HIGHLIGHTS FROM INCLUSION - SpeciaLink · 2018. 11. 30. · & Brophy, 2000). High quality pro-grams...

1HIGHLIGHTS FROM INCLUSION: THE NEXT GENERATION IN CHILD CARE IN CANADA

INCLUSION

Sharon Hope Irwin Donna S. Lero Kathleen BrophySharon Hope Irwin Donna S. Lero Kathleen Brophy

HIGHLIGHTS FROMHIGHLIGHTS FROM

INCLUSIONThe Next Generationin Child Care in CanadaThe Next Generationin Child Care in Canada

2 HIGHLIGHTS FROM INCLUSION: THE NEXT GENERATION IN CHILD CARE IN CANADA

Invitation

Dear Early Childhood Educators, directors, policy makers, trainers, advo-cates, parents and other interested people:

Here is HIGHLIGHTS FROM INCLUSION: The Next Generation in ChildCare in Canada. While it illustrates inclusion successes, it also alerts usto new challenges and gives us solid recommendations for the job ahead.

Until recently, “child care” has been a service on the periphery of federalpolicy. And inclusive child care has been on the periphery of that periphery.Now that the federal government has made “child care” a priority and hasmade “inclusion” a key priority in child care,* the effective inclusion ofchildren with special needs will be on the table as a policy issue.

It is critical that this policy be grounded in evidence-based research oneffective inclusion.

HIGHLIGHTS provides a summary of our Canadian study into resourcesneeded to successfully include children with special needs in child carecentres in Canada, and warnings about potential problems and barriers tothese goals.

Copies of the complete 278-page research report INCLUSION: The NextGeneration of Child Care in Canada can be ordered from Breton Booksat www.capebretonbooks.com (Wreck Cove, Nova Scotia B0C 1H0; phonetoll free 1-800-565-5140). Additional copies of HIGHLIGHTS can be down-loaded at no cost from www.specialinkcanada.org

Sharon Hope IrwinSpeciaLink: The National Centre for Child Care Inclusion

Donna S. LeroJarislowsky Chair in Families and Work, University of Guelph

Kathleen BrophyDept. of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph

* Multilateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care (2003) and The LiberalParty Platform, “Foundations: The National Early Learning and Child Care Pro-gram” (2004).


INCLUSION: THE NEXT GENERATION INCHILD CARE IN CANADAHIGHLIGHTS

INTRODUCTION

As more children with specialneeds are included in communitychild care settings, the relationshipbetween overall program qualityand inclusion quality in child carebecomes increasingly critical.Whether one views effective inclu-sion as an optional add-on to highquality programs or as a more re-cently recognized dimension of highquality child care, the two conceptsare inextricably linked (Irwin, Lero,& Brophy, 2000). High quality pro-grams are important for all chil-dren. And children with specialneeds most certainly benefit muchmore in programs that not onlyprovide opportunities for social in-teractions with others, but also af-ford them opportunities to developtheir skills and abilities in stable,well-run programs that are atten-tive to their needs and to their par-ents’ concerns.

There is continuing interest in thefield of early childhood educationand child care in identifying whichpolicies and practices are mostlikely to promote high quality careand positive developmental out-comes for young children. Researchstudies have confirmed the impor-tance of attending to structural

aspects (such as adult-child ratios,group size, and early childhoodeducators’ ECE-specific training),wages and working conditions, theprovision of a stimulating learningenvironment, and responsive posi-tive teacher-child interactions(Arnett, 1989; Goelman, Doherty,Lero, LaGrange, & Tougas, 2000;Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998;Helburn, 1995). Jorde-Bloom(1992, 2000), among others, hasidentified the important role thatcentre directors have in encourag-ing staff to be continuous learnersand involving them in decision-making. A policy approach thatsupports high quality care throughstable and appropriate fundingmechanisms, regulations, andquality improvement initiatives isa critically important contextualfactor that supports all other ap-proaches (Cleveland & Krashinsky,1998; Friendly, 1994).

An additional body of research isemerging that has identified someof the critical elements needed topromote and sustain high qualityinclusion practices within commu-nity-based child care programs.This literature has identified direc-tors’ and early childhood educators’knowledge and training about in-clusion, their attitudes, and their

Sharon Hope Irwin, SpeciaLink: The National Centre for Child Care Inclusion

Donna S. Lero, Jarislowsky Chair in Families and Work, University of Guelph

Kathleen Brophy, Dept. of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph

HIGHLIGHTS FROM

INCLUSION: THE NEXT GENERATION

IN CHILD CARE IN CANADA


access to a range of resources andsupports (including additionaltrained staff, time for planning andconsultation, support from re-source consultants and specialistsin the community, and parents’ in-volvement) as essential ingredientsfor quality inclusive care (Irwin,Lero, & Brophy, 2000; Odom,Beckman, Hanson, Horn, Lieber,Sandall, Schwartz & Wolery, 2002;Sandall, McLean & Smith, 2000).Directors’ leadership has beenidentified as critical to inclusivepractice (Odom et al, 2002; Wolery& Odom, 2000). A policy contextthat supports high quality inclusivecare is attentive to these elementsand proactively supports centres intheir efforts (Harbin & Salisbury,2000; Roeher Institute, 2003).

Inclusion: The Next Generation con-tinues a program of research oninclusive child care which was be-gun by Sharon Hope Irwin in 1990and now involves Professors DonnaLero and Kathleen Brophy from theUniversity of Guelph. Our earlierresearch (A Matter of Urgency: In-cluding Children with Special Needsin Child Care in Canada, 2000)identified what centre directors,front-line teaching staff, and trav-elling resource consultants per-ceived to be important factors forsuccessful inclusion. That re-search led to the development oftheoretical models of virtuous anddiscouraging cycles. (See Figure 1.)Our current work both deepensand extends that research.

A

B

C D

E

F

G

HI

Figure 1

A Virtuous Cycle That Supports Effective Inclusion

Irwin, Lero & Brophy (2004). Inclusion: The Next Generation

Director is a leader • effective in promoting ongoing learning and collaboration

Organizational support within the centre: • Centre staff support each other • Consideration given to staff needs, planning time, consultation • Priority given to manitaining positive relationships with parents

Involvement of and effective collaboration with community professionals

Staff feel more comfortableStaff feel more confident, develop additional skills

Staff and Director more committed to inclusion more accepting of a broader range of children

Strengthened commitment to inclusion as part of centre’s mandate

A well functioning, high quality program

Appropriate staff education and training

Stable, effective staff

Director and staff have positive attitudes toward inclusion

Effective infrastructure is in place • Physical environment is accessible • Financial and human resources allocated to support inclusion, adapt curriculum

EFFECTIVEINCLUSION AND

POSITIVE MOMENTUM

POSITIVE EFFECTS ONCHILDREN, PARENTS,

STAFF ANDCENTRE

Policy goals and centre resources that promotequality child care services and effective inclusion


This report presents findings fromour two most recent studies of in-clusive child care in Canada. Study1 is based on further analysis ofthe data collected from centre di-rectors and teaching staff and ex-plores the role of centre directorsas inclusion leaders. Study 2 isbased on new data collected from32 centres in four provinces. Ques-tionnaires, interviews and observa-tions were used to determine theimportance of centre quality and

other resources within centres —particularly human resources —that affect inclusion quality. Thenature of resources and supportsprovided to centres was exploredin some detail, and two models forsupporting inclusive programswere compared. The results ofthese two studies have importantimplications for policy, research,and practice aimed at ensuring thatall centres have the capacity to of-fer high quality, inclusive care.


A Preliminary Model of Factors Influencing Staff Attitudes, Perceived Success, andEfficacy in Working with Children with Special Needs in Child Care Programs

Contributors to Inclusion Experiences With Inclusion

Figure 2

Staff Characteristics• Experience with children

with special needs• Participation in courses,

conferences andworkshops related toinclusion

Centre Characteristicsand Practices• Centre’s history with

inclusion; identity• Number of children

with special needsenrolled on a regularbasis

• Resources availableto support inclusion• Within the centre• Provided by others

• Inclusion practices(IPPs, team work)

• Relationships withparents

• Relationships withtherapists, agencies,itinerant resourceteachers

Characteristics ofCentre Directors• Experience with

inclusion• Participation in

courses, confer-ences & workshopsrelated to inclusion

• Behaviour as aninclusion leader• Advocates for

inclusionsupports

• Effective insupporting staff

• Marshallsresources tosupport centre’sefforts Staff’s Success

in Working withChildren withSpecial Needs inthe Centre

Staff Attitudesto Inclusion;Accepting of awider range ofchildren

Centre Experiences• Increased complexity

of children withspecial needs

• Staff knowledge andskill development

• Time available forplanning

• Availability ofresources

Staff EfficacyConfidence in :• meeting

children’sneeds

• workingeffectively asa team

• obtaininginformationand support


STUDY 1: THE EFFECTS OFDIRECTORS AS INCLUSIONLEADERS ON INCLUSIONPRACTICES AND ON STAFF’SATTITUDES, TRAINING, ANDEFFICACY

Objectives

Given the critical role that direc-tors appear to play in promotingand sustaining quality inclusivepractices, one of our key goals wasto determine to what extent direc-tors influence staff’s attitudes andbeliefs about inclusion, their com-mitment to inclusion in child careprograms, their willingness to ac-cept a broader range of childrenwith special needs, and their per-ceived success and sense of efficacyin their work with children.

