 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
||||
 |
|
||||
| |
|
|
|
||
| |
|
|
|
||
| |
|
||||
| |
|
|
|||
| |
|
||||
| |
|
||||
Inclusion at the Preschool Level: An Ecological Systems Analysis
During the 1990s the public school system within the United States has stretched to respond to the diverse needs of children, families, and society. One reflection of this broadened mission is the inclusion of children with disabilities in educational settings with typically developing children. Also known as mainstreaming, the movement of elementary and high school children with disabilities out of special education classes into regular education has become commonplace in most school systems.
Since 1991 public school systems have been required to provide free, appropriate educational services to preschool-aged children with disabilities, beginning at age 3, with many states extending these services to children from birth. The imperative to include these young children in settings with typically developing children is in place, but numerous factors act as barriers to successful implementation of inclusion. The purpose of this report is to describe the unique nature of preschool inclusion, ¹ examine briefly the empirical base underlying inclusion for young children, identify gaps in the research, and propose a conceptual framework, based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model, for examining processes that support or hinder implementation of inclusion for preschool children.
A single definition of inclusion within an early education context is yet to be accepted. However for the purpose of this discussion, we offer a working definition that contains several features. First, inclusion is the active participation of young children with disabilities and typically developing children in the same classroom (e.g., in Head Start, public preschool, and private child care programs) and community settings. Second, services should be provided that support the child in accomplishing the goals established for him or her by the parents and a team of professionals. Third, these services are usually provided through the collaboration of professionals from different disciplines (e.g., early childhood education teachers, special education teachers, speech pathologists). Fourth, the effect of the inclusion program on children with disabilities is evaluated to determine if the child with disabilities is making progress toward goals established by parents, teachers, and other professionals. These four dimensions of inclusion emanate from the public laws that have ensured a free, appropriate education for children with disabilities (PL. 94-142, PL. 99-457, PL. 102-199). It should also be noted, however, that individuals also use the term inclusion to mean the participation of young children with disabilities in settings outside the school system, such as the community (e.g., shopping for groceries), family events and rituals (e.g., a birthday party with relatives), or church (e.g., Sunday school classes). Last, for purposes of this report the term disabilities refers to delays in development relative to norms of chronological age or culture, formally diagnosed conditions with associated developmental delays (e.g., Down syndrome, autism), and sensory impairments.
Rationale for Preschool Inclusion
Inclusion for young children with disabilities and typically developing children has been based on a three-part rationale (Bricker, 1978): First is that the regular education curriculum and access to a typically developing peer group will provide learning opportunities that do not exist in special education classes containing only children with disabilities (Bricker, 1995). Second, as noted above, public law recommends that, to the extent possible, children with disabilities receive a free, appropriate education in settings that are typical and that include same-aged peers. This "least restrictive environment" provision appeared in the original law that ensured educational services for children with disabilities (P. L. 94-142) and the subsequent reenactments of the law (PL. 99-457, P. L. 102-119). Third, many individuals see the inclusion of a child in a center or class in his or her community or neighborhood as the most appropriate and ethical placement, given that it meets the child's and family's needs.
Unique Characteristics of Preschool Inclusion
Inclusion at the preschool level differs markedly from that at the elementary and high school levels. Various ingredients make the process of inclusion unique at this level: (1) the nature of preschool children's development and early childhood teaching practices, (2) organizational structures, and (3) teacher preparation.
Preschool Children's Development, Learning Objectives, and Teaching Practices
For preschool children with and without disabilities, educational objectives are most often referenced to language, cognitive, social, or motor development, or adaptive behavior. Such developmental skills are the foundation for later learning in elementary and high school classes. In contrast, educational objectives at the elementary and high school levels focus more often on basic academic skills, such as reading and math, and content areas, such as science and social studies.
Teaching practices for preschool-aged children also differ from those for older children. Accepted instructional strategies for both young children with disabilities and typically developing children encourage child-initiated learning and children's active physical engagement with each other and with the environment (Bredekamp, 1987; Wolery & Bredekamp, 1995; Wolery & Sainato, 1996). In contrast, instruction at the elementary and high school levels is more likely to be teacher-directed.
