Running head BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY .docx

Running head: BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY
1
BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY2
Beginning Your Philosophy of Exceptional Learning and
Inclusion
Your Name
ECD310: Exceptional Learning and Inclusion
Instructor's Name
Date
Hint: In this template, you will find purple and orange “hint”
boxes designed to help you with the assignment. Please delete
all hints before finalizing your paper. To do this, click on the
hint box and then hit the “delete” key on your keyboard.
Beginning Your Philosophy of Exceptional Learning and
Inclusion
Hint: To use this template, replace the text in each section with
your own content.
Begin your philosophy with a brief introduction. For help
writing effective introductions, see this guide on writing
Introductions and Conclusions.
Hint: Keep the bold section headings to help organize your
paper.
Intended Career Path
In this paragraph, explain your intended career path.

Specifically include the age group you want to work with and
your intended work environment (i.e., school, library,
preschool).
Professional Dispositions
In this section, describe the professional dispositions you
possess that influence your beliefs about how children grow,
learn, and develop. Make a connection between your
dispositions and your chosen career path.
Hint: Refer back to your Week 1 Journal: Professional
Dispositions.
Definition of Inclusion
In this section, share your definition of inclusion. Include
specific ways that your definition aligns with the age of the
diverse learners you will be working with.
Hint: Refer back to your Week 1 Discussion: What is Inclusion?
Current State of Inclusion
In this section, explain your perspective on where we are as a
nation with creating inclusive environments that meet the needs
of exceptional learners. Include specific examples of how
policies and laws have influenced current trends for inclusive
environments for your chosen career path.
Hint: Refer back to your Week 1 Discussion: History of
Inclusion.
Importance of Collaboration
In this section, summarize the role you feel collaboration should
play when supporting exceptional learners in inclusive
environments. Include important concepts such as being a
critically reflective practitioner, collaborative teaming, and
communication styles.
Hint: Refer back to your Week 2 Discussions: What is
Collaboration? And Communication Styles Self-Assessment.

Program-Specific Topic
Hint: Only include the information for your program of study.
For this section, you will include a topic based on your Program
of Study.
Bachelor of Arts in Child Development: Explain how your own
experiences have influenced your philosophy of exceptional
learning and inclusion.
Bachelor of Arts in Cognitive Studies: Explain how you would
use your philosophy of exceptional learning and inclusion to
mentor or train others who plan to work with exceptional
learners.
Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Development with
Differentiated Instruction: Explain how your own experiences
have influenced your philosophy of exceptional learning and
inclusion.
Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education: Explain how
your own experiences have influenced your philosophy of
exceptional learning and inclusion.
Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education Administration:
Explain how your own experiences have influenced your
philosophy of exceptional learning and inclusion and how you
will support your teachers and staff as they collaborate with you
and with others about inclusion.
Bachelor of Arts in Education Studies: Explain how you would
incorporate this philosophy into the curriculum you use with
your students.
Bachelor of Arts in Library Science and Media: Explain how
you would use a media tool, such as a library webpage or video
post, to share your philosophy of exceptional learning and
inclusion.
References
Use APA style to reference your course text and at least three
additional scholarly resources. Remember, you MUST include

in-text citations throughout your paper to show your reader
what information you used from outside sources. For help with
the reference page, please see this resource.
Hint: In the final version of your assignment, be sure that you
have removed all of the prompt information and “hint” boxes
within the template. If you need help with Microsoft Word,
please see this resource.
New York City
Independent Budget Office
This guide is designed to
help interested New Yorkers
understand and participate
in the city’s budget process.
It outlines the components
of the city’s Capital Budget,
the time lines and processes
for adopting it, and

provides an overview of
how the city raises capital
funds and how those funds
are spent.
Understanding New York City’s Budget
A Guide to
The Capital Budget
c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s
2 What is the Capital Budget?
3 Components of the Capital Budget
4 How to Read the Capital Commitment Plan
5 Establishing Capital Budget Priorities
8 City Council and Borough President Capital Allocations
9 Tracking the Progress of Capital Projects
1 0 Main Types of Capital Financing
1 4 Glossary of Common Capital Budget Terms
T a B L e O F C O N T e N T S

This guide is the second in a series by IBO designed to help
interested
New Yorkers understand and participate in the city’s budget
process. For
more information about this or other IBO publications, visit our
Web
site at www.ibo.nyc.ny.us or call IBO at (212) 442-0632.
N ew York City’s spending on capital projects — from building
schools to repaving streets to buying fire trucks — consumes a
significant portion of the municipal budget. Over the past
decade, the city’s Capital Budget for these kinds of projects has
averaged about $7.9 billion in annual expenditures.
Most of this capital spending is paid for with money the city
borrows. The city has
roughly $68 billion in debt outstanding — more than $8,300 for
each resident. Every
year, a portion of the city’s Expense Budget must be used to
fund debt service — the
payment of interest and principal on debt outstanding. The more
the city spends on
debt service, the less funds are available for other city
programs.
But it is more than size and cost that makes the Capital Budget
so important. The
projects funded by the Capital Budget are often essential to the
city’s future, reflecting

how New York will evolve in the coming years.
Despite the dollars involved and the critical nature of the
projects being selected for
capital funding, many New Yorkers have little knowledge of
how the Capital Budget is
developed and implemented. This guide will help demystify the
Capital Budget, an
important but often neglected aspect of the city budget.
SOURCES: IBO; Monthly Transaction Analysis Reports
Actual Capital Commitments, 2003-2012
D
ol
la
rs
in
b
ill
io
ns
0
2
4
6
8

10
12
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
I N T R O D U C T I O N
N
ew York City has a Capital
Budget, separate from its
annual operating (or
expense) budget, which presents the
funding plans for city construction and
repair projects, and purchases of land,
buildings, or equipment. Technically
2 c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s
W h at I s
The Capital Budget ?
speaking, a “capital project” involves
the construction, reconstruction,

acquisition, or installation of a physical
public improvement with a value of
$35,000 or more and a “useful life” of
at least five years. This may include
everything from buying garbage trucks
to reconstructing bridges to building
housing.
The capital program is generally
financed by borrowing money, usually
through the sale of bonds. This differs
from the city’s Expense Budget, which
covers day-to-day operating
expenditures and is financed by city
taxes and other revenues along with
state and federal aid. In fiscal year
2012, over 75 percent of the capital
program was city funded, and the rest
was supported by state, federal, and

private grants.
Total capital commitments have been
rising, from $5.8 billion in 2003 to a
peak of $11.7 billion in 2008, and
then falling to $7.1 billion in 2012.
This represents an average annual
increase in actual commitments for
capital projects of 2.3 percent.
SOURCES: IBO; Monthly Transaction Analysis Reports
Actual Capital Commitments, 2003-2012
D
ol
la
rs
in
b
ill
io
ns
0

2
4
6
8
10
12
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
What $10 Million in Capital Spending Buys
Housing 40 new units of supportive housing for low-income,
special needs
populations (6 percent of the city’s average annual capital
spending on new affordable housing)
Sanitation 33 dual-bin recycling trucks
Parks 6,891 sidewalk trees
Fire 9 ladder trucks
education 3 classrooms
Transportation 65 lane-miles of city streets (about 7 percent of
total lane miles
resurfaced each year)
environment 9,006 feet of new or reconstructed sewers

Correction 26 jail beds
Parks 7 reconstructed playgrounds or 4 new playgrounds of
about one acre
SOURCe: IBO
c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s 3
W
hile the City Council
adopts a Capital Budget
each year, the planning
and actual expenditure of funds for
capital projects generally occurs over
a period of years in accord with City
Charter provisions. There are several
different documents that articulate
this process.
Ten-Year Capital Strategy. In November
of every even-numbered year, the
Mayor’s Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the Department of

City Planning jointly prepare a draft
Ten-Year Capital Strategy. The strategy
presents the goals, policy constraints,
assumptions, and criteria for assessing
the city’s capital needs over the next 10
years. The document also provides the
anticipated sources of financing, and
the implications of the strategy,
including any possible economic,
social, and environmental effects. After
a public hearing and report by the City
Planning Commission, the final
version of the strategy is released with
the Executive Budget in odd-
numbered years. The strategy presents
capital projects in broad categories that
reflect city agency goals.
Co m p o n e n t s o f

The Capital Budget
The Capital Budget. The Mayor
submits an Executive Capital Budget
concurrently with the Expense Budget
each April. It proposes funding for
capital projects for the coming fiscal
year, and estimates the funds needed in
each of the three following years. The
final Capital Budget is adopted by the
City Council with the Expense
Budget. Spending for individual capital
projects may not exceed the amount
appropriated in the Adopted Capital
Budget. Approval from OMB, in the
form of a “certificate to proceed,” is
required before an agency can commit
capital funds for a project. Funds that
are not committed in the fiscal year in

which they are appropriated are either
reappropriated in the subsequent
Capital Budget or withdrawn.
Capital Commitment Plan. The
commitment plan, issued by OMB
three times each year, presents an
agency’s capital program and
provides the anticipated
implementation schedule for projects
in the current fiscal year and the next
three years. The first commitment
plan is published within 90 days of
the adoption of the Capital Budget
(generally by early September).
Updated commitment plans are
issued in January and April along with
the Mayor’s budget proposals for
future years.

