Conference Agenda

The topic of the transition from preschool to primary school has gained increasing attention in recent years and has become more central in the European educational landscape. This growing attention culminated in the report Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education (OECD, 2017). The report analyses policies and practices adopted in OECD countries to design, manage, and monitor transitions, identifying challenges and strategies to ensure professional and pedagogical continuity.

The literature highlights that transitions are not simply a “change of setting” or the event of moving from one school level to another. Rather, transitions are complex processes that involve transformations in educational practices, routines, relationships, and competences (Fabian & Dunlop, 2007). One of the major changes in the transition from preschool to primary school concerns the shift in pedagogical culture. Preschool settings are usually more play-based and child-centred, whereas primary schools tend to be more structured and performance-oriented (Walsh et al., 2008). The transition from play-based learning to a more formal approach can lead to difficulties for children in the first year of primary school and may be considered a potential risk factor. Recent reports also highlight the importance of stronger alignment between preschool and primary school curricula, as well as the integration of play-based and experiential activities, especially in the first years of formal schooling (OECD, 2017).

From this perspective, transitions can be understood as crossings between different educational environments, in which changes in spatial organisation and adult–child relationships may disrupt established ways of learning and interacting. The loss or reduction of outdoor and play-based experiences in the first years of primary school has been identified as one of the most visible manifestations of this discontinuity (Oberle et al., 2021). Several studies show that outdoor learning is an integral component of early childhood education contexts but tends to become marginal or reconfigured as non-curricular recreation time in primary school, generating educational discontinuity at the time of transition (Frances et al., 2024).

In parallel, a growing body of research documents the educational value of outdoor education and nature-based pedagogies. Experiences in natural environments have a positive impact on children’s health and well-being, support their personal and social development, and positively influence learning processes (Kiviranta, 2024). Studies suggest that outdoor activities should be integrated into curricula, as they promote more positive attitudes towards school, a stronger sense of responsibility, and the development of transversal skills (Meighan & Rubenstein, 2018). Outdoor education can therefore be conceptualised as a structured pedagogical approach with specific characteristics, yet one that can be integrated into more traditional school contexts (Knight, 2013).

Despite the growing body of research on outdoor education and the well-established literature on transitions, these two fields have largely developed in parallel. Research evidence on the role of outdoor education in supporting adaptation to formal schooling and continuity between learning environments remains fragmented across different research traditions. As a result, outdoor education is rarely examined explicitly as a practice supporting transition. This lack of systematic integration calls for a focused examination of how existing studies conceptualise and document the role of outdoor learning in school transitions.

Many European countries' education policies attempt to strengthen the egalitarian and inclusive structures of education (Hernández-Torrano et al., 2022). This is also the objective of the Finnish curriculum reform concerning support structures for learning in basic education, which we examine in this research.

The Finnish basic education system is governed by legislation and a detailed national core curriculum that provides the basis for adaptations to local curricula (Finnish Basic Education Core Curricula, 2014). When implemented effectively, the local curriculum functions as a concrete, practical handbook that guides daily teaching, pedagogical decision-making, and school culture. In addition to the local curricula, the teaching practices are also defined in school-specific academic year plans.

In spring and summer 2025, all Finnish municipalities were required to revise their local curricula due to legislative changes in the Basic Education Act and the subsequent update of the National Core Curriculum. The three-tiered support model was replaced with a new structure that distinguishes between group-specific support and pupil-specific support measures. This shift moves attention away from categorized support levels toward the organization of pedagogical arrangements within the mainstream learning environment.

In addition to structural changes, the reform emphasizes strengthening learning prerequisites through pedagogical arrangements, developing school culture toward more inclusive practice, and enhancing pupils’ participation in their own learning processes. This is partly a reaction to the vagueness of the normative guidance of basic education in Finland: despite a general commitment to the ideal of inclusion, inclusive arrangements vary extensively depending on the interpretation of inclusion made by municipality officials, principals, and teachers (Honkasilta et al. 2024; Tervasmäki 2022). Thus, the reform intentions align with international expectations placed on inclusive schooling, which highlight early support, universal pedagogical design, and collaborative teaching models.

