Preschool department heads’ perspectives on quality preparation time

Abstract

This study sheds light on how department heads in Icelandic preschools conceptualise and experience preparation time, in order to deepen our understanding of how such time can support professional development and improve the quality of early childhood education. Drawing on a qualitative research design and grounded in theoretical perspectives on professional practice and inclusion, the study provides insights into how preparation time functions as a key component of pedagogical quality and leadership in preschools.
The research is guided by the following main question: What characterises good preparation time according to preschool department heads? The findings are based on documentation and discussion meetings with department heads working in nine preschools. The data were analysed using thematic analysis and interpreted in light of existing literature on professional development, inclusive pedagogy and the concept of the “ideal type” as introduced by Max Weber. This analytical framework allows for developing a theoretically grounded understanding of preparation time as a professional space with the potential to foster reflective practice, collaboration and strategic planning. The results highlight several core characteristics of high-quality preparation time. Firstly, the department heads described such time as regular, continuous and predictable. It must be protected from interruptions and clearly defined in the daily or weekly schedule. The importance of consistency was emphasised in terms of promoting deep engagement with pedagogical planning and enabling teachers to reflect on their practice. At the same time, flexibility in terms of location and mode of work – whether individually, collaboratively, on-site, at home or during courses – was valued as a means to accommodate diverse professional needs.
Secondly, preparation time was described as a space for both individual and collective professional learning. Department heads stressed the value of engaging in professional dialogue with colleagues, other educators and specialists. These conversations were seen as crucial for aligning daily practice with broader educational goals, implementing curriculum reforms and ensuring the quality and coherence of preschool programmes.
However, the study also revealed that such collaboration often lacked formal structures and relied heavily on individual initiative. This ad-hoc approach can hinder the strategic use of preparation time and limit its impact on long-term development goals.

Another key finding concerns the role of preparation time in fostering inclusive practices. While department heads acknowledged the importance of adapting learning environments to children’s diverse needs, the study found that systematic collaboration with parents and children during planning and evaluation was generally limited. Parents were seen as valuable partners with unique insights into their children’s interests and developmental needs, yet opportunities for involving them in the planning of the educational environment were rarely structured. Similarly, children’s voices were largely absent from discussions about curriculum and environment design. This lack of participation poses challenges to realising the principles of democratic education and inclusion that are emphasised in national and international policy.
The research also points to a structural tension between preparation time and the teachers’ presence with children. While planning, documentation and organisation are essential aspects of professional practice, time spent away from children can reduce opportunities to observe, support and co-participate in play and learning. This finding aligns with concerns in existing literature about how reduced teacher presence may impact child engagement, spontaneous learning and inclusion. The study underscores the importance of finding a balance between preparation and direct interaction, for instance by integrating reflective and planning tasks into the flow of daily life at preschool.
Based on the findings, the article offers a synthesised definition of good preparation time in early childhood education. It is described as a structured yet flexible period that supports teachers’ reflective practice, professional dialogue, collaboration and inclusive educational planning. It balances individual thinking time with collective discussion and involves systematic collaboration with both parents and children. Preparation time should not be seen merely as a logistical or technical necessity but as a professional space that enables thoughtful, inclusive and intentional teaching.

The article concludes with practical recommendations for improving the organisation and use of preparation time in preschools. These include ensuring uninterrupted and clearly scheduled time for preparation, supporting interdisciplinary collaboration, providing adequate facilities and establishing regular consultation structures that actively involve parents and children. Furthermore, the study advocates for embedding preparation time within the everyday rhythm of preschool life so that planning and documentation occur in close relation to children’s play and experience. In doing so, preparation time becomes a bridge between reflective professionalism and the democratic values of participation and inclusion. In sum, the study provides new insights into how preparation time can be conceptualised and structured to support high-quality, inclusive and democratic early childhood education. It contributes to international discussions on the professionalisation of early childhood education and offers practical guidance for policymakers, leaders and practitioners committed to strengthening the role of pedagogical leadership in preschools.