T
he Capital Commitment
Plan authorizes new and
on-going projects to be
implemented within the appropriated
levels and definitions by budget line as
set forth in the Adopted Capital
Budget. Budget lines may be either for
discrete projects, for example,
“Reconstruction of 1st Avenue,
Brooklyn,” or they may be lump-sum
projects that provide funds for similar
types of work at multiple locations, for
example, “Improvements to Highway
Bridges and Structures, Citywide.”
While the commitment plan only

provides a short
description for each
budget line, a more
complete description
is available in the
Adopted Capital
Budget.
Each budget line may
include a schedule
of planned
commitments that
covers up to 10
years. Also included are contingency
funds to cover unexpected costs and
inter-fund agreements (IFA): amounts
transferred from the city’s Capital
Fund to the General Fund as
reimbursement for costs related to any

capital planning and design work, and
project supervision performed by city
employees. Under city rules, IFA
expenditures may be financed with
proceeds from long-term borrowing.
The commitment plan also contains a
“milestone” field to indicate the
project’s current status along with
projected start and end dates — for
example, “develop
scope,” “final design,”
“bid award and
register,” or “begin
construction.” These
fields are generally left
blank, which means
project inquiries must
be directed to the

appropriate city
agency.
H o w t o Re a d
The Capital Commitment Plan
Commitments and
expenditures
a “capital commitment” occurs
when the City Comptroller
registers a contract to
construct or purchase a capital
asset. The city can register a
contract in one fiscal year for a
project that will actually take
two or more years to complete.
For budgeting purposes, the
entire contract amount is
registered as a commitment in
that year, but spending —
actual cash outlays — will take
place over the life of the
project, typically at defined
milestones agreed to between
the city and the contractor.
T
he preparation of the Capital

Budget is a process that
lasts many months and is
intended to take into account
neighborhood, borough, and citywide
needs (see page 12 for a detailed
timetable). The process begins in the
fall, when each of the city’s 59
Community Boards holds public
hearings on the capital needs of its
district. After the public hearings,
each Community Board submits a
statement of its capital priorities for
the next fiscal year to the Mayor and
appropriate Borough President.
Also in the fall, as part of preparing
the Mayor’s Preliminary Budget, city
agencies make detailed estimates of
their capital needs for the upcoming

fiscal year and three succeeding fiscal
years. In developing these estimates,
agencies are required to consult with
the Community Boards and consider
their capital priorities.
After the Mayor presents the
Preliminary Capital Budget by
January 16, the Community Boards
and Borough Presidents hold public
hearings and evaluate the
responsiveness of the proposed
budget to their capital priorities.
Each Borough President then issues a
set of recommendations to the Mayor
and City Council for modifying
the capital proposals.
The City Council holds hearings
on the Mayor’s Preliminary Budget

proposals in March and sends its
recommendations to the Mayor.
The Mayor submits the Executive
Capital Budget to the City Council
by April 26. The Borough Presidents
again comment to the Mayor and
Council on the proposed budget.
The City Council again holds
hearings and then adopts the budget.
The Council can and does add new
projects to the Capital Budget. Total
capital appropriations, however, may
not exceed the amount contained
in the Mayor’s “statement of debt
affordability” issued with the Executive
Budget, which sets forth the city’s
capital financing needs and sources
of funding for its four-year capital

program.
The City Charter requires the Mayor
to document any variance between the
Adopted Capital Budget and the Ten-
Year Capital Strategy within 30 days
after adoption. In practice, the Mayor’s
budget office considers the Adopted
Capital Commitment Plan as fulfilling
this requirement.
e s t a b l i s h i n g
Capital Budget Priorities
Transportation
$5.1
Parks, Libraries & Culturals $2.8
�
�
Housing & Economic
Development $3.1
Citywide Authorized Capital Commitments
2013-2016 Capital Commitment Plan, Dollars in billions

SOURCES: IBO; Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Capital
Commitment Plan (October 2012)
NOTES: Plan categories defined by IBO. General Services
includes public buildings and real estate, and citywide
equipment purchases
Health and
Social Services $1.3
�
General Services $2.8
Education $8.8 �
�
�
Environmental Protection $7.0
�
Sanitation $1.3
�
Public Safety $2.2
�

The Capital Commitment Plan
translates the appropriations
authorized under the Adopted Capital
Budget into a schedule for
implementing individual projects. The
fact that funds are appropriated for a
project in the Adopted Capital Budget
does not necessarily mean that work
will start or be completed that fiscal
year. The choice of priorities and
timing of projects is decided by OMB
in consultation with the agencies,
along with considerations of how
much the Mayor thinks the city can
afford to spend on capital projects
overall.
The city’s Adopted 2013 Capital

Commitment Plan, which covers fiscal
years 2013 through 2016, totals $34.4
billion. Education, environmental
protection, and transportation projects
are expected to receive 61 percent or
$20.9 billion of planned capital
commitments. Education projects
Co m m i t m e n t
Plans and Targets
represent the largest share, 25.6 percent
or $8.8 billion of planned commitments.
Environmental protection accounts for
20.3 percent or $7.0 billion followed by
14.8 percent or $5.1 billion for
transportation projects.
In the Capital Commitment Plan,
OMB lays out the schedule for which
projects agencies are authorized to begin

or continue work on during the coming
four years.
The sum of all the projects that OMB
authorizes for the current year usually
exceeds what it actually expects city
agencies to undertake — these
expectations are referred to as the
commitment targets. Subject to Mayoral
and Council approval, uncommitted
funds are rolled over, or transferred, into
the subsequent year; in practice, almost
all uncommitted funds are rolled over.
Managing Capital Projects
Twenty-eight city agencies
have a capital program. For
some of these agencies,
particularly those with small
capital budgets, managing
their programs would be
difficult and inefficient.
Two primary agencies — the
Departments of Design and

Construction and Citywide
administrative Services —
provide capital program
management services for many
of these smaller agencies.
Other agencies such as the
Department of Small Business
Services occasionally oversee
capital projects for the benefit
of other agencies.
The difference between authorized
commitments and the target amount
is referred to as the “reserve for
unattained commitments.” The reserve
is simply the difference between the
sum of all projects authorized for the
year, and the target set by OMB.
Having a spending target that is below
the plan level allows flexibility for
delays, changes in project scope, and
other adjustments to capital projects.

Over time, the city has determined
that in order to achieve a targeted level
of commitments (maximum
productivity) it needs to approve
approximately 35 percent more in
authorizations. Planning for slippage,
such as redesigns due to unforeseen
construction issues, helps ensure that
the city will be able to maintain the
targeted level of commitments.
C i t y Co u n c i l a n d B o ro u g h P r e s i d e n t
Capital Allocations
Transportation
$5.1
Parks, Libraries & Culturals $2.8
�
�

Housing & Economic
Development $3.1
Citywide Authorized Capital Commitments
2013-2016 Capital Commitment Plan, Dollars in billions
equipment purchases
Health and
Social Services $1.3
�
General Services $2.8
Education $8.8 �
�
�
Environmental Protection $7.0
�
Sanitation $1.3
�

Public Safety $2.2
�
E
ach year City Council
members and Borough
Presidents provide
discretionary city funds for capital
projects that benefit one or more
communities in their respective
districts, boroughs or city as a whole.
These projects may also receive
funding from other sources, including
other city funds, and state, federal, and
private grants.
The Borough Presidents collectively
receive 5 percent of the discretionary
portion of the capital budget as set
forth in the City Charter, which is
allocated to each borough based on a

formula that takes into consideration
the borough’s population and total
geographic area. The Mayor’s budget
office determines the amount of
discretionary capital funds from which
the 5 percent is allocated; several
capital program areas are excluded
from the calculation either because
they are not funded by debt supported
by city tax dollars or state and federal
grants, or because the city does not
have substantial discretion over them.
In practice, however, the Borough
Presidents negotiate with OMB on the
amount of discretionary capital funds
available in the capital budget.
Transportation $55

Parks, Libraries &
Culturals $321
Public Safety $3
�
�
Housing & Economic
Development $125
Where do Borough Presidents Allocate Their Capital Funds?
2013-2016 Capital Commitment Plan, Dollars in millions
equipment purchases.
Roughly $100,000 allocated to Environmental Protection is too
small to appear in chart.
Health and Social Services $60
�
General Services $46
Education $85
�

�
�
�
Transportation $31Parks, Libraries &
Culturals $701
Public Safety $14
�
�
�
Housing & Economic
Development $322
Where do Council Members Allocate Their Capital Funds?
2013-2016 Capital Commitment Plan, Dollars in millions
equipment purchases.
Roughly $342,000 was allocated to Environmental Protection
and $553,000 allocated to Sanitation are too small to appear in
chart.
Health and Social Services $195

�
General Services $107
Education $362
�
�
�
T
he Capital Commitment
Plan is not a project tracking
document. To enable users to
track a project’s status, the city
publishes a detailed, multivolume
report — the Capital Project Detail
Data report. This report is designed to
present information on cost, budget,
scope, and milestones, and, where
applicable, the Community Board in
which the project was located.

