Early_childhood_transitions_research_A_review_of_concepts_theory_and

Early childhood transitions

research: A review of concepts,

theory, and practice

By Pia Vogler, Gina Crivello and Martin Woodhead

WORKING PAPERS IN

Early Childhood Development

Cover: Little girl from the El Coro district in San Salvador, El Salvador. Photo: Jon Spaull

Design: Valetti, vormgeving en communicatie, The Hague, The Netherlands

Editing and proofreading: Green Ink (www.greenink.co.uk)

Early childhood transitions

research: A review of concepts,

theory, and practice

By Pia Vogler, Gina Crivello and

Martin Woodhead

May 2008

WORKING PAPERS IN

Early Childhood Development

fair use of this material. Proper citation is requested. This publication may not be resold for proﬁt.

About the authors

Pia Vogler is a research assistant for ‘Young Lives’ and a DPhil candidate in the Department of International Development

(QEH), University of Oxford. She has been a consultant for UNHCR and is currently carrying out doctoral research on the

daily, seasonal and life course transitions of Karen children in Thailand.

Gina Crivello is an anthropologist and Child Research Coordinator for ‘Young Lives’, based at the Department of

International Development

(QEH), University of Oxford. Her research interests include the gender and inter-generational

dynamics of child migration and youth transitions in developing-country contexts.

Martin Woodhead is Professor of Childhood Studies at The Open University and Child Research Director for ‘Young Lives’.

His research and publications include early childhood development, education and care, children’s rights and child labour.

He is co-editor of the journal Children & Society, a member of the editorial board for Childhood and advisory board for

Journal of Early Childhood Research.

The authors are members of the research team for ‘Young Lives’, a 15-year longitudinal study of child poverty in Ethiopia,

India (Andhra Pradesh), Peru and Vietnam, including quantitative and qualitative studies related to service access,

transitions and well-being (see p.

24).

Citation

Vogler, P., Crivello, G. and Woodhead, M. (2008) Early childhood transitions research: A review of concepts, theory, and

practice. Working Paper No.

48. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

ISSN 1383-7907

ISBN 978-90-6195-103-2

Contents

Executive summary

Introduction

Chapter

1: Development and transition

Chapter

2: The structure of transitions

Chapter

3: Transitions within systems

Chapter

4: Children’s participation in transitions

Conclusion

Glossary: Some major concepts relevant to transitions research

Bibliography

Children face many important changes in the

ﬁrst eight years of life, including different

learning centres, social groups, roles and

expectations. Their ability to adapt to such a

dynamic and evolving environment directly

affects their sense of identity and status within

their community over the short and long term.

In particular, the key turning points in children’s

lives – such as ‘graduating’ from kindergarten

to primary school or going through a culturally

speciﬁc rite of passage – provide challenges

and opportunities for learning and growth on

multiple levels.

This paper provides a review of the major

perspectives in research on early childhood

transitions and reveals the predominant areas of

focus in both academic and professional studies,

as well as important neglected viewpoints and

study populations. Beginning with a broad and

inclusive deﬁnition of the topic, the authors

provide an overview of early childhood

transitions research, highlighting the underlying

assumptions that informed the studies. They

assess concepts in the developmental theory that

preceded transitions research as well as in the

logic that determines how transitions are

structured. More recent approaches are

examined, including systems theories and the role

of children as active participants in transitions.

Several examples in this review show how

multidisciplinary collaboration and culturally

sensitive interventions can result in better

participation of both parents and children in

crucial early childhood transitions. Citing the

need to harmonise early childhood education

and care programmes with local education

practices, the authors stress the value of

greater transparency in the creation of policy

and programming for children, in order to

identify potentially limiting assumptions.

Broadening and diversifying perspectives on

transitions can lead to more integrated and

culturally relevant rights-based early childhood

programmes worldwide.

Executive summary

Introduction

Transitions are now recognised as central to

young children’s experiences and well-being,

as well as a powerful integrative framework for

research. This review surveys major conceptual

tools that shed light on different aspects of early

childhood transitions. The objectives are

twofold:

1) to review major research perspectives

on early childhood transitions and

2) to identify

signiﬁcant trends (and gaps) in the knowledge

base of scholarly as well as professional studies.

The ﬁndings of the review point to the value of

widening perspectives on transitions in order

to inform integrated and contextualised child-

focused policy and programming.

The major purpose of the review is to assist the

Bernard van Leer Foundation and its partner

organisations in their efforts to foster realisation

of universal child rights in culturally sensitive

ways. By linking concepts, theories and practice,

the review offers an accessible resource that will,

we hope, have wide appeal for both researchers

and practitioners concerned with early childhood

transitions.

Following the working deﬁnition of General

Comment

7 to the Convention on the Rights of

the Child,

‘early childhood’ is understood as the

period below the age of

8 (Committee

on the Rights of the Child,

2005: 2). Early years

transitions research and policy is especially

important to realising the rights of young

children, as this phase of life is generally

acknowledged as a period of accelerated and

intense change, usually involving multiple

developmental, social, and (for increasing

numbers of children), institutional transitions,

each of which has implications for current well-

being and long-term outcomes.

The term ‘transitions’ has a variety of meanings

that are not readily captured in a single

deﬁnition. The review takes an inclusive

understanding of transitions as its starting

point. We aim to situate different approaches

within relevant theoretical frameworks in order

to highlight the underlying assumptions about

childhood and child development that inform

them. One generic deﬁnition would be that

transitions are key events and/or processes

occurring at speciﬁc periods or turning points

during the life course. They are generally linked

to changes in a person’s appearance, activity,

status, roles and relationships, as well as

associated changes in use of physical and social

space, and/or changing contact with cultural

beliefs, discourses and practices, especially

where these are linked to changes of setting and

in some cases dominant language. They often

involve signiﬁcant psychosocial and cultural

In 2005, General Comment 7 arose out of the Committee of the Rights of the Child’s concern about the lack of information

being offered about early childhood and a perceived need for a discussion on the broader implications of the Convention on the

Rights of the Child for young children. Through General Comment

7, the Committee wishes to encourage recognition

that young children are holders of all rights enshrined in the Convention and that early childhood is a critical period for the

realisation of these rights.

adjustments with cognitive, social and emotional

dimensions, depending on the nature and causes

of the transition, the vulnerability or resilience

of those affected and the degrees of change and

continuity of experiences involved.

In practice, transition concepts are often used

in much more differentiated and speciﬁc ways,

for example, in terms of vertical and horizontal

‘passages’ (Kagan and Neuman,

1998: 366).

Vertical transitions may be thought of as key

changes from one state or status to another,

often associated with ‘upward’ shifts (e.g.,, from

kindergarten to primary school; from primary

to secondary school, etc.). General Comment

as well as most research conducted within the

ﬁeld of education studies is primarily concerned

with the kinds of vertical shifts produced within

the context of formal schooling. Indeed, in

many secularised societies the signiﬁcant

transitions of early childhood are intimately

linked with educational institutions (Arnold et

al.,

2007: 2; UNESCO 2006: 14).

Less attention has been paid by educational

researchers to what are sometimes referred to

as ‘education-associated transition processes’

(Fabian and Dunlop,

2007: 11), those less-formal

changes in children’s lives and routines that

occur outside institutional settings. Nonetheless,

these apparently ‘peripheral’ changes may in fact

crucially and continuously shape children’s

experiences and pathways, and be very ‘central’

in shaping children’s life trajectory and well-

being. Indeed, these key social transitions during

the life course have been routinely studied by

anthropologists working within a very different

paradigm and most often within non-western

societies where childhood has until recently

been less decisively shaped by age-related

institutions and laws. Social transitions are just

as signiﬁcant, seen as critical thresholds and

often referred to as ‘rites of passage’, a term

originally introduced by Van Gennep

(1960).

These transitions are rooted in local belief

systems and typically expressed through rituals

(e.g., circumcision, ﬁrst communion) that may

or may not be organised by formal institutions

(Morrow,

2003: 268).

Horizontal transitions are less distinctive than

vertical transitions and occur on an everyday

basis. They refer to the movements children

(or indeed any human being) routinely make

between various spheres or domains of their

lives (e.g., everyday movements between home

and school or from one caretaking setting to

another). These structure children’s movement

across space and over time, and into and out of

the institutions that impact on their well-being.

Research on early institutional transitions has

tended to conceptualise transitions as a ‘one-

point’ event (e.g., ﬁrst day at primary school).

However, since the late

1990s, research directions

have been shifting, with more studies under-

standing transitions as a multi-layered and

multi-year process, involving multiple

continuities and discontinuities of experience

(Petriwskyj, Thorpe, Tayler,

2005: 63).

Nonetheless, transitions research continues to

focus largely on modern educational institutions

in Europe, the

USA, Australia and New Zealand,

with major research gaps on transition practices

in less-industrialised contexts. To anticipate

the conclusions of the review, more studies are

needed to explore the impact of educational

programmes that reﬂect and adapt to children’s

diverse local environments. At the same time,

studies into children’s educational transitions

increasingly emphasise the need to make more

explicit the link between socio-cultural contexts

and children’s school transition experiences

(e.g., Yeboah,

2002).

This review explores how a range of transitions

concepts and research can inform rights-based

early childhood policies and practices. It does

not focus on policy and programme develop-

ments per se, but on underlying conceptualisa-

tions about transitions in early childhood. The

review emerged in response to the growing need

for orientation among the myriad concepts and

theories in both child research and practice:

“[P]eople often dismiss theoretical or pure

research as being of no consequence for

children and having no importance in the

‘real’ world. This attitude could not be more

incorrect. Good applied research depends upon

theoretical work both at the stage of developing

a research project and when results are being

analyzed.” (Boyden and Ennew,

1997: 10)

The

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

corroborates the importance of theory in

informing rights-based work with children:

“Theory and evidence from early childhood

research has a great deal to offer in the

development of policies and practices, as

well as in the monitoring and evaluation of

initiatives and the education and training of

all responsible for the well-being of young

children” (

UNCRC et al., 2006: 53).

Overview

Chapter 1 begins by outlining developmental

concepts which underpin transition themes,

in particular those associated with the theories

of Jean Piaget and other ‘stage’ theorists. Their

ideas are highlighted early on because so much

transitions research builds on or reacts to core

developmental assumptions. Chapter

1 then

introduces socio-cultural perspectives on early

childhood transitions. These are distinguished

by their focus on how children learn by

interacting with their immediate socio-cultural

environments (e.g., caregivers, peers). This

emphasis has been elaborated by several

disciplines within the social sciences and is

increasingly mirrored in early child development

programmes around the world.

Chapter

2 examines the different ways in

which transitions are structured, drawing

attention to varying logics that can be employed

to mark transitions in early childhood.

Institutional settings often use biological age as

the criterion for readiness. By contrast, socio-

cultural transitions are often marked through

rites of passage, following the cultural and

economic reasoning of a given community.

Also, around the world children engage in

horizontal transitions as they move between

different domains of everyday life.

Introduction

Chapter 3 shifts to perspectives on transitions

that are informed by systems theories. These are

distinguished from socio-cultural approaches

by their greater emphasis on the links between

individuals, macro social processes and historical

changes. These approaches highlight the

linkages between children, their communities

and global societies and draw attention to the

importance of comprehensive programmes that

enable children to engage critically with the

demands of a changing environment.

Chapter

4 focuses on children’s active roles in

shaping their transition experiences, with

particular attention to the signiﬁcance of peer

group relationships as a moderating inﬂuence on

transitions. The section then explores research

methods that may enable the implementation of

children’s right to participation within research

and programming in this area.

The ﬁnal chapter discusses the ﬁndings of this

review, highlighting signiﬁcant research strengths

and gaps of the various approaches presented,

followed by a glossary of key transitions

concepts discussed in the paper.

Conceptualisations of transition are almost

invariably underpinned by theories about

children’s development, especially as informed

by developmental psychology. Development is a

foundational concept for early childhood policy

and practice, and it is also central to realising

children’s rights. The United Nations Convention

of the Rights of the Child

(UNCRC) draws

heavily on the concept of development both as

a substantive right (Article

6) and as a standard

against which to protect children from harmful

experiences (e.g., Article

32) (Woodhead, 2005).

Developmental theories necessarily engage with

concepts of transition, even if not explicitly.

Development is all about processes of individual

growth, change and transformation, and it is

frequently conceptualised in terms of moving

through a sequence of age-approximate stages.

At the same time, ‘development’ is a very wide-

ranging concept, permitting multiple theoretical

interpretations, with each theory suggesting

different ways to understand personal transitions.

We begin by brieﬂy summarising some features

of Jean Piaget’s ‘constructivist theory’, which has

been most inﬂuential through the elaboration of

stages of human development. Other notable

stage theorists include Lawrence Kohlberg

(1981)

on moral development and Erik Erikson (1950)

on personal and social development.

Developmental stages as transitions

Developmental stage theory is epitomised by

Piaget’s ideas, especially as these have been

enthusiastically taken up by educational theorists

and curriculum planners. Broadly speaking,

early child development is seen as a natural and

universal process of progressive transformations

(or stages) in children’s physical, mental,

cognitive, socio-emotional and moral

competencies. These transformations are driven

by the interactions between maturational

processes and children’s progressive structuring

and restructuring of their experiences, as they

gradually acquire more sophisticated capacities

for thinking and reasoning. Stage theorists

were typically guided by the hypothesis that the

sequence of stages is invariant and universal, and

this prompted extensive cross-cultural research

during the

1960s and 1970s to compare children’s

capacities on Piaget’s tasks across diverse

cultural settings. Piaget

(1978) envisaged these

psychological stages as driven by a process of

equilibration. He suggested that children

develop schemata to represent their

understanding of the world, and that they try

to assimilate the world to these schemata until

too much external contradiction forces a change

and re-equilibration of their world view

(Lourenco and Machado,

1996: 149). The

implication of seeing child development as a

series of progressive psychological

transformations, from one stage to the next,

from infancy to maturity, is that these stages

become crucial reference points for discussing

optimal timing for transitions, e.g., from home

to pre-school or from more informal to more

formal curriculum.

