Building the bridge to success: Best practices regarding identification and intervention for young children at risk of school failure

Building the bridge to success: Best practices regarding
identification and intervention for young children at risk of
school failure
UNICEF/CDB Regional ECD Conference February 2018
Dr. Joanne Tompkins
St. Francis Xavier University
Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

Nova Scotia is a
peninsula located on the
eastern coast of Canada.
It is 3 073 kilometers
from Antigua and
Barbuda. It has a
population of 942 926.

There are approximately 400
public schools in Nova Scotia.
Most of the schools are
situated along the rural coast
of Nova Scotia and there is a
concentration of schools in
the two urban centers of
Halifax (the capital) and
Sydney.
St. Francis Xavier University
has a Faculty of Education
offering both B Ed and M Ed
programs provincially,
nationally, and internationally.
The Faculty prides itself on a
strong focus on social justice
education.
Sydney
Halifax
Antigonish
St Francis Xavier University

Prior to the 1990s most Canadian public schools had a dual track model of education in which
the majority of students were educated by generalist teachers in their community schools. Children
who were identified with special learnings needs which included learning disabilities, intellectual
disabilities, physical and motor disabilities, and children with complex and often multiple severe
needs were taught by teachers with specialized training. In some cases, these children were
segregated from the mainstream of children and taught in special classes. Children with more
complex needs were often taught in specialized schools, outside of their communities.
The Disabilities Rights Movement of the 1960s advocated that children with special needs be
educated in their communities schools in the least restrictive environments. Many parents of
children with special needs advocated for schools to accept and accommodate their children in
local community schools. The 1990s the inclusive school model was introduced in Canada in which
the dual track system was to be replaced with one system where special educators and general
educators would work together to provide services that would meet the needs of all children. This
would break down barriers that had existed between people with disabilities and non-disabled
people. Inclusive education represented a radical change in public education.
dual track
model
inclusive
school model

“So who do you think you are?”
• Elementary teacher and School Principal -Northern Canada
• Board Level Inclusion Education Facilitator
• Teacher Educator (20 years teaching foundation courses in social
justice and inclusion at the B Ed and M Ed level)
• Researcher in inclusion (race, class, ability, sexual and gender
diversity)
• Researcher on team reviewing Inclusion and ECE. January
2018.im

When translating research one must carefully consider context. I
offer the conference what was uncovered in the review of recent
research in inclusion in early childhood education. I have hesitated
to make recommendations as my knowledge of the context of the
Caribbean is limited. Caribbean educators, researchers, parents and
communities are best suited to decide what practices fit this
context.

20 Years Later….
When well-implemented, with the proper supports and professional development
provided for educator, inclusion holds great promise for educating all children well in
learning places are open to the wide range of human diversity. Inclusive schooling can
create citizens who become more accepting of many kinds of human differences.
However, the path has not always been smooth as it has required schools to rethink
both the culture and structure of traditional schooling. Several provinces in Canada are
pausing to re-evaluate inclusive education to ensure that the model is reaching its promise.
Our neighbouring province of New Brunswick conducted a provincial review of inclusion in
2012 and Alberta held wide consultations with teachers, parents, and teachers unions in
2014. In 2017, Nova Scotia created an Inclusion Commission which gathered research,
held public consultations and surveyed teachers, parents, students, and administrators to
asses progress and challenges in inclusive schooling. This presentation is a review of the
research on the best practices in inclusive practices for early learners.

For the purposes of this review young children are understood as children from
0-6 who are entering the school system at either 4- or 5-year-olds. “At risk” of school
failure means these students have significant social, emotional, cognitive, and/or
physical needs that, unless addressed, may adversely affect their opportunities to be
successful in schools, and later, in life. This would be normally understood as young
children with special and often complex needs. Ensuring that we get education ‘right’
for young children with special needs starts well before these learners set foot into
schools.
Our task in early childhood education (ECE) is to ensure that in the first 2000
days of a child’s life, arguably the most important in terms of all human development
(http://www.first2000days.org), we do everything in our power to ensure families
experience optimal conditions in which all children, but particularly children with
special needs, can thrive. Placing Early Childhood Development under the auspices of
the Nova Scotia Department of Education in 2014 was an important step in ensuring
comprehensive and coordinated approaches to caring for and educating young
children.