A second goal was to identify thepathways through which directorsand centre experiences influencestaff outcomes. A third goal was todevelop a set of recommendationsthat would be useful for child carepractitioners, funders and policymakers, university and college fac-ulty, and others who are in a posi-tion to provide training, mentoring,and other resources that can sup-port effective inclusion. The keyvariables we focused on are shownon the previous page in Figure 2.

Brief Discussion of Methodologyin Study 1

The availability of a paired data setfrom A Matter of Urgency (data fromdirectors and staff in the same cen-tres) from 97 centres acrossCanada enabled us to directly testthe relationships among director,centre and staff variables.

In our analyses, two methods were

used to examine the impact of thedirectors’ leadership in their cen-tre and with staff. One methodused a two-part classification tocompare centres and staff underconditions of high and low leader-ship for inclusion. A second methodexamined the separate effects of adirector’s participation as an inclu-sion advocate and as a provider oftraining for her staff using correla-tional analyses based on the totalsample.

Directors were asked two questionsto assess the degree of leadershipthey have shown to centre staff andto others. The first survey questionasked whether directors had beeninvolved in one or more advocacyactivities related to the inclusion ofchildren with special needs (suchas presenting a brief, writing to anMP or MPP, being on a task force,taking part in a lobby, etc.) in theprevious six years. The secondquestion asked directors if they hadprovided any workshops or in-ser-vice training to others on topicsrelated to children with specialneeds. We reasoned that thesebehaviours could function asmarkers of a broader constellationof attitudes, skills and behaviours,including a pattern of relationshipswith staff, parents, board mem-bers, and community profession-als that should result in high qual-ity care and effective/successful in-clusion.

Among the 97 directors, 28 (29%)were classified as showing high in-clusion leadership, and 35 (36%)were classified as showing low lead-ership, based on these two ques-tions. The remaining 34 directors(35%) were intermediate, havingsaid yes to one of the two questionsbut not to the other.


Research Findings

As part of the staff survey, childcare staff responded to 30 items ina scale that assessed pro-inclusionattitudes.1 Each item presented aparticular condition or health prob-lem, and respondents indicated theextent to which they agreed that apreschool child with that conditionshould be enrolled in a regularchild care program. (Each item wasscored 1-5, with 1 indicating therespondent strongly disagrees withincluding a child with that condi-tion in a regular program, 2 = dis-agree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and

5 = strongly agree.) In general, staffhad scores indicating a positiveattitude toward including childrenwith a wide range of medical,developmental, sensory andbehavioural conditions.

Staff whose director was an inclu-sion leader had significantly morepositive attitudes towards includ-ing a wide range of children in childcare programs than were staff incentres where the director was notan inclusion leader. (See Table 1.)

In addition to assessing staff’s at-titudes, we also asked them to re-

1 For further information about the questions and scales used, please refer to Irwin, Lero &Brophy, 2000, A Matter of Urgency: Including Children with Special Needs in Child Care inCanada. Copies of the full questionnaires are available as appendices to MOU.

Advocates for inclusion Centre is described as inclusive, Attends conferences anddesignated as an integrated workshops on inclusionsetting

Attends many conferences and Centre has a resource teacher or Strong pro-inclusion attitudesworkshops on inclusion resource consultant to support

inclusion

Strong pro-inclusion attitudes Resources available to support Positive beliefs about the valueinclusion in the centre: of inclusion• extra on-site staff• therapists, specialists• parental involvement High score on perceived self-

efficacy scale; more confidencein abilities to be effective whenincluding children with specialneeds

Changes in director over time: Changes over time in centre: Changes in this staff member• has become more committed • children with more complex over time: to inclusion, needs enrolled, • has become more committed• has become more accepting • greater availability of to inclusion, of a wider range of children resource teachers, • has become more

integrations workers, etc., comfortable working with• centre staff have become children with special needs, more effective, work as a • increase in own knowledge team and competencies

Director Centre Staff

Variables That Were Significantly Correlated with Staff Becoming More Accepting of aWider Range of Children in Child Care Programs

Table 1



spond to a number ofbelief statements thatreflect how stronglythey value inclusionand support inclusionas a principle and prac-tice goal for all children.(See Figure 3.) Staffwith directors who areleaders more stronglybelieve that inclusionbenefits all children —both those with specialneeds and their typi-cally developing peers.(See Figure 4.)

A particularly impor-tant indicator that af-fects inclusion is howstaff feel about includ-ing children with more complexneeds. Front-line educators’ viewsabout this matter reflect their train-ing, their experiences with inclu-sion in their centres, and the sup-port available to them.

Our research demonstrated thatstaff who reported having becomemore accepting of a broader rangeof children with special needs in

their centre were more likely to beworking in centres where their di-rector is an inclusion leader.(See Figure 5.)

Finally, staff with directors whodisplay high inclusion leadershipwere much more likely to ratethemselves as successful in theirwork with children with specialneeds than were staff whose lead-

Low Leadership High Leadership

45

40%

26%23%

11% 12%

19%

42%

27%

40

35

20

10

0

Figure 10.3

Child Care Staff’s AttitudesTowards Inclusion


Figure 3

110 or <111 - 120121 - 140> 140

%

30

25

5

15

Figure 4

Child Care Staff Beliefs: Including Childrenwith Special Needs Benefits Typically Devel-oping Children, by Director’s Leadership

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Low Leadership

High Leadership


9% 11%

56%

21%

0%

27%

68%

SD/Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

9%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Low Leadership

High Leadership

Figure 5

Change in Child Care Staff Attitude: “HaveYou Become More or Less Accepting of aBroader Range of Children?”


27%26% 26% 26% 26%

7%

21%

41%

Less No Somewhat More Accepting Change More Accepting


ers display less inclusion leader-ship. (See Figure 6.)

This Highlights document providesonly some of the significant re-search findings from Study 1.Clearly, the role of directors as in-clusion leaders is an important one,as it has multiple effects on centrepractices (enrollments of childrenwith special needs) and on staff’sattitudes, beliefs, commitment toinclusion, perceived success inworking with children with specialneeds, and self-efficacy.

Implications of Findings FromStudy 1

Our findings have strong practicaland policy implications. Among themost obvious are the following:

1. Directors’ commitment toinclusive practice as part of qual-ity provision and as a basic valueis a critical factor that underpinstheir leadership for inclusion intheir centre and in their commu-nity.

Inclusion leadership is, in fact, bestunderstood as a cluster of experi-

ences, attitudes and behavioursthat typify almost one third of thedirectors in this selected sample ofcentres. The length of experiencedirectors have in working with chil-dren with special needs and, par-ticularly, the extent to which theyparticipate in conferences andworkshops related to inclusion, ap-pear to be important factors thatsupport their values and skills.

2. Directors’ inclusion leader-ship is most often observed inprovinces that have historicallyprovided some assistance tochild care programs to supportinclusion.

The importance of policies andfunding is observable both in theextent to which directors have ac-cess to in-house resource teachersand additional staff support, andin directors’ concerns about thenegative effects of reduced or lim-ited funding to support inclusion.

3. Positive experiences of in-cluding children with specialneeds in centres, accompaniedby having appropriate supportswithin the centre — such as anin-house resource teacher or ad-ditional staff member, supportfrom specialists and itinerantresource teachers in the commu-nity, access to specialized equip-ment, and positive relationshipswith parents — reinforce positiveattitudes and provide opportuni-ties for skill development and thenurturing of a team approachwithin centres.

Under these circumstances, direc-tors accept more children with spe-cial needs and children with morecomplex needs over time.

4. Directors who are not inclu-sion leaders are likely to includeonly one or two children with


Figure 6

Child Care Staff’s Ratings of TheirSuccess with Inclusion, by Director’sInclusion Leadership

50%Low LeadershipHigh leadership

22%

31%

43%

19%

36%

7 or less 8 9 or 10


special needs in their centres,and not necessarily do so con-tinuously. These directors oftenfeel they do not have the re-sources required to enable chil-dren with special needs to attendthe program without overloadingtheir staff or compromising thequality of care they can provide.Typically they also have not beenexposed to examples of effectiveinclusion through conferencesand workshops.