Chapter 1: Development and transition

During the 20

century, Piaget’s early writing,

as well as partial readings of his work, were

popularised and globalised. This diffused version

of Piagetian theory was often stripped of the

subtleties and complexities of his original work.

Yet, it is the simpliﬁcations of the theory that

have fed into the predominant framework for

welfare and education programmes, as well

as child legislation (Boyden,

1997: 197). For

example, debates surrounding the concept and

assessment of children’s readiness for learning

and/or readiness for school are strongly fed by

developmental ideas. These debates are in turn

inﬂuential on beliefs about a child’s readiness

to make successful transitions. The concept of

readiness appeared in the educational literature

during the

1920s. Promoted by developmentalists,

readiness for learning was regarded as the level

of development at which the individual has the

capacity to undertake the learning of speciﬁc

material – usually the age at which the average

group of individuals has the speciﬁed capacity

(Good,

1973). By contrast, readiness for school

is a more ﬁnite construct, embracing speciﬁc

cognitive and linguistic skills. Irrespective of

academic domain, school readiness typically

sanctions standards of physical, intellectual

and social development considered sufﬁcient

to enable children to fulﬁl school requirements

(Scott-Little et al.,

2006). Early speciﬁcations of

developmentally appropriate practice in early

childhood programmes were also strongly

informed by stage-based theories (e.g.,

Bredekamp,

1987).

The inﬂuence of developmental ideas cannot be

underestimated: “Developmental psychology can

be seen as a discourse which not only contributes

to the construction of our images of children

and our understanding of children’s needs, but

also to the construction and constitution of the

whole childhood landscape” (Dahlberg, Moss,

and Pence

1999: 36). For example, under the

developmental paradigm the dialogue revolving

around young children’s needs and provision

rarely viewed them as rights-holders with their

own views and perspectives. Instead very young

children have often been perceived as objects

of benevolence and passive recipients of care

(

UNCRC et al., 2006: 31–32).

Although developmental stage theories were

for many decades the dominant framework for

understanding children’s transitions, especially

amongst progressive child-centred educationists,

a growing body of research and theory across the

social sciences contributed to a shift in the

academic perception of children and childhood.

One inﬂuential alternative to stage theory came

from within developmental psychology itself,

building on the ideas of Lev Vygotsky (e.g., Rogoff,

2003). Another inﬂuential strand of theory came

from the new sociology of childhood, which

has fuelled the critique of the developmental

paradigm itself (e.g., Qvortrup

1994, James and

Prout

1997, Woodhead, in press). One of the

main areas of critique has surrounded theoretical

positioning of children as human ‘becomings’

rather than human ‘beings’, in other words, as

competent and active participants in society

from birth (summarised by Uprichard,

2008).

General Comment

7 of the Committee on the

Rights of the Child has taken into account this

growing body of research and recognises that

currently more is known about the capacities

and the development of infants and young

children than was known during the

1980s when

the working group drafted the Convention:

“Research in the last decades has impressively

conﬁrmed that children from an early age are

explorers with boundless curiosity and that they

are judicious decision makers and social actors

each with their own unique goals, interests and

ways to communicate feelings and intentions”

(Doek, Krappmann and Lee,

2006: 32).

These new understandings of children’s active

participation in social activities call for an

approach to child development that emphasises

the plurality of developmental pathways and

children’s roles in inﬂuencing their own

development (Estep,

2002: 143).

Transitions as socio-cultural learning

processes

Socio-cultural learning refers to the diverse

ways in which caregivers and communities

enable children to achieve mastery of culturally

acknowledged and valued behaviour. While the

process of socio-cultural learning exists

everywhere, the goals of these learning processes

vary within communities and historical periods.

This perspective does not deny the signiﬁcance

of universal maturational processes, but

encourages closer examination of the meaning

of ethnotheories

and the contexts that inform

childhood transitions and rites of passage.

As noted above, the origins of this approach are

in part to be found within social constructivist

(or socio-cultural) perspectives (Woodhead,

1998). Vygotskian theory breaks from traditional

developmental psychology by focusing on the

importance of social interaction. It emphasises

activity, rather than the individual, as the basic

unit of analysis. This more dynamic vision of

child development offers a relational view on

transitions. In this view, children are actively

involved in the timing and quality of their

transition experiences. Vygotskian socio-cultural

psychology has the advantage of recognising all

aspects of childhood as shaped by social,

cultural and economic processes. This also

applies to children’s environments, whether

these are within the home, the farm, or a pre-

school setting (Woodhead,

1999a: 9).

Like Piaget, Vygotsky viewed children as active

agents in their own environment, engaging with

the world around them, and in some senses,

creating for themselves the circumstances of

their own development. Where the two theorists

differ is in the emphasis given by Vygotsky to the

role of cultural and social processes in learning

and development. Vygotsky understands

learning as a process that results in development.

In this respect, he clearly differs from Piagetian

Development and transition

Ethnotheories represent emic views on childhood as well as beliefs about what activities are reasonable for children to carry

out and how these ﬁt into the wider set of social practices. Interestingly, what transpires from different ethnographies on child-

rearing practices is the existence of similarities in cross-cultural ethnotheories with regard to the position of children within the

human life course, as in respect to major points of transitions during youth. At the same time, this research also underscores the

high degree of diversity in terms of developmental goals and socializing strategies (Boyden, Ling and Myers,

1998: 32-35).

approaches, which stress that a certain develop-

mental stage has to be reached in order to learn

(Feldman and Fowler,

197: 1999). The transition

between learning and development occurs in

the so-called ‘zone of proximal development’

(Vygotsky,

1978), referring to the distance

between the most difﬁcult task a child can

perform without help and the most difﬁcult task

s/he can do with support. It is therefore through

the instruction from teachers, adults and more

skilled peers that children learn and develop.

Post-Vygotskian researchers developed the idea

of ‘scaffolding’ to capture the assistance children

receive from their peers and adult instructors in

reaching new developmental goals (Wood et al.,

1976). In order to scaffold a child, parents, teachers

and peers use tools and signs as mediators to

transmit knowledge and practical routines.

Developmental goals, as well as the mediating

tools, are all culturally deﬁned (Estep,

2002: 152;

Mooney,

2000: 83–84). In a similar vein, the

concept of ‘guided participation’ in cultural

activities highlights how children can learn

to think and to develop new skills and more

mature approaches to problem solving with

guidance from more skilled peers, siblings, and

adults (Rogoff et al.,

1998: 227).

Transitions can be understood as key moments

within the process of socio-cultural learning

whereby children change their behaviour

according to new insights gained through social

interaction with their environment. This chapter

explores frameworks that are informed by socio-

cultural theory, namely ‘developmental niche’

(Super and Harkness,

1986) and ‘guided

participation’ (Rogoff,

1990). The section

concludes by looking at the signiﬁcance of inter-

generational inﬂuences.

Developmental niche

The idea of a ‘developmental niche’ refers to the

combination of:

1) caregivers’ belief systems

(ethnotheories) regarding child-rearing,

2) the

material conditions and, in particular, the

spatial arrangements, of child-rearing, and

the actual practices of child-rearing. At the

centre of the model rests the individual child

(Super and Harkness,

1986: 552), and although

it is very family- and child-centred,

it does not

look at wider social effects (unlike ecological

models; see below). The three sub-systems of

the developmental niche represent the way

individual children’s worlds are arranged and

are related to the wider cultural environment. In

this view, children contribute to the construction

of their developmental niches through their

own expectations and through their interaction

with their caregivers.

The ‘developmental niche’ approach has mostly

been used to study early child-rearing practices

in relation to local beliefs and customs,

‘The child’ is also at the centre of analysis of other conceptual models. For example, although Bronfenbrenner’s ecological

system theory focuses much more on social constraints than the developmental niche approach, ‘the child’ remains at the

centre of analysis.

Development and transition

Example: GEAR UP

Applied to formal transitions to institutions, the developmental-niche-approach encourages researchers

to examine settings, customs, and ethnotheories both at home and in care contexts in order to unveil

cultural differences between these spaces. For example, Harkness and colleagues

(2005) have been

using the concept to explore pathways and transitions between home and school of inner city children

in Hartford (Connecticut,

USA). Starting in 1999, researchers followed two cohorts of children in the

sixth and seventh grades in a pre-kindergarten through eighth grade school. This school took part in

the University of Connecticut’s

GEAR UP project, a federally funded program to support children in

completing high school and continuing their education. At the time of the intervention,

64% of the

students were Hispanic,

22% African American, and the others Caucasian, Asian or Native American.

67% came from non-English-speaking homes. (Harkness et al., 2005: 341–342)

First, researchers acquainted themselves with families involved in the project through home visits

and interviews which provided qualitative and quantitative indicators of children’s cultural and

educational backgrounds, parents’ concerns and their engagement with their child’s school. Exploring

children’s home and school developmental niches demonstrated that pupils experienced considerable

discontinuities between those two spaces.

After these initial assessments, researchers proposed interventions shaped by the developmental niche

framework. As the framework places emphasis on children within their families, it was assumed that

any intervention has to target children as well as their caregivers. Thus, the set-up of a mentoring

system became a crucial component of the

GEAR UP project. The intervention proved very helpful in

increasing students’ scholastic and social competence. Similar to the Vygotskian concept of ‘scaffolding’,

support of either ofﬁcial mentors and/or competent peers transpired to improve individual children’s

school performance. Moreover, mentors met with parents and thus fostered parental interest and

involvement in school matters. Furthermore, the

GEAR UP project initiated a variety of after-school

activities in order to improve the relationship between children, their caregivers and the school.

Through the participation of younger siblings, parents became increasingly involved in these

activities. Interestingly, researchers also came to understand that their previous involvement with

parents through home visits and interviews was actually an intervention in itself. It was only through

these home visits that many parents realised their opinions would be taken into account. Children

also seemed to welcome the presence of

GEAR UP project-related persons to their homes and their

participation to project-related activities reportedly increased as a result of the interviews and home

visits (Harkness et al.,

2005: 350).

illustrated by LeVine’s research amongst the

Gusii of Kenya (Le Vine et al.,

1994). He reports

that, traditionally, high birth and mortality

rates placed a premium on early nurturance,

with close physical contact, demand feeding

and sleeping next to the mother. This nurturant

style did not incorporate high levels of playful

stimulation; mothers remained aloof, with little

joint activity or verbal communication. At the

same time, managing a large family as well as

cultivating the ﬁelds put pressure on the mother

as caregiver and necessitated a signiﬁcant

contribution from her children. The baby would

be entrusted to the care of an older sibling,

and by the age of

3 would already be expected

to carry out small domestic chores. Deference

to elders and obedience to instructions was

emphasised; praise offered sparingly. LeVine et

al. compare the Gusii infant’s experience with

a child in Boston, whose survival is virtually

assured and whose relationships are marked by

reciprocity and mutual responsiveness. Children

are provided with plenty of psychological space,

they are encouraged to assert their individuality,

and clashes of will are tolerated and in

moderation seen as a sign of healthy development

(as summarised in Woodhead,

1998). These very

different niches for early childhood are highly

signiﬁcant in their own right, but they also have

very different implications for the transitions

children might make to different settings or

contexts, through migration, starting school,

etc.; these new settings represent a very different

developmental niche, governed by different

values, goals and expectations.

Guided participation

The concept of ‘guided participation’ emphasises

both the active engagement of children in their

social world, as well as the role of adults and

peers in guiding children towards full

participation in culturally valued activities.

While the process of guided participation is

universal, it differs according to the degree of

communication between children and their

caregivers, as well as in the skills expected from

mature community members (Rogoff,

1990:

190). The ‘guided participation’ concept expands

Vygotsky’s understanding of ‘zone of proximal

development’ (which focused mainly on cultural

mediation through language and literacy) by

highlighting the role of tacit forms of

communication and practical activities in

encouraging child development. Rogoff

emphasises that children are constantly engaged

in an appropriation of culture even when they

are seemingly passive (e.g., eavesdropping and

observation), as well as through active

participation: “Instead of viewing children as

separate entities that become capable of social

involvement, we may consider children as being

inherently engaged in the social world even from

before birth, advancing throughout development

in their skill in independently carrying out and

organising activities of their culture” (Rogoff,

1990: 22).

Developmental transitions, within this

framework, relate to the gradual mastery of

cultural tools. This view contrasts with stage

theories, where transitions appear more like

once-for-all transformations in cognitive and

psychosocial functioning. The guidance of

culturally competent peers and adults as well as

the mediation of culturally meaningful symbols

allows children to become more conﬁdent in

their ability to perform culturally valued routines

and activities and in their acquired skills. These

‘repertoires of practice’ reﬂect deep-seated

cultural dispositions and are difﬁcult to change:

“People’s repertoires of practice describe the

formats they are likely to employ in upcoming

situations, based on their own prior experience

in similar settings. Repertoires of practice are

highly constrained by people’s opportunities

and access to participate directly or vicariously

in settings and activities where particular formats

are employed” (Rogoff et al.,

2005: 27).

Inter-generational inﬂuences on transitions

Both developmental niche and guided

participation approaches highlight the role of

caregiver inﬂuence in cultural reproduction and

child development and well-being. Inter-

generational inﬂuences encompass more than

biological caregivers, and may come from

children’s cultural interactions with parents,

grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers,

neighbours, religious leaders and other adults.

Those adults with whom children spend the

most time and/or whom they have fashioned as

their ‘role models’ (or ‘anti-role’ models) may

have greater impact on children’s orientations

and transitions; and who they spend the most

time with – at home, in institutional contexts, at

play, etc. – may alter over the course of childhood.

The impact of parents and family members on

children’s school outcomes was illustrated by

a study carried out on seven African countries

by Lloyd and Blanc (

1996, cited in Lloyd et al.,

2005). They found that variations in children’s

schooling outcomes could be explained by the

resources of the child’s residential household,

particularly the standard of living and the

education of the head of household. When

comparing households with similar resources,

children living in female-headed households

were found to fare better than children in male-

headed households in terms of school outcomes.

