The study, led by Mehmet Oğuz Göle of Afyon Kocatepe University together with Tacettin Tezcan of Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University and Mustafa Nişan of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, a two-phase approach in which quantitative data are first collected across a relatively large sample and then followed by qualitative interviews designed to explain and deepen the statistical patterns. In the first phase, the researchers gathered survey data from 163 parents whose children were approaching or undergoing the transition to primary school. The instrument captured parents’ concerns across multiple dimensions of the transition, including worries about teachers, peer relationships, other families, and academic expectations. In the second phase, the team conducted semi-structured interviews with a subset of eight parents, allowing them to probe beneath the survey responses and understand the reasoning, experiences, and information-seeking behaviors that shaped parental attitudes.

The quantitative results pointed to several distinct clusters of anxiety. Parents reported significant concern about the profiles of the teachers their children would encounter — their pedagogical style, their strictness, and their capacity to handle young children gently during a vulnerable period. Peer bullying emerged as another major worry, with parents fearing that their children would be exposed to aggression or exclusion in larger, less closely supervised primary school settings. A third, perhaps less expected, source of stress concerned the socio-cultural backgrounds of other parents: families worried about the social environment their children would enter and about whether they would be able to connect with other families in the new school community. Finally, parents expressed concern about academic homework loads, fearing that the demands of first grade would place immediate pressure on children who had been accustomed to the play-based, less formally structured routines of preschool education.

The qualitative interviews illuminated why these anxieties persisted and, in many cases, intensified. Parents described a persistent and largely unaided search for information about the school their child would attend, the teacher their child would be assigned, and the expectations that would be placed on their family. In the absence of organized channels of communication between preschools and primary schools, parents turned to informal sources — other parents, neighbors, rumors, and social media — to fill the gaps. This reliance on unverified information created a feedback loop in which uncertainty bred anxiety, and anxiety drove further information-seeking, much of it inconclusive. Parents reported feeling that they were preparing their children for a transition they themselves did not fully understand, and that the burden of making the transition succeed had been quietly transferred from institutions to families.

Perhaps the study’s most consequential finding concerns what institutions did not do. The researchers found that preschool teachers and administrators rarely conducted formal transition activities. Parent orientation meetings were uncommon, joint visits to primary schools were infrequent, and structured readiness testing or preparatory programs were largely absent from practice. This absence is notable because decades of international research — much of it synthesized in frameworks such as the ecological model of development associated with Urie Bronfenbrenner, which underpins contemporary transition theory — has established that children’s adjustment to school is strongest when the adults and institutions around them coordinate deliberately. Ecological transition models treat the move to school not as a single event on a child’s first day but as a process unfolding across time and across the interacting systems of family, preschool, primary school, and community. When those systems fail to communicate, the child’s supporting network fragments precisely at the moment when continuity matters most.

The authors argue that the anxiety observed in their sample is therefore best understood not as a pathology of individual parents but as a signal of structural and communicative deficiency. This distinction matters for how the problem is addressed. If parental stress were purely individual, the appropriate response might be counseling or reassurance. But because the study locates the roots of the stress in the absence of institutional support, the remedy it implies is organizational: schools and preschools need mandated, funded, and structured transition programs. Such programs, well documented in the international literature, can include reciprocal visits by preschool and primary school teachers, parent information sessions held before enrollment, shared records that travel with the child from one setting to the next, and opportunities for children to visit their future classrooms and meet their future teachers in advance. Evaluations of transition interventions in countries including Australia, Germany, Ireland, and the United States have shown that these practices improve children’s school adjustment, strengthen family-school relationships, and reduce the uncertainty that fuels parental worry.

The study’s context is also significant. Conducted in Türkiye, the research speaks to a policy environment in which the Ministry of National Education regulates preschool and primary education through detailed regulations governing institutional operations, yet the practical implementation of transition activities appears to remain largely discretionary and, in many settings, minimal. The authors emphasize that this gap is unlikely to be unique to one national system. International comparative research, including OECD analyses of early childhood education and care, has repeatedly found that transitions between early childhood settings and compulsory schooling are among the weakest links in otherwise well-developed education systems, with responsibility for the handover often falling between institutional silos. The Turkish findings thus contribute a detailed, mixed-methods portrait of what that institutional weakness looks like from the parents’ side of the divide.

The researchers’ conclusions point toward a policy prescription that is ambitious in scope: the integration of ecological and dynamic transition models into national educational policy. In practical terms, this would mean moving beyond treating school entry as an administrative enrollment event and instead establishing it as a managed, multi-month process with defined responsibilities for preschools, primary schools, and local education authorities. The authors argue that such an approach would not only reduce parental anxiety — itself associated with poorer parental involvement and, indirectly, with children’s adjustment outcomes in prior research — but would also create the communication infrastructure through which teachers in the two sectors can share information about children’s development, learning needs, and family circumstances. Without that infrastructure, each child’s transition depends on the initiative of individual teachers, and the families least equipped to advocate for themselves are the most likely to be left in the dark.

For parents reading the findings, the study offers both validation and a caution. The validation is that worry about a child’s entry into primary school is widespread, understandable, and rooted in real informational deficits rather than in parental oversensitivity. The caution is that unmanaged anxiety can shape behavior in ways that may not serve children well — for example, by transmitting stress to the child, by encouraging an overly academic emphasis at home before school has even begun, or by prompting school choices based on rumor rather than reliable information. Prior research on parental involvement during transitions has shown that when parents’ expectations are matched by accurate experience, their engagement with schools is more constructive and sustained. The mechanism that makes that match possible is, once again, institutional communication.

The study’s mixed-methods architecture strengthens these conclusions in a way that a single-method design could not. The survey of 163 parents established the breadth and relative weighting of the concerns — confirming that teacher profiles, bullying, other families, and homework were not isolated complaints but recurring themes across the sample. The eight in-depth interviews then supplied the explanatory layer, revealing the process of uncertain, institutionally unsupported information-seeking that connected those themes. This sequential logic — quantitative breadth first, qualitative depth second — is a hallmark of the explanatory design tradition and is particularly well suited to studying anxiety, an experience whose surface manifestations are easy to measure but whose causes require narrative reconstruction.

The authors are candid that their findings carry a call to action rather than a complete map of solutions. Future research, they suggest, should examine the perspectives of teachers and administrators with the same rigor applied here to parents, and should evaluate the effects of specific transition interventions on both parental anxiety and children’s outcomes. But the central message of the study is already clear. When preschools and primary schools fail to build bridges between themselves, families do not stop worrying — they simply worry alone, armed with rumor instead of information. The transition to primary school, the researchers conclude, is a shared responsibility, and treating it as such through deliberate policy and structured communication is the most reliable way to replace uncertainty with confidence for children and parents alike.