Failing to assist these directors andcentres to develop additional skillsand to have positive experienceswith inclusion results in inequi-table loads on other more efffectiveinclusive centres in the community,and reduced capacity to meet theneeds of children and families whocould benefit from effective, inclu-sive child care programs.

5. Directors influence staff’sattitudes and experiences relatedto inclusion through severalpathways.

Directors who are inclusion lead-ers articulate their values and in-fluence staff’s attitudes, mentorand support their staff, encouragestaff to attend conferences andworkshops on inclusion, and workto ensure that staff have the sup-port they need from others, bothto enhance positive outcomes forchildren and staff, and to amelio-rate additional stress. To the ex-tent possible, directors who are in-clusion leaders try to provide staffwith additional time for planningand consulting with parents andspecialists.

Training for directors should beavailable to inform them about theimportance of their role in support-ing staff, and to help them learn

from other directors who are inclu-sion leaders.

6. Staff, in turn, are mostlikely to be successful in theirwork with children with specialneeds when they have: the op-portunity to attend a variety ofconferences and workshops oninclusion; a director who is aleader and learner about inclu-sion and who is responsive totheir needs for support; accessto therapists and specialists whocan provide them with guidanceand practical advice; positive re-lationships with parents; andpositive models to learn from —both in their own centre andamong their peers.

7. Staff’s success, feelings ofconfidence, and willingness to in-clude children with a broaderrange of needs in the program areboth important outcomes of ef-fective inclusion, and importantcontributors to it.

Our findings verify a continuingvirtuous cycle whereby positive ex-periences with inclusion, strongsupport from a director who is aninclusion leader, and support pro-vided by specialists, resource con-sultants and parents can help staffdevelop additional skills and rein-force their attitudes.

Similarly, when staff do not haveappropriate training, when theirdirector is not a leader and/or re-sources are not sufficient, they areless likely to have a positive expe-rience with inclusion. In thesecases, staff can feel pulled betweenthe child with special needs andother children, frustrated with ex-pectations that are not realistic,and ultimately become less accept-ing of having children with specialneeds in their centre (a discourag-ing cycle).


STUDY 2: ESSENTIAL RESOURCESFOR INCLUSION QUALITY

Objectives

This study had three main goals.The first was to examine the rela-tionship between overall programquality and inclusion quality. Asecond purpose was to compareand contrast alternative models orapproaches to support effective in-clusion practices in child care cen-tres. The third purpose was to em-pirically determine what elementsand/or combinations of in-centreresources and external supportsare most likely to result in sustain-able, high levels of inclusion qual-ity.

Brief Discussion of Methodologyin Study 2

Selecting Instruments for StudyingInclusion Quality in Child Care

The Early Childhood Environmen-tal Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R)was used as a measure of overallprogram quality in this study. Item#37 from the ECERS-R instrument:“Provisions for Children with Dis-abilities,” and average scores onthe Specialink Inclusion PracticesProfile (Irwin, 2001a) and theSpecialink Inclusion Principles Scale(Irwin, 2001b) were used to assessinclusion quality. (All measures aredescribed in detail in the full re-port.)

One of the innovations resultingfrom this study was the develop-ment of a multidimensional mea-sure of inclusion quality, the Inclu-sion Quality Index (IQI). The IQI isa composite measure based on allthree instruments. The IQI reflectsa variety of practices, such as the

effective use of individual programplans; adapting activities andschedules to accommodatechildren’s special needs; facilitat-ing full participation of childrenwith special needs in centre activi-ties and in interactions with otherchildren and staff; and effectivecollaborations and partnershipswith parents and with specialists/therapists. It also includes the ex-tent to which centres have devel-oped and use principles to guidetheir practices and to supportchildren’s full inclusion. Many ofthe quantitative analyses in thisstudy employed IQI scores, or con-trasts between centres that evi-denced high and low inclusionquality, based on their relativestanding on this composite mea-sure.

Sample Selection

A total of 32 child care centres par-ticipated in this study, consistingof eight centres in each of four prov-inces. We selected British Colum-bia, Ontario, Nova Scotia andPrince Edward Island because eachjurisdiction contained some centreswith in-house resource teachers(in-house RTs) as well as other cen-tres that relied on consultative as-sistance [e.g., itinerant resourceteachers (IRTs)] and, sometimes,program aides/special needs work-ers to support individual childrenfor a specific contract period. Prov-inces that contained centres thatexemplified both models for sup-porting inclusion were favoured inthis study in order to minimize con-founding the type of inclusion sup-port model that characterized acentre and the potentially overrid-ing influence of different provincialpolicies, practices, and financialsupport for child care programs.


We asked knowledgeable individu-als to identify programs that metour criteria (full-day centre-basedprograms, roughly with a “naturalproportion” of children with specialneeds, and either an in-house RTor an IRT consultative supportmodel), avoiding selection of uniqueprograms that might be atypical ofother child care programs in theregion. To as great an extent aspossible, we tried to pair in-houseand IRT centres in each provinceby size, history of inclusion, salaryscales, and other factors, but muststress that we are presenting casestudies, not an experimentalmatched-pairs design.

All of the centres included somechildren with special needs; themajority had been doing so for morethan five years. At the time cen-tres were observed, one third of thecentres enrolled 1-3 children withidentified special needs, and twothirds had 4 or more children withspecial needs attending. Childrenwith special needs had a wide rangeof conditions and health problems.Most commonly, the children haddevelopmental delays, autism,behavioural problems, and cerebralpalsy. A much smaller number ofchildren had visual or auditoryimpairments or chronic health con-ditions. Only two children inwheelchairs were evident among allthe children observed.

What is the Relationship BetweenOverall Program Quality andInclusion Quality?

The 32 inclusive centres in thissample had scores on the ECERS-R measure of program quality thatranged from 2.7 to 6.9 out of 7, withan average score of 4.8 – a valuevery similar to that found in theCanadian national You Bet I Care!

study (Goelman et al, 2000). Basedon Harms, Clifford and Cryer’s(1998) guidelines, three centres inour sample (9.4%) had qualityscores that indicate inferior pro-gram quality; 14 centres (43.8%)had scores in the minimal to me-diocre range, and a similar propor-tion (46.9%) had scores in the goodto excellent range.

We used two methods to examinethe relationship between overallprogram quality (as measured byscores on the full ECERS-R) andinclusion quality (as assessed byeach of our three criterion mea-sures, along with each centre’srank on the Inclusion Quality Indexcreated from them). The firstmethod used correlational analy-ses; the second method contrastedthe top and bottom seven centres,based on their standing on thecomposite Inclusion Quality Index(i.e., centres that evidenced highand low inclusion quality).

Program quality was found to bestrongly correlated with each mea-sure of inclusion quality and withcentres’ standing on the compos-ite Inclusion Quality Index derivedfrom them. Because ECERS-R item37, itself, contributes to the fullECERS-R score, we calculated cor-relations based on the full scale mi-nus this item as well. The correla-tions between the correctedECERS-R score and scores on theSpeciaLink Inclusion Practices Pro-file and the SpeciaLink InclusionPractices Scale remained signifi-cant at the .001 level and rangedfrom .59 to .65. The correlation be-tween the corrected ECERS scoreand scores on the Inclusion Qual-ity Index was .74. Clearly, there isa strong association between ob-served overall program quality and


Average ECERS-R Quality Scores, by InclusionQuality Index Values

Figure 7


3.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4.14.3 4.6

5.4 5.36.0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Inclusion Quality Index Value

demonstrated high or low inclusionquality. We contrasted the top andbottom 7 centres on the IQI forthese analyses. (The 7 centres inthe top group scored in the topthird on each measure of inclusionquality; the bottom 7 centresplaced in the bottom third of scoreson at least two, if not all three, mea-sures of inclusion quality.) Cen-tres in these two groups differedsignificantly on the full ECERS-Rmeasures and each of its sevensubscales. (See Figure 8).

There was a small number of cen-tres that had reasonably highECERS-R scores that evidenced lowto moderate levels of inclusionquality. However none of the cen-tres that demonstrated high inclu-sion quality had scores below 5.0(the threshold for describing pro-grams as providing good quality,developmentally appropriate learn-ing and care). Program qualityseems to be a necessary, but notsufficient, condition for inclusionquality. The latter requires addi-tional resources and supports.

inclusion quality, as shown inFigure 7.

A second method used to test therelationship between overall pro-gram quality and inclusion qualityinvolved comparing centres that

Figure 8

Average ECERS-R and Subscale Scores for Centres Classified as High or Low onInclusion Quality

Space &

Furnishings


Staff-Child

Interaction

Personal Care

Routines

Language

Reasoning

Activities Program

Structure

Parents and

Staff

Total

ECERS

Quality

3.8

5.9

3.2

6.2

3.9

6.4

3.2

4.2

5.4

6.7

3.6

4.2

3.7

6.06.2 6.2

Low Inclusion Quality

High Inclusion Quality


What Characterizes Centres thatDemonstrate High InclusionQuality?

