There is a danger that transition becomes a concept that aids the official reality of a school or education system to mask the unofficial system difficulties. This article distinguishes four very different understandings of transitions that underpin research in education on this issue. Going beyond a typical systems framework for understanding transitions, frequently, it is not the change features associated with transition that are the key issue. Rather it is the stability issues, the residual background environmental conditions that require change. Fundamental problems become glossed over through attributing problematic features to transition rather than background environmental stasis. Four different meanings of transition include: System mismatch where at least one system needs reform--the transition bridge is not the problem; Transition represented as system mismatch between two purportedly well-functioning areas displaces the problem as being one of contrast rather than system quality; Transition as a system blockage and fragmentation in communication between transition environments; A transition strategic focus on individual change to the foregrounded child through supports in moving from background environment A to B. Spatial metaphors of bridge and yo-yo are used to aid temporal understanding of transitions. Nevertheless, this masks the need for a further "spatial" interrogation into background conditions sustaining systemic processes and practices.