Organizational Structures
Elementary schools afford a natural setting for inclusion, where children with disabilities may spend all or part of their day in a regular education class in a public school building. Such opportunities are less available at the preschool level, because most public schools do not operate programs for 3- and 4-year-old children. To create inclusive programs, public school personnel may place children with disabilities in private, community-based preschool or Head Start programs and provide assistance from an itinerant special education teacher (i.e., a teacher who visits weekly and provides consultation). Indeed, since 1972 Head Start has had a mandate to fill at least 10% of its enrollment with children who have identified disabilities, and at times this percentage has been as high as 13% (Ensher, Blatt, & Winshel, 1976). Providing services outside the public school setting sometimes creates administrative problems over blending funding streams, monitoring, and ensuring quality of the educational services provided (Smith & Rose, 1993). To establish such inclusive programs, public schools form collaborative relationships with private or federal agencies and establish policies for using public funds in settings outside the schools. Such administrative actions are usually not required at the elementary and high school level.
Teacher Preparation, Certification, and Salaries
Public school systems require that teachers meet certification standards established by their states. These standards usually include specialized coursework, a college degree, and supervised practicum or student teaching. When inclusive programs are operated by public schools, such requirements also exist for preschool teachers; however, as noted, in many places inclusive programs operate within private, community-based or Head Start programs. In these programs, staff may have less preservice college preparation, with training more often occurring through high school programs, community colleges, or child development associate programs of Head Start (Wolery et al., 1994).
In addition to differences in training, teachers in public schools make higher salaries than teachers in community-based preschools and Head Start. Such training and salary differences sometimes lead to conflicts when early childhood education and special education teachers attempt to collaborate to provide services in inclusive settings.
Empirical Research of Preschool Inclusion
Because inclusion at the preschool level has features that distinguish it from inclusion at the elementary and high school levels, research with older children may have limited relevance for shaping policy for very young children. Instead, empirical studies, conducted over the last 20 years, that aim specifically at exploring preschool inclusion are more helpful in understanding the process and its consequences. Although an extensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of this report, a summary of major findings follows (see Odom et al., 1996, for a more thorough review).
Educational Outcomes
Since 1980, at least four comprehensive reviews of the literature on preschool inclusion have concluded that children with disabilities enrolled in inclusive settings make at least as much progress on standardized measures of cognitive, language, motor, and social development as children in noninclusive preschool special education classrooms (Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Lamorey & Bricker, 1993; Odom & McEvoy, 1988; Peck & Cooke, 1983). Moreover, there is evidence that when teachers promote social integration, children with disabilities may make greater gains on standardized measures of language and social competence (Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989). Evidence also suggests that enrollment in inclusive programs does not have deleterious effects for typically developing children (Odom, DeKlyen, & Jenkins, 1984). Two factors that appear to influence the performance of children with and without disabilities in inclusive settings on standardized developmental measures are the type of curriculum employed (Cole, Dale, Mills, & Jenkins, 1993; Mills, Dale, Cole, & Jenkins, 1995) and the pattern of age grouping, with multiage grouping being more favorable (Bailey, Burchinal, & McWilliam, 1993; McWilliam & Bailey, 1995).
Social Relationships and Patterns of Interaction
Children with disabilities, especially those with moderate and severe disabilities, spend significantly less time in interactions with their peers than do typically developing children (Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Guralnick, 1980; Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman, & Kinnish, 1995; Guralnick & Groom, 1988; Peterson & Haralick, 1977). This consistent funding has led investigators to design classroom procedures to support social integration, which promotes interactions among children with and without disabilities. These strategies include structured integrated play activities (Odom et al., 1988), group friendship activities (Brown, Ragland, & Fox, 1988; Cooper & McEvoy, 1996; McEvoy et al., 1988), and direct support of children during ordinary classroom routines (Rule et al., 1987). When teachers directly support social integration through these and other strategies, positive changes in interactions between children with and without disabilities occur (see Odom & Brown, 1993, for a review).