Research Method
The Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice (2014), The Sage Handbook
of Special Education. Volume 1 &2 (2014) and The Handbook of Research on Special Education
Teacher Preparation (2014) were reviewed as they synthesized many peer-reviewed studies. Peer-
reviewed journal articles were examined to find best evidence-based practices. Gray literature and
handbooks produced by ministries of education and advocacy groups were reviewed. Alberta and
New Brunswick have recently completed provincial reviews of inclusive education and these
reports were reviewed. Particular attention was paid to the New Brunswick review (2012), given its
similarity to the Nova Scotia context. Research on early childhood inclusion set in international
contexts was included.

A bridge became the metaphor for
this review because each identified
theme is only one ‘plank’ in the
bridge that leads children with special
needs from their home environments
into public schooling and later the
larger society. It is the totality of all
the planks that makes the bridge. To
be a effective bridge, all the planks
must be in place. Each of these
identified themes are absolutely
necessary for the system to work. One
weak or missing plank will prevent a
child from reaching his/her potential.

philosophy of
inclusion in early
childhood education
the community
and home
context of young
children and
their families
the process of identifying
young children with special
needs and access to services
for families of young children
with special needs
partnerships between
families and service
providers and
individualized family
service plans
the learning
environment for
young children with
special needs
the pedagogy for
young children with
special needs.
the attitudes and
competencies of
teachers of young
children with
special needs

A Philosophy of Inclusion in ECE
Inclusion is itself a complex concept often misunderstood, contested, and open to multiple interpretations,
making the task of implemented it challenging across school districts (Lawrence-Brown & Sapon-Shevin, 2014). Looking
more specifically at inclusion for young learners, Ellis, Tod, and Graham-Matheson (2008) found that there was often a
lack of clarity and consensus about the “definition of inclusion, the quality of service, the intensity and specificity of
services, as well as the creation of meaningful social experiences for children” (as cited in Fowler, Ostrosky, & Yates,
2014, p. 624). The joint definition of inclusion articulated by Division of Early Childhood (DEC) and National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) provides an important starting place for the discussion of what key
elements of inclusion in early years education.
Early children inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every infant and
young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and
contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences
for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership,
positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential. The
defining features of inclusion that can be used to identity high quality early childhood programs and services
are access, participation, and supports. (2009, p. 2)

Odom, Buysse, and Soukadou (2011) “Placement in a least restrictive environment is not sufficient to meet
the intent of inclusion, but rather, participation, social relationships, and learning outcomes for all children
are common goals” (p. 345).
Purdue, Ballard, and MacArthur (2001), based on their research in New Zealand with parent/guardians and
early years’ professionals, “children and family are welcomed as valued members of the community and
belong; inclusion is viewed as ‘ordinary’ part of life”(Cologon, 2018a, p. xix).
Too often, in Canada, inclusion has been understood as a place and it has been assumed that the
best placement for the student is the regular classroom. We are moving to understand that the programming
needs must be laid alongside a robust vision on inclusion to decide the best placement. Disabilities Studies in
Education (DSE) has influenced inclusion and reminded us to look at children with special needs from a
strengths-based approach in which diversity is the norm. (Danforth, 2006; Valle & Connor, 2011). Recchia
and Lee (2013) urge us to see “each child as a contributing member of the classroom community” (p. 2).

Collett (2018a) maintains, “The
question in ECE is not ‘should we
include?’ but ‘how should we include?’”
(p. 6).
A ph

The Community and Home Context
The families and communities into which children are born greatly influence their opportunities and therefore
life chances.
The primary factors that shape the health of Canadians are not medical treatments or lifestyle
choices, but rather the living conditions they experience. These conditions have come to be known
as the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH). They are the differences among Canadian children in
their surviving beyond their first year of life, experiencing childhood afflictions such as asthma and
injuries, and whether they fall behind in school are strongly related to the social determinants of
health they experience (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2010, p. 7).
UN Sustainable Development Goals “ No one left behind”

The first 2000 days of a child’s life are the most important in all human development. Early
experiences determine whether a child’s developing brain architecture will create a strong or weak
foundation for all future learning, behavior, and health. The primary factors that shape the health (and brain
development) of young children are the living conditions they experience. Poverty presents adverse living
conditions for many families in Nova Scotia, a province that has the third highest child poverty rates in
Canada.
Poverty compromises healthy childhood development. Young children, children in rural areas and
children living in lone-parent families are at greater risk of living in poverty. Children with disabilities are
twice as likely to be affected by poverty. Poverty-reduction strategies that the province and school boards can
engage in can positively affect the home learning environments for young children with special needs.

