacher-child Relationships and Children’s Success in the First Year of
School.” School Psychology Review 33 (3): 444–458.
Pianta, R. C. 2010. “Going to School in the United States.” In Transitions for Young Children,
edited by S. L. Kagan and K. Tarrant, 33–44. Baltimore, MD: Paul. H. Brookes.
Projekt Brückenjahr. 2009. 2.1 Bildungsverständnis. Ausgangspunkte für die Entwicklung eines
gemeinsamen Bildungsverständnisses in Kindergarten und Grundschule [Understanding of
Bildung. Basis for the development of a collective educational understanding in kindergar-
ten and school]. http://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=2017&art
icle_id=6365&_psmand=8
Projekt Brückenjahr. 2012. Landesprogramm Brückenjahr. Das letzte Kindergartenjahr als
Brückenjahr zur Grundschule. Abschlussbericht der Modellprojekte [State program
Bridge year. The last kindergarten year as a bridge year to school. Final report of the
model projects]. http://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=2017&art
icle_id=6365&_psmand=8
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 11

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., and R. C. Pianta. 2000. “An Ecological Perspective on Children’s

Transition to Kindergarten. A Theoretical Framework to Guide Empirical Research.”
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21 (5): 491–511.
Rosier, K., and M. McDonald. 2011. Promoting Positive Education and Care Transitions for
Children. Melbourne, Vic: Australian Institute of Family Studies. http://www.aifs.gov.au/
cafca/pubs/sheets/rs/rs5.html
Skolverket. 2004. Pre-school in Transition: A National Evaluation of the Swedish pre-School.
Stockholm: National Agency for Education. http://www.skolverket.se/
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:22 21 March 2016