Family Perspectives and Community Inclusion
Families of children with and without disabilities enrolled in inclusion settings generally have positive attitudes toward inclusion (Bailey & Winton, 1987; Guralnick, 1994; Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992). They often report as a benefit the increased social contact between children with and without disabilities (Miller, Strain, Boyd, Hunsicker, & Wu, 1992; Peck et al., 1992) and children's increased sensitivity and acceptance of differences (Green & Stoneman, 1989; Reichart et al., 1989). When they express concerns, families focus more on teacher qualifications, adequacy of instruction, and fears of social rejection for the children with disabilities (Bailey & Winton, 1987; Hanline & Halvorsen, 1989; Turnbull, Winton, Blacher, & Salkind, 1982).
Implementation of Inclusion
Despite extensive research over the past quarter century, the knowledge base underpinning inclusion for preschool children has serious shortcomings: (1) lack of clear definition; (2) lack of studies of ordinary settings; (3) lack of attention to the role of culture; and (4) lack of a systems perspective. Were these gaps in the investigation of inclusion addressed, policymakers could be in a better position to make the critical decisions that could lead to more effective implementation of inclusion for preschool children with disabilities.
Definitional Ambiguity
Inclusion has been defined in many ways (Odom & Speltz, 1983). The absence of a standard definition impairs communication across agencies, professionals, and families. As noted previously, public law suggests some criteria for this definition, but national professional and advocacy organizations have also offered other specific definitions (e.g., DEC, 1993; TASH, 1988), while personnel in schools may operate from still a different definition (see Beckman et al., 1995). This ambiguity has important implications for researchers, in that findings on inclusion may be generated from vastly different program types and contexts. Establishing a common definition that would accommodate the perspectives of the many stakeholders in the process may be one way to help policymakers make informed decisions about implementing preschool inclusion.
Neglect of Research of Ordinary Settings
Inclusion is implemented and research conducted in a wide variety of settings. In a review of 22 studies of inclusion, selected on the basis of their methodological rigor, Buysse and Bailey (1993) noted that most of the research had been carried out in model, university-based settings. The classrooms had low teacher-student ratios, and many contained more children with disabilities than typically developing children-characteristics not typical of most child care and preschool programs operating in the wider community (Wolery et al., 1993). Such a contrast may call into question the external and ecological validity of much of the research on preschool inclusion. Moving research into more ordinary settings may well be a second way of generating information to foster better implementation.
Neglect of the Role of Culture
Given that early childhood and special education programs across the country emphasize the importance of serving multicultural communities (see Hanson, Lynch, & Wayman, 1990; Harry, 1992), and given the history of inclusion in Head Start programs, the research literature on preschool inclusion is surprisingly silent on the influence of culture. Successful implementation may well be influenced by the values associated with disabilities, family cultural practices, or the cultural "mix" or the language spoken in a classroom. In programs that are culturally diverse or different from the mainstream, culture characteristics create complex situations that can either mitigate against or facilitate the inclusion of children with disabilities. Promoting research that more explicitly examines the cultural context is yet a third way of informing the implementation of inclusion.
Neglect of a Systems Perspective
Finally, research on preschool inclusion has addressed family and administrator perspectives and program impact on children's development and social interactions among peers. Each aspect of the research provides a view of one piece of the puzzle-a single dimension of the inclusion process. Yet inclusion is influenced by a dynamic set of factors operating inside and outside the classroom. Understanding the linkages among the full range of influences and outcomes is crucial to identifying the barriers to and facilitators of preschool inclusion. For example, in assessing effects of a Head Start inclusion program, a researcher would typically document the type of curriculum used and children's engagement in learning opportunities. But the learning environment may itself be influenced by the relationships among the teachers and other professionals (e.g., special education teachers, speech pathologists) who provide services, the administrative policies relating to children with disabilities, family goals for children's participation, and cultural values of family and community members. A multidimensional approach to research is thus essential if the goal is to understand and shape implementation of inclusion for young children with disabilities.
An Ecological Systems Framework
Bronfenbrenner's (1979) conceptualization of the "ecology of human development" provides a useful theoretical framework for research on the implementation of inclusion (Guralnick, 1982; Peck, 1993). He proposed that human development is influenced by factors operating at different "systems levels" within a broad, ecological structure. These different levels exert reciprocal influences on one another, as depicted in Figure 1.