However, the reform has generated concerns within the Finnish educational field. Scholars and practitioners (e.g., Alajoki & Mäkinen, 2025) have voiced apprehension that the new support model might unintentionally redirect resources and attention away from inclusive mainstream arrangements toward increased use of full-time special class placements. Such a shift could signal a re-emergence of the dual system of general and special education that characterized Finnish schooling, particularly during the 1980s–2000s (Kivirauma et al. 2006), but of which still occurred locally at some municipalities and schools in 2010-2020s due to unclear guidance in the curriculum (Lempinen 2018; Tervasmäki 2022). These concerns point to a potential discrepancy between the reform’s stated goals and the risk of unintended consequences during implementation.

For the support model to function as intended, a notable transformation in school culture is required. Classroom-level support measures, defined in legislation as general remedial instruction provided by teachers, language support instruction, and special education delivered within mainstream teaching, must genuinely serve as the primary means of supporting pupils’ learning. This implies that general and special education teachers need to collaborate effectively, ensure flexible learning arrangements, and promote preventive support within the everyday routines of mainstream classrooms.

This study examines how the revised legislation and national curriculum updates are interpreted, framed, and translated into municipal-level local curricula and school-specific academic year plans. The research questions are: 1) How does the reform appear in local curriculum texts? 2) How is the practical implementation of the support model described in schools' academic year plans? By analyzing the ways municipalities articulate classroom-level support, define pedagogical responsibilities, and describe the practices expected from teachers, the research explores how local curriculum texts may either facilitate or constrain the development of inclusive education.

The study highlights differences between policy and practice in the reform of special education and inclusive education, which may be useful in the development of other European school systems.

Internationally, policy reforms affect Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and reshape preschool teachers´ work leading to increased professionalization (Armstrong, 2024; Wingrave & McMahon, 2016). Research shows that such reforms often expand and intensify teachers´ responsibilities. Kangas and Harju-Luukkainen (2021) demonstrated that policy reforms in Finland have affected teachers´ work giving them multiple different roles and thus requiring them to do “more of everything” (p.71). In Sweden, policy reforms have challenged the holistic approach of an integration of care and education, to an increased focus on teaching and professionalisation (Jönsson et al, 2012; Wahlgren & Andersson, 2024). Since preschool became the first step in the Swedish education system in 1996 and was regulated by the Education Act (SFS 2010:800), a shift towards more education than care emerged, affecting preschool teachers work and profession (Alexiadou et al., 2024; Lundström, 2015; Still et al., 2021). With the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) in 2011, preschool was fully incorporated in the Swedish school system and resulted in new concepts, enfolding a teaching assignment for preschool teachers, where only teachers with a teaching certificate are authorised to teach in preschool. The reform was debated and the term teaching, traditionally not used to define the work of preschool teachers, raised resistance due to its strong connotation to direct instruction and school education (Vallberg Roth, 2020).

The Swedish national curriculum for preschool education has been revised five times since introduced 1998 with both minor and major revisions leading up the latest version in 2025 (Ministry of Education and Research). This study concerns policy reforms and the shift towards education and teaching in the Swedish ECEC thus gain knowledge about how policy change has contributed to reconstruct preschool teachers´ teaching assignment.

Aim and research questions

The aim of the study is to examine how Swedish national ECEC policy documents from 1987 – 2025 have been reformed in relation to the teaching assignment. The study addresses the following questions:

• How has the concept of teaching been conceptualized in Swedish national ECEC policy documents?

• What implications do these conceptualizations have on the preschool teacher profession?

Theoretical framework

In education systems, teaching is conceptualized and reconstructed in various contexts. The study takes a theoretical point of departure in the social constructionist assumption that people's perceptions of the world are constructed between people in dialogue and in relation to their specific social, historical and cultural context. Furthermore, it is assumed that social constructions and actions go together, which means that people act based on their understandings of the world (Burr, 2015; Gergen, 1985; Linell, 2009).

According to Linell (2009) social construction takes place in and through language in different contexts. Social constructions are thus in continuous reconstruction in relation to the social, historical and cultural context. This study directs its attention to the policy context of preschools. The introduction of the concept of teaching in the Swedish national ECEC policy documents is a reform that entailed recontextualization. Recontextualization means that when something, here the concept of teaching, changes context it also changes meaning. Recontextualization thus includes a reconstruction of the concept of teaching in relation to preschools’ social, historical, and cultural context (Linell, 1998, 2009). Recontextualization and reconstruction of the concept of teaching implies a change of practice as changed conceptualizations leads to new interpretations and actions. In order to study this process, contextual social constructionism (Linell, 2009) is used to examine Swedish national ECEC policy documents, thus develop deeper understandings of preschool teachers´ teaching assignments.