Most children with disabilities have multiple disabilities.
Disability rates for children have also risen, likely do to the identification
process occurring earlier…These at-risk children are most heavily
concentrated in families who live in poverty, minority families and
families who are not fluent in English. (Alberta Teachers Association,
2014, p.5).

A universally accessible, high quality childcare system is essential for child poverty
eradication. It is critical for enabling labour force participation. Such a childcare program must also
be affordable. Apart from facilitating work, and strengthening women’s equality, early childhood
education and care (ECEC) supports healthy childhood development, school readiness, and overall
child well-being. All other industrialized countries that have significantly reduced child poverty to
below 5% have developed well-resourced systems of early childhood education and care services . . .
There is substantial evidence that a universal, high quality, publically funded, and managed
childcare system is the best ways to move ahead. (Frank, 2016, p. 25)

The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has declared play as the right of
every child. It is considered as the ‘work of children’ as they learn about themselves, their world and
the people in their world through play. Poverty often compromises children’s ability to play. Play is
essential to social, emotional, cognitive and physical well-being. It is a natural tool to build
resilience, learn cooperation, overcome challenges, negotiate with others. It allows children chance
to be creative. It creates a time for parent/guardians to bond and be fully engaged . . . However,
children who live in poverty often face socioeconomic obstacles that impede their rights to have
playtime, thus affecting their healthy social-emotional development. (Milteer, Ginsburg, Council on
Communications and Media, Media Committee on Psychological Aspects of Child and Family Health,
& Mulligan, 2012, e206)

The Process of Identifying Young Children with Special Needs and Access to Services
The early identification of young children with special and complex needs is key in being able
to create effective interventions. “Early detection of problems and delivery of appropriate
interventions have been shown to improve developmental outcomes for children with disabilities as
well at children at risk for learning problems” (Guralnick, 2011, p. 6). Fowler et al. (2014), in their
review of the literature on teaching and learning in inclusive settings in the early years, concurred. “The
research is clear that intervention during the early years can significantly influence the language,
socioeconomic, and self-regulatory development of children with special needs” (p. 613). A recent
American study by Adelman and Kubinsyn (2017) surveyed 654 parent/guardians of children who had
been diagnosed with autism and found that the sooner the children were diagnosed with ASD, the
sooner Family Planning Service Plans (FPSP) and early intervention strategies could be put in place,
enabling children to reach their full potential.

Harvard’s Center of the Developing Child (2007) is recognized as one of leading and most
comprehensive sites for providing identification and service research for young children with special
needs. Basic principles of neuroscience suggest that providing the right conditions for healthy
development in early childhood is likely to be more effective than treating problems at a later age. The
center advocates for polices that promote healthy development throughout the early years create a
foundation for later school achievement.
The Harvard Center outlines four key principles that should guide early childhood policies and
practices. Supports and services must be matched to the strengths and needs of the individual children
and families. Careful attention must be paid to the quality of implementation when effective model
programs are taken to scale. New intervention strategies need to be developed for children and families
for whom conventional approaches appear to have minimal impact. Lastly, an environment must be
provided that supports ongoing, constructive evaluation and continuous program improvements. The
extensive website at the Harvard Center houses excellent reports, videos and publications.

The Early Years Foundation Stage Progress Check is an example of early
intervention in the United Kingdom and cited as a best practice. The check is provided
for children at age 2 by practitioners in the early years setting. It brought together two
previously independent reviews, the Healthy Child Program (HCP) provided to children
from 2-2.5 years old and a development review, which was delivered by health visiting
teams, into an integrated review. Researchers and practitioners found that integrating
health and education reviews at this age gave a more complete picture of the child
through drawing together the detailed knowledge of how the child is learning and
developing day-to-day at their educational setting with the expertise of the child’s
health visitor at the health review along with the parent/guardians’ view and any
concerns about their child’s progress. (Mitchell & Thorpe, 2018, p 36)