Microsystem
FIGURE 1. Bronfenbrenner's ecological system framework and factors affecting the implementation of inclusion
The first systems level, called the "microsystem," contains the factors within a child's immediate environment. These factors directly affect the child, and, in turn, may be affected by the child. As already noted, most research on preschool inclusion has been devoted to identifying effects of inclusion on the behavior or development of children with disabilities, with results being attributable to practices that occur within inclusive programs (Buysse & Bailey, 1993). Other research has documented the reciprocal effects of children on the environment. In one study, teachers expressed concerns about the increased time and attention devoted to children with disabilities at the expense of attention devoted to typically developing children (Peck, Hayden, Wandschneider, Peterson, & Richarz, 1989). Other research has documented the positive contributions of preschool-aged children with disabilities to inclusive programs (Peck et al., 1992). Future research should continue to focus on the factors' in the microsystem (e.g., individualized curriculum, social relationships with peers) that affect the quality of the inclusion experience for children. At the same time, however, factors operating at other systems levels must be investigated.
Mesosystem
The mesosystem encompasses "the interrelations of two or more settings in which the developing person actively participates (such as, for a child, the relations between home, school, and neighborhood peer groups)" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25). For example, family members' beliefs about inclusion and the family's relationship with the preschool affect the inclusion process (Winton, 1993). Similarly, how children with disabilities relate to typical peers in the classroom setting may affect relationships outside class (e.g., invitations to birthday parties). Further, how professionals who serve young children with disabilities work with and feel about each other is also a part of the mesosystem.
Exosystem
Moving outward, the exosystem consists of settings "that do not involve the developing person as an active participant, but in which events occur that affect, or are affected by, what is happening in the setting containing the developing person" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25). The service delivery agency responsible for an inclusion program provides an example of an exosystem setting. How the agency is organized, for instance, can affect program implementation. In a study that followed programs in Washington state over a 5-year period, the programs that were able to sustain inclusion services fumed out to be those whose organizational structures had been reshaped explicitly to support the inclusion process (Peck, Mabry, Curley, & Conn-Powers, 1994). Other examples of factors operating at the exosystem level include the interactions of professionals responsible for inclusion programs, formal and informal policies of school systems or Head Start, and social policy that connects organizational layers (e.g., federal, state or regional, local). Any of these exosystem factors can affect the experiences of individual children in individual programs.
Macrosystem
The macrosystem envelops the micro-, meso-, and exosystems. Bronfenbrenner defined the macrosystem as "consistencies in the form and content of lower-order systems . . . that exist at the level of the subculture or the culture as a whole, along with any belief system or ideology underlying such consistencies" (1979, p.26). All settings at each level operate within a cultural context. The culture of special education, for example, values inclusion as a practice. Influenced over time by the movement toward "normalization" (Wolfensberger, 1972), by advocacy organizations (DEC, 1993; TASH, 1988), and by federal law (LRE provision of P. L. 94142), many families and professionals now endorse the inclusion of children with disabilities in typical settings and everyday community activities.
Implications for Research Methodology
A program of research that examines inclusion from an ecological perspective must be multidimensional. Both traditional quantitative methods and qualitative methods are needed. Such an effort may be guided by the philosophy of Habermas (1971) and, further, by the methods of participatory research, whereby the actual consumers of research (e.g., families, teachers) take part in the design and evaluation of the work.
Table 1
Constituent Interest and Research Methodology
Interests Research Questions Methodology Technical What is the relationship between
classroom characteristics and child
behavior?
Does activity-based intervention
affect children's skill acquisition?
Experimental group design Single subject design
Quasi-experimental design
Practical What are the definitions and
goals of inclusion?How do organizational policies
affect the provision of inclusion?
How do characteristics of families
affect inclusion in typical community
activities?Interviews Participant observation
Direct observation
Emancipatory What kinds of support are necessary
to accommodate children with
disabilities in Head Start programs?
What kinds of support for families
actually result in greater community
inclusion?
Participatory action research
Focused interviews
Participant observation
Aligning Method with the Type of Knowledge Needed
A single methodological approach cannot address all types of research questions (Ewert, 1991). Different interests require different forms of knowledge, which, in turn, call for different research methodologies. Habermas (1984) separates these interests into three categories: technical, practical, and emancipatory (see Table 1).