OMB also produces a detailed
geographic version of the commitment
plan that is divided up and distributed
to the Community Boards.
In addition, the City Comptroller
publishes a report by December 1st
each year in the City Record on the
status of existing capital projects as of
July 1st (that is, the start of the fiscal
year). This report shows actual
spending (as opposed to commitments)
in the previous fiscal year by agency
and budget line. It also shows the
amount appropriated, spent, and
currently encumbered (funds set aside
because a purchase order or contract
has been signed) since the project’s
inception, and the balance of

remaining appropriations.
If these documents do not provide
sufficient information on the status of
a capital project, inquiries may be
made to the appropriate city agency.
Tra c k i n g t h e P ro g r e s s o f
Capital Projects
City Council. The Adopted 2013
Capital Commitment Plan, covering
fiscal years 2013-2016, includes a total
of $1.7 billion for City Council-
sponsored projects. Roughly 40
percent or $701 million of the
Council’s capital funds are allocated
to parks, libraries, and cultural
institutions. Other capital areas
receiving a large share of Council

support include education (21 percent
or $362 million), housing and
economic development (19 percent or
$322 million), and health and social
services (11 percent or $195 million).
Borough Presidents. The Adopted 2013
Capital Commitment Plan, covering
fiscal years 2013-2016, includes $696
million for Borough President-
sponsored projects. Roughly 46
percent or $321 million of the
Borough President’s capital funds are
allocated to parks, libraries, and
cultural institutions. Other capital
areas receiving a large share of capital
funding are housing and economic
development (18 percent or $125
million) and education (12 percent

or $85 million).
1 0 c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s
M a i n Ty p e s o f
Capital Financing
Why Borrowing?
Why is the capital program
primarily financed by issuing
long-term debt? There are
two main reasons:
➤ as a matter of equity, it
seems fair that current
taxpayers should help pay for
the use of facilities that may
have been built before they
were citizens of the
jurisdiction. Why should
taxpayers who happen to be
city residents for the one or
two years required for
construction of a public
library pay the full cost of a
facility which their children,
grandchildren, and even more
distant generations would
then enjoy for free?
➤ Because capital projects

vary considerably in size,
complexity, and cost, the
stream of expenditures can
be considerably “lumpier”
than it is for expense Budget
items. To pay for the entire
capital program as part of
the general budget would
require erratic changes in tax
rates from year to year — an
undue and unpredictable
burden on taxpayers.
T
he city takes on long-term
debt by issuing bonds to
build, maintain, and improve
the city’s infrastructure and other
capital assets.
Every year, a portion of the city’s
Expense Budget must be used to fund
debt service — the payment of interest
and principal on debt outstanding. In
2012, debt service on general
obligation, TFA, and capital lease

obligations (adjusted for prepayments)
accounted for $5.5 billion of General
Fund spending — about 13.0 percent
of city tax revenues. Thus, there is an
important relationship between the
Capital and Expense Budgets.
In 2012 the city had over $68 billion
in debt outstanding, about $8,300 per
city resident. The debt is comprised of:
➤ General Obligation (GO) debt:
$42.3 billion
➤ Transitional Finance Authority
(TFA) debt: $19.6 billion (not
including Building Aid Revenue Bonds
and World Trade Center-Recovery
Bonds)
➤ Conduit Debt: $4.8 billion
➤ Tobacco Settlement Asset
Securitization Corporation (TSASC)
debt: $1.3 billion
General Obligation debt is backed by
the general revenues (full faith and

credit) of the city. That is, the city
promises in good faith to use its
general powers to collect sufficient
revenues to make principal and interest
payments on the debt as they become
due — in particular, property tax
revenues are pledged to GO debt
service before they are available for
other city spending. The amount of
outstanding GO debt is limited by the
state Constitution to 10 percent of the
five-year average of the full value of
taxable real property in the city, as
determined by the state. The city’s
constitutional debt limit is $76.8
billion in 2013 and $78.1 billion in
2014.

capacity had been exhausted. In July
2009, the state authorized the city to
issue additional bonds through the
authority; however, any TFA debt
exceeding the $13.5 billion cap is now
subject to the constitutional debt limit.
The city is now able to finance up to
half of its capital program with TFA
bonds and the remainder with general
obligation bonds.
Tobacco Settlement asset Securitization
Corporation was created in 1999 to
issue debt secured by a portion of
the city’s share of revenues from the
settlement of claims against tobacco
companies.
Conduit Debt is an alternative to
long-term debt financing. These

obligations occur when the city enters
into long-term lease agreements where
another entity (such as a
private company, public
authority, or state
agency) finances construction of a
building or other capital asset. The city
then makes annual lease payments that
cover the debt service. Because the city
does not issue the debt for the project,
the city is able to meet capital needs
while bypassing the constitutional debt
limit. The annual lease payments are
included in total debt outstanding, but
not in calculations of the general debt
limit.
Pay-as-You-Go is another alternative to
debt financing. Some capital projects

are funded not by long-term debt but
by current revenues, appropriated
annually out of the Expense Budget.
This is called pay-as-you-go, or
PAYGO, capital spending. When the
city has enjoyed substantial budget
surpluses, elected officials and others
have advocated using a portion of the
surpluses to reduce the debt needed to
fund the city’s capital program. Using
PAYGO helps the city meet its capital
needs without adding to total debt
outstanding.
c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s 1 1
Transitional Finance authority issues
debt backed by personal income tax
revenue. When New York City’s debt
neared the constitutional limit in the

late 1990s, the city received approval
from the state legislature to create the
TFA to issue debt backed by income
tax revenues. This allowed the city to
continue funding its capital program
with debt that is not subject to the
constitutional debt limit. Moreover,
authority debt is less costly for the city.
Until recently, the TFA was authorized
to issue $13.5 billion of bonds for
general capital purposes and its issuing
1 2 c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s
October 1 Mayor’s submission of the amounts necessary to
meet the city’s capital needs.
November 1 The Directors of the Mayor’s Office of
Management and Budget and
(even-numbered years) the Department of City Planning submit
a draft Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
November 15 The Mayor submits a citywide Statement of

Needs concerning city facilities.
Thirty days prior to submission of each Community Board
submits a statement of its Capital Budget priorities to the
departmental estimates Mayor and the appropriate Borough
President.
Set by Mayor each agency submits a detailed estimate of its
need for capital funds to the Mayor.
December 1 The Comptroller submits a report providing the
amount and nature of all payment
obligations for each pending capital project.
January 16 The Mayor submits a preliminary certificate setting
the maximum amount of capital debt,
appropriations and expenditures. Sets date for Borough
Presidents to propose how they will
spend their allocations.
January 16 The City Planning Commission responds to the
draft Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
(odd-numbered years)
January 16 The Mayor issues the Preliminary Budget for the
ensuing fiscal year.
February 15 each Community Board presents an assessment of
the responsiveness of the Preliminary
Budget to the district’s statement of budget priorities.
February 25 each Borough Board submits a comprehensive
statement on the budget priorities of
the borough.
March 10 Borough Presidents submit any proposed

modifications of the Preliminary Budget to
the Mayor and the Council.
March 15 The Independent Budget Office publishes a report
analyzing the Preliminary Budget for
the ensuing fiscal year.
March 25 The Council, through its committees, holds hearings
on the program objectives and fiscal
implications of the Preliminary Budget, the statements of
budget priorities of the Community
Boards and Borough Boards, the draft Ten-Year Capital
Strategy and the City Planning
Commission’s response, the Borough Presidents’
recommendations, and the status of capital
projects previously authorized.
april 26 The Mayor issues the Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
(odd-numbered years)
april 26 The Mayor submits a proposed executive Capital
Budget to the Council.
May 6 each Borough President submits a response to the
Mayor’s executive Budget to
the Mayor and the Council.
May 15 The Independent Budget Office publishes a report
analyzing the executive Budget for the
ensuing fiscal year.
Between May 6 and May 25 The Council holds public hearings
on the budget as presented by the Mayor.
June 5 adoption of the budget by the Council.

The fifth day after adoption of Date by which Mayor must
exercise veto.
the budget by the Council
Within 10 days of the Mayor’s veto Date by which Council
must act to override Mayor’s veto.
The day after the budget is The budget as finally adopted is
certified by the Mayor, the Comptroller, and the City Clerk as
adopted the budget for the ensuing fiscal year.
Thirty days after the budget is The Mayor prepares a statement
of how the Capital Budget and Program as adopted vary
adopted from the Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
NOTeS: Timetable based on City Charter provisions; dates may
be changed by annual legislation.
Ca p i t a l B u d g e t Ti m e t a b l e
Not Later Than
c a p i t a l b u d g e t b a s i c s 1 3
advice of award. Notification sent by
managing agency to Comptroller that
a contract has been awarded. This
allows the Comptroller to register the
contract.
appropriation. The amount of money
allocated to a budget line in the
Adopted Capital Budget.