Charman & Stone (2008) have described the optimal conditions under which screening for young
children suspected of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Screening is important as 25-33% of parents/guardians of
children with ASD “report that their children initially appeared to be developing normally or near normally and
then experienced a regression, most often between 13 and 24 months of age” (p. 49). Proper screening at 18
months is clearly a best practice and must be done thoroughly.
Because ASD is defined by social and communication difficulties, it is important that the clinician
observe the child in context in which some predictable, well-defined social behaviors can be expected. These
contexts are not always easily available in an office visit; instead, the child is often observed while his
parent/guardians are talking to a clinician, or in a waiting room or playroom—situations that may not be
sufficiently structured for a clinician to reach any strong conclusions. (p. 46)
Charman and Stone (2008) have suggested that doctors must have sufficient time to conduct a proper
screening, because of the behavioural subtleties involved. “Without enough time, the examiner may be able to
make only a few brief observations and as a result may be unable to observe subtleties in a child’s behavior and
difficulties that may have greater implications in less structured or more child-centered situations” (p. 46).

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has acknowledged
that access to service is a right and that right extends to young children with special needs
and their families. “The UN Convention has adopted a new definition of disability that
focuses on the barriers that hinder full and effective participation in society by children . . .
Disability is now perceived as a continuum influenced by biological factors, social issues, and
environmental conditions, including access to health services” (Fowler et al., 2014, p. 614).
The translation of this principle into reality and the extent to which families can access
intervention services and have the services integrated into early childhood programs has
become a major focus on discussion and research (Guralnick, 2008).

An advocacy group from the UK has suggested coordinating services so that families receive
services at a single point of contact. The Guide to the SEN [Special Education Needs] Code of Practice:
What you need to know (Silas, 2014) ensures that “parent/guardians can obtain information about
services from one place, have a single assessment process for their children that addresses education,
health and social service needs, and a unified plan” (Fowler et al., 2014, p. 617).
Fowler et al. (2014) have underscored the need to provide services for families of young children
with special needs in the most natural environment possible. Natural environments are those areas that
would be places normally accessed by the child’s age peers with no disabilities. The definition of
environment extends to include families and everyday routines and activities. The home, community
center, playgrounds and child care setting would be part of the more natural environment. “This is a
radical shift from providing services at clinics and hospitals where families travelled to bring the child to
the services and often were not included in the therapy sessions” (p. 619).

Given the economic disparity that rurality creates in Nova Scotia (Frank, 2016), efforts to bring
services closer to the communities in which families are located would be a best practice. Given the high
poverty rates in these communities and the absence of rural public transportation systems, the
comprehensive school model being used in some communities acknowledges the school as the optimal
place to locate services for families of children with special needs. Some early intervention services, in
some areas of the province are decentralized, while others are still delivered out of regional centers,
usually regional hospitals. One of the findings of the report Disrupting the status quo: Nova Scotians
demand a better future for every student. Report of the Minister’s Panel of Education Report (2014) was to
reduce waiting times for psychological and speech-language assessments and speed up services reaching
families. The report advocated for better access to services and programs for young children with special
needs in rural areas of the province.

Partnerships Between Families and Service Providers and Individualized Family Service Plans
Models that place families as the center of the intervention process are identified a best practice.
Teaching and interventions, outlined clearly in the Individualized Family Service Plan build upon and enhance
the relationship between the young child and the parent/guardian. These relationship-focused interventions
deepen the competence and confidence of the parent/guardian to support their child’s development.
A best practice that surfaces in the research literature on working with families of young children
with special needs is that the understanding that the child and the family occupy a central place in
the partnership process. Family-centered practice is the hallmark of family support programs as it
implies that families have the ultimate control over decisions about their children (Allen & Petr,
1996; King, King, Rosenbaum, & Goffin, 1999). It recognizes the family as constant in the child’s life,
expert on their child’s abilities and needs, and as a unique and capable unit (Dunst et al., 1988;
Rosenbaum et al., 1998). (Fordham & Johnson, 2018, p. 172)
Numerous evaluations and case studies speak of the value of collaboration between professionals and
families (Brettig & Simms, 2011; Cross, Salazar, Dobson-Campuzano, & Barchelder, 2009; Cumming & Wong,
2012; Friend & Shamberger, 2008; Mogharreban & Burns, 2009; Wong, Press, Sumsion & Hard, 2012).

The Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children considers
interdisciplinary collaboration and family–based practices as critical elements in successfully
meeting the needs of young children with disabilities (Cross et al., 2009). These researchers discuss
the importance of developing clearly defined practices for collaborations with families that are
individualized, flexible, and strengths-based, and that have been shown through research to have
positive outcomes. Its recommendations for professionals include setting expectations for staff,
community, and families and providing guidance for service delivery. Recchia and Lee (2013) have
noted however that achieving authentic collaboration is complicated. “… In much of this literature,
the focus is on professionals’ surface behaviors; less attention is given to the deeper and more
authentic experiences around collaboration that is often quite challenging for professionals to
achieve” (p. 89-90).

MacNaughton and Hughes (2011) have uncovered the ways, intentional or unintentional,
through which parent/guardians can become disempowered as they work with professionals.
Several themes surfaced in their research: silencing, homogenizing, essentializing, privileging,
knowledge and power, and cultural differences.
In another study, Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, and Beegle (2004)
interviewed 200 family members and professionals in Kansas, North Carolina, and Louisiana and
found that six dimensions surfaced regarding family-professional partnerships. They included
communication, respect, trust, commitment, equality and skills. Of these, communication was
deemed to be the most important as communication facilitated the other five dimensions. The
researchers further defined key elements of effective communication as being positive,
understandable, and respectful to all involved

Delahooke (2017), who worked for over two decades on early intervention with families
around social and emotional development, has strongly advocated that parent/guardians need to
be socially and emotionally supported themselves before they can begin to support their
children, particularly those children who present with behavioural challenges. However, she notes
that “most pediatric professionals do not have specific training on how to support
parent/guardians’ emotional health” (p. 22).

Individualized Family Service Plans
The Guide to the SEN [Special Education Needs] Code of Practice: What you need to know (Silas,
2014) recognizes the primary role of the family by defining working partnerships between
parent/guardians and providers (www/education/gov/uk/childrenandyoungpeople/send). This is a
significant departure from traditional services which were professionally-driven with professionals as the
experts. “Services are most effective when family-driven and family-centered. The family is recognized
as the constant in the child’s life and the most knowledgeable about the child” (Fowler et al., 2014, p.
617). Research on the impact of Head Start program has shown the effectiveness of high
parent/guardianal involvement in their young children’s learning. Milteer et al. (2012), in their research
on the value of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent/guardian-
child bonds, noted that “one of the key successes of Head Start has been the involvement of
parent/guardians in social interaction with their children in playing, reading and reading-related
activities” (e209). Woods and Lindeman (2008) noted that when providers and families work together to
determine goals, they can find ways to reach many of the learning outcomes using familiar and everyday
family routines, creating more authentic learning situations.

Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSP) have moved from deficits-based to an assets-based
approaches. This, combined with placing the family at the center, are two key principles guide the
Individualized Family Service Plan development. To create a successful Individualized Family Service Plan,
a collaborative and transdisciplinary approach is needed where the common good of the child is
paramount. Epley, Summers, and Turnbull (2011) have noted that Individualized Family Serve Plans
typically have a development focus and view young children as active learners. These researchers
acknowledged that Individualized Family Service Plans should be tailored to the priorities and needs of
the family, actively acknowledging the culture, values, and languages of families.
Fowler et al. (2014) have observed that the curriculum of a IFSP includes
social, communicative, cognitive, adaptive, and motor development. Peer relationships
become more significant during the preschool years as does self-regulation. Children are
expected to become more independent and to begin to take more responsibility for controlling
their own impulses and behavior. (p. 625).

It is important to mention here the possibilities for play opportunities within the
IFSP. The value of play for all children is being increasingly acknowledged in learning
environments. Within ECSE programs preschool children are viewed as actively
participating in their own learning as they play. Lifter, Mason, and Barton (2011) have
noted that play is importance in learning interventions. “Play is important in a child’s
experience, it provides a useful window for assessing, development, and it is an
important tool for intervention” (pp 292-293). As noted earlier, play provides an
important opportunity for parent/guardians to bond with their children (Milteer et al.,
2012). This is especially important for parent/guardians of young children with special
needs, whose lives, are often filled with higher levels of stress.