The first interest is technical. Research questions that reflect a technical interest focus on the associations among variables, how one thing relates to or is caused by another. To this end, researchers may rely on traditional research designs such as randomized experimental group designs (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), quasi-experimental designs (Cook & Campbell, 1979), single subject designs (Kazdin, 1982), or multiple regression designs (Pedhazur, 1982).
The second interest is practical. The choice of methodology to address questions of practical interest is aimed at understanding process. For example, to investigate the process of inclusion, one could use qualitative methods such as participant observation or interviews (Fetterman, 1989), a more quantitative approach requiring a structured observation system (Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, & Miller, 1990), or a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Schwartz, Staub, Gallucci, & Peck, 1995).
The third interest is emancipatory. Emancipatory interests reflect the assumption that knowledge can be used to engender changes in practice (Ewert, 1991; Habermas, 1971) and that participants are themselves directly involved in the development of this knowledge. A group of early childhood teachers, profession specialists, family members, and researchers might work together, for example, to develop a practical model, implement it, and systematically judge its effects. An emerging set of methodologies that incorporate participants serves this emancipatory interest.
Participatory Research
Educational and applied researchers have come to recognize that research participants and consumers can contribute to the development of research design and treatment strategies. Participants and consumers are well suited to judge the social importance of the goals of a program of research, strategies used in educational or clinical treatments, and outcomes (Schwartz & Baer, 1991; Wolf, 1978). It has been proposed that researchers collaborate with participants and consumers (e.g., parents, teachers, peers) to assure that interventions or treatment strategies fit the local context and that community members have the opportunity to exert some control over research that affects them (Fawcett, 1991) In the field of education, such efforts to integrate participants and consumers in programs of research are reflected in several diverse strategies.
In "market-driven research" (McDonnell, Atwater, McEvoy, Carta, & Williams, 1993), the researcher's questions are aligned with the identified needs of a program or participants. For example, a researcher interested in examining strategies for promoting positive peer relationships would locate his or her study in classrooms where teachers explicitly identified this as a need.
In "action research" (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988), teachers are directly involved in developing and conducting research in their classrooms. A great emphasis is placed on teachers' recognition and use of their own expertise to solve problems in their classroom; the teacher is viewed as the central change agent. The researcher's role in this process is to support the teacher's development of problem solving strategies and to introduce methods for documenting change and its effects.
"Fourth generation program evaluation" (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) is a third example of participatory research. Following this method of inquiry, stakeholders (i.e., the organizational layer of participants who stand to be affected by the research) play a primary role in evaluating the process and outcomes of educational programs. For preschool inclusion programs, primary stakeholders might be family members, teachers in child care centers, or teachers in the kindergarten setting where the child will attend following preschool.
Conclusion
Social policies that guide the implementation of preschool inclusion require a full understanding of the multidimensional nature of the inclusion process. An ecological systems perspective, such as advanced by Bronfenbrenner, provides a useful conceptual framework for building a program of research that could identify barriers to and facilitators of preschool inclusion. This conceptual framework pushes researchers to look closely at the type of research questions being asked, to understand how the questions are embedded within the ecological context, and to select methodologies that yield information that is not only accurate and valid, but also useful for policymakers and practitioners. Such challenges exist not just for preschool inclusion research, but also for other research related to human services that moves beyond theory and into practice.
Notes
¹ Although inclusion applies to children below the age of 3, for the purpose of this report, we will focus only on the preschool-aged group.
References
Bailey, D. B., Burchinal, M. R., & McWilliam, R. A. (1993). Age of peers and early child development. Child Development, 64, 848-862.
Bailey, D. B., & Winton, P. (1987). Stability and change in parents' expectations about mainstreaming. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7(1), 73-88.
Beckman, P., Lieber, J., Li, S., Barnwell, D., Herring, K., & Malat, H. (1995). No press for inclusion: A case study of Winwood Special Center. Unpublished case study, Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bricker, D. (1978). A rationale for the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children (pp. 326). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 179-194.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, W. H., Ragland, E. U., & Fox, J. J. (1988). Effects of group socialization procedures on the social interactions of preschool children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 9, 359-376.
Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings: A review of comparative studies. Journal of Special Education, 26, 434-461.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: The Falmer Press.
Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Schwartz, I. S., & Miller, P. A. (1990). Applications of ecobehavioral analysis to the study of transitions across early childhood settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 298-315.