In many developing country contexts,

household relationships are characterised by the

interdependency of its various members, which

may be reinforced by deep-seated notions of

respect and obligation and by ﬁnancial necessity.

Decisions around which childhood transitions

are important when, for which children exactly,

and who gets involved, are negotiated across

generations and reﬂect particular visions and

cultural representations of childhood and child

development. Whether the child is male or

female, or eldest or youngest, and his or her

phase in the life course will shape expectations

of who gets involved – and in which ways – at

key transition points. To illustrate, there has

been a relatively recent surge in interest in the

speciﬁc roles that fathers play in their children’s

development and well-being, though such

studies tend to be focused in industrialised

country contexts. For example, in the

US, it

was only in the

1970s that a scholarly interest in

fatherhood emerged and social policies targeting

fathers expanded, Marsiglio and colleagues note

Development and transition

in a review in the Journal of Marriage and the

Family (2000). Since then, research has moved

beyond focusing on the limited role of fathers as

‘breadwinners’ or in terms of their deﬁcits (i.e.,

‘deadbeat dads’, absent fathers, concern with

‘female-headed households’, etc.) with greater

focus on the positive impacts they have on their

children’s lives. Major changes in family life and

organisation have highlighted the diversity of

fatherhood and have opened a space for

examining fathers’ potentially unique

contribution to child development (Marsiglio,

1174).

In their review, Marsiglio and colleagues pointed

to the

1990s as the decade in which US interest

in the study of fatherhood intensiﬁed, reﬂected

in the number of national surveys that added

questions to their instruments to capture fathers’

involvement and experiences of fatherhood

(p.

1174). Survey examples include the a) Panel

Study of Income Dynamics, b) National Survey

of Labor Market Experience – Youth, c) National

Survey of Adolescent Males, d) National Survey

of Families and Households, and e) National

Survey of Family Growth. The Developing a

Daddy Survey project draws on six national

studies to study father involvement, including

a) the Early Head Start Evaluation – Fatherhood

Component, b) the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort and c) the

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

Though limited to survey studies, these efforts

represent an increasing interest in understanding

the distinct inﬂuences different adults – in this

case, fathers – have on the their children’s lives.

There is relatively less research on father’s

involvement in developing country contexts

(Engle and Breaux,

1998). Understanding

the different ways in which fathers, mothers,

grandparents, older siblings, etc. contribute

to children’s transitions – as decision-makers,

sources of material or emotional support, and as

role models (or ‘anti’-role models) – can inform

local programmes aimed to support children’s

transitions experiences and well-being.

Summary

This section began with an overview of

developmental stage theories that provided an

inﬂuential underpinning for understanding

major changes during childhood, and have in

turn been highly inﬂuential on policies and

practices surrounding children’s transitions.

Socio-cultural theories, which offer an alternative

perspective, have been illustrated through the

speciﬁc concepts of ‘developmental niche’ and

‘guided participation’. These concepts, along

with a brief review of inter-generational

inﬂuences, are strong reminders that cultural

values, belief systems and relationships shape

assumptions about child-rearing practices,

developmental goals, and the methods aimed

to reach them, as well as the basis upon which

children’s progress is assessed.

In General Comment 7, the

UN Committee on

the Rights of the Child reﬂected this awareness

of culturally diverse child-rearing goals and

practices and encouraged those working with

young children to “draw on beliefs and

Development and transition

Examples: Programmes that link formal education with the learning of culturally valued skills

The Grandmother Project (Senegal)

The Grandmother Project (www.grandmotherproject.org) is an international non-proﬁt organisation

based in the

USA and Italy which was set up in 2004 in order to actively involve grandmothers

in community health and early childhood education programmes. The project acknowledges

grandmothers’ experience and contribution to child and family well-being as well as their exclusion

from programme models that ignore local culture (Ageways,

2007). It supports community-based

organisations and non-governmental organisations to learn grandmother-inclusive approaches and

plan and implement programmes that feature grandmothers as key actors. In southern Senegal, West

Africa, the Grandmother Project developed a booklet on the role of grandmothers in the local culture

for use in literacy classes and schools. It aimed to bridge the gap between young and old, and between

the domains of home and school. The project director, Judi Aubel, said, “Teachers tend to have a bias

against grandparents because they didn’t go to school. Even if your ultimate goal is to reach children,

you need ﬁrst to work with teachers to change their attitude (p.

9).” In addition, older people involved

in the project reported an increase in self-conﬁdence; as one grandmother said, “I have never seen a

book that talks about our role in society. It is true what it says that we do all that we can to ensure the

well-being of the family. But usually our role isn’t recognised.” (p.

Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja

(ABEK) (Uganda)

ABEK is an early childhood programme funded by different organisations, including the Bernard van

Leer Foundation and Save the Children. It illustrates how the provision of children’s basic education is

adapted to community and livelihood practices. The programme aims to facilitate children’s transition

from informal to formal schooling in pastoral communities in Uganda. By adapting teaching to pastoral

lifestyles, the programme managed to change parental attitudes towards education. Importantly, the

programme respected the particularities of the community by teaching under trees at suitable hours

so that learning would not interfere with domestic chores. Also, curricula are taught by community

members. Importantly, teaching combines the transmission of formal knowledge (e.g. reading, writing,

numeracy, etc.) in relation to indigenous knowledge and culturally valued life skills (Chelimo,

2006: 36–37).

Opportunity for Poor Children

(OPC) (Mae Hong Son, Thailand)

OPC is a community-based organisation committed to the promotion of child rights and illustrates the

notion of `guided participation’ through the culturally valued work they do with migrant children.

OPC provides shelter, security and education for numerous Burmese migrant children between 5 and 15

years old who are living separated from their working parents in Mae Hong Son. Apart from schooling

and accommodation,

OPC provides students with culturally valued skills such as cooking and farming, as

the centre has a garden and rears pigs and chickens. The students work to tend the crops and animals,

learning as they do the skills under the guidance of more experienced peers and adults. In this way,

migrant children become familiar with organic subsistence farming of mushrooms, potatoes, garlic

and other crops, animal rearing (pigs) as well as the production of soy bean meal and tofu, which are

important basic foods. Teaching migrant children both literary and culturally valued skills proves to be

an important complement to education and may also provide them with prospects for future economic

gain and employment.

knowledge about early childhood in ways that

are appropriate to local circumstances and

changing practices, and respect traditional

values, provided these are not discriminatory

(art.

2), nor prejudicial to children’s health and

well-being (art.

24.3.), nor against their best

interests (art.

3)” (UNCRC, 2006: 38).

Furthermore, the Committee expanded in

General Comment

7 its deﬁnition of education

by insisting that every child has a right to

education, beginning from birth. In this sense,

education is being understood in a much

broader sense than schooling or pre-school, and

requires a comprehensive community effort

to support children through their early and

middle childhoods (Woodhead and Moss,

2007:

2). These concerns for implementing young

children’s rights in ways that are contextually

appropriate reinforce the importance of

understanding the local child development

circumstances, goals and available resources,

and differential involvement of family members

in key transitions, in order best to support

children as they experience key life changes.

If we understand transitions as key events or

processes of change over the life course, it is

important to make transparent the ways these

changes are deﬁned and shaped in terms of

social structures and institutional processes. In

industrialised societies, childhood transitions

are often conceived as developmental processes

structured by educational institutions, for

example, as in the organisation of cohorts of

same-age children as ﬁrst graders in school. In

this thinking, schooling is an assumed universal

feature of childhood, and biological age is widely

treated as a proxy for readiness, maturation and

competence. Yet, in many parts of the world

where birthdates are not recorded and schooling

still far from universal, biological age is not the

most important structuring factor for transitions

in childhood. Instead, social class or caste as well

as gender and birth order may be determinants

of children’s daily activities, life changes and

expectations for present and future development

(Woodhead, in press). Non-age-graded

perspectives on transitions may capture the

context of relevant passages, as well as children’s

strategic actions for adaptation during these

stages. Such a perspective would, on the one

hand, pay attention to one-time and usually

‘irreversible’ passages (e.g., circumcision, ﬁrst

entry into school), as well as transitions that

occur on a regular basis (e.g., the horizontal

movements between primary school, home and

farming ﬁelds).

This section begins by looking at the structure

of institutional transitions, with particular

attention to the ways children’s age and their

gender function as social markers shaping the

way they experience and negotiate educational

settings. Next, two conceptual frameworks are

introduced which consider transitions as

culturally anchored movements between

periods and spheres of life. These vertical and

horizontal movements are respectively captured

by the concepts of ‘rites of passage’ (e.g., ﬁrst

school day) and ‘border crossings’ (e.g., daily

movements between home and school).

Age and gender in institutional

transitions

There is increasing awareness that inﬂexible,

institutional school structures with ﬁxed age-

grade systems and associated aged-linked

curricula and assessment systems do not respect

the diversity of children’s developmental

pathways, nor the variations in their evolving

capacities (Lansdown,

2005). Although the

political momentum towards Education for

All has resulted in greater numbers of young

children enrolling in pre-schools and schools,

the timing of institutional transitions in early

childhood varies across countries and regions

according to how the primary school system is

organised at the local level. Many other socio-

cultural, institutional and economic factors

inﬂuence views on admission ages, and on the

organisation of age and gender cohorts. In some

countries, the transition from pre-school to

primary school may occur as early as age

whereas in other places, children experience this

Chapter 2: The structure of transitions

transition around age 7. In some countries,

early education and care programmes are

seen as an integral ﬁrst stage within the school

system; while in other countries, they are a

separate (and frequently diverse) sector

(Woodhead and Moss, 2007: 44).

Despite this awareness, child-focused policy

and practice generally conceive of childhood

transitions as appropriately timed achievements

of developmental milestones within educational

institutions. For example, within the ﬁeld of

early childhood education, the term ‘transition’

is mostly used to deﬁne the move from one year

group to the next or from one school to another,

within formal educational settings (Fabian and

Dunlop,

2002: 3).

Age ‘deﬁnes’ stages of childhood more

powerfully in Western societies, with annual

birthday parties commonplace for many children,

and school entry determined by date of birth.

This trend has been globalised through initiatives

such as Education for All. Nonetheless, in many

communities, age since birth is not recorded

and people often refer to relative seniority as

the measure of development, or link their birth

to particular historical events affecting their

community (Rogoff,

2003: 154). For example,

in Burundi and Tanzania, there are six different

names to refer to phases within childhood, with

transitions between them marked by the gradual

assumption of new responsibilities within their

families and communities (Eggers,

1997: 143;

Morrow,

2003: 272).

Indeed, channelling children’s transitions into

biologically timed processes through educatio-

nal systems is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Concern for the timing of childhood transitions

originated in the

USA and the UK with the

introduction of child labour laws and compulsory

schooling at the end of the

and beginning

of the

centuries (Cunningham, 1991: 194;

Cunningham and Viazzo, 1996: 6; Zelizer, 1985: 6).

Child labour laws aimed at curbing children’s

entry into the workforce and the establishment

of a standard school entry age facilitated the

organisational thinking surrounding pupils’

transition through school grades in terms of

‘batches’, ‘cohorts’ or ‘peer groups’. While grade

progression has generally been age-based in

education systems (e.g., the

UK), in many others

progression has been determined by achievement,

and grade repetition has been common. As

noted earlier, debates surrounding school

admission and progression became linked with

concerns for ‘readiness’ for school, ‘developmental

appropriateness’ of curricula and ‘retardation’ in

learning.

Policy debates around age of school transitions

continue to this day. For example, in the

the so-called ‘birth date effect’ has been widely

debated since the

1970s. Put simply, discussions

revolve around the question whether or not

summer-born children are disadvantaged at the

point of transition to school because they attend

pre-primary education for a shorter period

of time as well as being less mature than their

autumn-born peers (e.g., Bell and Daniels

1990).

Research literature surrounding organisation

of school starting ages is extensive, premised on

cultural conventions surrounding the labelling

of children as ‘pre-school’, ‘kindergarten’,

‘reception class’, ‘ﬁrst grade’, and so on.

Children’s chronological age has become a

powerful social marker shaping children’s lives

in the modern world, linked as it is to ideas

about stages and developmental readiness.

But age-related constructs do not function in

isolation. Like adults, children are complex

social beings who, from the time they are born,

take on identities based on multiple markers

including gender, ethnicity, class or caste, etc.

as well as age (Brooker and Woodhead,

2008).

In some communities, gender constructs are

virtually inseparable from age constructs in

determining for example, what is viewed

appropriate for a

5-year-old girl versus a

5-year-old boy. In the past, as well as in some

contemporary societies, gender was a major

factor determining whether children attended

school, as well as the kinds of schooling,

curriculum and teaching considered appropriate.

In the same way, just as many childhood rites of

passage are gender-speciﬁc, children’s experiences

of institutional transitions may also be shaped

by their gender. This isn’t just a question of

cultural attitudes shaping adults’ expectations

and behaviour towards children. Children

themselves appropriate and negotiate gender

identity from an early age, especially through

their interactions with their peers, at pre-school

and elsewhere in their social worlds

(MacNaughton,

2000; Danby and Baker, 1998).

Especially as children mature and near puberty,

differences between boys and girls may become

heightened. Classrooms can be contexts where

stereotypical gender differences are reinforced

by teachers and peers, even where ofﬁcial

policies emphasise equal opportunities. These

problems may be ampliﬁed in low-resourced

schools in many developing country contexts,

where multi-grade, mixed-gender classrooms

are common. For example, in a study of the

abuse of girls in African schools, Leach et al.

(2003: viii) reported that schools in Ghana and

Malawi “are a breeding ground for potentially

damaging gendered practices, the inﬂuence

of which will stay with pupils into adult life”.