Transitioning into School
Transition planning from pre-school environments to public school should ensure continuity
of services, minimize disruptions, and prepare children and families for the next setting (Pianta, Cox,
& Snow, 2007). The successful transition of a child and his/her family from one learning context to
another should be seamless and continuity should not be interrupted (Fowler, 2010). However,
parent/guardians of children with special needs sometimes have less that positive results with the
transition to public schooling and refer to the process as “falling off a cliff” (personal communication,
Monica Williams, September 25, 2017). Frequently information from the Individualized Family Service
Plan is not carried over into the school Individualized Program Plan (IPP). Sometimes the family
encounters a whole new cast of service providers who are unfamiliar with the family or child.
Information about successful teaching approaches can be lost in this transition. Practices such as
providing written reports and records, inviting family to visit the new teacher and classroom before
school and opportunities for teachers to observe one another’s classrooms help create smooth
transitions between home and school (Fowler, 2010; Petrakos & Lehrer, 2011; Rous & Hallam, 2012),

One anecdotal piece of information shared with the research team was an example how one family of schools in
Nova Scotia provided seamless transition support. In this community, in January an Early Childhood Interventionist (ECI),
who was also a trained elementary teacher, began identifying the children who would be coming into the school system in
the following September with special needs. The ECI would have already established a working relationship with these pre-
schoolers with special needs and their parents/guardians and caregivers. The ECI contacted the local school board early in
New Year to ensure that possible supports for young learners with special needs, such as accessibility or funding
requirements, were identified so they could be included in the budget and put in place and ready for September. The ECI
met with the family regularly and with the incoming school to arrange the spring ‘practice’ day. Most importantly, during
the first term of the school year, the ECI would regularly check in with the teachers of these new primary students with
identified special needs. The ECI served as a resource and a support to the teacher, the school, and the family, translating
knowledge about the child’s strengths and needs and addressing questions from both educators and parent/guardians. The
ECI knew each of the receiving primary teachers by name and developed an open, sharing, and supportive relationship with
the teacher and acted as a resource to the school. The intentional, on-going, and supportive relationships that the ECI
created between the school and the family was credited with creating a smooth transition process

In many cases, children may have been receiving services in the home, daycare, or pre-school
setting for some time prior to school entry, and the professionals who have provided these
services may be a valuable resource, in addition to parent/guardians/guardians, to school
personnel as they plan for the child’s entry into school. Many of these professionals said that
they would be willing to remain available for consultation to school staff for a period after the
child has begun school to answer any questions that may arise. As with other areas, some
schools were extremely invitational and involved outside agencies, while others were not.
(Porter & Aucoin, 2012, p. 39)
Our best efforts at early identification of children with special needs, our ability to get them
access to service, regardless of where they live in the province, our efforts to partner
respectfully with parents/guardians to create and support a meaningful IFSP risk being dashed
if there is not a continuing, coherent and coordinated level of support for the child and
family as the child enters public school (Tompkins, 2018, p. 20).

The Attitudes and Competencies of Teachers of Young Children with Special Needs
Inclusive education has often focused on the material conditions in schools,
but at its core, inclusion is about attitudes. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion
creates spaces that make it possible – or prevent it. When early childhood educators
receive support in implementing inclusion, they develop positive attitudes and build
confidence in their ability to be inclusive. When teachers are provided with on-going,
job-embedded professional development about inclusion, their sense of agency and
efficacy increases. When school and system level teams provide support and
expertise for programs for young children with special needs, teachers do not feel
isolated, but rather empowered.