Cavallaro, S. A., & Porter, R. H. (1980). Peer preferences of at-risk and normally developing children in a preschool mainstream classroom. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 357-366.
Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., Mills, P. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1993). Interaction between early intervention curricula and student characteristics. Exceptional Children, 60, 17-28.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimental design and analysis Jorfield settings. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Cooper, C. S., & McEvoy, M. A. (1996). Group friendship activities: An easy way to develop social skills of young children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(3), 67-69.
DEC. (1993). DEC position statement on inclusion. DEC Communicator, 19(4), 4.
Ensher, G. L., Blatt, B., & Winshel, J. F. (1976). Head Start for the Handicapped Congressional Audit. Exceptional Children, 43, 202-210.
Ewert, G. D. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Haberrnas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 345-378.
Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community research. and action. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 621-636.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Green, A. L., & Stoneman, Z. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers of nonhandicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 6-13.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Guralnick, M. J. (1980). Social interaction among preschool handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 248-253.
Guralnick, M. J. (1982). Mainstreaming young handicapped children: A public policy and ecological systems analysis. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education (pp. 456-500). New York: Free Press.
Guralnick, M. J (1994). Mother's perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of early childhood mainstreaming. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 168-183.
Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., Hammond, M., Gottman, J. M., Kinnish, K. (1995). Immediate effects of mainstreamed settings on the social interactions and social integration of preschool children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 100, 359-377.
Guralnick, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1988). Friendships of preschool children in mainstream playgroups. Developmental Psychology, 24, 595-604.
Habermas,J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hanline, M. F., & Halvorsen, A. (1989). Parent perceptions of the integration process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Children, 55, 487-492.
Hanson, M. J., & Lynch, E. W. (1992). Family diversity: Implications for policy and practice. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 283-306.
Hanson, M. J., Lynch, E. W., & Wayman, K. I. (1990). Honoring the cultural diversity of families when gathering data. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(1), 112-131.
Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families and the special education system: Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jenkins, J. R., Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1989). Effects of social integration on preschool children with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 420-428.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Lamorey, S., & Bricker, D. D. (1993). Integrated programs: Effects on young children and their parents. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community-based programs: From research to implementation (pp. 249-269). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
McConnell, S. R., Atwater, J., McEvoy, M., Carta, J. J., & Williams, R. (1993, December). Recent findings from the Early Childhood Research Institute on Substance Abuse. Presentation at the Annual Convention of the Division for Early Childhood, San Diego, CA.
McEvoy, M. A., Nordquist, V. M., Twardosz, S., Heckaman, K., Wehby, J. H., Denny, R. K. (1988). Promoting autistic children's peer interaction in integrated early childhood education settings using affection activities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 193-200.
McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1995). Effect of classroom structure and disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 123-148.
Miller, L. J., Strain, P. S., Boyd, K., Hunsicker, J. M., & Wu, A. (1992). Parental attitudes toward integration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 230-246.
Mills, P. E., Dale, P. S., Cole, K. N., & Jenkins, ]. R. (1995). Follow-up of children for academic and cognitive preschool curricula at age 9. Exceptional Children, 61, 378-393.
Odom, S. L., Bender, M. K., Stein, M. L., Doran, L. P., Houden, P. M., Mclnnes, M., Gilbert, M., DeKlyen, M., Speltz, M. L., & Jenkins, J. R. (1988). The Integrated Preschool Curriculum: Procedures for socially integrating young children with disabilities and normally developing children. Seattle, WA. University of Washington Press.
Odom, S. L., & Brown, W. H. (1993). Social interaction skill training for young children with disabilities in integrated settings. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community-based programs: From research to implementation (pp.39-64). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Odom, S. L., DeKlyen, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (1984). Integrating handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers: Developmental impact on the nonhandicapped children. Exceptional Children, 51, 41-49.
Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (1988). Integration of young children with handicaps and normally developing children. In S. Odom & M. Kames (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 241-268). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Odom, S. L., Peck, C. A., Hanson, M., Beckman, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., Lieber, J., Brown, W. H., Horn, E. M., & Schwartz, I. S. (1996). Inclusion of children with and without disabilities in early childhood education: Current research and future directions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1983). Program variations in preschools for handicapped and nonhandicapped children: Mainstreaming vs. integrated special education. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 89-104.