The primary method used to an-swer the question, “What charac-terizes centres that demonstratehigh inclusion quality?” involvedcomparing centres in the top andbottom groups based on IQI scores,in addition to correlational analy-ses that employed specific variablesof interest. For this purpose, all ofthe data from director and staffquestionnaires, interviews, theECERS-R assessments, theSpecialink measures of inclusionprinciples and practices, observers’field notes, and phone interviewswith resource consultants were re-viewed, and case study profileswere written up. Consequently, rat-ings were developed of 11 types ofresources that can support effec-tive inclusion.Within-centre re-sources included both material re-sources and human resources.Resources provided to centres in-cluded support from IRTs, special-ists and professionals in the com-munity, government (in the form offunding), and parents.

Ratings of material resourceswithin centres were based on thequality of the physical environment— particularly accessibility and theextent to which the layout allowedfree and easy movement for chil-dren and staff between areas andactivities. Human resources withincentres included: the director’s roleas an inclusion leader and thedirector’s and staff’s commitmentto inclusion; evidence of ongoingcapacity to sustain effective inclu-sion over time; the director’s andstaff’s training and experience re-lated to inclusion; the level of train-ing and effectiveness of other staff,such as program assistants andaides; and staff’s overall effective-

ness in working together as a teamto support inclusion success.

Analyses confirmed that there weresignificant differences between cen-tres that evidenced high and lowinclusion quality on almost all ofthese dimensions. The analysesconfirmed that effective or success-ful inclusion requires a mix of re-sources within centres and sup-ports to centres. Centres that dis-played high inclusion quality wereaccessible and offered well de-signed programs. These centreshad developed a strong commit-ment to inclusion over time; hadstable, additional staff above ratio— most often, an in-house RT —and had invested considerable timeand energy to learn more about in-clusion through conferences,workshops, and in-service training.Staff in these centres had strongrelationships with parents andbenefited from effective supportfrom a range of specialists andagencies in their community.

Centres that demonstrated low in-clusion quality often lacked thecritical human resources to sup-port inclusion within their centres,and also manifested lower programquality and limited physical re-sources to support inclusion.These missing or weak componentscould rarely be compensated for byother, external factors. These find-ings suggest that policies designedto promote effective inclusion mustbe attentive to a range of factorsoperating together. Moreover, pro-grams that evidence high inclusionquality require ongoing support iftheir success is to be sustainedover time. The loss or withdrawalof trained and committed resourceteachers, and/or the retirement ofa director who has been a stronginclusion leader can destabilize acentre’s effectiveness. Neither pro-


gram quality nor inclusion qualitycan be taken for granted. Eachmust be nurtured and recreated onan ongoing basis.

Alternate Models for SupportingQuality

One of the main purposes of Study2 was to examine the differencesbetween two models of supportinginclusive child care, originally con-ceptualized as A) a model ofresourcing centres to be effectivethrough funding an in-house RT oradditional ECE above ratio, or B)providing IRT support and othersupports (such as training, consul-tation, and program assistants) ona case-by-case basis, allocating re-sources that “follow the child.” Inpractice, we found that there werea few centres that had neither anin-house RT nor IRT support, andthere were some centres that ben-efited from IRT support in additionto having an in-house RT. Conse-quently, analyses were performedthat compared centres that had anin-house RT or additional ongoingtrained staff member above ratio tocentres that had no additional,stable in-house supports. We alsonoted the importance of appreciat-ing the extent and nature of IRTsupport provided to centres and thecontext in which that support wasreceived as important factors. Cen-tres that never had an in-house RTand receive much attention andsupport from a sensitive IRT dif-fered from those who recently hadan in-house RT withdrawn againsttheir wishes in favour of more flex-ible allocations.

There were many important, sta-tistically significant differences be-tween centres that had an ongo-ing, trained in-house RT or equiva-lent and centres that had no on-

going additional staff supportwithin the centre. Centres with in-house RTs enrolled more childrenwith special needs on a continuingbasis and generally included chil-dren with more complex needs overtime. Centres that had no ongoingin-house RT typically enrolledfewer children (often one or two),and had not developed a view ofthemselves as an inclusive centrewith a centre-wide ethic or commit-ment to continually include chil-dren with special needs.

Centres that had in-house RTs andthose with no dedicated additionalstaff did not have significantly dif-ferent scores on the ECERS-R mea-sure of program quality (with av-erages of 5.1 and 4.5, respectively),although twice as many centreswith an in-house RT or equivalenthad ECERS-R scores that typifygood to excellent quality. The cen-tres did differ significantly, how-ever, on all three measures of in-clusion quality and on the InclusionQuality Index, reflecting differencesin practices (such as developingand using individual programplans, working successfully as ateam, working collaboratively withprofessionals, and having strongpartnerships with parents).

Significant differences betweencentres with and without in-houseRTs were also noted in ratings of:

• the centre’s ongoing capacityto sustain effective inclusion overtime,

• inclusion-specific trainingand experience of the director andteaching staff, and

• the level of leadership andcommitment to inclusion evidencedby the director and teaching staff.

In addition, staff in centres with anin-house RT had more favourable


attitudes towards inclusion, weremore confident of their ability tomeet the developmental needs ofmost children with special needsin their program, and felt more con-fident about their capacity to ob-tain advice and information fromothers to help them work with andplan for children with specialneeds.

Two other differences of particularinterest were also noted that speakto the experiences of children andstaff in child care centres. Oneemerged from the rich field notesprovided by the experienced ob-servers who participated in thisstudy that speaks specifically to thequality of children’s experiences inthe program. They noted that itwas far more common for childrenwith special needs to be “accepted”in centres with additional in-housestaff. In these settings childrencould choose what areas and ac-tivities to engage in and interactedfreely with all teachers in the set-ting. The contrast — observed inseveral centres with IRT supportand program aides who often had

part-time, temporary positions,was one of “segregated inclusion.”In these circumstances observersnoted that regular staff had few in-teractions with the children withspecial needs — both the child andhis/her aide were often on the pe-riphery, with fewer interactionswith peers for that child as well.

Directors also spoke of the difficultyand variability in the training andskills that program assistants hadto help children be fully integratedin the program; a factor related tothe difficulty of finding trained earlychildhood staff who wish to workon a part-time basis with no job se-curity. Interestingly, centres thathad only IRT support and hadhigher scores on the IQI often weremore likely to have been givenfunding to hire an additional full-time staff member for 6 months ora year (a circumstance that beginsto emulate an in-house RT modelfor some period of time).

A second important finding of noterelates to early childhood educa-tors’ beliefs about inclusion. Wehave noted that staff attitudes andbeliefs reflect their level of training,their experiences with inclusion intheir programs, and the supportsavailable to assist them to be suc-cessful. When asked their viewsas to whether it would be better tohave some child care programs ac-cept children with special needs(with specialized resources) thantry to have all child care programsbe inclusive, staff in centres withan in-house RT were more likely todisagree. Only 6 percent of staff incentres with an in-house RT agreedwith this statement, while 44% ofstaff in centres that had no ongo-ing in-house RT or equivalentagreed with this opinion.(See Figure 9.)

Staff Perspectives: “It Would Be Better to Have SomeChild Care Programs Accept Children With Special Needs”

Figure 9


Strongly Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree

No In-House RT

In-House RT

0%

6%

0%

44%

31%

25% 25%

31%

0%

38%


This finding has important impli-cations for the future of inclusiveprograms. Even staff who are com-mitted to inclusion in principle arereluctant to extend their efforts far-ther when the resources are not inplace to support their efforts, andwhen they perceive the quality ofcare for both children with specialneeds and other children will becompromised.

Critical Combinations thatSupport Inclusion Quality inChild Care Centres

Another important set of analyseswas done to determine which re-sources within centres and sup-ports extended to centres are mostcritical for inclusion quality. Inten-sive case study analysis and fur-ther comparisons between centresin the high and low inclusion qual-ity groups were utilized for thispurpose. We noted that there werea number of variables that not onlywere important for inclusion qual-ity, but also evidenced a patternwhere there was no overlap be-tween high and low inclusiongroups. We concluded that the fol-lowing factors are essential for in-clusion quality:

• High overall program quality.

• The centre is accessible andwell-designed to permit easy tran-sitions between areas and accessto running water and toiletting fa-cilities.

• The centre has committed,well-trained staff, including an in-house RT or additional trained staffposition when there are four ormore children with special needsor fewer children with particularlyhigh or specialized needs.