Jordon, Schwartz, and McGie-Richmond (2009), in their research examining how teachers’ attitudes impact
children’s engagement in the domains of learning, teacher-child interactions and child self-concept, found “that
teachers who take on a medical model view of children who experience disability do so to the detriment of their
students” (Cologon, 2018c, p. 66). Cologon further warned that, while the medical model holds value in the medical
world, its place into the world of school can be problematic. She noted that diagnostic-specific knowledge and
medical labels can loom so large in an early years educator’s view that they prevent the educator from seeing the
child underneath the label. This may pose challenges when the inappropriate strategies that do not suit the child are
employed. Cologon (2018a) advocated excavating early elementary educators’ attitudes about inclusion as part of
professional learning.
Instead, in contrast to common assumptions, research shows that it is beliefs about, and attitude towards,
inclusive education that creates spaces to make inclusion possible – or to prevent it. This necessitates an
ongoing cycle of reflection and action involving openness to reconsidering current attitudes and practices
and a willingness to genuinely listen to people who are excluded – including children. (p. xix)

Cologon (2018b) noted several studies which attest to the fact that when early elementary
teachers have experience in and receive support in implementing inclusion.
They develop positive attitudes toward inclusion and build confidence in their
ability to be inclusive (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Cologon, 2012; Jordon &
Stanovitch, 2001; Jordon et al., 2010; McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998; Purdue et al.,
2001). Early years professionals report increased personal satisfaction and
professional growth through the experience of inclusive education (Finke et al.,
2009) and become more confident and “better” teachers of all children (Cologon,
2012; Jordon & Stanovitch, 2001; Jordon et al., 2010). (p. 18)

Recchia and Lee (2013) outline six values and dispositions, that when cultivated, can help early
childhood educators actualize inclusion. They are:
ways of thinking/ways of being that embrace difference and capitalize on
opportunities to bring children together; the capacity to nurture and embrace each
child as a unique individual who brings a special contribution to the group; openness
to reconsidering, rethinking, and redoing teaching and learning activities with
children in response to their input; the ability to attend to the child’s perspective
when making decisions that impact daily experiences; the expectation that all
children can meet appropriate educational and developmental goals and a
willingness to support their efforts and a belief that children can and will be
successful; and an understanding that ‘equity’ does not always mean ‘equality’ in an
inclusive environment because different people need different things to have ‘equal’
access, treating children differently is acceptable. (p. 9)

The Learning Environment
The ECE classroom environment is often the first place where children learn about
inclusion. The quality of the classroom environment has a compounding effect, influencing the
quality of relationships between teachers and children, which in turn influences the social-
emotional and academic outcomes of the children. Carefully structured, rich environments,
both indoor and outdoor, can create optimal learning conditions.
The enormous social and academic benefits of play are increasingly recognized in ECE.
Environments where the focus is on play, alongside well-qualified early childhood educators
develop social, emotional, physical, and cognitive skills in young children. High quality play
environments develop the more complex executive functions in the brain and promote healthy
development and resilience.

Gallagher et al., (2014) have noted that
classroom environments deemed positive by assessment tools have been
associated with improved academic performance, less challenging behaviours
(Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009), and positive effects on
language and literacy skills (Dickenson, McCabe, & Essex, 2006). Conversely, poorer
classroom environments have been linked to a lack of academic focus, poor peer
relationships, and challenging behaviours (Barth, Dunlapp, Dane, Lochman, & Wells, 20014). (p. 398)

A useful tool for assessing an ECE environment for inclusivity has been created and can
be adapted for local use. See The Index for Inclusion: Developing play, learning and
participation in early years and childcare (Booth, Ainscow & Kingston, 2006)

What young children, and in particular young children with special needs, see in the environment around
them in schools shapes their attitudes towards disabilities and assumptions about what is considered ‘normal’.
If the ranges of representations that challenge accepted norms are not available, then it is likely that
children will not develop what the art critic John Berger (1972) calls different ‘ways of seeing’. What
children don’t see is therefore just as powerful as what they do see and so has significant implications for
every child’s perception of disability. If all they encounter in their early years learning environment are
images of the non-disabled as ‘normal’ then the task of encouraging them to see disability as just another
version of normality gets harder. (Argent, 2018, p. 103)
Carefully selected picture books and posters can provide representations for children with special needs so they see
themselves represented in the curriculum. Argent (2018) outlines many excellent picture books which can serve as
jumping off points for discussions about inclusion and exclusion. Importantly, such diverse representations of ability
also teach non-disabled children to see and value greater diversity within people. The early elementary classroom
environment is an important incubator for the development of accepting attitudes towards ability difference.