According to this report, “sexual aggression goes

largely unpunished, dominant male behaviour

by both pupils and teachers is not questioned,

and pupils are strongly encouraged to conform

to the gender roles and norms of interaction

which they observe around them”. The latter is

also evidenced in resource-poor contexts, where

teachers often require pupils to carry out menial

tasks that are assigned in ways that reinforce

gender differences. Girls, for example, may be

asked to clean ﬂoors and toilets and fetch water,

while boys are required to carry bricks and cut

grass. Such practices may be less prevalent in

classrooms of very young children, but intensify

with age.

As an example, Jha and Kelleher (

2006: 92)

describe research aimed to explain boys’

underachievement in Jamaica. The authors

point out that while gender parity indices have

improved for girls in recent years, boys are

underperforming, particularly at the secondary

level and in their progression to post-secondary

and tertiary education (p.

82). They describe

how local concepts of masculinity and

socialisation processes that foster greater

supervision of girls and less supervision of boys

have led to a lowering of boy’s self-esteem and

alienated them from the values of high academic

achievement.

The structure of transitions

Social transitions as rites of passage

The expression ‘rite of passage’ is widely used in

everyday language, as a way to describe signiﬁcant

transition events during the life course. The

concept was introduced nearly a century ago

by Arnold van Gennep in his book Les rites de

passage

(1908).

Van Gennep was primarily

interested in the sequence of rites as markers of

life changes such as birth, name giving, maturity

and death. He was convinced that human

development consists of a series of passages that

are universal in form and cultural in content

(Hockey,

2002: 212).

According to Van Gennep, transitions are

dynamic processes which follow a threefold

sequential pattern: First, preliminal rites (‘rites

of separation’ from a previous ‘world’), second,

liminal or threshold rites (performed during the

transitional stage) and third, postliminal rites

marking an individual’s re-incorporation into

the world with a new status (Van Gennep,

1960:

21). These ideas were taken up by Victor Turner

who was particularly interested in liminality

as the phase when persons are “betwixt and

between” structured stages of their life course

(Turner,

1969: 95). Because of the focus on

different stages, a ‘rites of passage’-perspective

examines the whole process of transition, not

just speciﬁc marker events referred to in

everyday usage.

Rites of passage often refer to shifts in social

status and indicate readiness (or social

expectations) to take on new responsibilities.

They are frequently related to an individual’s

‘social age’, rather than to their biological age.

In other words, the timing of cultural rites of

passage may depend on a variety of factors such

as socio-economic class or caste status, gender

and birth order, and will be strongly shaped by

the extent of modernisation and secularisation

of a society (Van Gennep,

1960: 66–67).

Young children are often at the centre of rites of

passage marking shifts in their status within the

community, both in terms of essential

personhood (i.e., becoming ‘fully human’) and

as social beings. It may not be important that a

very young child experiencing a rite of passage

is relatively unaware of the status change, as

these events are essentially about social

participation, recognition and afﬁrming old

and new relationships.

Rites of passage in early childhood vary across

contexts in scale and formality, and in some

cases, such as the American ‘baby shower’, which

is usually celebrated either shortly before

childbirth or a few weeks after the child is born,

may be as much about afﬁrming the mother’s

status as it is about ‘welcoming’ the baby. In the

Peruvian Andes, the relationship between the

newborn and their social world is at the fore

of the unuchakuy ritual, which introduces the

child to godparents and to a sacred mountain

believed to be a force of protection throughout

the child’s life (Bolin,

2006: 14). Ceremonial

naming is another way of marking transition in

The book was translated into English in 1960.

the early years; among the Maasai, this happens

for boys and girls at around 6 months of age

when they also get their ﬁrst hair cut (embarnoto

e nkerai/enkidunkoto e nkaran). Among some

Jewish families, boys’ third birthdays are marked

by the upsherin ceremony, which involves the

ritual ﬁrst haircut and is also meant to signal

their initiation into formal religious education.

In Burma, boys’ transition to adolescence is

related to their Buddhist initiation. This

comprises a formal ceremony followed by a

temporary withdrawal into monastic life while

wearing a yellow robe. Destitute households are

often unable to save the money for this

ceremony; therefore, it is not uncommon for

poor boys to make this transition experience late

or sometimes not at all. In contrast, some boys

are initiated at a relatively young age when their

older sisters are due for their own ceremonies

which must coincide with that of their brothers,

and without which the girls cannot enter into

marriage (Spiro,

1982: 234–235).

In Tanzania, the timing of traditional rites of

passage has been changing due to modern

medical technologies and compulsory schooling.

Circumcision ceremonies, for example, are often

conducted at the beginning of holidays, so as not

to interfere with schooling. Nevertheless, the rite

continues to convey traditional initiation messages

about ‘making each other pregnant’ which some

children apparently put into practice following

initiation training (Morrow,

2003: 272–273).

The ‘rites of passage’ framework has also been

applied to formal institutional transitions by

Lam and Pollard (

2006) in their study of

children’s transition to kindergarten in Hong

Kong. They used a holistic approach, integrating

rites of passage concepts with those from

Vygotskian socio-cultural theory. They also

draw on the concept of ‘pupil careers’ to explore

positive outcomes of transitions (Woods and

Pollard,

1988). They identify three components

of ‘pupil careers’:

1) patterns of formal (academic)

and informal (social) outcomes,

2) strategic

action, and

3) an evolving sense of domain-

identity. Strategic action refers here to children’s

own contributions to becoming members of the

new school culture (e.g., through interaction

with friends). Domain-identity refers, in the

case of school, to children’s understanding of

themselves as ‘pupils’. Although children are

physically part of and present in the school

system on a nearly daily basis, it may take

several weeks or months for them to grow into

their new ‘domain identity’ or pupil role (Lam

and Pollard,

2006: 135–136).

The authors use ‘rites of passage’ to describe the

phases of children’s transition to kindergarten,

drawing on socio-cultural theory to discern

how competent members at home and in

kindergarten (e.g., parents, teachers, experien-

ced peers) guide children with cultural media-

tion tools (communication, play, routines, etc.)

through their transition process. The preliminal

stage relates to children’s separation from their

caregivers at home as they learn to be pupils in

a classroom. The liminal stage starts with

transition practices or programmes that

inaugurate children into becoming pupils. This

phase entails a spatial passage (from home to

The structure of transitions

kindergarten, for example) as well as a status

passage (integrating pupil with child status).

The liminal transition process of learning to

become a pupil is characterised by ambiguity

and transformation, as children are not yet

fully integrated into the new pupil status. The

postliminal stage is reached at the end of the

transition process when children have adapted

their new pupil identity (Lam and Pollard,

2006:

131–132).

William Corsaro’s notion of ‘priming events’

also has a ritual character, echoing aspects of

rites of passage theory. Priming events are

interactive and symbolic activities that allow

children and their social environment to

contribute actively to their experiences of

change.

For example, in their ethnographic

study of a school setting in Modena, Italy,

Corsaro and Molinari show how priming events

at the end of kindergarten are public and widely

attended gatherings where children, their families,

and local politicians and other community

members join in the events. Such a public ritual

represents a break from everyday routine and is

meant to signal to the children (and others) that

it is time for them to move on. For parents and

the organisers of these events, there is a civic

pride in celebrating the lives of the children and

to see them growing up and becoming more

involved members of society. Also, for younger

siblings, participating in these events may be a

kind of priming activity that makes them

anticipate the moment when it will be their turn

to be in the spotlight (Corsaro and Molinari,

2005: 18).

Daily transitions as border crossings

The concept of rites of passage normally refers

to the cultural marking of once-for-all life

course transitions, sometimes also called

‘vertical transitions’, to contrast with ‘horizontal

transitions’ that occur on a daily and even

momentary basis (Kagan and Neuman,

1998).

Sue Campbell Clark (

2000) introduced the

notion of ‘border crossing’ to describe adults’

routine movements backwards and forwards

between home and the workplace, but this

concept can equally be applied to young

children’s daily experiences of moving between

home, pre-school and other everyday settings.

The concept provides a framework to describe

how borders are controlled and managed and

how individuals integrate and separate different

domains of their daily lives. Campbell Clark

underscores the role of supportive communication

in minimising cross-domain conﬂicts that may

arise when individuals frequently move between

two very different worlds (p.

764).

Indeed, research on early childhood transitions

suggests that, similar to adult border crossers,

young children experience identity shifts when

moving between domains. Identity shifts may

comprise changes in roles, dress and behaviour,

as well as activities and ways of communicating.

Border crossers can be either peripheral or

See also Chapter 4.

central participants to a domain. Central

participants have internalised the culture

and values of a domain, which allows them

to successfully perform the activities that are

valued within it and to interact with other

central domain members. Balance between two

domains is best achieved when border crossers

manage to identify with their roles in both

spaces (Campbell Clark,

2000: 759–761). It is

therefore important to examine the complexity

and the relationships between contexts,

expectations, and subjectivities. These concerns

draw attention to issues of home-school

cooperation as well as continuity issues when

children change from one educational setting to

another (Woodhead and Moss,

2007).

The structure of transitions

Example: Children Crossing Borders

Children Crossing Borders is a cross-cultural and multi-national study currently being conducted in ﬁve

countries (England, France, Germany, Italy and the United States) over a three-year period (

2006–9).

The study focuses on how immigrant children are being served by their early childhood care and

education (

ECCE) systems and what their parents want for their children in ECCE settings. It follows the

approach taken by Tobin, Wu and Davidson in their study `Preschools in Three Cultures.’ The method

entails creating videotapes of typical days in classrooms of four-year-olds in

ECCE settings in the study

countries. Key stakeholders (including parents, teachers, administrators, childhood education experts

and policy-makers, etc.) in each of the study countries are shown the same set of videos in order to

highlight similarities and differences in

ECCE systems and to encourage dialogue and debate. The

study’s link to ‘borders’ and ‘domains’ is clear. On the one hand, it addresses issues of conﬂict and

continuity in relation to differences between family domains and

ECCE settings. On the other hand, the

study also points to the cultural borders that immigrant families and children face as

ECCE settings may

be the ﬁrst context in which they confront such differences. (See www.childrencrossingborders.org)

Example: RICA Project

Evidence from the RICA Project (2005–2006) on successful transitions to ﬁrst grade in Nicaragua

highlights the effectiveness of working towards the interconnectedness of different domains. The

project consisted on the one hand of interventions aimed to bring school physically and psychologically

closer to children’s homes. On the other hand, project interventions addressed teachers in raising

awareness about children’s needs. Moreover, the programme focused on the expansion of pre-school

and primary school coverage in previously unattended zones, monthly support sessions to stimulate

parental participation in schools, dissemination of knowledge on child development among community

leaders, and awareness-raising workshops for teachers and headmasters on the particular needs of

children from disadvantaged sectors. Programme outcomes have been rewarding. After one year,

children’s attendance of pre-school during four of ﬁve days increased from

65% to 94%. Moreover,

pre-school children’s performance increased with

56% achieving the expected development level in

reading, writing and arithmetic, compared with

35% in the same schools during the previous year (Save

the Children

US, 2007).

Summary

This chapter has pointed to three different ways of

structuring transitions. First, we highlighted the

way transitions are structured by chronological

age, argued to be a historically recent practice

that originated in Western societies within the

context of the institutionalisation of education

at the beginning of the

century. Despite the

global importance of age as a transition marker,

especially within formal educational settings,

it is important to bear in mind that there also

exist other logics which structure transitions.

Gender has a powerful inﬂuence on all aspects

of childhood, although how much and in what

speciﬁc ways it shapes transitions varies between

families, communities and societies.

Social transitions, or rites of passage, mark

movements from one social status to another,

e.g., from child to adolescent or from pre-school

to primary school pupil. Border crossing theories

look at the borders children are crossing in their

daily lives and ask how children integrate

experiences in different everyday settings (e.g.,

school and home). Rites of passage theory draws

attention to the importance of the so-called

‘liminal period’. During this phase of the

transition experience, children are uprooted from

their previous environment (e.g., kindergarten)

without yet having fully adapted to their new

setting (e.g., primary school). It is during this

phase of transitions that interventions may

be most successful in inﬂuencing children’s

pathways.

Border crossing theories are based on the

assumption that various borders exist between

children’s different life domains, and that

breaking down the ‘border’ between the domain

of home and school may beneﬁt children’s

learning. Policy-makers and practitioners would

be encouraged to ﬁnd ways for caregivers to

engage effectively in their children’s education

and for educators to better understand the

way children’s home environments shape their

school experiences. This view highlights the

need for greater understanding of the various

barriers that prevent caregivers from engaging

with their children’s education and raises the

question of the extent to which parents and

communities may beneﬁt from an increased

sense of ownership of their children’s care and

educational institutions.

Children’s transitions are usually deﬁned in

terms of the immediate contexts and practices

that shape their lives, notably in home, pre-

school and school settings. Systemic approaches

recognise that children’s experiences of transition

are embedded in wider social structures and

processes. For example, early childhood is

widely recognised as the period when the most

intensive care is needed in order to ensure

young children’s well-being, health, learning and

play. Within children’s immediate environment,

primary caregivers and peers have a pivotal

role in guiding young children through early

life transitions. Yet, when experiencing stress

through modern lifestyles, economic hardship,

conﬂict and other adversities, primary caregivers

may not always be in the capacity to provide

sufﬁcient care and support for children.

This section explores ecological theory

(Bronfenbrenner,

1979, 1986) and life course

theory (Elder,

1994) as two conceptual models

that inform empirical research and practice on

children’s transitions within a wider social

context. These theoretical tools are helpful for

assessing lifetime implications of experiences of

risk and poverty in early childhood and

monitoring impacts of institutional structures

and relationships. Because of their focus on

wider structural inﬂuences, these theories

complement socio-cultural approaches, which

are more concerned with children’s immediate

environment.

Ecological theory

Ecological frameworks offer a comprehensive

approach for the study of transitions. Like

socio-cultural perspectives, ecological approaches

recognise children’s immediate experiences in

context, but also capture patterns of interaction

between individuals, groups and institutions

as they unfold over time (Rimm-Kaufmann

and Pianta,

2000: 500). They have the beneﬁt of

capturing how, for instance, transitions on the

macro level (e.g., economic depression) impact

on children via parental unemployment

(exosystem) with consequences for the

household microsystems with which children

directly engage.

Psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner elaborated

the ecological approach to human development

in the

1970s. It is informed by systems theory,

which underscores the interactions of (ever-

changing) individuals within the context of

their (ever-changing) environments. In his

research, Bronfenbrenner was mostly concerned

with an individual’s position in wider ecological

systems and how, for example, external

inﬂuences affect the capacity of caregivers to

foster the healthy development of children. He

perceived four aspects of the ecology in which

children grow up: microsystems, mesosystems,

exosystems, and macrosystems. ‘Microsystems’

relate to children’s experiences and interactions

with peers, teachers and caregivers in everyday

Chapter 3: Transitions within systems

settings, at home, school, child care centre, etc.

‘Mesosystems’ are the relation between these

different microsystems, e.g., the complementary

and/or conﬂicting practices and belief systems

at home and at school and the informal/formal

communications between parents and teachers.

Bronfenbrenner argued that any setting involves

direct or indirect relations with other settings.

Therefore, analysis of mesosystems focus on

questions related to the shifts of settings and

roles individuals experience during ecological

transitions – for instance, whether children

enter a new setting alone or with familiar peers

or what kind of information children and their

parents receive before embarking on major

transitions. ‘Exosystems’ are areas of social life in

which children do not themselves participate,

but which nonetheless impact on their lives

and well-being through interconnections with

microsystems. For example, parental work

settings and practices are usually physically

separate from the settings children inhabit.

Their parents make daily ‘border-crossings’

from home to work, just as their children make

‘border crossings’ from home to pre-school or

school. But these exosystems impact on children,

insofar as, for example, physical proximity,

hours and conditions of work, etc., constrain

parents’ availability to care for children at home,

accompany them to pre-school, and so on. Note

that parental work patterns may be deﬁned as

exosystems in industrialised countries, but this

may not be the case for agricultural communities,

where boundaries between children and their

caregivers’ work settings and activities may be

less sharply deﬁned. Religious settings may also

form an exosystem until children go through a

rite of passage that grants them full participation

to sacred spaces and rituals (e.g., Ridgely Bales,

2005).

The inﬂuence of exosystems on children should

not be underestimated. Within systems theory

there exists concern for the organisation of

caregivers’ work as well as community

organisations and the capacity of public policy

to shape these systems in ways that are supportive

for child development. On Bronfenbrenner’s

original formulation, ‘macrosystems’ relate to

the dominant beliefs and the organisation of

pervasive institutions that shape the cultural

settings in which children develop. Macrosystems

link with exosystems, as caregivers’ economic

activities are underpinned by policies, laws and

regulations.

Another feature of ecological theory concerns

children’s role in their development. In this view,

children develop through everyday interactions

with their caregivers and with other children,

symbols and objects in a given context. As

participants both within microsystems and at the

exosystem intersections between microsystems,

(i.e., transitions and border crossings), children

are not only inﬂuenced by their environment

but actively change it (Bronfenbrenner,

1986).

Although initially neglected, Bronfenbrenner’s

later work pays increasing attention to the

temporal dimension of transition experiences.

Thus, when systems-theory-inspired researchers

speak of ‘chronosystems’, they acknowledge the

historical context of their studies and examine

how historical changes impact upon transitions

in individual and community lives.

Ecological theory has been very inﬂuential as an

underpinning framework for the study of early

childhood, with important implications for the

study of transitions. But it also has limitations,

especially when systems are oversimpliﬁed and

reiﬁed. For example, while the identiﬁcation

of multiple interacting systems is conceptually

elegant, there is a risk of objectifying boundaries

and assuming internal sub-system coherence,

(especially when represented by the classic

‘onion’ diagram). Each actor’s experiences

of their ecology will be different. Children’s

perspectives may be very different from adults’,

which may be overlooked by an outside observer’s

attempt to model a singular ‘ecology of child

development’ (Bronfenbrenner,

1979). Their

experiences of settings, relationships and

activities may be more dispersed and changing

than the concept of a microsystem implies,

especially where family relationships are

fractured, conﬂictual and even dysfunctional.

These complexities are highlighted by studies of

how household and family formation, breakdown

and reconstitution impact on children’s relation-

ship building, loss and adjustment as well as

their domestic arrangements and well-being

(e.g., Hagan et al.,

1996; Smart and Neale, 1999).

Another caution regarding ecological theory

relates to the way the model typically positions

the child at the centre of multiple nested

systems. While centring on the singular child

may be desirable from a social policy and child

rights perspective, it does not reﬂect the

multiple priorities of many of the systems in

which children participate, nor does it recognise

the competing priorities of adults with power

over their lives. For example, while being ‘child

centred’ is ostensibly the raison d’être for child-

focused services, the child is but one of the

priorities within family settings, and the child

may be a marginal member of some community

systems. The interactions between individual,

social, economic, political and cultural processes

is also at risk of being overlooked within

Bronfenbrenner’s original formulation, especially

where individual and ‘larger’ contexts are viewed

as separate entities organised in hierarchical

fashion of organising ‘larger contexts’

(macrosystems) in relation to ‘smaller’ ones

(Rogoff,

2003: 45–46). Identifying cultural

context as part of macrosystems draws attention

away from the central role of cultural beliefs,

goals and practices in mediating children’s

experiences and activities at every level.

Despite these cautions, many researchers have

found Bronfenbrenner’s framework helpful

to explore experiences in early childhood in

general and transitions to kindergarten or

primary school in particular (e.g., Bohan-

Baker and Little,

2004; Johansson, 2007; Fabian

and Dunlop,

2002 and 2007; Rimm-Kaufman

and Pianta,

2000; Tudge et al., 2003; Tudge and

Hogan,

2005). For example, Rimm-Kaufman

and Pianta

(2000) conceptualise the ecology of

transitions to school with a particular focus

on the development of relationships over time,

underscoring the importance of context for

understanding children’s transition experiences.

Longitudinal research with repeated assessments

can contribute a lot to our understanding of

how changes in the contexts of children’s lives

impacts on children’s ability to make key life

Transitions within systems

changes. Furthermore, the complexity of the

linkage and the mutual shaping of contexts

would ideally require a combination of

qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Nevertheless, more studies are needed on the

link between local network-level interaction,

policy and programme participation, and

child development. Further research from this

perspective could address why some children

experience similar outcomes under different

policy conditions, or different outcomes under

the same policy conditions.

“The nature of change processes in the many

systems intervening between the macro and

individual levels has been under explored as

has the issue of how such processes mediate

effects of policy on development” (Yoshikawa

and Hsueh,

2001: 1888).

Yoshikawa and Hsueh insist that the role of the

family should neither be under- nor overestimated.

Family research using a variety of national and

other datasets shows that variations in parenting

style and home environments may explain as

much as half of the effect that household poverty

has on children. Understanding intra-household

dynamics (for example how resources and roles

are distributed among children in a given

household) could reveal the decision-making

processes that explain why some children make

certain transitions, while others do not.

There are other factors between policy and

household that impact on children’s transitions

(e.g., community inﬂuences and norms) and

these are usually poorly examined. For example,

there exists little research on how cultural

differences may inﬂuence the reception of

beneﬁts (or respond to opportunities for

intervention in the early years). Also relatively

unexplored is the role of social networks within

communities and how these affect whether

or not families accept child-targeted welfare

(Yoshikawa and Hsueh,

2001: 1890).

Transitions and life course theory

Life course theory is closely related to the

ecological approach to human development.

The model understands human development

as a multi-level phenomenon, comprising

structured pathways through social institutions

and organisations to the social trajectories

of individuals (Elder,

1994: 5). More than any

other framework, this approach emphasises

that human development cannot be detached

from social history. On the one hand, historical

conditions shape the way children grow up. On

the other hand, history is produced through the

agency of children and adults (Elder,

1994: 5–6;

Ryder,

1965: 861).

Life course theory was built on evidence from

some of the earliest longitudinal cohort studies

in the

USA. The theory locates individual

trajectories in relation to massive social changes

such as migration, economic depression, and

armed conﬂict. Research in this area provides

evidence that the meaning of social change and

the capacity to cope with adversity strongly

depends on age status (Elder,

1994: 10). In his

study Children of the Great Depression (

1974),

Transitions within systems

Elder analysed data from two longitudinal studies

that had been conducted in California with

two cohorts of children born respectively at the

beginning and at the end of the

1920s. The

availability of this data allowed the assessment

of developmental outcomes throughout

childhood, adolescence and adulthood, and

provides robust evidence of the complex

interactions between individual characteristics,

household structures and the role of adversities.

As children of one sample were born eight years

earlier than those of the second sample, Elder

was able to compare the effects of economic

depression on two cohorts of children: those

who were adolescents when their families lost

income versus those who were still young

children at that time. The comparison showed

very different results for these groups. Children

whose caregivers became economically deprived

when they were adolescents seem to have gained

from the severe experience. Compared to non-

deprived young people, loss of family income

appeared to spur a sense of achievement, as

well as greater satisfaction in later life amongst

impoverished boys and girls. According to Elder,

the loss of income forced families to mobilise

human resources and provided mothers and

teenagers with new roles and responsibilities

which trained them in initiative, cooperation,

and responsibility. Yet, these favourable outcomes

were not shared by the younger cohort.

Compared to their peers from non-deprived

families, the cohort that experienced the

depression as very young children subsequently

had a lower school performance and showed

less stable work histories as well as observable

emotional and social difﬁculties until middle

adulthood. There were also important gender

differences. Negative outcomes were more

strongly displayed among boys. Their greater

vulnerability was very probably linked to their

father’s loss of livelihood, leading to

demoralisation and low self-esteem, which

transferred more to their sons than their

daughters, who were more likely to identify

strongly with their mother (Elder,

1974). In

short, Elders’s study draws attention to the

impact of changing societies on developing lives.

It is particularly sensitive to the impact of

historical events (macrosystem changes in

ecological theory) on early childhood,

highlighting how these shape children’s

capacities to negotiate developmental transitions

and the consequences for their future agency

and life choices.

This research corroborates the evidence that

environmental variables impact differently on

children and encourages further research on the

balance of risk and protective factors that

contribute to children’s relative vulnerability

and resilience (e.g., Boyden,

2006; Boyden and

Mann,

2005; Hart, 2004; Mann, 2004; Yaqub,

2002). Studies of extreme deprivation have been

especially inﬂuential, notably in groups of

children in institutional care and orphanages.

These studies demonstrate that making an early

transition to an enhanced environment can

serve as a protective factor, with long-term

outcomes (e.g., Rutter et al.,

1998; Wolff and

Fesseha,

1999). Studies on school transitions

also examined how risk factors – accumulated

over a long-term period – cause academic

disengagement and eventual school drop-outs

(e.g., Alexander et al.,

1997; Punch, 2003, Watson-

Gegeo and Gegeo,

1992). Finally, there exists a

wealth of research evidence that well-resourced

ECCE programmes hold the potential of

supporting young children and their caregivers

in coping with adversities and improving their

prospects of successful school transitions.

Conversely, lack of professional and political

commitment to mobilise

ECCE action may

amplify the risks to young children’s well-being

(Jolly,

2007: 8; Woodhead, 2006: 11).

Summary

Ecological and life course theories highlight how

children’s transition experiences are embedded

in wider social systems. Ecological systems

theory draws particular attention to the

interconnections and mutual inﬂuences between

children’s and their caregivers’ social worlds.

These frameworks are valuable tools for

conceptualising the potential of early childhood

programmes and services to impact on children’s

life chances (Grantham-McGregor et al.,

2007).

Life course theory draws attention to the fact

that children relate and respond differently to

adversity. Not all children suffer from negative

repercussions of harmful experiences. Depending

on their social status, their age and their gender,

some children may even show resilience in the

face of adversity. Therefore, rather than relying

on the assumption of children’s ‘inherent

vulnerability’, it is important to evaluate the

impact of potential interventions in a more

Example: Young Lives

‘Young Lives’ is a 15-year four-country longitudinal study of childhood poverty that draws on ecological

and life course themes, with transitions as a particular focus. Begun in

2000, ‘Young Lives’ is funded

by the UK Department for International Development to follow the lives of

12,000 children growing

up in the context of poverty in Ethiopia, Andhra Pradesh (India), Peru and Vietnam. It was devised

to inform the Millennium Development Goals by increasing understanding of the causes, nature and

consequences of child poverty in order to provide a strong evidence base for child-focused policy. The

research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to trace the life course trajectories of two

cohorts of children (separated by an eight-year age gap) within the contexts of their households and

communities. As subsequent rounds of data collection take place, studying two cohorts may enable

analyses into the way life course position mediates experiences of poverty and long-term outcomes

for well-being. Information is being collected every few years on each of the

12,000 children, their

caregivers and households, and the communities in which they are growing up. This will provide

insights into factors inﬂuencing change in three generations living in poverty, as some of the older

cohort of children (now aged

12 or 13) have become parents themselves. A life course approach is

necessary to understand the complexities of the inter-generational transfer of poverty and to explain

why individuals move into and out of poverty (see www.younglives.org.uk).

Transitions within systems

nuanced way, with regard to scale, timing and

focus (Walker et al.,

2007). These frameworks

also draw attention to structural hardships, as

these may put a strain on caregivers’ time, health

and resources. They emphasise the pivotal role

of programmes and interventions in

complementing primary caregivers efforts to

stimulate young children’s development

(

UNCRC et al., 2006: 44–48).

For example, article 18.3 recognises that in many parts of the world, caretakers are economically active in poorly paid

conditions and encourages measures to ensure that children of working parents beneﬁt from childcare services and facilities to

which they are eligible (

UNCRC et al. 2006: 44).