• The director and staff are ac-tive learners who attend confer-

ences and workshops on inclusionand extend their knowledge andskills, as well as their contacts withother professionals.

• The director or RT is an ef-fective and sensitive inclusionleader in the centre.

• Human resources are in placewithin the centre to sustain thecapacity and commitment neces-sary to meet new challenges, ad-dress the needs and concerns ofchildren and parents, and build onan important set of shared experi-ences.

• External supports — particu-larly support from specialists(Speech and Language therapists,Physiotherapists and Occupationaltherapists, medical practitioners,those with particular experiencewith hearing and vision impair-ments), from parents, and fromgovernment — are essential. Inthis study, support from IRTs wasnot a critical factor for inclusionquality, although it was evidentthat some centres benefited fromsensitive and responsive supportfrom IRTs and resource consult-ants. However, centres that dem-onstrated high inclusion qualitytypically had at least a moderate,if not a high, level of collaborativesupport from specialists.

• Our data did not suggest evi-dence of any significant compen-satory effects between IRTs andother specialists and professionals.Low levels of support from bothsources concurrently was relatedto low inclusion quality. Furtherresearch is needed to provide abetter understanding of how, andunder what conditions, IRT sup-port extends centre resources andfacilitates collaboration with par-ents and other professionals.


Implications of Findings FromStudy 2

The findings from this study havemajor implications for policy, prac-tice, and research. We have identi-fied a number of factors that, indi-vidually and in combination, arecritical contributors to inclusionquality. In addition, the findingscall into question recent policy ini-tiatives that trade off stable staffresources within centres to ensureinclusion quality, in order to in-crease the number of children withspecial needs being placed in childcare centres.

Some of the major findings fromthis study are the following:

1. There is a strong relation-ship between overall programquality and inclusion quality.

Statistically, ECERS-R programquality scores were highly corre-lated with each measure of inclu-sion quality, as well as scores onthe Inclusion Quality Index. Centresthat evidenced high inclusion qual-ity had an average ECERS-R scoreof 6.0, indicating very high qualityacross a number of domains; cen-tres that evidenced low inclusionquality had an average ECERS-Rscore of 3.7, reflecting a relativelylow level of program quality. Ob-servers commented on related dif-ferences in the quality of the physi-cal environment, the variety andquality of program activities andmaterials available to promotelearning and skill development, theextent to which staff-child interac-tions encouraged language devel-opment and extended learningthrough play, and the extent to

which peer and adult-child inter-actions conveyed that all childrenare welcomed and respected in theprogram. There were a few centresin this study with moderately highscores on the ECERS-R measure(5.2 – 5.9) that evidenced only mod-erate levels of inclusion quality. Wetherefore conclude that high pro-gram quality, in and of itself, is nota sufficient factor to ensure inclu-sion quality. Other resources andsupports must be in place as well.Program quality does appear to bea necessary factor however. Nocentre that scored in the topquartile on our Inclusion QualityIndex scored less than 5.1 on theECERS-R measure.2

All children benefit from participat-ing in high quality early childhoodeducation and care programs.However, our findings confirm thatoverall program quality is a criticalcorrelate and contributor to inclu-sion quality, and is likely to have astrong impact on the extent towhich children with special needsbenefit from their participation ina child care setting.

2. Inclusion quality is stronglyrelated to centre, director andstaff characteristics that form aweb of within-centre resourcesthat support inclusion quality.Consequently, all of the elementsthat make up this infrastructuremust be considered and supportedif inclusion quality is to be assuredand sustained over time.

Two aspects of the physical or ma-terial resources within centres werestrongly related to inclusion qual-ity: the centre’s physical structureand accessibility, and the availabil-

2 A score of 5.0 is considered a threshold with scores above 5.0 indicating centres that exem-plify high quality and developmentally enhancing practices.


ity of specialized equipment andmaterials.

• Specifically, centres that evi-denced high inclusion quality weretypically accessible (most oftenwhen purpose-built as child carecentres), with well-designed layoutsthat allow children and staff tomove freely and easily betweenareas and activities. This aspectwas highly related to program qual-ity as well, and appears to be anessential contributor to inclusionquality. While some centres maymake accommodations for indi-vidual children, inaccessible envi-ronments typically result in re-stricting some children entirelyfrom a program, and poorly de-signed layouts are problematic forchildren and for staff. Accessibil-ity and good design criteria are nec-essary ingredients for inclusivechild care programs, especiallywhen viewed over a longer term andwider population.

• Centres that evidenced high in-clusion quality were also signifi-cantly more likely to have special-ized equipment and materials inthe centre or readily available ifneeded. Having particular special-ized equipment and material maynot be essential, depending on thechildren who are enrolled and theirspecific needs; however, for somechildren specialized material orequipment is necessary to enhancetheir developmental capacities, en-sure their full participation in theprogram, and reinforce therapeu-tic interventions. As centre stafflearn how to use specialized mate-rial and equipment (typically withassistance from therapists andparents), they gain more skills andconfidence, and become more ac-cepting of a wider range of childrenin the centre.

3. Based on our findings, thequality of human resourceswithin centres is critically impor-tant for inclusion quality.

Five dimensions of director andstaff characteristics were explored.These dimensions capture:

i) the director’s leadership relatedto inclusion, and the director’s andstaff’s commitment to inclusion; ii)evidence of ongoing capacity withinthe centre to sustain effective in-clusion; iii) the director’s and staff’straining and experience related toinclusion; iv) the level of trainingand effectiveness in promoting in-clusion observed among specialneeds workers or program assis-tants; and v) the staff’s overall ef-fectiveness in working as a sup-portive team.

All five of these dimensions weresignificantly correlated with inclu-sion quality, with considerable dif-ferences noted between centres inthe top and bottom inclusion qual-ity groups. Generally, centres thatevidenced high inclusion qualityhad ratings of medium plus or highon each human resource dimen-sion; centres that evidenced lowinclusion quality were typicallyrated as low to medium on eachdimension, often with little overlapin ratings between groups. Ratingson these five human resource di-mensions were also highlyintercorrelated.

Our findings determined that thedirector’s leadership and directorand staff’s commitment to inclu-sion, the director’s and staff’s train-ing specific to inclusion, and a staffcomplement that typically includesa continuing in-house resourceteacher or trained ECE above ra-tio, are all essential — both forpresent high levels of inclusion


quality and for being able to sus-tain inclusion quality over time.

Centres in this study that had thehighest observed levels of inclusionquality had developed a strongethic about being inclusive, hadbenefited from years of working to-gether and with therapists and par-ents, and were an effective andsupportive team. Their practicesin including children with specialneeds were observed to be accept-ing and oriented to ensuring fullparticipation in the program.These centres can serve as positiveand powerful models for others,and as locations where other childcare staff might have the opportu-nity to learn about best practicesfor use in other programs.

4. Continuing in-house re-source teachers and trained ECEstaff above ratio are a criticalcomponent in inclusion quality.Policies oriented to increasingthe number of centres that ac-cept children with special needsshould not compromise qualityfor quantity.

Our analyses revealed that havinga continuing in-house resourceteacher with additional trainingrelated to inclusion plays a criti-cally important role in centres thatexemplify high inclusion quality. Aprevious policy approach in a num-ber of provinces ensured that ad-ditional funding was provided foran in-house resource teacher orcontracted child care supportworker (or differential fees enabledthis to happen) when centres con-tinually included four or more chil-dren with special needs. Indeed,that policy approach was instru-mental in enabling many of thecentres in this study to develop thestrengths they had when we vis-ited them to collect data in theSpring of 2001.

Our analyses also revealed that ashift in policy designed to increasethe number of children with spe-cial needs in child care programson the basis of reallocating the lim-ited funds that supported continu-ing in-house resource teachers isvery problematic. In at least twoinstances in this sample, centresthat lost their in-house RT were nolonger accepting as many childrenwith special needs and were pro-viding a lower level of inclusionquality than they had previously.Other centres that had recently lostan in-house RT or supervisor whoprovided leadership for inclusionquality were also not providing ahigh level of inclusion quality, norwere centres that had no ongoingspecial needs worker allocated tothem by itinerant resource teach-ers or consulting agencies. Observ-ers noted that inclusion quality wascompromised in centres when part-time and/or short-term contractstaff are hired on a child-by-childbasis to support inclusion. In thesecases, there were often difficultiesobserved in ensuring that staffworked well together as an effec-tive team, and evidence of “segre-gated inclusion,” where neither thechild nor his/her aide were wellintegrated and accepted in the pro-gram. These effects were most no-table when the special needs work-ers had less training and experi-ence than regular centre staff.