Budget amendment. A change in
the Capital Budget. It can be made
for a change in appropriation, title,
or addition of a new project or
appropriation, or both.
Certificate to Proceed. Approval from
OMB that sets forth the terms and
conditions under which the capital
project shall proceed and informs
the Comptroller of the amount of
obligations to be used for financing
the capital project.
Commitment. In general, a capital
commitment is a contract awarded by
the managing agency and registered
by the City Comptroller.
Debt Limit. A limit on long-term
borrowing imposed by the New York
State Constitution. The total amount
of outstanding city debt cannot exceed
10 percent of the five-year average full
value of the city’s taxable real estate as
calculated by the state.
Debt Service Funds. Funds budgeted in
the Expense Budget for the payment
of principal and interest on debt.
encumbered Funds. Funds that are
contractually obligated, but have not
yet been spent.
exempt Funds. Certain city capital

funds may be exempt from — that is,
not charged against — the debt limit,
and are designated in capital budget
documents as CX. Exempt debt
includes debt issued by the Municipal
Water Finance Authority for water
supply and treatment facilities and by
the state for court buildings.
expenditures. Also “liquidated
expenditures.” Actual cash outlays, as
opposed to commitments, which
include future obligations.
Inter-Fund agreement. An internal
contract that allows the Capital Fund
to reimburse the General Fund
(Expense Budget) for the cost of city
employees who work on capital
projects.
Line Project. A site-specific or activity-
specific construction, equipment, or
land acquisition project that is
identified as a separate project in the
Capital Budget.
Local Finance Law. The types of
improvements or construction projects
that may be funded in the Capital
Budget are determined by the state
Legislature in the Local Finance Law.
Lump-Sum Project. A grouping of
related projects or purchases to be
carried out or made at various

locations or facilities. Lump sum
projects are classified as construction
and reconstruction, equipment
purchase, land acquisition, or design.
Managing agency. Agency responsible
for implementation of a capital project.
See also Project Type.
Non-exempt Funds. All capital funds
financed by debt issued by New York
City itself are “non-exempt”
(designated CN).
Period of Probable Usefulness. The
number of years established in the state
Local Finance Law as the useful life of
a particular type of capital expenditure.
The maximum term of a bond sold to
finance a capital expenditure may not
exceed that asset’s period of probable
usefulness.
Project Type. A two-letter code
indicating which city agency will own
and maintain the capital asset to be
acquired, built, or reconstructed.
Registration. Process by which the City
Comptroller legally binds the city to
an awarded contract.
G l o s s a r y o f Co m m o n Ca p i t a l B u d g e t Te r m s

New York City
Independent Budget Office
Ronnie Lowenstein, Director
110 William St., 14th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Tel. (212) 442-0632
Fax (212) 442-0350
e-mail: [email protected]
www.ibo.nyc.ny.us
June 2013
https://twitter.com/nycibo
https://www.facebook.com/NYCIBO
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iborss.xml
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/NYNYIBO/subscriber/
newp1p2p3p4p5p6p7p8p9p10p11p12p13p14p15p16
Week 3 Application: Case Scenario
Capital Improvement Plan
Background
Every two years, the city prepares a capital improvement plan
(CIP), which forecasts capital improvement needs, revenues,
and expenditures. This year you have been asked to submit
upcoming capital needs for the police department covering 5
fiscal years.
The projects included in the CIP must cost over $25,000 and are
generally related to major infrastructure projects including the
city's sewer and water system, roadways, parks, and facilities.
While the city council approves the entire plan, only the first 2
years of the plan are approved for funding. The final 3 years of
the plan are provided for planning purposes only.

After some consideration you have identified two capital
improvement projects—a remodel of the men’s and women’s
locker rooms and furniture replacement throughout the policing
facility.
Capital Improvement Project Summary
The police department was built in 1993. Both the men’s and
women’s locker rooms include restrooms with typical faucets,
toilets, shower stalls, and tile walls and floors. Because of the
extensive use of these facilities by all three patrol shifts every
day, the tile surfaces, faucets, shower stalls, and counters are
worn. Water pools outside of the shower stalls and there is rust
on the faucets and countertops. A few of the countertops are
cracked and linoleum is peeling from the sides of the
countertops. Your proposal suggests replacement of all fixtures,
counters, and tiling with water-saving toilets and low-flow
shower faucets. Your proposed total cost for the remodel is
$46,000.
The furniture in the police department was purchased in 1993. It
is well used by employees and those who visit the police
station. You are proposing to replace the lobby furniture on
both floors of the station; desks and desk chairs at 11 patrol
sergeant workstations; eight desks used by records clerks and
supervisors; the soft furniture in the police chief’s office and in
the interview room; all front desk furniture; and all desks,
chairs, and other furniture in the Investigations unit. The total
cost for this project is $97,000.
While considering the project summary, write a capital
improvement plan by following the instructions provided in the
Application area of the classroom.
CRJS 4402/HUMN 4402: Planning and Budgeting
© 2010 Laureate Education, Inc.

WAL_CRJS4402_03_A_EN-CC.mp4
Running head: SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
1
Created in 2016
.
Sample Philosophy of Exceptional Learning and Inclusion
Student Name
ECD 310: Exceptional Learning and Inclusion
Instructor's Name
Date

Include a title page formatted in APA style.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
2
Created in 2016
Sample Philosophy of Exceptional Learning and Inclusion
To be effective, educators and other professionals must work
hard to create an inclusive
learning environment to support all children. According to
Peters (2003), “the fundamental
principle of inclusive education is that all students should have
the opportunity to learn together”
(p. 1). Research has shown that all learners, even those without
disabilities, can benefit
academically and socially from an inclusive classroom
(McMillan, 2008). Because of this
evidence, all educators, including myself, must make the
creation of an inclusive learning
environment a top priority. While it may take extra preparation

to develop an inclusive learning
environment, it will be worth it. All children can reach their full
potential if they are in a learning
environment where they feel supported and included.
Intended Career Path
After graduation, I intend to pursue a full-time position within
a local child care center
and preschool. I would prefer to work with the preschool
population, as I enjoy that age of
development and believe I could play a key role in a child’s
later academic success. Researchers
have found that educators who can increase engagement in
young learners can increase reading
achievement (Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Grimm, & Curby, 2009)
and get children excited and
motivated about learning (Willis, 2007). Because foundational
skills and an interest in learning
are important for future academic success, I believe I could
make a lasting impact on the future
of each child by focusing my career on this age group.
Professional Dispositions
As an early childhood professional, I value fairness, self-
reflection, and flexibility. These

three values will impact my work with children and families.
Because I value fairness, I believe
in treating all children equally, by respecting and celebrating
individual differences. Ethically, I
Introduce
your
reader to
the topic
of
inclusion.
Discuss
your
professional
dispositions
and how
they
influence
your beliefs
about

teaching
and
learning.
Share
some
reasons
for your
choice.
Discuss the specific type of position you
would like to have.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
3
Created in 2016
must treat all learners with the respect they deserve as unique
and individual learners (National
Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC],
2011). To be effective and fair, I

must always be mindful of my interactions with children and
others. By reflecting on my own
performance and interactions, I will be able to seek help when
needed and continually improve
as an early childhood professional. I realize that I must be
flexible and that plans may need to
change based on the mood and focus of the children. I must also
be flexible when working with
families, as some families may be juggling many time
commitments (Ray et al., 2009) that could
limit their level of engagement. To be effective, I must be open
to using different approaches
when communicating and engaging with all families.
Ultimately, the three values of fairness,
self-reflection, and flexibility will all work together to guide me
to be a professional and
effective educator.
Definition of Inclusion
While many researchers and writers have shared specific
definitions of inclusion, the
foundational idea is the same. I believe that inclusion is defined
as an approach to education that
is designed to provide necessary support services for all
learners. This means that children are

kept in the general education classroom as much as possible and
provided with the necessary
supports to reach their full potential as learners. If done
effectively, each child will be able to
succeed and grow academically.
Current State of Inclusion
Since the passing of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), all children
have had the right to learn in the least restrictive environment
(LRE; Villa & Thousand, 2003).
While the application of this act has evolved over time, the
focus has been on inclusion since the
late 1980s; however, the definition and application of inclusion
varies depending on the school
Provide your own definition of inclusion.
Describe where we are as a nation with
creating inclusive environments.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
4
Created in 2016

and district (Villa & Thousand, 2003). “In some schools,
inclusion means the mere physical
presence or social inclusion of students with disabilities in
regular classrooms; in other schools,
it means active modification of content, instruction, and
assessment practices” (Villa &
Thousand, 2003, para. 7). Because of these differences, it can
be difficult to get a full
understanding of the current state of inclusion. These
differences highlight the need for more
clear guidelines and requirements for all schools and educators.
More clear definitions and
guidelines would help to create consistent inclusive learning
environments to support all learners
in the country, regardless of location.
Importance of Collaboration
While the design of the classroom and curriculum are important
factors in a child’s
success, their families and other specialists also play a key role
in their success. In fact,
researchers have found that family involvement is a key factor
in a child’s academic success and

also in successful inclusion (Phillips, 2015). As such, I will
work to collaborate with the family
members of every child within the learning environment. While
forming these relationships, I
will take into account the busy schedules of the families and
also respect that families caring for
children with special needs may have overwhelming routines
(Ray, Pewitt-Kinder, & George,
2009). Building relationships with parents and caregivers will
allow me to foster positive
connections. These connections will help families build on their
strengths to best support each
child in his or her academic journey (NAEYC, 2011). As an
educator, I want all of the children I
work with to succeed, so working with families will allow me to
help build a support system that
will follow each child through to graduation.
While working with families is a key to a child’s success, so is
collaborating with other
professionals and specialists. As an educator, I must recognize
that I will need input and
Discuss the
importance of

collaboration.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
5
Created in 2016
perspectives from other professionals who might have better
knowledge about a child’s specific
circumstances. To be more effective, I can consult with
specialists who can offer suggestions of
accommodations and insights regarding specific techniques
(California Department of
Education, 2009). Specialists can share what educators “can
expect from the child and help
teachers adapt the environment and curriculum so that the child
can be fully involved throughout
the day. They are a vital source of accurate information about
specific disabilities and
intervention strategies” (eXtension, 2015, para. 11). By working
as a team with specialists and
families, we can work to create and monitor a specific approach
for each child.
Using Evidence-Based Strategies

Using evidence-based strategies is important when developing
an inclusive environment
because when educators are informed and trained, children are
best supported (Smith & Tyler,
2011). To create an inclusive environment, I will use Universal
Design for Learning (UDL)
when developing the curriculum. As defined by The Teaching
Excellence in Adult Literacy
(TEAL, 2010), “a universally designed curriculum is shaped
from the outset to meet the needs of
the greatest number of users, making costly, time-consuming,
and after-the-fact changes to the
curriculum unnecessary” (p. 1). I will implement UDL by using
multiple approaches when
sharing information, including verbal and visual
representations. I will also provide children with
the opportunity to demonstrate their learning via different
avenues, including a variety of formal
and informal assessments that will include written and oral
approaches. The use of evidence-
based strategies, like UDL, is important in the development of
an inclusive learning
environment. I will continue to stay up-to-date with the current
research on the best ways to

implement strategies in order to support all children in the
inclusive learning environment.
Discuss
how you
will use
UDL to
support all
learners.
Discuss how you will use assessment
to include all students.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
6
Created in 2016
Using Assessments
One part of creating an inclusive learning environment is to
design assessments
appropriately. One key to using assessments within an inclusive

classroom is to develop rubrics
(Willis, 2007). A well-designed rubric can provide children
with standards so they can see where
their strengths and weaknesses are. Willis (2007) recommended
including individual goals for
each learner on the rubric, as well as detailed feedback on the
work. This detailed rubric with
comments are useful not only for the children, but also for
families. Sending home assignments
with completed rubrics helps families to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of their child.
If a child is struggling in a particular area, I can also provide
suggestions and strategies to
families so they can support their child toward their goals.
Using this approach maintains high
standards and provides an individual focus on each child. When
a standardized test is scheduled,
I will also discuss with parents that these tests are only one way
their child will be assessed and
that it may not even be the most valid type of assessment
(Willis, 2007). Overall, open
communication about assessments will help parents understand
the role of different assessments
and also keep them informed about their child’s academic

progress.
One way I will regularly assess children is to use active
participation. Depending on the
learning environment and children, I could use an interactive
tool, like Plickers, to have children
respond to questions during discussions. I could also do
something simple like a thumbs up or
thumbs down (Willis, 2007). I will select a strategy that will
work for all children, or allow them
different options of how to participate. No matter what the
specific approach would be, this use
of active participation would help me to see where children are
struggling with material so I can
provide more targeted support. Using a participation device or
strategy may also reduce the
amount of anxiety that may come with classroom participation.
Discuss how you will use assessment to include all students.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
7
Created in 2016

Supporting Children
Each child will need support, including those children with
specific delays, disorders, and
disabilities. I will use current research to help design a flexible
and inclusive learning
environment that can help all children succeed. One strategy I
will use to support all children is
UDL. According to Johnson-Harris and Mundschenk (2014),
UDL is a good choice for learning
environments that include children with behavior disorders
(BD). This approach allows me to
develop different ways of presenting material and allow
children to work with material in a way
that sparks their interest. Without UDL, learners with BD may
get frustrated or overwhelmed
with material and then become disruptive (Johnson-Harris &
Mundschenk, 2014). This cycle
impacts the child with BD, others in the classroom, and also the
educator. By using
UDL,“students with BD are able to engage with the material in
a way that interests them,
challenges them, and allows them to build on their strengths,
while supports are made available

to help them monitor and improve behavior” (Johnson-Harris &
Mundschenk, 2014, p. 173).
Therefore, by implementing UDL from the start, I will be able
to already have a curriculum that
is designed to meet the needs of all children, including those
with BD.
Upholding Professional and Ethical Standards
As an educator, I must always use ethical codes as a guide when
working with children,
families, and other professionals. When working with children,
I realize that I may be in
situations where the laws will limit what services can be offered
to children and families. While I
must adhere to existing laws, the Council for Exceptional
Children (2010) also advises educators
to advocate for “improvements in the laws, regulations, and
policies” (para.11). Because of this,
I will work hard to make larger improvements that will benefit
the children I work with, and also
many other learners around the country. One way for me to help
advocate for change is to stay
Discuss a
specific

delay,
disorder,
or
disability.
Connect a
specific
strategy
you can use
to the
identified
delay,
disorder, or
disability.
Discuss how
you will
uphold
ethical and
professional

standards
while
supporting
children and
families.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
8
Created in 2016
up to date on current research in the field and to do research
that would add to the professional
knowledge within the field of education. By being involved in
the research, I can work with
colleagues to ensure that we have evidence to support any
changes in policies and laws that we
are advocating for on behalf of students and families.
I will respect the differences between children and families who
I work worth. Each child
is unique, which will be reflected in the activities and lessons
that I design. In addition, as

outlined by the Council for Exceptional Children (2010), I must
work to include both families
and children in the school setting. When creating family-
focused activities and events, I will
respect and understand cultural differences and family
situations. For instance, I will keep in
mind that many families will be juggling many commitments to
support the development and
education of their child (Ray et al., 2009). As such, I will use
multiple forms of communication
with families, such as e-mail, phone calls, and letters. I will
also provide different options for
involvement, such as evening activities and classroom events.
In sum, I will always be guided by
the ideas that all families and children are unique and deserve to
be treated with respect and
understanding (NAEYC, 2011).
My Role in Exceptional Learning and Inclusion
As an educator, I play a key role in the inclusive environment.
Children learn by
watching and modeling others around them, so they will learn
how to treat others based on how I
interact with students in the classroom (eXtension, 2015). I

must present a positive example for
students by treating all children, parents, and colleagues with
respect and acceptance. Further, if I
believe in inclusion and treat all children with respect and
acceptance, children with disabilities
and exceptionalities will feel like they are a part of the group
(McMillan, 2008). Ethically
speaking, I must always respect all students as unique and
individual learners (NAEYC, 2011).
Discuss your role in the inclusive classroom.
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
9
Created in 2016
I can be a leader in the development of inclusive learning
environments by setting a good
example, sharing best practices, and supporting colleagues in
their own development of an
inclusive environment. First, I have my own high standards for
inclusion that can serve as a
model for my colleagues. Second, I can work to share best
practices with other educators. For

instance, I could hold quarterly discussions with other educators
about what is working and not
working in the learning environment. This would allow for open
collaboration and conversation
to take place between colleagues. Lastly, I can support my
colleagues in their own development
of an inclusive learning environment. This could mean
brainstorming ideas during curriculum
development or problem-solving issues throughout the year. An
open dialogue between myself
and peers would allow all of us to best support children and
families.
Conclusion
I believe that education is about more than grades and test
scores and, as an educator, I
have a responsibility to prepare children for life beyond the
school setting. I believe an inclusive
learning environment supports all children in unique ways; and,
those lessons will follow them
throughout their lives. An inclusive learning environment not
only supports learning, but it has
also been shown to increase empathy (eXtension, 2015) and
support the development of social

relationships (McMillan, 2008). I believe learning in an
inclusive setting would help all children
to develop the skills necessary to be accepting and tolerant
adults, which are important qualities
in our society today. Therefore, I will use ethical standards to
guide my work, apply evidence-
based strategies, collaborate with families and professionals,
and model respectful behavior in
order create an inclusive learning environment where all
children can grow and learn. By making
an inclusive learning environment a top priority, I can support
the academic and social
development of all children so they can reach their individual
full potential.
Conclude with a statement of why an inclusive environment is
important.
Discuss how
you can be
a leader for
the creation
of inclusive
classrooms.

SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
10
Created in 2016
References
California Department of Education. (2009). Inclusion works!
Creating child care programs that
promote belonging for children with special needs. Retrieved
from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/documents/inclusionworks.pdf
Council for Exceptional Children. (2010). Special education
professional ethical principles.
Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Professional%
20Ethics%20and%20Pra
ctice%20Standards/Ethics%20Translations/CEC_Ethics_English
.pdf
eXtension. (2015). What is inclusive child care? Retrieved
from
http://articles.extension.org/pages/61602/what-is-inclusive-
child-care

Johnson-Harris, K.M., & Mundschenk, N.A. (2014). Working
effectively with students with BD
in a general education classroom: The case for Universal Design
for Learning. The
Clearing House, 87, 168-174. doi:
10.1080/00098655.2014.897927
McMillan, N.M. (2008). Inclusive education: The benefits and
the obstacles. Education and
Human Development Master's Theses. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article
=1455&context=ehd_the
ses
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
(2011). Code of ethical conduct and
statement of commitment. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/image/public_policy/Ethics%
20Position%20Statement
2011_09202013update.pdf
Cite all resources in APA style.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/documents/inclusionworks.pdf
20Ethics%20and%20Practice%20Standards/Ethics%20Translatio
ns/CEC_Ethics_English.pdf

http://articles.extension.org/pages/61602/what-is-inclusive-
child-care
=1455&context=ehd_theses
=1455&context=ehd_theses
20Position%20Statement2011_09202013update.pdf
20Position%20Statement2011_09202013update.pdf
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
11
Created in 2016
Peters, S.J. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education
for all by including those with
disabilities and special education needs. The World Bank.
Retrieved from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/61416146832529926
3/pdf/266900WP0Englis
h0Inclusive0Education.pdf

Ponitz, C.C., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Grimm, K.J., & Curby,
T.W. (2009). Kindergarten
classroom quality, behavior engagement, and reading
achievement. School Psychology
Review, 38(1), 102-120.
Phillips, K. (2015). Inclusive education. Research Starters:
Education (Online Edition).
Retrieved from https://www.ebscohost.com
Ray, J., Pewitt-Kinder, J., & George, S. (2009). Partnering with
families of children with special
needs. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200909/FamiliesOfChildren
WithSpecialNeeds0909.p
df
Smith, D.D., & Tyler, N.C. (2011). Effective inclusive
education: Equipping education
professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects,
41(3), 323-340. doi:
10.1007/s11125-011-9207-5
Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy. (2010). TEAL center
fact sheet no. 2: Universal design
for learning. Retrieved from
https://lincs.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2_TEAL_UDL.pdf

Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S. (2003). Making inclusive
education work. Educational
Leadership, 61(2), 19-23. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/oct03/vol61/num02/Making-Inclusive-Education-
Work.aspx
3/pdf/266900WP0English0Inclusive0Education.pdf
3/pdf/266900WP0English0Inclusive0Education.pdf
https://www.ebscohost.com/academic/research-starters-
education
WithSpecialNeeds0909.pdf
WithSpecialNeeds0909.pdf
https://lincs.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2_TEAL_UDL.pdf
Work.aspx
Work.aspx
SAMPLE PHILOSOPHY
12
Created in 2016

Willis, J. (2007). Brain friendly strategies for an inclusion
classroom. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/107040/chapters/Succes
s-for-all-Students-in-
Inclusion-Classes.aspx
s-for-all-Students-in-Inclusion-Classes.aspx
s-for-all-Students-in-Inclusion-Classes.aspx
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
POLICY STATEMENT ON
INCLUSION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS

September 14, 2015
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy statement is to set a vision and
provide recommendations to States, local
educational agencies (LEAs), schools, and public and private
early childhood programs, from the U.S.
Departments of Education (ED) and Health and Human Services
(HHS) (the Departments), for increasing
the inclusion of infants, toddlers, and preschool children with
disabilities in high-quality early childhood
programs.i
It is the Departments’ position that all young children with
disabilities should have access to inclusive
high-quality early childhood programs, where they are provided
with individualized and appropriate
support in meeting high expectations. This joint ED and HHS
policy statement aims to advance this
position by:
• Setting an expectation for high-quality inclusion in early
childhood programs;
• Increasing public understanding of the science that supports
meaningful inclusion of children
with disabilities, from the earliest ages, in early childhood
programs;
• Highlighting the legal foundations supporting inclusion in
high-quality early childhood programs;
• Providing recommendations to States, LEAs, schools, and
early childhood programs for
increasing inclusive early learning opportunities for all

children; and
• Identifying free resources for States, programs, early
childhood personnelii, and families to
support high-quality individualized programming and inclusion
of children with disabilities in
early childhood programs.
Though this policy statement focuses on including young
children with disabilities in early childhood
programs, it is our shared vision that all people be meaningfully
included in all facets of society
i Early childhood programs refer to those that provide early care
and education to children birth through age five,
where the majority of children in the program are typically
developing. These include, but are not limited to, private
or publicly funded center or family-based child care, home
visiting, Early Head Start, Head Start, private preschool,
and public school and community-based pre-kindergarten
programs, including those in charter schools.
ii Early childhood personnel refer to professionals who provide
early care and education services to children birth
through age five, including public or private preschool teachers,
home and center-based child care providers, Head
Start and Early Head Start teachers, home visitors, early
interventionists, early childhood special educators, and
related services personnel.
1

throughout the life course. This begins in early childhood
programs and continues into schools, places of
employment, and the broader community. Inclusion in early
childhood programs can set a trajectory for
inclusion across the life course, making it critical that we
include individuals with disabilities in all facets
of society from birth.
OVERVIEW
This year our country proudly celebrates the 25th anniversary of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
40th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), and the 50th anniversary of
Head Start. All three efforts have been transformative in
ensuring equal opportunity for all Americans.
While tremendous progress has been made, the anniversaries of
these laws are cause for reflection on the
work that lies ahead.
Children with disabilities and their families continue to face
significant barriers to accessing inclusive
high-quality early childhood programs and too many preschool
children with disabilities are only offered
the option of receiving special education services in settings
separate from their peers without
disabilities1. This lag in inclusive opportunities is troubling for
many reasons. First, equal opportunity is
one of America’s most cherished ideals. Being meaningfully
included as a member of society is the first
step to equal opportunity and is every person’s right – a right
supported by our laws. Second, research
indicates that early childhood inclusion is beneficial to children
with and without disabilities.2 Third,
preliminary research shows that operating inclusive early
childhood programs is not necessarily more

expensive than operating separate early childhood programs for
children with disabilities.3 Finally,
meaningful inclusion can support children with disabilities in
reaching their full potential resulting in
broad societal benefits, including higher productivity in
adulthood and fewer resources spent on
interventions and public assistance later in life.4
It is well documented that the beginning years of all children’s
lives are critical for building the early
foundations of learning and wellness needed for success in
school and later in life. During these years,
children’s brains develop rapidly, influenced by the experiences
they share with their families, teachers,
peers, and in their communities. Like all children, it is critical
for children with disabilities to be exposed
to a variety of rich experiences where they can learn in the
context of play and everyday interactions and
engage with their peers with and without disabilities. In
partnership with families, high-quality early
childhood programs can facilitate the experiences that foster
learning for all children.
States and communities have made progress in expanding early
learning opportunities for young children,
with 40 States and the District of Columbia now offering some
form of State-funded public pre-
kindergarten programs5 and a growing number of States are
increasing access to infant-toddler early
childhood programs. Aligning with the movement of States, the
Federal government has several efforts to
increase access to and the quality of early childhood programs
through the Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge, Preschool Development Grants, expansion
of Head Start and Early Head Start, and
the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships, among others.

Despite these expansions in the availability
of early childhood programs, there has not yet been a
proportionate expansion of inclusive early learning
opportunities for young children with disabilities. It is critical
when expanding the availability of high-
quality early childhood programs to ensure that children with
disabilities are included in these
opportunities, so they too reap the benefits of high-quality early
learning experiences. Systems should be
built and expanded to support the learning and development of
all children. This means that a “high-
quality” early childhood program should be one that is inclusive
of children with disabilities and their
families, ensuring that policies, funding, and practices enable
their full participation and success.
Given the important nationwide focus on early learning, the
time is right to strengthen our efforts to
address barriers to inclusion of children with disabilities in
early childhood programs. All early childhood
2
programs and services, including public and private preschool,
center and family-based child care, Early
Head Start and Head Start, and the IDEA, in partnership with
families and communities, play an
important role in building a nationwide culture of inclusion of
children with disabilities.
THE FOUNDATION FOR INCLUSION IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS

Policy makers have partnered with families, advocates,
practitioners, and researchers for decades to
expand access to inclusive early childhood programs for
children with disabilities, reinforced by a strong
legal foundation. In the findings to the IDEA, Congress states,
“Almost 30 years of research and
experience has demonstrated that the education of children with
disabilities can be made more effective
by … having high expectations for such children and ensuring
their access to the general education
curriculum in the regular classroom program, to the maximum
extent possible in order to …meet
developmental goals and, to the maximum extent possible, the
challenging expectations that have been
established for all children…”. This principle is equally
applicable to the participation of young children
with disabilities in inclusive early childhood programs.
Undoubtedly, there is more work to be done to
expand children’s access to meaningful inclusive early learning
opportunities. Further progress will
require a shared responsibility and a nationwide commitment to
prioritize access to high-quality early
childhood programs for children with disabilities in policies,
budgets, and practices; to work together to
reshape attitudes and beliefs about inclusion and to raise
expectations for what children with disabilities
can achieve; and to create a comprehensive system that meets
the individualized learning and
developmental needs of all children. The following sections set
a basic foundation for inclusion that can
inform the implementation of the State, LEA, school, and
program level recommendations offered in
subsequent sections.
Inclusion in Early Childhood Programs

Inclusion in early childhood programs refers to including
children with disabilities in early childhood
programs, together with their peers without disabilities; holding
high expectations and intentionally
promoting participation in all learning and social activities,
facilitated by individualized accommodations;
and using evidence-based services and supports to foster their
development (cognitive, language,
communication, physical, behavioral, and social-emotional) ,
friendships with peers, and sense of
belonging. This applies to all young children with disabilities,
from those with the mildest disabilities, to
those with the most significant disabilities.
The vision for inclusion in early childhood programs and
recommendations provided in the policy
statement build on the principles and definition set forth in the
joint position statement from the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and
the Council for Exceptional Children’s
Division for Early Childhood (DEC).6 While NAEYC and
DEC’s position statement focuses on the
inclusion of young children in society more broadly, the
purpose of this policy statement is to focus on
the inclusion of children with disabilities in general early
childhood programs.
The Scientific Base for the Benefits of Inclusion
Research supports the benefits of inclusion for young children
with and without disabilities. Studies have
shown that individualized evidence-based strategies for children
with disabilities can be implemented
successfully in inclusive early childhood programs.7,8 Children
with disabilities, including those with the
most significant disabilities and the highest needs, can make

significant developmental and learning
progress in inclusive settings.9,10,11 Some studies have
shown that children with disabilities in inclusive
settings experienced greater cognitive and communication
development than children with disabilities
who were in separate settings, with this being particularly
apparent among children with more significant
3
disabilities.12,13 Further, children with disabilities tend to
have similar levels of engagement as their
typically developing peers,14,15 and are more likely to practice
newly acquired skills in inclusive settings
as compared to separate settings.16 Likewise, research suggests
that children’s growth and learning are
related to their peers’ skills and the effects are most pronounced
for children with disabilities.17 High-
quality inclusion that begins early and continues into school
likely produces the strongest outcomes.
Studies have shown that children with disabilities who spend
more time in general education classes tend
to be absent fewer days from school and have higher test scores
in reading and math than those who
spend less time in general education classes,18, 19 and spending
more time in general education classes was
related to a higher probability of employment and higher
earnings.20
In addition to making learning and achievement gains, children
with disabilities in inclusive early
childhood programs also demonstrate stronger social-emotional
skills than their peers in separate

settings.21 These social benefits are robust and can continue
into elementary school and beyond.22 Studies
have found that children with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms demonstrated more social interactions
with peers with and without disabilities, had larger networks of
friends, and were more socially competent
compared to children in separate settings.23,24,25, 26, 27
Importantly, while studies indicate that inclusive
services produce benefits for children with disabilities, these
desired outcomes are achieved only when
young children with disabilities are included several days per
week in social and learning opportunities
with typically developing peers,28 and specialized instructional
strategies are used to meet children’s
individual needs.29 Systems supports such as resources for
professional development, ongoing coaching
and collaboration, and time for communication and planning are
critical to ensure that programs and
personnel can adequately meet the needs of individual
children.30,31 Additionally, the developmental
benefits of early childhood inclusion can be lost if children are
placed in separate settings in preschool,
kindergarten, and elementary school. 32 Inclusion in early
childhood settings followed by inclusion in
elementary school can sustain these developmental gains.
Children without disabilities can also benefit from inclusive
early childhood programs. Studies indicate
that typically developing children can show positive
developmental, social, and attitudinal outcomes from
inclusive experiences. They are capable of demonstrating
greater compassion and empathy and can have a
more positive perception of children with disabilities when peer
interactions are adequately supported by
classroom teachers.33,34 They can also develop a better
understanding of diversity and disability as

concepts.35,36 When programs and teachers have an advanced
understanding and capacity for
individualizing learning and can provide appropriate
developmental supports for each child, all children
can benefit, because all children learn best with individualized
supports. Children without disabilities in
high-quality inclusive early childhood settings also benefit from
developmental specialists who can
identify and address delays in development that might otherwise
not be identified.
The Legal Foundation for Inclusion
The right to access inclusive early childhood programs is
supported by a robust legal foundation. The
IDEA supports equal educational opportunities for eligible
children with disabilities birth through 21. Part
C of the IDEA requires that appropriate early intervention
services are made available to alliii eligible
infants and toddlers with disabilities in natural environments,
including the home, and community settings
in which children without disabilities participate, to the
maximum extent appropriate, factoring in each
child’s routines, needs, and outcomes. Similarly, under Part B
of the IDEA, special education and related
iii Under Parts B and C of the IDEA, “all” means all eligible
infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities in the
State and includes those who are English learners, immigrants
(regardless of their immigration status), homeless,
and in foster care as well as those who reside on Indian
reservations.
4

services are to be made available to all children with disabilities
ages three through 21, to the maximum
extent appropriate, in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
factoring in an individual child’s unique
strengths and needs. LRE further requires a continuum of
placement options be available to best meet the
diverse needs of children with disabilities, and presumes that
the first placement option considered for
each child with a disability is the regular classroom the child
would attend if he or she did not have a
disability. Thus, before a child with a disability can be placed
outside of the regular educational
environment, the full range of supplementary aids and services
that could be provided to facilitate the
child’s placement in the regular classroom setting must be
considered. Each LEA must ensure that a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided in the LRE to
every child with a disability in its
jurisdiction regardless of whether the LEA operates public
general early childhood programs. This could
include providing special education and related services in
public or private general early childhood or
preschool programs, Head Start and Early Head Start programs,
and community-based child care
programs.
In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Section 504) prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.
Title II of the ADA prohibits
discrimination by public entities, regardless of receipt of
Federal funds, and protects children with

disabilities from unlawful discrimination in early childhood
programs, activities and services operated by
state or local governments, including public school districts.
Title II provides that no qualified individual
with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded
from participation in or be denied the
benefits of such services, programs or activities of a public
entity, or be subjected to discrimination by
such entity. Title II applies to the services, programs, and
activities of all state and local governments
throughout the United States, including their early childhood
programs. Title II further requires public
entities to provide services in the most integrated setting
appropriate to the needs of individuals with
disabilities. Integrated settings are those that provide
individuals with disabilities opportunities to live,
work, and receive services in the greater community, like
individuals without disabilities. In addition,
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination in places of public
accommodation, such as private schools,
private child care programs, or private preschools; regardless of
whether an entity receives federal
funds. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by public or private
entities that receive federal financial
assistance (FFA). Section 504 provides that no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of
such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied
the benefits of the services, programs or
activities of any entity that receives FFA, or be subjected to
discrimination by such entity. FFA includes
grants, loans, and reimbursements from Federal agencies,
including assistance provided to early
childhood programs. HHS and ED’s Section 504 regulations
require recipients such as schools to provide
equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities in
the most integrated setting appropriate to

the child’s needs.
Additionally, the Head Start Act and the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) also
have specific provisions and requirements that support high-
quality inclusive opportunities for children
with disabilities. By statute, Head Start and Early Head Start
programs must make at least 10 percent of
their enrollment opportunities available to children with
disabilities. The CCDBG Act requires States to
develop strategies for increasing the supply and quality of child
care services for children with
disabilities. See Appendix 1 for more information on the legal
foundation for early childhood inclusion,
including frequently asked questions addressed by the
Department of Justice on the ADA and child care.
CHALLENGES TO INCLUSION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
PROGRAMS
Families and experts have identified several challenges to
inclusion in early childhood programs. Families
of infants and toddlers with disabilities report that they have
difficulty finding and keeping child care,
which can cause stress and negatively impact their
employment.37 While infants and toddlers with
disabilities served under the IDEA typically receive early
intervention services in natural environments,
5
including home and community settings, families report a lack
of coordination between early

intervention, preschool special education, and child care
services and difficult transitions between Part C
and Part B, section 619 of the IDEA.38
Preschool children with disabilities have difficulty accessing
early childhood special education services in
inclusive settings. In 2013, more than half (54.3 percent) of
preschool children with disabilities received
early childhood special education services in settings separate
from their peers without disabilities.iv,39
Data trends over the past three decades indicate that the
percentage of preschool children with disabilities
who receive early childhood special education services in
general early childhood programs has remained
largely unchanged.40 In many cases, children are not provided
early childhood special education services
in settings with their peers without disabilities. Many children
are referred to separate settings, such as
special education preschool classrooms, as a first resort. This
may be especially true for children with
more significant disabilities, despite evidence that inclusion is
beneficial to children across ability levels.
The following challenges are frequently cited as barriers to
inclusion in early childhood programs:
Attitudes and Beliefs: The most frequently reported barrier to
early childhood inclusion that has remained
largely unchanged over the past several decades are attitudes
and beliefs.41 In many cases, false beliefs
and negative attitudes about inclusion may be influenced by
misinformation of the feasibility of inclusion,
fear of the unfamiliar, resistance to changing existing practices,
stereotyping of children with disabilities,
a worry that children with disabilities will divert attention and
resources from their peers without
disabilities, and lack of awareness of the benefits for all

children, including those without disabilities and
those with the most significant disabilities. Any effort to
expand access to inclusive early childhood
programs for children with disabilities needs to be accompanied
by a strong focus on shifting attitudes
and beliefs.
IDEA Interpretation and Perceived Barriers: There may be
tensions between the IDEA’s requirement
that services are identified on an individualized basis and
IDEA’s natural environments and LRE
requirements regarding the service setting. For example, some
jurisdictions may interpret IDEA’s Part C
natural environments provision as only allowing early
intervention services to be provided in eligible
children’s homes, and not fully consider the child’s outcomes
and how those outcomes may be met in
alternative settings such as inclusive early childhood programs
or other community settings where
typically developing children are included. Other jurisdictions
may interpret IDEA’s free appropriate
public education (FAPE) and LRE requirements as only
allowing IDEA preschool special education and
related services to be delivered in preschool programs operated
in a public school building as opposed to
non-public school settings, such as child care and Head Start
where services can be delivered. In fact, a
mixed delivery system of public and private high quality early
childhood programs could be important to
increasing the availability of inclusive opportunities for
children with disabilities.
Lack of Staffing, Training, and Expertise of the Early
Childhood Workforce: There is large variability
in the training, education, and expertise of the early childhood
workforce. Providers may lack basic

knowledge and competencies in child development, early
childhood pedagogy, individualizing
instruction, managing challenging behavior, promoting social-
emotional development, and scaffolding
iv Separate settings refer to attending a general early childhood
program but receiving services in another location,
residential facility, separate class separate school, and service
provider location. (FILE C089 – Children with
Disabilities (IDEA) Early Childhood File Specifications –
V11.0 (SY 2014-15), U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC: EDFacts. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/edfacts).
6
http://www.ed.gov/edfacts
learning across activities and between peers. This affects all
children, including those with disabilities,
and may present a challenge to providing high-quality inclusive
early learning experiences.
Lack of Comprehensive Services: The lack of comprehensive
services delivered in early childhood
programs is also a barrier to inclusion. Programs like Head Start
and Early Head Start provide children
with a coordinated set of comprehensive services. Outside of
Head Start, however, few scaled programs
offer the same type of coordinated comprehensive services. The
multiple systems that provide services to

young children, such as the early care and education, early
intervention and special education, and health
– including pediatric medical homesvand mental health – often
deliver services in separate settings. The
lack of delivery of comprehensive supports and the variation in
the coordination of comprehensive
supports in early childhood programs may be a barrier to the
full participation and success of children
with disabilities in inclusive settings. In addition, children with
disabilities, more than other children, may
have increased interface across several systems, and may
therefore be disproportionately affected by the
lack of comprehensive services offered in any one system.
Limited Time and Commitment to Build Partnerships: A key
ingredient to successful inclusion is a
strong partnership between early childhood educators, early
interventionists, early childhood special
educators, related services providers, pediatric healthcare
providers, and other developmental specialists.
Strong partnerships are critical to ensuring children receive
adequate and appropriate supports and
services in their early childhood programs. Many communities
believe in the importance of inclusion but
have made little progress due to limited planning time or a lack
of commitment and support from leaders.
Fostering relationships between providers requires an on-going
commitment. Equally important is a
commitment across providers to build strong partnerships with
families, children’s first and most
important teachers and advocates.
THE PATH AHEAD: PARTNERING TO BUILD A
NATIONWIDE CULTURE OF INCLUSION
Addressing the remaining challenges and barriers to inclusion in

early childhood programs and ensuring
children with disabilities receive the individualized supports
they need to thrive, requires a community-
wide partnership that brings families, advocates and self-
advocates, developmental specialists, early
childhood programs, schools, LEAs, and community and State
leaders together to build a culture of
inclusion, supported by the empirical and legal foundations of
inclusion. Though some of this work has
been underway in communities for many years, these efforts
need to be expanded and more widely
adopted across the country. This will require partners to come
together to:
• Celebrate diversity of all forms and in all facets of society;
• Talk to neighbors, community members, and State and local
leaders about the importance of
inclusion; highlight the universal benefits of inclusion for
children with and without disabilities;
and counter myths, misconceptions, and stereotypes about
children with disabilities;
• Co-create inclusion strategic plans, at the State, LEA, school
and program levels; and
• Strongly communicate inclusion as a shared responsibility and
a top priority, and demonstrate a
commitment to inclusion through policy changes and
appropriate resource allocation at all levels.
v A pediatric medical home is a team-based health care delivery
model defined by the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) as providing care that is comprehensive,
family-centered, coordinated, compassionate, and
culturally effective.

7
A central component of establishing a culture of inclusion
within the early
childhood system is ensuring that the individualized needs,
supports,
expectations, and goals of children with disabilities are always
considered
with those of other children. It is critical for the early childhood
system to
consider the principles of access, participation, and support. As
defined in
the DEC/NAEYC inclusion position statement,42 access refers
to removing
structural, physical, or communicative-related barriers to full
participation;
participation refers to strategies used to promote children’s
learning,
development, and sense of belonging; and support refers to the
broader
system that enables these efforts, including program/school-
family
partnerships and professional development. Systems should be
designed in
ways that are beneficial to all childrenvi in their communities.
A culture of
inclusion sets the stage to implement the recommendations
provided here
and is the first step to reaching the ultimate vision of providing
access to

inclusive high-quality early learning opportunities for all
children.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE ACTION
1. Create a State-Level Interagency Taskforce and Plan for
Inclusion
All State agencies that provide services to young children
should take an
active role in ensuring that policies and investments support a
coordinated,
comprehensive early childhood system that provides access to
inclusive
early learning opportunities to all children and is prepared to
meet the
individualized needs of all children. State leaders should
prioritize, invest
in, and set the vision for inclusion, and establish expectations
and resources
for LEA administrators, school principals, and early childhood
program
directors to implement the vision in local communities. States
should
leverage existing early childhood councils or taskforces, such as
their State
Advisory Councils for Early Care and Education or State
Interagency
Coordinating Council, and create (or strengthen) a focus on
early
childhood inclusion. As young children with disabilities are
served across
multiple programs, the taskforce should provide leadership in
bringing
together different sectors and groups within the State and, at a
minimum, include representatives from

IDEA Part B, section 619, IDEA Part C, Head Start, Early Head
Start, child care, home visiting,
pediatrics, Medicaid, the State educational agency (SEA),
LEAs, elementary schools, mental health,
related services organizations, specialized service providers,
family networks, and family support
organizations.
The council should build on existing early childhood efforts in
the State, including quality improvement
efforts. States should review and coordinate existing State
plans, such as strategic early childhood State
plans, Child Care and Development Fund State Plans, IDEA
State Systemic Improvement Plans, or plans
vi In designing early childhood programs, it is important to
address the needs of all children, including children with
special health care needs, children with disabilities or
developmental delays, children in poverty, as well as children
who are English learners, who are immigrants (including both
documented and undocumented), refugees, migrant,
homeless, or in foster care. Additional information about LEAs’
obligations to English learners is available in joint
guidance released by the Department of Justice and the
Department of Education, English Learner Students and
Limited English Proficient Parents (Jan. 7, 2015), available at
www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf.
8
for specific grant programs (e.g. Preschool Development

Grants), to ensure that early childhood inclusion
and the necessary services and supports for children with
disabilities are consistently addressed across
plans. The State should also review previous and current early
childhood inclusion efforts (e.g. MAPS to
inclusive child care, Expanding Opportunities, SpecialQuest,
and National Professional Development
Center on Inclusion) to ensure that lessons learned are applied.
The taskforce should bring partners
together, co-create a written State vision statement for early
childhood inclusion, and link to applicable
technical assistance (TA) networks within the State to develop
and carry out an inclusion plan.
2. Ensure State Policies Support High-Quality Inclusion
State policies set the direction for how LEAs, schools, and early
childhood programsvii implement
inclusion and provide the necessary services and supports for
children with disabilities. States should
review their policies to ensure that they facilitate- rather than
create barriers to- high-quality inclusion and
that they are consistent with Federal and State legal
requirements. States should also:
• Consider policies that promote coordinated and culturally and
linguistically responsiveviii
comprehensive services across early childhood programs,
including health, mental health, and other
social services.
• Consider children who are dually placed in more than one
program and eliminate policies that require
unnecessary transitions between service providers that can
burden families, disrupt service delivery,
and interrupt child progress.

• Ensure that after children are identified with a disability,
families do not have to choose between early
intervention or special education services and remaining in their
existing early childhood program.
• Ensure that the principle of natural proportionsix guide the
design of inclusive early childhood
programs.
• Review their early learning guidelines to ensure that they are
inclusive of the learning and
developmental needs of children with disabilities.
• Ensure that future early learning initiatives within the State,
including expansion of early childhood
programs such as State pre-kindergarten, have specific policies
and procedures to recruit, enroll, and
appropriately support the learning and developmental needs of
all young children with disabilities,
from those with mild to those with significant disabilities.
• Promote a mixed delivery system of high-quality inclusive
early learning opportunities by
establishing partnerships with private early childhood programs
and ensuring that professional
development and TA efforts span across public and private
community-based programs (including
center-based and family child care programs), to ensure that all
early childhood programs are equiped
to support the learning and development of all children.
vii Early childhood programs are those that provide early care
and education to children birth through age five, where
the majority of children in the program are typically
developing. These include, but are not limited to private or

publicly funded center- or family-based child care, Head Start,
private preschool programs, and public school and
community-based pre-kindergarten programs, including those in
charter schools.
viii Principles for cultural responsiveness in early childhood
can be found at the National Center for Cultural and
Linguistic Responsiveness.
ix “Natural proportions” is the inclusion of children with
disabilities in proportion to their presence in the general
population. Application of this principle does not anticipate or
permit imposing caps or quotas on the number of
children with disabilities in a program or not individualizing
services for children with disabilities under the IDEA.
9
• Ensure that families are involved in policy decisions,
including providing support to family
organizations to build the capacity of families to meaningfully
participate in policy discussions,
planning, and evaluating the State’s progress towards their
inclusion plan.
• Build statewide infant and early childhood mental health
consultation (IECMHC) systems that offer
programs support so that children with disabilities, including
those with emotional and behavioral
difficulties, can be successful, and teachers and providers have
the skills and knowledge needed to
promote this success.

Running head BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY .docx

Running head BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY .docx

Similar to Running head BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY .docx (11)

More from healdkathaleen

More from healdkathaleen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head BEGINNING YOUR PHILOSOPHY .docx