Children’s participation in their transition

experiences has been addressed in traditional

academic studies in questions about their

activity and agency, and more broadly their role

in shaping their own childhoods (Woodhead,

2003). For example, Piagetian constructivist

paradigms within developmental psychology

take for granted that children actively engage

with their physical and social environment,

constructing cognitive models to make sense

of their changing environment and gradually

acquiring increasing sophistication in their

intellectual, social and moral understanding.

Studies of social development have emphasised

children’s role as social actors and meaning

makers (Bruner and Haste,

1987), partners in

social interaction, reciprocal exchanges and

transactional patterns of mutual inﬂuence

(reviewed by Schaffer,

1996). Meanwhile,

sociological theories have emphasised the

power of social structure to shape individual

lives, while micro-analysis of social process has

revealed the ways individuals contribute to the

creation of social life. Reconciling structure and

agency has been a major theme (Giddens,

1979)

that continues to underpin studies into children’s

socialisation, with a surge of interest in

exploring aspects of children’s social competence

(e.g., Hutchby and Moran-Ellis,

1998) as well as

in mapping the ways children construct their

socialisation (Mayall,

1994). Reconstructing the

young child’s status in childhood theory (James

et al.,

1998; Woodhead, 1998) has been matched

by reframing their role in research (Alderson and

Morrow,

2004; Woodhead and Faulkner, 2008).

Recent analytic interest in children’s agency

has considerable implications for child rights-

based research, policy and practice, including

around early transitions. Stressing the pivotal

role of children’s participatory rights, General

Comment

7 notes that: “Respect for the young

child’s agency – as a participant in family,

community and society – is frequently

overlooked, or rejected on the grounds of age

and immaturity” (

UNCRC et al., 2006: 40). This

also implies recognition of the fact that children

are active agents constantly involved in making

sense of and participating in the ongoing affairs

of their social surrounding (Woodhead,

2006:

). This chapter ﬁrst examines research into

the role of peer cultures in children’s transition

experiences, followed by a summary of the

Mosaic Approach, a methodological tool for

studying children’s participation in their own

transitions.

Children’s peer cultures

Within contemporary developmental psychology,

socio-cultural theorists recognise that children’s

learning is guided not only by adult members of

their community but also through collaborative

learning with their peers (e.g., Mercer and

Littleton,

2007: 38). In a similar vein, sociological

research suggests that children creatively

Chapter 4: Children’s participation in transitions

appropriate information from the adult world

and produce autonomous peer cultures (e.g.,

Corsaro,

1992: 168). Corsaro and Molinari (2005)

report an ethnographic study of children’s

transition from pre-school to elementary school.

Their research focuses on how children

collectively prepare for their transition from

pre-school to elementary school through

‘priming events’, a way of constructing initial

bridges between different settings through

events and routines (e.g., celebrations, singing

of special songs, etc.) which are initiated and

promoted by children, their peers, teachers,

families and community members. Peer activity

is given particular importance, as it is evidence

of peer inﬂuence in appropriating culture and

of children engaging in laying the foundations

for their future.

Through their concept of ‘interpretive

reproduction’, Corsaro and Molinari highlight

children’s collective agency in shaping their

evolving membership in their culture, as well

as the ways in which their agency is socially

constrained. The ‘interpretive reproduction’

approach draws a parallel with socio-cultural

theory when they acknowledge that changes

(including life transitions) occur when

individuals are involved in ongoing activities

with their environment. Similar to Rogoff’s

idea of ‘participatory appropriation’, Corsaro

and Molinari’s ‘priming events’ are interactive

and symbolic activities that enable children to

actively contribute to experiences of change.

However, their approach departs from socio-

cultural theory in the explicit focus on the

constraints that shape children’s engagement

with the world and by foregrounding

ethnography as the key method for understanding

the interaction between peer groups, children’s

caregivers, and their teachers. Corsaro and

Molinari’s approach also stands in contrast to

ecological system theory, in that the singular

‘child’ is not placed at the centre of the model.

Instead, the collective character of transition

experiences is stressed as shared among peers at

every stage: in their anticipation of transitions

(e.g., through priming events), in the process of

transition and in reﬂections on past transitions

(Corsaro and Molinari,

2005: 20–22).

From a different study of school transitions, two

brief examples of children talking about their

experiences illustrate the point (Brooker, personal

communication). The ﬁrst is from a child in

Bangladesh and the second is from Fiji:

Anticipation: “I heard that in the school where

I’m going, the older kids hit the younger kids. If

that happens I’ll come back to this school. And

if I have to go to another school I’ll go to a good

one. I won’t go back to that one.”

Reﬂection: “I did not really enjoy going into pre-

school. This is because my parents had done a

space in my home like a pre-school. I had a see-

saw, a swing, a pile of sand, and a lot of toys that

I can play with. My mother and father would tell

See also section on ‘rites of passage’

Children’s participation in transitions

stories and read story books to me before going

to bed.”

Ethnographic research with young children

corroborates the importance of peer cultures

(Brooker,

2006; Pratt and George, 2005). For

example, comparative research in a Korean

private kindergarten and a

UK reception class

found that peer cultures inﬂuence considerably

individual children’s beliefs about the world.

Peer cultures may transform opinions on gender

roles and relationships acquired within the

family. In this way, peers may have a dual role;

on the one hand, they are a source of

empowerment, and on the other, they are a

source of risk – for example, through

discriminatory behaviour that excludes certain

children from the peer group. The study

recommends proactive intervention in cases of

discrimination, based on careful listening to the

discourses of young children and their peers

(Brooker,

2006: 125–126).

Another study explored how peer cultures and the

gendered attitudes towards friendship of primary

school students shaped their experiences around

transfer to secondary school (Pratt and George,

2005). This study found that all children, but

particularly boys, experience stress associated with

school transfer, peer acceptance and teacher

expectations. In the face of a new learning

environment, the concern to belong and conform

to a peer group was shown to be very intense and

to exceed other concerns (e.g., for academic success).

The study suggests that peers can be both a

distraction as well as a source of support in shaping

educational pathways (Pratt and George,

2005: 24).

Methodological tools for transitions

research

In Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic

Approach, Clark and Moss (

2001: 41) insist that

“listening must not wait until children are able

to join in adult conversations.” Premised on the

assumption that children communicate in dif-

ferent ways, the Mosaic Approach was develo-

ped as a way to ‘listen to’ young children and to

involve their views and experiences in reviewing

‘early years’ services. The main study was carried

out with

3–4-year-olds over an 18-month period

in a

UK early childhood institution (incorporating

a nursery and a homeless families’ centre located

on the same community campus), involving

children, staff, and caregivers.

The Mosaic Approach is described by the authors

as (Clark and Moss,

2001: 5):

Multi-method – recognises the different

‘voices’ and skills of children;

Participatory – considers children to be

competent and experts on their own lives;

respects children’s views and also their silences;

Reﬂexive – includes children and adults in a

joint effort of interpretation; views listening

as a process;

Adaptive – can be applied in a variety of

early childhood settings; methods will

depend on the characteristics of the group,

such as gender, cultural backgrounds, skills

of staff or researchers, etc.;

Focused on children’s lived experiences –

moves away from a view of children as

consumers of services;

Embedded into practice – can be used for

evaluation purposes (‘listening as consul-

ting’) and can also become part of daily

practice (‘ongoing conversation’) in early

years institutions.

There are two stages to the Mosaic Approach:

The ﬁrst stage involves a process of documentation

by children and adults through a variety of

techniques, including participant observation

and participatory research methods such as

child-led tours, mapping, and role play. Using

visual and other non-verbal methods may be

particularly effective in working with children

with limited language skills (including older

refugee children, for example).

Stage 2 consists of piecing together information

for dialogue, reﬂection and interpretation, with

each perspective or unit of data providing one

piece of the ‘mosaic’. When practitioners and

parents listen to children’s perspectives, “it is

in the interpretation of the material gathered

that the possibility for greater understanding of

young children’s lives will emerge” (Clark and

Moss,

2001: 55).

Clearly inﬂuenced by the Mosaic Approach,

Dockett and Perry’s

(2005) Starting School

Research Project emphasises multiple

perspectives in researching children’s transition

to school. Indeed, socio-cultural research on

young children’s transition experiences points to

the importance of involving parents in transitions

processes. This strategy is particularly conducive

to encourage parental involvement in children’s

transition to school, especially where home

cultures differ markedly from those of school.

Involving parents in research is also important

in identifying the areas where children and

adults may differ (or agree) on expectations

regarding school transition, experience, and

achievement.

Dockett and Perry produced data consisting of

photographs with accompanying text,

transcripts of conversations, drawings of school,

videotapes of interactions; together these

conveyed children’s perspectives, experiences

and expectations about school (Dockett and

Perry,

2005: 517). They found that what matters

to children in transitioning to school is often

different from what matters to adults.

Furthermore, they found that “there will be no

one ‘best’ approach that suits all children or all

contexts” (p.

519).

In transitions research, recognising this complexity

involves considering the decisions that are made

for children by adults and listening to what

children have to say about starting school.

Summary

Research evidence for the pivotal role of

children’s peer cultures is programme-relevant.

In many parts of the world, classroom sizes are

large and children of different ages are often

instructed together. Given the scarcity of

teachers in these schools, many children in these

classrooms are often left unattended. This may

Children’s participation in transitions

lead to boredom, increased physical risk and a

decrease in learning motivation among pupils.

In such conditions, peers, who have the potential

to teach each other through participatory

instruction, are an underused resource.

Participatory research and programmes with

children during the early years are also relevant

to democracy. Through the adaptation of

democratic principles, nursery schools can

prepare children from the earliest years on to

become critically minded and tolerant citizens:

“Honouring young children’s rights to express

their views creates more effective policy and it

fosters stronger, more cohesive and inclusive

communities. In these ways it contributes to a

healthy democracy which recognises that

children’s rights are the human rights of any

citizen.” (MacNaughton et al.,

2007: 9)

Example: Tai Wisdom Association (TWA)

Research suggests that institutions of education, including early childhood education, have the

possibility to be places of change. According to Peter Moss

(2007), early childhood institution

and programmes can indeed nurture participatory democratic practice. This implies an ecological

consideration of democratic practices on many levels, such as families,

ECCE institutions as well as

the federal and local level of decision-making. During programme planning phases, involvement of

young children and their caretakers ensures that children’s best interests are at the starting point for

services and programmes. It is important to learn in what kind of environment they feel at ease to

start learning. For example, child libraries run by the

TWA are designed in a way that reminds children

and their caregivers of the architecture of homes.

TWA found that children enjoy buildings that are

surrounded by a corridor where they can read, chat or just lie down and sleep. Concerning the location,

TWA also tries to establish its libraries at the centre of community life, easily accessible on foot by

even young children. Finally, also the timing of libraries is adapted to children and their caretakers’

schedules. Libraries are therefore closed during ofﬁce and school hours, but open until late in the

evening when children have free time

(TWA, 2007a: 24).

This review has offered an overview of key

theoretical approaches that may aid in the

understanding of early childhood transitions.

We have argued that children experience a range

of personal, social and cultural thresholds that

may or may not harmonise with their transition

to school. Depending on their socio-cultural

environment, role and status, children are faced

with different decisions and responsibilities at

various moments of their lives. Children’s

success or failure in passing through formal

educational transitions cannot be assessed

without regard to local education practices and

socio-cultural context. In order to harmonise

ECCE programmes with local education practices,

it is important to assess local child-rearing

practices, how these are underpinned by cultural

beliefs, and to obtain knowledge of culturally

recognised transitions, i.e. rites of passage.

The review stressed that evaluations of ‘good’

outcomes of development are always deﬁned

socially and differ according to a community’s

culture, which includes its economic surpluses,

its system of subsistence and tools of survival,

and its political, economic, and religious

systems. It is therefore important that researchers

and practitioners avoid imposing an ideal

endpoint of development that reﬂects their

own values as opposed to local understandings.

On a more positive note, culturally sensitive

interventions may have the potential to change

repertoires of practice by enhancing children’s

and parents’ opportunities to access services and

participate in meaningful activities.

Furthermore, this review revealed the tendency

for conceptualisations and research traditions to

be linked to different disciplinary perspectives,

with the ﬁelds of education and psychology

dominating the ways in which transitions

research has been framed, especially as it relates

to institutional transitions, notably schooling.

Anthropological and sociological perspectives

can enrich transitions research through the

concern with understanding a much broader

canvas, encompassing personal, social and

cultural transitions in wide-ranging contexts.

Multi-disciplinary collaboration in transitions

research and practice may foster holistic

approaches that contextualise children’s

experiences of change within the broader, inter-

related contexts of their families, institutions,

and communities. Especially with global

initiatives like Education for All, grounded

understandings of cultural practices and

livelihoods may inform programming in relation

to pre-school and primary education.

The review underscores the value of using a

variety of conceptual and methodological tools

to achieve a holistic understanding of childhood

transitions. Methodologies incorporating

ethnography and multiple methods were

highlighted as potentially useful in adapting to

the different ways in which children communicate

Conclusion

and to their diverse social worlds. Longitudinal

research in particular may be capable of linking

early transitions with later outcomes over the

life course.

The central message of the review is that

greater transparency is needed to make more

explicit the underlying assumptions regarding

childhood and child development that inform

policy, programming and research. There is

“the perennial temptation to inﬂate the

signiﬁcance of a particular theory or evidence

where it serves advocacy, which is ostensibly on

behalf of young children’s rights and well-being,

but frequently is also linked to particular visions

for early childhood, speciﬁc stakeholders or sets

of political priorities” (Woodhead,

2006: 6).

Research and practice around early childhood

transitions centres largely on institutional

transitions, particularly in relation to formal

care and education. Political, economic, cultural,

and psycho-social factors interact in shaping

children’s ability to access quality basic services.

Transitions research has the potential to unravel

these factors – at micro, meso, and macro levels

– that explain why some children have

opportunities for development while others do

not, as well as the directions of development

and their impact on life course trajectories. Few

actions on behalf of children are apolitical or

free from theory, and this review hopes to

highlight the need to make more explicit the

underlying concepts and visions of childhood

and child development that drive current policy

and programming on early childhood transitions.