It is critically important that moreresearch, particularly multifacetedprogram evaluations, be done onhow resources can best be used toenable a larger number of childrenwith special needs to benefit frompositive experiences in high qual-ity, community-based child careprograms. Based on this study,however, it appears that withdraw-ing critical resources from well-functioning programs is a short-


sighted and ineffective way to ex-tend the benefits of inclusive careto more children and families.There is good reason to ensure thatcentres that continually enroll chil-dren with special needs and chil-dren at risk have stable, commit-ted staff to support inclusion qual-ity.

5. Child care centres requiresufficient funding and strongpartnerships with others to pro-vided high-quality inclusive care.

Our findings confirmed that cen-tres that evidenced high inclusionquality benefited from having morefunding to support inclusion (oftento hire an ongoing resource teacheror supported child care worker),and positive and effective collabo-rative relationships with therapistsin the community. Stronger andmore positive relationships withparents were shown to be both acomponent of, and contributor to,inclusion quality. Support fromitinerant resource teachers andagencies did not play a major rolein ensuring inclusion quality in thissample, although individual cen-tres clearly did benefit from highlevels of support from this source.

Funding is critical both to ensurethe base level of quality in childcare centres and to provide ad-equate salaries for early childhoodeducators, supervisors, and re-source teachers. Limited fundinghas multiple effects and, in fact,has contributed to an alternatepolicy that may be compromisinginclusion quality in centres thathad previously developed consid-erable strengths. Policies that pitextra funding to centres againstfunding to community agencies in-hibit communities’ capacities toachieve and sustain the goal of in-creasing the number of centres that

enroll children with special needswhen, at best, only part-time orshort-term staffing support is pro-vided. Indeed, our data indicatethat under these conditions, staffare more likely to feel that “onlysome child care programs with spe-cialized resources” should includechildren with special needs — anattitude that is counter to policygoals and evolving practice stan-dards.

Support from therapists and otherspecialists in the community wasfound to be an essential contribu-tor to inclusion quality. Therapistscan educate child care staff abouthow best to work with children withspecial needs with which they areunfamiliar, thereby helping themdevelop skills and greater confi-dence. We note that this collabo-ration is likely to be successfulwhen staff have support from theirdirector, are able to be involved inplanning and progress reviews, andfunction in high quality programs.

Parents play a crucial role as well.Centres that exemplify high inclu-sion quality have strong relation-ships with parents of children withspecial needs, engaging with themas partners in promoting theirchildren’s development, and asmutual sources of support. Timethat is allocated to meeting withparents and to responding to theirconcerns, as well as learning fromthem, appears to be particularlycritical, especially for children withhigh needs. All parties appear tobenefit from strong, mutually posi-tive and supportive relationshipsbetween parents and centre staff.

In summary, this study providedan important opportunity to learnmore about the ecology of inclusionas it exists within child care cen-


tres across Canada. Rich data pro-vided many insights and form thebasis for the recommendations thatfollow. We hope that this report willbe used as an opportunity for re-searchers, policy makers, and childcare professionals to continue tolearn about inclusion, and to de-sign policies and practices that bestserve the needs of all our children.

Toward The Next Generation inChild Care in Canada

Since 2000 when our previousstudy, A Matter of Urgency : Includ-ing Children with Special Needs inChild Care in Canada (Irwin, Lero,Brophy) was published, there hasbeen a strong convergence of de-velopments in public policy andlegislation, practice, and publicsupport that makes us cautiouslyoptimistic about the future of in-clusive child care for children withspecial needs in Canada.

The National Children’s Agenda(1997) signalled a renewed inter-est of federal/provincial/territorialgovernments in the well-being ofCanada’s children. The MultilateralFramework on Early Learning andChild Care (2003), signed by thefederal/provincial/territorial min-isters, presents a framework forproviding access to affordable,quality, provincially and territori-ally regulated early learning andchild care programs and services.Modest initial funding will be pro-vided by the Government ofCanada. Included as one of the fiveMultilateral Framework principlesis inclusive — described as “Earlylearning and child care should beinclusive of, and responsive to, theneeds of children with differingabilities; Aboriginal (i.e., Indian,Inuit and Métis) children; and chil-dren in various cultural and lin-guistic circumstances….” This is

the first F/P/T accord that includesreference to children with “differ-ing abilities” and, as such, is amajor step forward.

Canada’s signature on the UN Con-vention on the Rights of the Childand the subsequent advocacy ac-tions for compliance, notably thework of Senator Landon Pearsonand of the Canadian Coalition forthe Rights of Children (CCRC), haspopularized the concept ofchildren’s rights, and given visibil-ity to the special rights of childrenwith special needs.

Continuing emphasis on the criti-cal importance of the early yearsby researchers and governments,as a basis for all later learning andsocial/emotional development, hasalso supported growing demand —and funding — of initiatives foryoung children and their families.

Child care practice in Canada ap-pears to be increasingly inclusive,with many provinces offering inclu-sive quality improvement initiativesto centres, generally with financialsupport from the Early ChildhoodDevelopment Initiative (2000).

And, finally, numerous anecdotalreports suggest that the child carefield, and parents who use childcare, are increasingly sensitive tothe need to be proactive if childrenwith special needs are to be in-cluded. The recent public responseto a draft document on a future forchild care (Child Care Advocacy ofCanada, 2004) was strong in its de-mand that “inclusive child care”and “children with special needs”be specifically referenced in the fi-nal document. Popular media pre-sentation of children with visibledisabilities in typical settings hasincreased public acceptance of theconcept of inclusion.

While these developments are posi-tive, it remains to be seen whether


Canadian governments (and pub-lics) will develop and support effec-tive public policies and programapproaches to ensure that highquality, affordable, accessible, in-clusive child care for all childrenbecomes a sustainable reality.Without such a commitment, childcare will continue to flounder,marginalized, insufficiently sup-ported, inaccessible to many fami-lies, and plagued by frequent staffturnover and stress, caused by lowwages and limited recognition.

A Matter of Urgency included 21recommendations, organized undertwo categories: Legislation, PolicyDevelopment and Funding (3 rec-ommendations) and Capacity-Building (18). Most of the recom-mendations remain valid today,although the changes listed above,particularly in legislation andpolicy, would be reflected in slightrevisions. We have included ourearlier recommendations as Appen-dix C in the full report. The recom-mendations from this report, Inclu-sion: The Next Generation, affirmthe earlier recommendations, butconcentrate on specific areas thatwere the focus of this research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A Focus on Leadership

Inclusion: The Next Generation con-firms the critical role of the childcare centre director as inclusionleader. Some of the programs inthis study lacked resource teach-ers; some lacked regularized fund-ing for the extra costs of resourcesupports; some lacked strongboards — but none of the success-ful programs lacked strong, com-mitted directors. Activities and pro-grams that enhance that role arecritical. Fully inclusive child carecentres are still rare, and their

sustainability is in question asfounding directors retire or moveon. We strongly recommend that:

1. Governments must targetinclusive directors as key changeagents, and fund projects thatenhance their impact on thebroader child care community.

This can be achieved throughprojects that:

• Bring key people from success-ful inclusive child care sites to-gether to share learnings and bestpractices, and to strategize aboutpractical initiatives;

• Sponsor inclusion leadershiptraining institutes for directors,and for potential directors, withdemonstrated commitment to in-clusion;

• Support networking opportuni-ties for directors/supervisors ofinclusive centres;

• Create a national mentorshipprogram for inclusion, with suc-cessful directors/supervisors ofinclusive centres as mentors, nomi-nating in-province leaders who are“ready to include”;

• Support field-based speakers’bureaus on inclusion, with direc-tors/supervisors — credible prac-titioners — as key figures;

• Promote a career ladder andencourage existing successful in-clusion practitioners to becometrainers.

There is a tremendous reserve of“practice wisdom” that should bewidely shared and utilized to en-hance inclusive practice and toencourage the next generation ofdirectors and child care profession-als.

2. Governments must fund avariety of opportunities (usingin-person presentations, printmaterials, videos, and web-base


resources) to share with othersknowledge acquired by leaders ininclusive child care programs.

A Focus on Training

3. Provincial and territorialgovernments must ensure thatthere is a variety of courses, con-ferences and workshops on inclu-sion that are accessible, afford-able, and available to staff anddirectors on an ongoing basis, ad-dressing the range of topics andissues that are important for suc-cessful inclusion.

4. College and university pro-grams in ECE must incorporatemore materials about inclusivepractice in their curricula and inpost-diploma and graduatecourses.

5. Practica and placementcourses in ECE and related pro-grams must be strategically de-veloped to ensure that studentshave the opportunity to learnabout inclusion by participatingin successful centres.

6. Colleges and universitiesmust reconceptualize (in consul-tation with the field) post-di-ploma/graduate programs forresource teachers and specialneeds workers in early childhoodeducation. These should reflect themultiple roles of direct service, col-laborative practice, consulting, andadult education. They should alsoaddress the needs of short-termcontract workers who work in in-clusive child care settings, oftenwithout training.

7. Intensive inclusion qualityenhancement programs, such asKeeping the Door Open in NewBrunswick; Measuring and Im-

proving Kids’ Environments(MIKE) in Prince Edward Island;and Partnerships for Inclusionin Nova Scotia, must be offeredto centres in all provinces.

A Focus on Policy

Provincial/territorial/municipalpolicy must support effective inclu-sion practice. Funding must beprovided to ensure that centres andtheir staff have access to the re-sources (both financial and humanresources) they need to continue tobe effective and to expand their ca-pabilities, and are compensated forthe valuable work they do. Amongpolicy concerns to be addressedare:

8. Child care centres that en-roll children with special needsmust have timely access to childassessments, both to determineeligibility and to help child carestaff in their planning efforts.

9. Child care centres musthave additional funds to enhanceratios (or employ an in-houseresource teacher) when four ormore children with special needsare enrolled, or when any chil-dren have extremely high specialneeds. Funding should be stableand adequate to recruit and re-tain trained and experiencedECEs for this work.

10. Itinerant resource teachersmust be available to child careprograms to support the effec-tive inclusion of children withspecial needs.

11. Child care centres musthave appropriate levels of sup-port from therapists and otherrelated specialists in the commu-nity when they enroll childrenwith special needs.


12. Child care centres musthave additional assistants whenthey enroll children with morechallenging needs.

13. Since accessibility andphysical structure are so closelyrelated to both inclusion qualityand global quality, all new cen-tres must be purpose-built tomeet current standards, andolder centres must be eligible forcapital grants to increase acces-sibility.

A Focus on Planning forTransitions

Provincial/territorial policy mustsupport a collaborative, interdisci-plinary approach among earlyyears professionals, includingschool personnel.

14. Early years personnel mustdevelop protocols and strategiesfor effective planning and coor-dination of efforts to assist withchild care transitions (from homeor early intervention/infant de-velopment to child care, andfrom child care to school).

A Focus on Research

15. Governments must fundthorough evaluations of the ef-fectiveness of different models ofinclusion support.

16. Governments must fundthe monitoring of progress to-ward “inclusiveness” in childcare programs. Instruments formonitoring inclusion quality, suchas the SpeciaLink Inclusion Profileand the SpeciaLink Inclusion Prac-tices Scale, are available and arefamiliar to the field.

A Focus on the Profession

Wide variance exists in the roles,training, caseload size, durationand frequency of visits, focus ofservice, etc., of resource teachersin child care.

17. As an emerging profession,leaders in the field of resourceteachers/specialists in EarlyChildhood must define their owncode of ethics, mandates, appro-priate caseloads, and standardsof training and practice. Fund-ing must be allocated for researchand development projects orientedtoward this goal.

Toward a System of High Quality,Affordable, Accessible,Inclusive Child CarePrograms Across Canada

The continued under-funding andundervaluing of child care profes-sionals is a serious concern thatwill affect the recruitment and re-tention of skilled individuals in thisfield.

A renewed commitment to a na-tional child care program mustconsider the quality of early learn-ing and child care, along with is-sues of affordability and expansionof spaces.

18. F e d e r a l / p r o v i n c i a l /territorial governments muststrengthen the funding compo-nent of the Multilateral Frame-work on Early Learning andChild Care to build a nationalCanadian child care system thatincludes career ladders withgraduated salaries, and assuresa continuing infrastructure tosupport high quality, inclusiveprograms.


END NOTES

Arnett, J. (1989).Caregivers in day-care centres: Does training matter? Applied Develop-mental Psychology, 10, 541-552.

Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (2004). Seeing and solving the child care cri-sis: Options for progress. ON: Author.

Cleveland, G. & Krashinsky, 1998. The benefits and costs of good child care: The economicrationale for public investment in youg children. Toronto: Childcare Resource and ResearchUnit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. Available fromWeb Site: http://www.childcarecanada.org.

Friendly, M. (1994). Child care policy in Canada: Putting the pieces together. ON: Addison-Wesley Publishers Limited.

Goelman, H., Doherty, G., Lero, D.S., LaGrange, A., & Tougas, J. (2000). You Bet I Care!Caring and learning environments: Quality in child care centres across Canada. ON: Uni-versity of Guelph (Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being). From Web Site: http://www.worklifecanada.ca

Government of Canada. (2000). Early Childhood Development Agreement. Reports andbackground documents available from Web Site: http://www.socialunion.gc.ca/menu_e.html.

Government of Canada. (2003). Multilateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care.Reports and background documents available from Web Site: http://www.socialunion.gc.ca/menu_e.html.

Harbin, G. & Salisbury, C. (2000). Recommended practices in policies, procedures andsystems change. In Sandall, Mclean & Smith, DEC recommended practices in early inter-vention/early childhood special education, 65-75. CO: Sopris West & DEC. Available fromWeb Site: http://www.dec-sped.org.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale,revised edition (ECERS-R). NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Helburn, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers: Techni-cal report. CO: University of Denver, Department of Economics, Centers for Research andSocial Policy.

Irwin, S.H. (2001a). The SpeciaLink Inclusion Practices Profile. In S. H. Irwin, D. S. Lero, &K. Brophy, Inclusion: The next generation in child care in Canada (Appendix A). NS: BretonBooks. Available from Web Site: http://www.specialinkcanada.org.

Irwin, S.H. (2001b) The SpeciaLink Inclusion Principles Scale. In S. H. Irwin, D. S. Lero, &K. Brophy, Inclusion: The next generation in child care in Canada (Appendix B). NS: BretonBooks. Available from Web Site: http://www.specialinkcanada.org.

Irwin, S. H., Lero, D. S., & Brophy, K. (2000). A matter of urgency: Including children withspecial needs in child care in Canada, pp. xvi; 108. NS: Breton Books. Available from WebSite: http://www.specialinkcanada.org.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1992). The child care director: A critical component of program quality.Educational Horizons, Spring, 138-145.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (2000). Images from the field: How directors view their organizations,their roles, and their jobs. In M. L. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children’sprograms: The leadership role. NY: Teachers College Press.

Odom, S. L. (2002). Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschoolprograms. NY: Teachers College Press.

Roeher Institute (2003). Inclusivity of the child care policy environment in Canada: Muchwork to be done. ON: Author.

Sandall, Mclean & Smith, DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early child-hood special education. CO: Sopris West & DEC. Available from Web Site: http://www.decsped.org.

Wolery, R.A. & Odom, S.L. (2000). An administrator’s guide to preschool inclusion. NC: FPGChild Development Centre, Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion. Availablefrom Web Site: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ecrii.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sharon Hope Irwin

The director of SpeciaLink, the National Centre for Child Care Inclusion,Dr. Sharon Hope Irwin has been actively involved in the frontline devel-opment of inclusive child care and early intervention programs for overtwenty-five years. She is an advocate for young children with specialneeds and their families, locally, regionally, and nationally, serving onnumerous commissions, working groups, task forces, and committees.SpeciaLink takes her work across Canada, identifying, analyzing anddisseminating successful inclusive practices and policies in child care.Her work for the special needs project of the Canadian Union of PostalWorkers helped to add a labour partner to the growing movement forequitable treatment of children with special needs and their families,and resulted in the publication, In Our Way: Child Care Barriers to FullWorkforce Participation Experienced by Parents of Children with SpecialNeeds — and Potential Remedies (1997), co-authored with Dr. Lero. Otherpublications include Integration of Children with Special Needs into Daycareand After-school Care Programs (1992), The SpeciaLink Book (1993), Chart-ing New Waters in Early Intervention (1995), Challenging the ChallengingBehaviours (1999) and Inclusion Voices (2004). A Matter of Urgency: In-cluding Children with Special Needs in Child Care in Canada (2000) waswritten in collaboration with Drs. Lero and Brophy, co-authors of thecurrent book.

Donna Lero

Noted for her involvement in child care research in Canada, Dr. Leroteaches undergraduate and graduate courses in child and family wel-fare, poverty, and family-related social policy at the University of Guelph.Donna co-founded the University’s Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being and holds the position of Jarislowsky Chair in Families and Work.Her research in that capacity focuses on workplace policies and prac-tices, public policies, and family supports. Her current research in theCentre includes evaluating parental leave and benefit policies; policyoptions to support self-employment; and policies and practices that fa-cilitate an effective return to work following illness or injury. She is alsoinvolved in an international study of factors that impact on work-lifeconflict. Her research in the child care field is long-standing and includesher role as director of the Canadian National Child Care Study and as co-principal investigator in the You Bet I Care! Research project. Her re-search on children with special needs and their families has resulted intwo books: In Our Way: Child Care Barriers to Full Workforce ParticipationExperienced by Parents of Children with Special Needs (with Dr. Irwin)and A Matter of Urgency: Including Children with Special Needs in ChildCare in Canada (with Dr. Irwin and Dr. Kathleen Brophy).


