1. Final Report 2015 National Summit:
Early Childhood Special Education Inclusion1
July, 2016
Prepared by: Diana J. LaRocco and Erin E. Barton
Abstract:
On October 7, 2015, 28 individuals representing 20 different U.S. states participated in a
national, early childhood special education inclusion summit held in Atlanta, GA at DEC’s 31st
Annual International Conference on Young Children with Disabilities and Their Families.
Summit participants included researchers, faculty members, administrators, teachers, related
services personnel, and families of children with special needs who have demonstrated
leadership related to advancing preschool inclusion on the local, state, or national levels. The
participants represented public and private programs and services. The summit format was a
facilitated, focus group discussion in which participants shared their perceptions of the state of
and future needs for leadership and action regarding preschool inclusion. This draft report
summarizes the background and rationale, methods, and results.
1
Citation: LaRocco, D. J., & Barton, E. E. (2016, July). Final report 2015 national summit: Early childhood special
education inclusion final report.

2. Summit Participants
Last Name First Name City/Town State
Barla Michael A. St. Louis MO
Beaton Judy Eden Prairie MN
Couture Jennie Atlanta GA
Golden Adrienne Nashville TN
Goodman Linda Hartford CT
Gupta Sarika S. Columbia MD
Howard Wynette C. Denver CO
Kavulic Christy Washington DC
Kremer Ann Crystal Lake IL
Lindeman David Parsons KS
McDaniel Lindy Ozawkie KS
Nelson Chelie Derby KS
Peloquin Beth Westford VT
Purcell Megan West Lafayette IN
Rendon Tom Des Moines IA
Riegel Andrea Verona VA
Salisbury Chris Chicago IL
Smith Barbara Denver CO
Smith Mark A. Omaha NE
Stroup-Rentier Vera Topeka KS
Studt Wendy Helena MT
Surbrook Nancy A. DeWitt MI
Sutherland Betsy Salt Lake City UT
Vinh Megan Chapel Hill NC
Wasacz Lisa South Lyon MI
White Allison Denver CO
Wiener Lynn Sandy Hook CT
Zeng Songtian Seattle WA
Summit Staff
Last Name First Name Role Affiliation
Corso Rob Facilitator Vanderbilt University
Barton Erin Co-PI Vanderbilt University
LaRocco Diana PI University of Hartford
Danner Natalie Scribe UCONN UCEDD
Lequia Jenna Observer UCONN UCEDD
McCone Shelley Scribe University of Hartford
Pokorski Beth Scribe Vanderbilt University
Rausch Alissa Scribe University of Colorado Denver

3. Background and Rationale
For more than 35 years, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other
federal early childhood (EC) mandates (e.g., Head Start) have encouraged educational services
for preschool children with disabilities to be delivered in general education classrooms with
typically developing peers. In fact, the exact wording in IDEA, demonstrates a strong preference
on the part of Congress for the placement of young children with disabilities in settings with
typically developing children (Musgrove, 2012). Specifically, school districts must ensure that
all children with disabilities are educated with children without disabilities to the maximum
extent appropriate. Nevertheless, in 2012, across all states, 42.5% of children ages 3–5 years
with disabilities received their special education and related services in a regular EC classroom.
During the 1984–1985 school year, 36.8% of children ages 3–5 years with disabilities received
their special education and related services in a regular EC classroom. Comparing the 1985 data
to the 2012 data, the practice of providing special education and related services to children ages
3–5 years with disabilities in regular EC settings appears to have increased by only 5.7%.
Although the definitions of settings and reporting methods by states have changed slightly over
time, these numbers indicate that collective efforts to support and promote the inclusion of
children with disabilities in general education settings has been marginally successful at best.
Decades of research have shown that high-quality early services in inclusive settings are
beneficial for all young children (Guralnick, 2001; National Professional Development Center
for Inclusion, 2009). Inclusive settings for preschool children with disabilities refer to a child’s
meaningful participation in the general early care and education settings such as childcare
centers and preschools. Positive outcomes, including social and communication skills and
academic achievement, accrue to children with and without disabilities in high-quality inclusive

4. settings (Odom et al., 2004; Strain & Bovey, 2011). For example, inclusion provides children
with and without disabilities opportunities to establish and foster friendships, which might be
critical for learning strategies to maintain positive social relationships over time. In fact,
specialized instruction has been embedded into inclusive preschool classrooms to teach children
with disabilities academic skills (Daugherty, Grisham-Brown, & Hemmeter, 2001; Horn, Lieber,
Li, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2000), language skills (Grisham-Brown, Schuster, Hemmeter, &
Collins, 2000), and social skills (Venn et al., 1993).
In 2009, two prominent EC organizations, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC), developed and published a joint position statement on preschool
inclusion. This joint position marked the first time these professional organizations, representing
early childhood special education (ECSE) and EC respectively, collaborated on a position
statement defining and providing recommendations to support preschool inclusion. The
statement included six recommendations for how to use the statement and accompanying
definition. The first three recommendations were related to local or individual program actions
and the last three recommendations connote broader state or national level leadership and
actions. The recommended actions are: (a) “revise program and professional standards”, (b)
“achieve an integrated professional development system”, and (c) “influence federal and state
accountability systems” (DEC/NAEYC, 2009, p. 4). In the 5 years since the position statement
was published, the impact of the statement is unknown. The revision of professional standards,
the development and implementation of a comprehensive system of professional learning, and
changes to state and federal polices each requires substantial collaboration and agreement on

5. what constitutes inclusion, among other issues, within and across all levels of the EC/ECSE
services systems. Crucially, none of the state or national level actions has ensued.
The purpose of summit was to bring together a national cadre of researchers, faculty
members, administrators, teachers, related services personnel, and families of children with
special needs to participate at the DEC 2015 conference in a focus group discussion about the
present state of and future needs for leadership and action regarding preschool inclusion. The
summit was designed to be responsive to recent federal interagency efforts focused on preschool
inclusion, and it dovetailed with the September 14, 2015 U.S. Department of Education (DOE)
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Policy Statement on Inclusion of
Young Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs (Inclusion Policy Statement).
DEC is a leader in the field of ECSE—promoting policies and practices to support the
development and learning of young children with special needs. Thus, the conference was an
appropriate venue for the summit.
Methodology
On October 7, 2015, 28 individuals representing 20 different U.S. states participated in a
national, early childhood special education inclusion summit held in Atlanta, GA at DEC's 31st
Annual International Conference on Young Children with Disabilities and Their Families. The
summit was supported by a small competitive grant awarded to Dr. Diana J. LaRocco through
the Institute for Translational Research in the College of Education, Nursing and Health
Professions at the University of Hartford in Connecticut. The grant funds were used to pay for
the focus group facilitator, Dr. Rob Corso, lunch for participants, and a small stipend for three of

6. the four focus group scribes. The fourth scribe, Alissa Rausch, and the observer, Jenna Lequia,
volunteered their time.
The summit format and project methodology was a facilitated, focus group discussion in
which participants are asked to share their perceptions of the state of and future needs for
leadership and action regarding preschool inclusion. The principal investigator (PI) was Dr.
Diana J. LaRocco and the co-principal investigator (Co-PI) was Dr. Erin E. Barton.
Sampling Strategies and Participant Recruitment
Upon approval of the University of Hartford’s Human Subjects Committee, the PI
employed a nomination process to identify individuals who have demonstrated leadership related
to advancing preschool inclusion on the local, state, or national level. Nominations were sought
from organizations and other entities including, but not limited to, the DEC Executive Board;
DEC Special Interest Groups (SIGs); state-level DEC subdivisions; the IDEA Section 619 State
Coordinators Consortium; the IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association; Family
Voices; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Parent Advocacy
Centers; and university personnel preparation programs.
Nominees received an email invitation explaining the purpose of the summit and the
voluntary nature of participation. The invitation directed individuals to an Internet-based
application form, and a copy of the informed consent form was included as an attachment to the
email. Invitees were informed that (a) there were no fees or remuneration for attending the
summit and (b) they had to cover their own travel expenses, including lodging and conference
fees. The major aims of recruitment were to strike a balance of representation (a) across the
stakeholder groups noted above and (b) U.S. geographic regions.

7. Data Collection: The Focus Group Discussion
Focus group discussions are a qualitative interview method for obtaining participants’
perceptions on a defined topic of interest in an open, nonthreatening environment (Krueger &
Casey, 2014). Using Krueger and Casey’s (2014) focus group recommendations as a guide, the
session was structured as follows: (a) welcome, (b) overview of the topic, (c) review of ground
rules, and (d) the questions.
Individuals were assigned to one of four small groups, each of which had its own scribe.
As participants arrived, they were provided with a boxed lunch and directed to their respective
tables. During the welcome, participants were thanked for attending the summit and the purpose
of the project and the day’s logistics were reviewed. Then, ground rules for the conversation
were covered. In order to have the information shared adequately recorded, attendees were asked
to (a) speak up so everyone could hear, (b) speak one at a time, and (c) refrain from side
conversations. To protect confidentiality, participants were reminded to refrain from using the
names of people, places, or personal identifiers during the discussion.
The facilitator managed the time, and he and the PI kept the table discussions moving so
that everyone had an opportunity to share his or her perspectives. The overarching questions
addressed through group discussions were:
1. What are your thoughts about the present state of leadership and actions related to preschool
inclusion and what is working well?
2. Currently, what are the most pressing challenges related to the advancement of preschool
inclusion?

8. 3. As a field, what are our future needs for leadership and actions related to the advancement
of preschool inclusion?
4. What are actions we can take personally to advance preschool inclusion?
The scribes digitally recorded the conversations and took notes in real-time during the
conversations using word processing software on laptop computers. Breaks were scheduled
according to the needs of the group and the pace of the discussion.
Data Analysis
The table notes served as the data set for analysis. Procedures typically associated with
qualitative research were used (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam,
2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The PI independently analyzed the data. The data set was
examined and re-examined several times throughout the analysis process and notes and memos
were written to capture initial themes and impressions. With each reading, themes were refined
and modified as necessary. To enhance credibility, the Co-PI served as a peer reviewer.
Finally, a member check with the original focus group participants was conducted. The
purpose of the member check was to confirm with the participants that the major themes and
findings that emerged from coding the transcripts made sense and reflected what was discussed
in the focus group. All attendees were invited to comment; 10 did so. Overall, individuals who
participated in the member check confirmed that the report reflected the focus group members’
discussions. All comments offered were considered for use in revising this final report.

9. Results
There were 28 focus group participants, from 20 different U.S. states, representing
researchers, faculty members, administrators, teachers, related services personnel, and families
of children with special needs. They represented public and private programs and services.
Presented next are the main themes and related findings that emerged through the analysis
described above.
Leadership and Actions that are Working Well
Federal efforts. Focus group participants identified recent federal efforts focused on
preschool inclusion as a leadership action that was working well. Examples shared include the
Inclusion Policy Statement and having federal grants (e.g., child care block grants, preschool,
development grants) that place an emphasis on the inclusion of children with disabilities.
Cultural and attitudinal shifts. Positive cultural and attitudinal shifts were discussed.
Participants indicated that children with disabilities are more visible in the community (e.g., in
restaurants) and parents ask for the “inclusion class.” Participants also discussed the growing
body of research, highlighting the fact that the field is developing a continued understanding of
the linkages between inclusive practices and short- and long-term child outcomes. Finally, some
participants noted state-level support in the form of inclusion policies and guidelines.
Pressing Challenges
Leadership. Participants perceived a need for strong leadership beginning at the
paraprofessional level, through the school district administrator level, and on to state level
personnel. Leadership for inclusion was identified as person dependent and not institutionalized.
As one example, participants perceived that inclusion was as a small piece of school

10. administrators’ responsibilities and that many principals were not “well informed” about
inclusive practices. Moreover, participants identified a need for instructional leaders who know
what is appropriate for early childhood programs and development.
Pre-service preparation and ongoing professional learning. Pre-service preparation
and professional development for all professionals (e.g., teachers, administrators, child care
providers, police officers) was identified as a pressing challenge. Participants perceived “training
for childcare [providers] is minimal or non-existent.” They discussed how teachers know “how
to teach, but not how to reach all [children].” Participants also shared concerns that teachers are
not adequately prepared to reach all students due, at least in part, to the depth and breadth of
content that has to be covered in pre-service preparation programs.
Collaboration between general and special educators. Some participants indicated that
in their states, “general educators and special educators are not teaming well” and “are not
provided with the resources” necessary for collaborative work. The emphasis here was on the
day-to-day work needed to address children's individualized needs and relates directly to the
pressing challenge being able to pair an “experienced individual with one who isn't
experienced/interested.”
Funding. Participants talked about how multiple, complex-funding streams, and the
various requirements to access them, posed barriers to inclusion. In some states, participants
reported, governors are choosing not to apply for federal funding. Identified also was a need to
bring entities together to pool resources for birth through five services.
Balance between access to inclusive programs and the quality of programs. Striking
a balance between children having access to inclusive early care and education settings and

11. program quality was identified as a pressing challenge. A few participants shared that in their
states “struggles with options and placements in early childhood are not limited to children with
special needs.” Others noted the availability of “quality [programs] for certain populations, but
not for all.” Notably, the implementation of the Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)
was identified as problematic. Participants described how certain programs were “losing points
because of some individualized instructional practices for students with significant disabilities.”
More specifically, the application of evidence-based practices served to lower quality ratings,
which yields less access for all children.
Policies. Participants perceived that there were “loopholes” in current public policies,
such as Head Start regulations and IDEA regulations. In some instances, participants maintained,
rules and regulations have components that make inclusion difficult and better alignment is
needed. So, too, conflicting local level policies were identified as impeding inclusion.
Values, beliefs, and attitudes. Although participants talked about the positive shifts in
attitudes toward children with disabilities and inclusion, noted also were negative attitudes. Some
participants reported that there are state-level organizations that are against inclusion. Others
described coming up against negative perceptions such as, “those kids [children with disabilities]
cannot be included because they are too much work or please get them [children with
disabilities] out. . . . They are not learning.”
Future Needs for Leadership and Actions
Leadership. Participants perceived that leadership was needed at all levels—district,
local, county, state, and federal. They discussed the need to have a state leadership team that

12. would include representation from the Part C system. Mentioned also was the significant
importance of having a federal-level cross agency leadership team.
Professional development. Participants emphasized the importance of preservice
preparation and ongoing professional learning. They spoke about a need for professionals to
better work with families and to be effective partners. Participants noted that teachers must
understand that they are the people who must advocate for inclusion. Participants stressed that
instructional leadership was needed and that school-leader preparation programs should include
emphases in areas such as special education, early childhood education, and social emotional
development. Discussed also was the notion of integrated ongoing professional learning and the
infrastructure to support it. One suggestion was to pair an individual who is doing exemplary
work with someone who is interested in moving inclusion forward in his or her setting,
Fact sheets. Participants acknowledged there is a body of research that supports
inclusion. They described a need to pull together what is known about the benefits of inclusion to
create a unified message, perhaps in the form of a one-page fact sheet. Participants also
perceived there was a need for a document that describes best practices.
Resources. Participants talked about having an overarching integrated early childhood
system wherein departments and organizations pooled resources.
Actions Participants Can Take Personally
Keep the conversation going. Participants identified ways in which they could educate
and inform those around them about inclusion. They discussed how this could be accomplished
via personal networks, one person at a time. As one example, a participant explained that she
would tell stories to Head Start Directors about what works with inclusion. Another individual

13. stated she was going to speak with other faculty members and her department chair to support
inclusion as a central tenant of their institution’s personnel preparation programs. A person who
worked in a community setting talked about going back home and speaking with the
administration and faculty about how they could show what they are doing and bring that to the
public schools to encourage them to form a partnership with other community schools. Another
participant wanted to recreate the summit in her state. Still another stated she wanted to use the
summit format as a mechanism for having people from the state’s model sites comes together so
everybody’s voice could be heard.
Share resources. One person noted that there are “10,000 resources and tools available,”
but people need to be reminded of and connected to the ones that are relevant to their settings.
Still another talked about sharing the Federal Policy Statement on Inclusion and the
DEC/NAEYC Joint Position Statement: Early Childhood Inclusion.
Support others and enable them to act. One participant noted that she would attend to
the people who need support, which she perceived as something that administrators often forget
to do. Another described how she would support preservice teachers advocacy efforts for
inclusion.
Concluding Thoughts
As is evidenced by the themes that emerged, summit participants perceived that shifts in
people’s values, experiences, and actions toward persons with disabilities have positively
influenced the field’s ongoing efforts to enact preschool inclusion. These shifts have led to broad
efforts in the form of public policies, structures, and systems meant to support inclusion. IDEA
has a clear preference for high quality preschool inclusion. The national EC professional

14. associations, DEC/NAEYC (2009), along with two federal agencies, DOE and HHS (2015), have
established clear goals and recommendations for the field. The field has substantial and
convincing research evidence that high quality preschool inclusion is beneficial for children with
and without disabilities and their communities.
Taken together, these broad efforts should give us leverage points to enact and support
policies and procedures that increase the prevalence of and access to high quality preschool
programs for all young children but with a particular and concerted focus on including children
with disabilities, who are most likely to be marginalized. These broad efforts should also
facilitate increased collaboration across and within systems, states, districts, and locales.
Ultimately, however, inclusion happens one child, one family, one teacher, and one preschool at
a time. Therefore, it is our individual actions that are critically important. As identified by the
summit participants, we must each keep the inclusion conversation going by reaching out to
others and creating informed networks within which we can give and receive the varied forms of
support needed to enact preschool inclusion and promote the success of all children.

15. Final Report 15
References
Daugherty, S. D., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). The effects of embedded skill
instruction on the acquisition of target and nontarget skills in preschoolers with
developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(4), 213-221.
Division for Early Childhood/National Association for the Education for Young Children
(DEC/NAEYC). (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the
Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., & Collins, B. C. (2000). Using an
embedding strategy to teach preschoolers with significant disabilities. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 10(2), 139-162.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guralnick, M. J. (2001) Early childhood inclusion: A focus on change. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000). Supporting young children’s IEP
goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early
Childhood, 20(4), 208-223.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16. Final Report 16
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Musgrove (February 29, 2012). United States Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP). Dear Colleague Letter (February 29, 2012). Preschool LRE.
Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/preschoollre22912.pdf
National Professional Development Center for Inclusion (NPDCI). Research synthesis points on
early childhood inclusion. Retrieved from http://npdci.fpg.unc.edu/resources
Odom, S. L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., Hanson, M. J., Beckman, P., . .
Horn, E. (2004). Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of research from an
ecological systems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(3),
17-49.
Strain, P. S., & Bovey, E. H. (2011). Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early
intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 31(3), 133-154.
U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015,
September). Policy statement on inclusion of young children with disabilities in early
childhood programs. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/earlylearning/joint-statement-executive-
summary.pdf
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993).
Embedding instruction in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate
their peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(3), 277-294.