Peck, C. A. (1993). Ecological perspectives on implementation of integrated early childhood programs. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: From research to implementation (pp. 3-16). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Peck, C. A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacher perceptions of outcomes for typically developing children enrolled in integrated early childhood programs: A statewide survey. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 53-63.
Peck, C. A., & Cooke, T. P. (1983). genefits of mair~streaming at the early childhood level: How much can we expect? Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 1-22.
Peck, C. A., Hayden, L., Wandschneider, M., Peterson, K., & Richarz, S. (1989). Development of integrated preschools: A qualitative inquiry into sources of resistance among parents, administrators and teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 353-364.
Peck, C. A., Mabry, L., Curley, J., & Conn-Powers, M. (1994). Implementation of inclusion at the early childhood level: Some findings from a field study of 54 programs in Washington State. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Peterson, N. L., & Haralick, J. G. (1977). Integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers: An analysis of play behavior and social interaction. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 12 235-245.
Reichart, D. C., Lynch, E. C., Anderson, B. C. Svobodney, L. A., DiCola, J. M., & Mercur, M. G. (1989). Parental perspectives of integrated preschool opportunities for children with handicaps and children without handicaps. Journal of Early Intervention, 1: 6-13.
Rule, S., Stowitschek, J. J., lnnocenti, M Striefel, S., Killoran, J., Swezey, K., Boswell, C. (1987). The Social Integratic Project: Analysis of the effects of mainstreaming handicapped children imo day care centers. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 175-192.
Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204.
Schwartz, I. S., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Peck, C. A. (1995). Blending qualitative and behavior analytic research methods to evaluate outcomes in inclusive schools. Journal of Behavioral Education,5, 93-106.
Smith, B. J., & Rose, D. F. (1993). Administrator's policy handbook for preschool mainstreaming. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
TASH. (1988). Supported Education Resolution. Cited in L. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (p. 244). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Turnbull, A. P., Winton, P. J., Blacher, J., & Salkind, N. (1982). Mainstreaming in the kindergarten classroom: Perspectives of parents of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 6, 14-20.
Winton, P. J. (1993). Providing family support in integrated settings: Research and recommendations. In C. A. Peck, S. L. Odom, D. D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation (pp. 65-80). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Wolery, M., & Bredekamp, S. (1995) Developmentally appropriate practices and young children with disabilities: Contextual issues in the discussion. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 331-341.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Venn, M. 1 Brookfield, J., Huffman, K., Schroeder, C., Martin, C. G., & Fleming, L. A. (1993) Mainstreaming in early childhood programs: Current status and relevant issues. Young Children, 49, 78-84.
Wolery, M., Martin, C. G., Schroeder, C., Huffman, K., Venn, M. L., Holcombe, A., Brookfield, J., & Fleming, L. A. (1994). Employment of educators in preschool mainstreaming: A survey of general early educators. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 64-77.
Wolery, M., & Sainato, D. (1996). General curriculum and intervention strategies. In S. Odom & M. McLean (Eds.), Early intervention / early childhood special education: Recommended practices (pp. 125-158). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principles of naturalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
The Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion is a five-year project funded by the Office of Special Education and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement to investigate barriers to and facilitators of inclusion at the preschool level. This research consortium includes the authors of this report:
Director Samuel L. Odom, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;
Charles A. Peck, Washington State University-Vancouver;
Marci Hanson, San Francisco State University;
Paula J. Peck, University of Maryland;
Ann P. Kaiser, Vanderbilt University;
Joan Lieber, University of Maryland;
William H. Brown, University of South Carolina;
Eva M. Hom, Vanderbilt University;
and Ilene S. Schwartz, University of Washington.For more information about the Institute, address correspondence to Dr. Samuel L. Odom, Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, School of Education, CB-3500, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3500.
Preparation of this paper was supported by Project No. H024K40004 (Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion) from the U.S. Department of Education.
This article is in the public domain and can be freely copied and used in trainings as handouts at parent and community meetings, and in creating your school or district programs. (Please cite all sources of materials you use.)
This information is provided by:
Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Special Education
P O Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6088
Fax (360)586-1631
E-mail: dgill@ospi.wednet.edu
You
are here: