Let’s pause and reflect on the common phrase “walking feet inside”. It’s a well-worn expression in many early childhood settings, but when we take a closer look, we might notice something worth rethinking. Children don’t just walk, they run, tiptoe, jump, and sometimes dangle their feet when they rest. Their movement is expressive, exploratory, and developmentally essential. Yet during transitions, we often default to instructions like “use walking feet”, “stay in the line”, or “walk two-by-two”, aiming for order and safety. While these intentions are valid, there’s an opportunity here to move from habit to intentionality.
Through the lens of the Phoenix Cups® Framework (Phoenix & Phoenix, 2020), we can reflect on how structured transitions, while often well-intentioned, may unintentionally leave children’s Cups (those essential needs for Safety, Freedom, Mastery, Fun, and Connection) a little emptier. When these needs aren’t supported, opportunities for joy, autonomy, and relational trust can quietly slip past.
Are we teaching life skills… or just rehearsing control?
Ridgid transitions are often framed as opportunities to teach ‘life skills’. But it’s worth asking, what skills are we truly fostering? As adults, we rarely line up in pairs or move silently on cue. These routines may offer structure, but do they nurture patience and cooperation, or are they more about managing order?
Real self-regulation doesn’t emerge from strict formations. It emerges from choice, reflection, co-regulation, and trust (Ryan & Deci, 2000). And that’s where the Cups come in.
Freedom Cup: Autonomy is not chaos
The Freedom Cup fills when children move their bodies in ways that feel natural, expressive, and free. When every step is closely monitored that sense of bodily autonomy can be impacted. A child told to ‘walk properly’ may comply, but are these messages subtly telling children their way cannot be trusted? If we repeatedly override a child’s natural rhythm, are we prioritising compliance over empathetic and experiential learning? How can children learn to trust themselves when they’ve not been given opportunity do so.
The National Quality Standard is a great source of guidance here. QA 1.1.3 ‘program learning opportunities’ state ‘All aspects of the program, including routines, are organised in ways that maximise opportunities for each child’s learning.’ This gives us the confidence to individualise these transitions.
Offering choices like “Would you like to hop, tiptoe, or walk to the mat today?” seems small, but it communicates something profound: your way of moving through the world matters.
Alternatively, taking the time to slow down and support children to balance along that low brick wall next to the pathway tailors a Cup-filling transition with challenge and connection.
Mastery Cup: Capability grows through choice
Children feel competent when they solve problems, make decisions, and succeed independently.
When we dictate how, when, and where to walk, we remove those micro-opportunities for decision-making and leadership. By inviting choice and shared responsibility - even in simple transitions like walking - we create moments that foster confidence, autonomy, and emerging leadership
Instead of saying, “Follow the leader, hold hands,” what if we said, “You’re the line leader today, can you show us a safe and fun way to walk?” This small shift turns transitions away from crowd control into a space where children practice initiative, responsibility, and self-regulation.
Fun Cup: Because transitions can be joyful too
Movement is inherently joyful for children and transitions can be a perfect way to lean into this fun. Why not hop like a kangaroo, slither like a snake, or tiptoe like a sneaky spy? When we bring play into transitions, we don’t lose control, we gain engagement. And when children are engaged, they are far more likely to participate meaningfully and safely.
Connection Cup: Transitions as moments of shared humanity
Interestingly many educators reflect on transition times as a time where children’s behaviours that challenge them, are most apparent. So let's lean into this insight for a moment.
Transitions often shift our interactions with children into negative spaces through increased corrective comments such as “Shh.” “Stop touching.” “Walking feet.” “Stay in line.” When this happens, the ‘magic’ ratio of 5 positive to 1 negative statements falls out of balance (Sabey et al, 2019) and can sever relational threads right when children need support the most.
The great news is, we can shift this ratio back into the positive through our intentional actions. Imagine if transitions were filled with eye contact, inside jokes, quick hugs, gentle hands on shoulders, and co-regulated breaths. These are the moments that build relational safety, the real kind of safety that lives in the nervous system, not just the floor plan.
Safety Cup: Felt safety is not the same as visible order
We often use ‘safety’ to justify structured transitions – and safety matters. But felt safety is relational, not just about order (Barrett, 2020). A straight line might look safe to adults, but for a hurried or scolded child, it may feel anything but.
What if, instead, we helped children understand why safety matters and included them in the solution? “What do we need to remember so everyone gets to the playground safely?” This is the difference between enforcing safety and co-creating it.
Our own Cups matter, too
Sometimes, the desire for structured transitions comes from our own need for mastery. And that’s okay. But if our need for control empties children’s Cups in the process, we need to reflect: Is that a trade-off we’re willing to make?
The Guidance Approach reminds us that power with is more powerful than power over (Porter, 2016; Gartrell, 2004). We can lead calmly, supportively, and relationally without turning transitions into obedience drills.
Holding high expectations not tight reins
Time for a hard reflection. If safety lines and two-buy-twos are part of your daily practice, do you truly believe children are capable? Do we believe children are capable of walking like responsible humans from point A to point B? And how can they ever develop these skills if not given the chance to develop them – because they are being micromanaged and controlled?
High expectations aren't about compliance. They’re about trust, scaffolding, and shared responsibility. We can uphold strong expectations for safety, respect, and responsibility without resorting to control-based routines.
Stop and reflect: When was the last time you engaged children as consultants in decision-making around expectations? Have you asked them, “What do you think helps everyone feel safe when we’re walking together as a group?” then build their ideas into your daily practice.
Inviting children into this dialogue not only fills their Mastery and Connection Cups, it communicates that their perspectives matter. That’s how we move from managing behaviour to supporting development.
What Could Cup-Filling Transitions Look Like?
- A choice board for movement styles: slither, stomp, tiptoe
- Transition buddies who hold hands and chat
- Music cues that signal the vibe - slow for calm, upbeat for fun
- ‘Connection touchpoints’ with educators: a high five, a whispered joke, a co-regulated breath
- Children taking turns as transition leaders or safety scouts
These are not just cute add-ons, they are Cup-filling strategies grounded in rights-based, relationship-focused practice. They reflect the NQF’s view of children as capable, competent learners with agency (ACECQA, 2025) and align with the UNCRC’s emphasis on participation and respect.
So next time you line up your group…
Ask: Whose Cups are we filling here? And could we do it differently?
Let’s walk, skip, hop or even tiptoe toward a better way.
References
ACECQA. (2025). Guide to the National Quality Framework. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority.
Barrett, L. F. (2020). Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gartrell, D. (2004). The Power of Guidance: Teaching Social-Emotional Skills in Early Childhood Classrooms. Delmar.
Phoenix, S., & Phoenix, C. (2020). The Phoenix Cups: A Cup Filling Story. Phoenix Support Publishing.
Porter, L. (2016). Young Children’s Behaviour: Guidance Approaches for Early Childhood Educators (4th ed.). Elsevier.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Sabey, C. V., Charlton, C., & Charlton, S. R. (2019). The “Magic” Positive-to-Negative Interaction Ratio: Benefits, Applications, Cautions, and Recommendations. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27(3), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426618763106
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Author: Briana Thorne