Kathleen Brophy

Dr. Kathleen Brophy is a professor in the Department of Family Rela-tions and Applied Nutrition at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario.She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in curriculum devel-opment, play, and program evaluation, and supervises undergraduatestudents in field placements. For the past 10 years she has been a mem-ber of the Research Coordination Unit for the provincial prevention ini-tiative Better Beginnings, Better Futures and has been site liason for theOnward Willow site for the project. In this capacity she has worked closelywith community members, agency partners and program staff to developand evaluate community-based intervention strategies for children andfamilies. She is currently involved in the Reaching In Reaching Out projectand, as a member of the research team, is developing training modulesfor students in Early Childhood Programs focusing on resiliency. She iscurrently a Program Coordinator for the Early Childhood Services de-gree/diploma program at the University of Guelph-Humber in Toronto,Ontario.


For early childhood educators, resource teachers, parents and early inter-ventionists — anyone passionate about including children with special needs.

Challenging Books from BRETON BOOKSThe SpeciaLink Series—2004-2005

Order Form on the Other Side of this FlyerPrices include shipping and tax.

Charting New Waters— Proceedings of theSpeciaLink NationalEarly InterventionSymposium

Contains full text ofarticles by Dana Brynelson,Debra Martell, Kofi Marfoand Marilyn Peers, plusAlan Mirabelli’s assessmentof the new shapes of family! Workshops,speeches, face-to-face conversations, & more!

Price $16.00Breton Books. ISBN 1-895415-13-6

Integration of Childrenwith Disabilities intoDaycare andAfterschool CareSystemsA portrait of 10 Cana-dian daycares that havedeveloped innovativemethods to includechildren with disabilities.

The SpeciaLink Book — On the Road toMainstream Child Care

This is the story of our roadto the principles of fullmainstream child care,and of the SpeciaLinkSymposium, which madethose principles thenational agenda formainstream advocates.Includes reprints of the first6 SpeciaLink newsletters,a Canadian directory of mainstream child careadvocates, a list of further readings, and more.


Contains a literature review, an overview of pro-gram models, demonstration sites and replicationprograms, and more. Price $16.00

Integration ofChildren

with Disabilitiesinto Daycare

and AfterschoolCare SystemsSharon Hope Irwin

INCLUSION: The NextGeneration provides asnapshot of current in-clusion practices inchild care in Canada.This book investigateswhat makes inclusionwork, what makes qual-ity child care for chil-dren with special needsa reality. As we enterthe third generation,Inclusion: The NextGeneration focuses oncritical roles and re-sources that sustain ex-isting inclusive pro-grams and that encourage more centres to enroll chil-dren with special needs. Price $25.00

Breton Books. ISBN 1-895415-59-4

Inclusion VoicesThis book is an inspir-ing, readable pictureof Canada’s inclusionjourney, told by 10child care directors.They speak to us di-rectly and withoutflinching. They pro-vide warnings, guid-ance and encourage-ment. A remarkableportrait and a tool weare fortunate to have.

Price $20.00Breton Books.

ISBN 1-895415-63-2

INCLUSION: The Next Generation $25Inclusion Voices $20

A Matter of Urgency $25Challenging the Challenging Behaviours $25

In Our Way $25Integration of Children… $16

Charting New Waters $16The SpeciaLink Book $25

Video - The Mainstream is the Right Stream $40 VHSVideo - The Mainstream is the Right Stream $40 DVD

Name: _________________________________________________ Organization: _______________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________ City: ___________________________ Prov: _____ PC: __________

Phone:(______)____________________ Fax:(______)____________________ E-mail: __________________________________________

Pay by ❏ cheque, ❏ money order, ❏ Visa or ❏ MasterCard.

Credit Card No.: __________________________________________ Expiry Date: ____________ Sign: ____________________________

TOTAL =

❏❏❏❏❏❏

}$

All prices include shipping and applicable taxes.

❏

available from Breton BooksWreck Cove, Nova Scotia, B0C 1H0

1-866-902-NEED • Fax 902-539-9117 • [email protected]

www.specialinkcanada.org

The Mainstream is the Right Stream:On the Road to Mainstream Daycare Price $40 VHS

Price $40 DVD

Five short stories on one tape or DVD!1. Giant Steps: The Road to Mainstream Daycare2. Casey: Fragile, and in the Mainstream.3. Shawn and his Mainstream Parents.4. Autism in the Mainstream: A Teamwork Approach.5. James: Blind and in the Mainstream.

VIDEO An InclusionCLASSIC

Challenging theChallenging BehavioursA Sourcebook

This is a book for includingthose children we miss— children who challengeeven the committed childcare worker to the core.

It is a sourcebook for childcare practitioners andtrainers, consultants andpolicymakers, as well asall interested parents who care about full inclusionof children with challenging behaviours.


ORDER NOW – COPY, CUT, CALL, E-MAIL OR FAX!SubtotalTitle No. of copies

❏❏

A Matter of Urgencyidentifies what must bedone to fully includechildren with specialneeds in all Canadianchild care programs.

THE FINDINGS in A Mat-ter of Urgency demandunequivocal answersfrom policymakers andpoliticians regarding theinclusion of children withspecial needs.

Price $25.00Breton Books.

ISBN 1-895415-54-3

IN OUR WAYIN THIS UNIQUE STUDY,the Canadian Union ofPostal Workers exploresbarriers experienced by allfamilies with youngchildren with specialneeds. Its conclusionshave a powerful messagefor unions, policymakers,researchers, advocates –and parents.


❏

© 2004 SpeciaLink: The National Centre for Child Care Inclusion

Although Highlights From Inclusion: The Next Generation is copyright protected,the authors and sponsors encourage readers to download the entire booklet fromWeb Site: http://www.specialinkcanada.org, and to photocopy and distribute anyportions of the study. The authors require appropriate acknowledgement of thesource of the material, and would like to be informed about uses of the material inpublications, conferences and classrooms.

This project was funded by the Government of Canada’s Social DevelopmentPartnerships Program of Social Development Canada. The opinions and interpreta-tions in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect thoseof the Government of Canada.

Front Cover Photographs: Katheryn GordonLayout: FADER CommunicationsFactchecking and Proofreading: Bonnie Thompson and Glenda Watt

Breton BooksWreck Cove, Nova ScotiaB0C 1H01-800-565-5140http://www.capebretonbooks.com

The recommended citation for this publication is:

Irwin, S.H., Lero, D.S., Brophy, K., Highlights From Inclusion: The Next Genera-tion in Child Care in Canada. Wreck Cove, Nova Scotia: Breton Books, 2004.


The two studies in INCLUSION: The Next Generation provide a snapshot of current inclu-sion practices in child care in Canada. This book investigates what makes inclusion work,what makes quality child care for children with special needs a reality. As we enter the thirdgeneration, INCLUSION: The Next Generation focuses on critical roles and resources thatsustain existing inclusive programs and that encourage more centres to enroll children withspecial needs.

This research gives us the opportunity to recommend evidence-based policies and practicesthat can support the next generation of inclusive child care centres in Canada.

The two studies in INCLUSION: The Next Generation provide a snapshot of current inclu-sion practices in child care in Canada. This book investigates what makes inclusion work,what makes quality child care for children with special needs a reality. As we enter the thirdgeneration, INCLUSION: The Next Generation focuses on critical roles and resources thatsustain existing inclusive programs and that encourage more centres to enroll children withspecial needs.

This research gives us the opportunity to recommend evidence-based policies and practicesthat can support the next generation of inclusive child care centres in Canada.

Kathleen BrophySharon Hope IrwinDonna S. LeroDonna S. Lero

There has been a strong convergence ofdevelopments in public policy and legisla-tion, practice and public support, thatmakes us cautiously optimistic about thefuture of inclusive child care for childrenwith special needs in Canada.

“

”

There has been a strong convergence ofdevelopments in public policy and legisla-tion, practice and public support, thatmakes us cautiously optimistic about thefuture of inclusive child care for childrenwith special needs in Canada.

“

”

Another SpeciaLink PublicationBreton Books

www.capebretonbooks.com

Another SpeciaLink PublicationBreton Books

www.capebretonbooks.com

Sharon Hope Irwin Kathleen Brophy

HIGHLIGHTS FROM INCLUSION - SpeciaLink · 2018. 11. 30. · & Brophy, 2000). High quality pro-grams...

Documents

Transcript of HIGHLIGHTS FROM INCLUSION - SpeciaLink · 2018. 11. 30. · & Brophy, 2000). High quality pro-grams...