Border crossing: In contrast to rites of passage, border crossing theory focuses on transitions that

occur on an everyday basis. It presumes ‘domains of life’ (e.g., home, workplace, school),

separated by ‘frontiers’, or borders, which individuals must successfully cross on a daily basis in

order to perform their ‘domain’ roles (Campbell Clark,

2000).

Cultural thresholds: Key concept for rites of passage indicating the sequential passage from one

state to another (i.e., from preliminal to liminal to postliminal).

Developmental niche: A child-within-family focused concept inspired by cross-cultural research.

The developmental niche comprises:

1) caregivers’ belief systems (ethnotheories) regarding child-

rearing,

2) the material conditions and in particular spatial arrangements of child-rearing, and 3)

the actual practices of child-rearing (Super and Harkness,

1986).

Domain: In border crossing theory, ‘domain’ refers to a sphere of life separated from other domains

on the basis of distinct social roles, responsibilities, and location (e.g., kindergarten and parents’

workplace) (Campbell Clark,

2000).

Ecological theory: Informed by systems theory, provides a framework for understanding the

multiple contexts inhabited by the young child (microsystems), the signiﬁcance of border crossings

between microsystems, the linkages between contexts (mesosystems), and the wider inﬂuence of

exosystems and macrosystems (Bronfenbrenner,

1979).

Guided participation: Describes the process whereby caregivers, teachers and peers assist children

in their development. While inspired by Vygotskian theory, Rogoff extends the concept of zone of

proximal development to stress the inter-relatedness of adults’ and children’s roles, and applies the

concept to cover teaching processes outside formal educational settings (e.g., weaving, cooking).

Vygotsky’s interest was primarily in the role of literacy skills in learning, while Rogoff is more broadly

interested in culturally valued activities that may or may not include literacy skills. Guided participation

is universal but the forms of its expression vary according to cultural contexts, settings and social

actors (Rogoff,

1990).

Interpretive reproduction: Conceptually similar to Rogoff’s ‘repertoires of practice’, though with

greater focus on collective processes (peer cultures), and less focus on individual experience.

Interpretive reproduction captures two mutually constitutive processes:

1) children (and human

Glossary: Some major concepts relevant to transitions research

beings in general) interpret the social world for themselves (stressing their agency) and 2) by

interpreting it and acting within the social world they reproduce a social order (stressing structure)

(Corsaro,

1992).

Life course theory: Closely related to the ecological approach to human development. Human

development is understood as a multi-level phenomenon, comprising structured pathways through

social institutions and organisations to shape the social trajectories of individuals (Elder,

1994). More

than any other framework, this approach emphasises that human development cannot be detached

from social history and also captures the cultural-historical context of risk and protective factors that

shape children’s vulnerability/resilience.

Liminality: The second of three phases of rites of passage, also referred to as a state of being “betwixt

and between” to highlight the suspended status of individuals who leave one role but have not yet

fully incorporated the new role (van Gennep,

1960; Turner, 1995). Programme interventions targeted

at this phase may be particularly effective as children are on the cusp of assuming new roles and

responsibilities and possibly shifting their trajectories.

Mosaic approach: A methodology developed for participatory research and consultation with young

children (Clark and Moss,

2001). It promotes a combination of verbal and non-verbal techniques

with children and adults to elicit children’s views on their care settings and lives. Because of its

participatory nature, it supports the principles of outlined in the

UN Convention on the Rights of

the Child

1989. It is especially relevant to research and consultations with young children about their

transition experiences.

Peer cultures: The culture shared by children and their groups of friends or classmates. The role of

children’s interaction in their collective appropriation of culture is stressed, and peer culture may play

a crucial role in moderating the stresses associated with transitions (Corsaro and Molinari,

2005).

Priming events: Occasions such as celebration, activities, speeches and information-sharing

opportunities that anticipate imminent transitions in children’s lives and are intended to prepare

children for change. Both children and adults engage in these events (Corsaro and Molinari,

2005).

Pupil careers: The process by which children manage their role and identity as pupils within the

institutional structures and practices of school systems. It is relevant from pre-school through to

school, leaving a framework for studying variations in transition experiences and outcomes on bases

other than grades and other standard assessments of success (Woods,

1990; Lam and Pollard, 2006).

Repertoires of practice: Deep-seated dispositions for activity and behaviour in a given setting, based

on individuals’ prior experiences in similar settings, and structured by their opportunities to access

and participate in these settings. They are applicable to the understanding of levels of continuity or

discontinuity between settings during periods of transition (Rogoff,

2003).

Reversibility/irreversibility: Terms that refer to the impacts of speciﬁc (usually adverse) experiences

on later outcomes. They are of particular interest for the timing and targeting of programme

intervention. Reversible outcomes can be ‘corrected’ through timely and appropriate interventions,

while irreversible outcomes have a greater inﬂuence on shaping life pathways, including key transitions.

Rites of passage: The sequential process (i.e. preliminal, liminal and postliminal phases) marking an

individual’s change of status, usually involving a public ceremony distinguished from everyday life

through speciﬁc symbols and rituals (van Gennep,

1960).

Scaffolding: A Vygotskian concept referring to the structured assistance children receive from their

peers and adults (e.g., parents and teachers) in reaching new skills and developmental goals.

Scaffolding is progressively withdrawn as children’s competence increases (Wood, Bruner and Ross,

1976). It describes processes underpinning the zone of proximal development. It is also linked to

the concept of guided participation, but the latter places greater emphasis on the ‘learner’s’ as well

as the ‘teacher’s’ contribution toward engaging in tools and signs to transmit knowledge and practical

routines. Scaffolding is likely most important at times of transition, when children are faced with new

routines and challenges.

Vulnerability/resilience: A theoretical framework to account for variations in children’s ability to

cope with adversities. Outcomes for children are the product of a combination of risk versus

protective factors, which in each case includes both personal qualities as well as environmental factors.

Quality early childhood programmes can be an important protective factor in reducing children’s

vulnerability (Rutter et al.,

1998, Luthar, 2003).

Zone of proximal development: According to Vygotsky (1978), the transition between learning and

development occurs in the ‘zone of proximal development’, which is the distance between the most

difﬁcult task a child can perform without help and the most difﬁcult task s/he can do with support. It

is therefore through the instruction (see scaolding and guided participation) from teachers, adults

and more skilled peers that children develop and learn to negotiate successful transitions.

Glossary

Ageways (2007) Strong grandmothers, healthy communities, pp. 8–9. Ageways: Practical Issues in Ageing and

Development

69.

Ahmed, S., Bwana, J., Guga, E., Kitunga, D., Mgulambwa, A., Mtambalike, P., Mtunguja, L., and Mwandayi, E.

(1999) Children in Need of Special Protection Measures: A Tanzanian Study. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania:

UNICEF.

Alderson and Morrow (2004) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and Young People. London:

Barnardo’s.

Alexander,

KL, Entwistle, DR and Horsey, CS. (1997) From ﬁrst grade forward: Early foundations of high school

dropout. Sociology of Education

70(2): 87–107.

Arnold, C., Bartlett, K., Gowani, S., Merali, R.

(2007) Is everybody ready? Readiness, transition and continuity:

Reﬂections and moving forward. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development, No

41, The Hague,

The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Bell, John F. and Daniels, S.

(1990) Are summer-born children disadvantaged? The birthdate effect in

education. Oxford Review of Education

16(1): 67–80.

Bohan-Baker, M. and Little, P. (2004) The transition to kindergarten: A review of current research and

promising practices to involve families. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Bolin, I.

(2006) Growing up in a Culture of Respect: Child Rearing in Highland Peru. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press.

Boyden, J.

(1997) Childhood and policy makers: A comparative perspective on the globalization of childhood,

pp.

190–229. In: James, A. and Prout, A. (Eds): Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. Contemporary

Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London and Washington,

DC: Falmer Press.

Boyden, J.

(2006) Children, war and world disorder in the 21

century: A review of the theories and the literature

on children’s contributions to armed violence.

QEH Working Paper Series, No 138, Oxford: Queen

Elizabeth House.

Boyden, J. and Ennew, J. (Eds) (

1997) Children in Focus – A Manual for Participatory Research with Children.

Stockholm: Rädda Barnen.

Boyden, J., Ling, B. and Myers, W.

(1998) What Works for Working Children. Florence: UNICEF and Stockholm:

Rädda Barnen.

Boyden, J. and Mann, G.

(2005) Children’s risk, resilience, and coping in extreme situations, pp. 3–25. In: Unger

M. (Ed) Handbook for Working with Children and Youth. Pathways to Resilience Across Cultures and

Contexts. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed)

(1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children birth

through age

8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bronfenbrenner, U.

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986) ‘Ecology of the family as a context of human development: Research perspectives.

Developmental Psychology

22(6): 723–742.

Brooker, L. (2006) From home to home corner: Observing children’s identity-maintenance in early childhood

settings. Children & Society

20: 116–127.

Brooker, L and Woodhead, M. (2008) Developing Positive Identities (Early Childhood in Focus 3). Milton

Keynes: The Open University.

Bruner J. and Haste, H. (Eds) (

1987). Making sense: The child’s construction of the world. New York: Routledge.

Campbell Clark, S.

(2000) Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations

53(6): 747–770.

Carr, D. (2002) Moral Education and the perils of developmentalism. Journal of Moral Education 31(1): 5–19.

Chelimo, N. (2006) Transitions in pastoral communities in Uganda. Classes under trees. Early Childhood

Matters

107: 36–37.

Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001) Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s

Bureau

Clark, A.

(2005) Listening to and involving young children: A review of research and practice. Early Child

Development and Care.

175(6): 489–505.

Corsaro, W.A. (1992) Interpretive Reproduction in Children’s Peer Cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly

55(2): 160–177.

Corsaro, W.A. and Molinari, L. (2005) I Compagni. Understanding Children’s Transition from Preschool to

Elementary School. New York and London: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Cunningham, H.

(1991) The Children of the Poor. Representations of Childhood since the Seventeenth Century.

Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

Cunningham, H. and Viazzo, P.

(1996) Some issues in the historical study of child labour, pp. 11–22. In:

Cunningham, H. and Viazzo, P. (Eds): Child Labour in Historical Perspective.

1800–1985. Case Studies

from Europe, Japan and Colombia. Florence:

UNICEF.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., and Pence. A.R. (1999). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern

Perspectives. London: Falmer Press.

Danby, S. and Baker, C.

(1998). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood, 5 (2): 151–175.

de Berry, J. and Boyden, J. (2000) Children in adversity. Forced Migration Review 9: 33–36.

Doek, J.E., Krappmann, L.F. and Lee, Y. (2006) Introduction to the General Comment, pp. 31–34. In: Implementing

Child Rights in Early Childhood. The Hague: Bernard Van Leer Foundation

/ UNICEF / UN Committee

on the Rights of the Child.

Dockett, S. and Perry, B.

(2005) Researching with children: Insights from the Starting School Research Project.

Early Childhood Development and Care

175(6): 507–521.

Eggers, E.K. (1997) Historical Dictionary of Burundi. London: Scarecrow Press.

Elder, G.H.

(1974) Children of the Great Depression. Social Change in Life Experience. Chicago and London:

University of Chicago Press.

Bibliography

Elder, G.H. (1994) Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology

Quarterly

57(1): 4–15.

Engle, P. and Breaux, C. (1998) Fathers’ involvement with children: Perspectives from developing countries.

Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development,

7(1): 1–21.

Erikson, E.H. (1950) Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.

Estep Jr, J.R.

(2002) Spiritual formation as social: Toward a Vygotskyan developmental perspective. Religious

Education

97(2): 141–164.

Fabian, H. and Dunlop, A.-W. (Eds) (2002) Transitions in the Early Years. Debating Continuity and Progression for

Children in Early Education London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Fabian, H. and Dunlop, A.-W.

(2007) ‘Outcomes of good practice in transition processes for children entering

primary school’. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development, No

42, The Hague: Bernard van Leer

Foundation.

Feldman, D.H. and Fowler, R.C.

(1997) The nature(s) of developmental change: Piaget, Vygotsky, and the

transition process. New Ideas in Psychology

15(3): 195–210.

Flavell, J.H. (1981) On cognitive development. Child Development 53(1): 1–10.

Giddens, A. (1979) The Central Problems of Social Theory London, Macmillan.

Good, C. V.

(Ed) (1973) Dictionary of Education. 3

Edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y.B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L.M. and Strupp, B..

(2007) Developmental

potential in the ﬁrst

5 years for children in developing countries. The Lancet 369: 60–70.

Hagan, J. et al. (1996) New kid in town: Social capital and the life course effects of family migration on children.

American Sociological Review

61(3): 368–385.

Hammarberg, T. (1997) A School for Children with Rights. Innocenti Lectures, Florence: UNICEF Innocenti

Research Centre.

Harkness, S., Hughes, M. & Muller, B.

(2005) Entering the developmental niche: Mixed methods in an intervention

program for inner-city children, pp.

329–358. In: Weisner, T.S. (Ed) Discovering Successful Pathways in

Children’s Development. Mixed Methods in the Study of Childhood and Family Life. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Hart, J.

(2004) Beyond struggle and aid: Children’s identities in a Palestine refugee camp in Jordan, pp.167–187.

In: Boyden, J. and de Berry, J. (Eds) Children and Youth on the Front Line. Ethnography, Armed Conﬂict

and Displacement. Oxford: Berghahn.

Harvard Family Research Project

(2007) Available online at: www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/ﬁne/resources/

storybook/research.html (accessed

20/09/2007).

Hockey, J.

(2002) The importance of being intuitive: Arnold Van Gennep’s The Rites of Passage. Mortality 7(2):

210–217.

Hutchby, I. and Moran-Ellis, J. (1998) Children and Social Competence: Arenas of Action. London: Falmer Press.

James, A. and Prout, A.

(Eds) (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. Contemporary Issues in the

Sociological Study of Childhood. London and Washington,

DC: Falmer Press.

James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorising Childhood Polity Press, Cambridge.

Jha, J. and Kelleher, F.

(2006) Boys’ Underachievement in Education: An Exploration in Selected Commonwealth

Countries. London: Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth of Learning. Available online at:

www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/

4309 (accessed 14/01/2008).

Johansson, I.

(2007) Horizontal transitions: what can it mean for children in the early years? Pp. 33–44. In:

Dunlop, A.-W. and Fabian, H. (Eds) Informing Transitions in the Early Years. Research, Policy and

Practice. Maidenhead: The Open University Press.

Jolly, R.

(2007) Early childhood development: The global challenge. The Lancet 369: 8–9.

Kagan, S.L. and Neuman, M.J. (1998) Lessons from three decades of transition research. The Elementary School

Journal

98(4): 365–379.

Katz, C. (2004) Growing Up Global. Economic Restructuring and Children’s Everyday Lives. Minneapolis and

London: University of Minnesota Press.

Kohlberg, L.

(1981) Essays on Moral Development. Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York:

Harper and Row.

Lam, M.S. and Pollard, A.

(2006) A conceptual framework for understanding children as agents in the transition

from home to kindergarten. Early Years

26(2): 123–141.

Lansdown, G. (2005) The evolving capacities of children. Implications for the exercise of rights. Florence:

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Leach, F., Fiscian, V., Kadzamira, E., Lemani, E. and Machakanja, P.

(2003) An Investigative Study of the Abuse of

Girls in African Schools. Department for International Development: Educational Papers. Available

online at: www.dﬁd.gov.uk/pubs/ﬁles/investudyafricaedpaper

54.pdf (accessed 14/01/2008).

Lenzer, G.

(2002) Children’s studies and the human rights of children: Towards a uniﬁed approach, pp. 207–227.

In: Alaimo, K. and Klug, B. (Eds) Children as Equals: Exploring the Rights of the Child. Lanham MD:

University Press of America.

LeVine, R.A., S. Dixon, S. LeVine, A. Richman, P.H. Leiderman, C.H. Keefer and Brazelton, T.B.

(1994) Child

Care and Culture – Lessons from Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lourenco, O. and A. Machado

(1996) In defense of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological

Review

103(1): 143–164.

Lloyd, C.B. (Ed) (2005) Growing up Global: The Changing Transitions to Adulthood in Developing Countries.

Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.

Lloyd, C.B. and Blanc, A.K.

(1996) Children’s schooling in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of fathers, mothers, and

others. Population and Development Review

22(2): 265–298.

Luthar, S. (Ed) (2003) Resilience and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacNaughton, G.

(2000) Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education., London: Allen & Unwin.

MacNaughton, G., Hughes, P. and Smith, K.

(2007) Young children’s rights and public policy: Practices and

possibilities for citizenship in the early years. Children & Society

21(6): 458–469.

Makin, L. (2006) Literacy 8–12 months: What are babies learning? Early Years 26(3): 267–277.

Bibliography

Mann, G. (2004) Separated children. Care and support in context, pp. 3–22. In: Boyden, J. and de Berry, J. (Eds)

Children and Youth on the Front Line. Ethnography, Armed Conﬂict and Displacement. Oxford: Berghahn.

Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R.D., and Lamb, M.E.

(2000) Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and Beyond.

Journal of Marriage and Family

62(4): 1173-1191.

Mayall, B. (Ed) (1994) Children’s Childhoods Observed and Experienced. London, Falmer Press.

Mayer, E.

(2007) Tomasito’s Mother Comes to School. La mamá de Tomasito visita la escuela. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Family Research Project.

McNaughton, S.

(2001) Co-constructing expertise: The development of parents’ and teachers’ ideas about literacy

practices and the transition to school. Journal of Early Childhood Education

1(1): 40–58.

Mercer, N. and Littleton, K. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking. London: Routledge.

Mooney, C.G.

(2000) Theories of Childhood. An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget and Vygotsky.

St Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Morrow, V.

(2003) Moving out of childhood. In: Maybin, J. and Woodhead, M. (Eds). Childhoods in Context.

Chichester: Wiley: The Open University Press.

Moss, P. (2007) Bringing politics in the nursery. Early childhood education as a democratic practice. Working

Papers in Early Childhood Development, No

43, The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Okon, W. and Wilgocka-Okon, B.

(1973) The School Readiness Project. Paris: UNESCO.

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K. and Taylor, C. (2005) Trends in construction of transition to school in three Western

regions

1990–2004. International Journal of Early Years Education 13(1): 55–69.

Piaget, J. (1978) The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pratt, S. and George, R.

(2005) Transferring friendships: Girls’ and boys’ friendships in the transition from

primary to secondary school. Children & Society

19: 16–26.

Punch, S. (2003) “You’d better talk to my son because he knows more than me”: Primary education and youth

transitions in rural Bolivia. Paper presented at an inter-disciplinary research symposium Uncertain

Transitions: Youth in a Comparative Perspective, held at the University of Edinburgh,

27 June 2003.

Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G., and Winterberger, H. (Eds) (1994) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice

and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury Press.

Ridgely Bales, S.

(2005) When I Was a Child. Children’s Interpretations of First Communion. Chapel Hill, NC:

University of North Carolina Press.

Rimm-Kaufman S.E. and Pianta, R.C.

(2000) An ecological perspective on the transition to kindergarten: A

theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

21(5):

491–511.

Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Rogoff, B.

(2003) The Cultural Nature of Child Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., and Mosier, C..

(1998) Toddlers’ guided participation with their caregivers in

cultural activity, pp.

225–249. In: Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D. and Littleton, K. (Eds) Cultural Worlds of

Early Childhood. London and New York in association with The Open University: Routledge.

Rogoff, B., Moore, L, Najaﬁ, B, Dexter, A, Correa-Chavez, M, and Solis, J. (2005) Children’s development of

cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. To appear in Grusec, J.

and Hastings, P. (Eds) Handbook of Socialization. New York: Guilford.

Rousseau, J.-J.

(1979) Emile or On Education. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Rutter, M. and the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team.

(1998) Developmental catch-up, and deﬁcit.

Following adoption after severe global early privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

39(4):

465–476.

Ryder, N.B. (1965) The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review 30(6):

843–861.

Save the Children US (2007) La transición exitosa al primer grado – Un factor clave para el desarollo infantil tem

prano – Resumen Ejecutivo. Managua: Save the Children

US.

Schaffer, H.R.

(1996). Social development. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S., and Frelow, V.

(2006) Conceptualization of readiness and the content of early learning

standards: The intersection of policy and research? Early Childhood Research Quarterly

21(2): 153–173.

Smart, C. and B. Neale (1999) Family Fragments? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Spiro, M.E.

(1982) Buddhism and Society. A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Stephens, S.

(Ed) (1995) Children and the Politics of Culture. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Super, C.M. and Harkness, S.

(1986) The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child and

culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development

9: 545–569.

TWA

= Tai Wisdom Association (2007a) Library for Young Children. An ECD experience from Thailand. Khon

kaen: Tai Wisdom Association.

TWA = Tai Wisdom Association (2007b) Story Book Project for Rural Children. An Experience of Changes in Rural

Thailand. Khon kaen: Tai Wisdom Association.

Tudge, J.R.H., Odero D.A., Hogan D.M., and Etz, K.E.

(2003) Relations between the everyday activities of

preschoolers and their teachers’ perceptions of their competence in the ﬁrst years of school. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly

18: 42–64.

Tudge J. and Hogan, D. (2005) An ecological approach to observations of children’s everyday lives, pp. 102–122.

In: Greene, S. and Hogan, D. (Eds) Researching Children’s Experience. Approaches and Methods.

London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage.

Turner, B.S.

(1993) Outline of a Theory of Human Rights. Sociology 27(3): 489–512.

Turner, B.S. (2003) Biology, vulnerability and politics, pp. 271–282. In: Williams, S. J., Birke, L. and Bendelow, G.

(Eds) Debating Biology: Sociological Reﬂections on Health, Medicine, and Society. London and New

York: Routledge.

Turner, V.

([1969]1995) The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

UNCRC (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child) (2006) A Guide to General Comment 7:

‘Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood’ The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Bibliography

UNESCO (2006) Strong foundations. Early childhood care and education. Education for all Global Monitoring

Report

2007. Paris: UNESCO.

Uprichard, E.

(2008) ‘Children as ‘Being and Becomings’: Children, Childhood and Temporality’ Children &

Society

22: 4.

Van Gennep, A. (1960) The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L.S.

(1978) Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Walker, S.P. et al.

(2007) Child development: risk factors for adverse outcomes in developing countries.

The Lancet

369: 145–157.

Watson-Gegeo, K.A, and Gegeo, D.W. (1992). Schooling, Knowledge, and Power: Social Transformation in the

Solomon Islands. Anthropology and Education Quarterly

23 (1): 10–29.

Wolff, P.H. and Fesseha, G. (1999) The orphans of Eritrea: A ﬁve-year follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry

40(8): 1231–1237.

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., and Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving.’, Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry

17(2): 89–100.

Woodhead, M. (1996) In Search of the Rainbow: Pathways to Quality in Large Scale Programmes for Young

Disadvantaged Children. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Woodhead, M

(1998) ‘Quality’ in early childhood programmes – A contextually appropriate approach.’

International Journal of Early Years Education,

6(1): 5–17.

Woodhead, M. (1999) Reconstructing developmental psychology – Some ﬁrst steps. Children & Society 13: 3–19.

Woodhead, M. (1999b) Is there a Place for Work in Child Development? Implications of child development theory

and research for interpretation of the

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, with particular reference

to Article

32, on children, work and exploitation. Stockholm: Rädda Barnen.

Woodhead, M. and Montgomery, H.

(2003) Understanding Childhood. An Interdisciplinary Approach. London:

Wiley/Open University.

Woodhead, M.

(2005) Early childhood development: A question of rights? International Journal of Early Childhood

37: 79–98.

Woodhead, M. (2006) Changing perspectives on early childhood: Theory, research and policy. Background paper

prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007. Paris:

UNESCO.

Woodhead, M. (in press) Child development and the development of childhood. In: Qvortrup, J. et al. (Eds)

Handbook of Childhood Studies. London: Palgrave.

Woodhead, M. and Moss, P.

(2007) Early Childhood and Primary Education. Transitions in the Lives of Young

Children (Early Childhood in Focus 2). Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Woodhead, M. and Faulkner, D.

(2008) Subjects, objects or participants? Dilemmas of psychological research

with children. In: James, A. and Christensen, P. (Eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices.

London: Taylor & Francis (

Edition)

Woods, P.

(1990) The Happiest Days? How pupils cope with schools. London: Routledge.

Woods, P. and Pollard, A. (1988) Sociology and Teaching. A New Challenge for the Sociology of Education. London:

Croom Helm.

Yeboah, D. A.

(2002) Enhancing transition from early childhood phase to primary education: Evidence from the

research literature. Early Years

22(1): 51–68.

Yaqub, S. (2002) “Poor children grow into poor adults”: Harmful mechanisms or over-deterministic theory?

Journal of International Development

14: 1081–1093.

Yoshikawa, H. and Hsueh, J.A. (2001) Child development and public policy: Towards a dynamic system perspective.

Child Development

72(6): 1887–1903.

Yvosi, R.D. and Keller, H. (2007) The architecture of cosleeping among wage-earning and subsistence farming

Cameroonian Nso families. Ethos

25(1): 65–84.

Zelizer, V.A. (1985) Pricing the priceless child. The changing social value of children. New York: Basic Books.

Bernard van Leer Foundation

P.O. Box 82334

2508 EH The Hague

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (0)70 331 2200

Fax: +31 (0)70 350 2373

Email: [email protected]

www.bernardvanleer.org

About the Bernard van Leer Foundation

The Bernard van Leer Foundation funds and shares

knowledge about work in early childhood

development. The foundation was established in

1949 and is based in the Netherlands. Our income

is derived from the bequest of Bernard van Leer, a

Dutch industrialist and philanthropist, who lived from

1883 to 1958.

Our mission is to improve opportunities for children

up to age

8 who are growing up in socially and

economically difﬁcult circumstances. We see this both

as a valuable end in itself and as a long-term means

to promoting more cohesive, considerate and creative

societies with equality of opportunity and rights for all.

We work primarily by supporting programmes

implemented by partners in the ﬁeld. These include

public, private and community-based organisations.

Our strategy of working through partnerships is

intended to build local capacity, promote innovation

and ﬂexibility, and help to ensure that the work we

fund is culturally and contextually appropriate.

We currently support about

140 major projects.

We focus our grantmaking on

21 countries in

which we have built up experience over the years.

These include both developing and industrialised

countries and represent a geographical range that

encompasses Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas.

We work in three issue areas:

Through “Strengthening the Care Environment”

we aim to build the capacity of vulnerable

parents, families and communities to care for

their children.

Through “Successful Transitions: The Continuum

from Home to School” we aim to help young

children make the transition from their home

environment to daycare, preschool and school.

Through “Social Inclusion and Respect for

Diversity” we aim to promote equal opportunities

and skills that will help children to live in diverse

societies.

Also central to our work is the ongoing effort to

document and analyse the projects we support,

with the twin aims of learning lessons for our future

grantmaking activities and generating knowledge we

can share. Through our evidence-based advocacy and

publications, we aim to inform and inﬂuence policy

and practice both in the countries where we operate

and beyond.

Information on the series

Working Papers in Early Childhood Development is a

‘work in progress’ series that presents relevant ﬁndings

and reﬂection on issues relating to early childhood

care and development. The series acts primarily as a

forum for the exchange of ideas, often arising out

of ﬁeld work, evaluations and training experiences.

As ‘think pieces’ we hope these papers will evoke

responses and lead to further information sharing

from among the readership.

The ﬁndings, interpretations, conclusions and

opinions expressed in this series are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reﬂect the views or

policies of the Bernard van Leer Foundation.

9 789061 951032

ISBN 978-90-6195-103-2