The Pedagogy for Young Children With Special Needs
Best pedagogical practices in ECE include the ability to engage in individualization, combined with
specific procedures and interventions where needed, implemented in well-designed environments. Quality,
bounded time for educators to collaborate with their peers using reflection, assessment, and problem-solving
and co-teaching were identified as best practices in ECE pedagogy for young children with special needs.
Social learning impacts children’s self-regulation which influences their ability to learn and has as much
importance as academic learning in ECE. Best results occur when social and academic learning occurs
together. School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports are effective practices but generally underused in schools.
Various multi-tiered systems of support have emerged as promising practices to improve outcomes for young
children with special needs.

The Pedagogy for Young Children With Special Needs
Cook and Odem (2013) and Smith, Schmidt, Edelen-Smith and Cook (2013) offer disappointing news.
They found that the effective evidence-based practices that are noted in the literature are seldom used in
schools. Clearly attention needs to be paid to the research-to-practice gap about effective teaching practices,
the channels through which research is disseminated to the field, the way best practices are implemented and
scaled up system-wide, and the specialized professional development opportunities general educators are
provided.
Castillo, Hines, Batsche, and Curtis (2011) and Curtis, Castillo, and Cohen (2008) noted three elements
that any sound model for teaching students with special needs should include: information about student
learning that is valid and reliable; a framework for problem-solving that can guide decision making; and a
shared commitment among educators to engage in continual reflective practice. Educators must become
comfortable asking and addressing the simple question “Did it work?” in relation to the work they do alongside
young children with special needs (Batsche, Curtis, Dorman, Castillo, & Porter, 2007; National Association of
State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE], 2006).

A useful concept for thinking about inclusion and ECE
McCain (2017), a Canadian leader in advancing early childhood education in Canada,
urges us to think of the ‘playification’ of early childhood education rather than the
‘schoolification’ of early childhood education. This approaches helps us focus on the
unique needs of early learners.

dual track
model
inclusive
school model
“some groups
of children”
“ all children”

To get in touch:
jtompkin@stfx.ca 

Adelman, C., & Kubisyn, T. (2017). Factors that affect age of identification of children with an
Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(1): 18-32.
Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2014). Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Inclusive Education
in Alberta Schools. Edmonton, AB: Author.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J.A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L.L. & Beegle, G. (2004).
Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional
Children, 70(2), 167-184.
Bretting, K. & Sims, M. (Eds.) (2011). Building integrated connections for children,their
families and communities. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne.
Charman, T., & Stone, W. (2008). Social & communication development in Autism Spectrum
Disorders: Early identification, diagnosis, & intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.
Cologon, K.(Ed.) (2018a). Inclusive education in the early years. Right from the start. South
Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press.
Cologon, K. (2018b). Better together: Inclusive education in the early years. In K. Cologon Ed.), Inclusive education in the
early years. Right from the start (pp. 3-26). South Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press.
Cologon, K. (2018c). More than a label? The power of language. In K. Cologon (Ed.), Inclusive
education in the early years. Right from the start (pp. 49-70). South Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press.

Cross, L., Salazar, M.J., Dobson-Campuzano, N., & Barchelder, H. W. (2009). Best practices
and considerations: Including young children with disabilities in early childhood
settings. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(8), 1-8.
Cumming, T. & Wong, S. (2012). Professionals don’t play: Challenges for early childhood
educators working in a transdisciplinary early intervention team. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 37(1), 127-135.
Danforth, S. (2006). From epistemology to democracy: Pragmatism and the reorientation of
disability research. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 337-345.
Delahooke, M. (2017). Social and emotional development in early intervention: A skills guide
for working with children. Eau Claire, WI: PESI Publishing& Media.
Division for Early Childhood/National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009).
Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division of Early Childhood (DEC)
and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill, NC:
The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
Ellis, S., Tod, J. & Graham-Matheson, L. (2008). Special education needs and inclusion:
Reflection and renewal. Birmingham, UK: National Association of Schoolmasters Union of
Women Teachers.
Epley, P. H., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A. P. (2011). Family outcomes of early intervention:
Families’ perceptions of need, service, and outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 33,
201-219.

Fordham, L., & Johnson, C., (2018). Family-Centered practice for inclusive early years
education. In K. Cologon (Ed.), Inclusive education in the early years. Right from the
start (pp. 171-189). South Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, S. (2010). Early transition of children with special needs. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.
McGraw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, 2 (pp. 631-620). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Fowler, S., Ostrosky, M. M., & Yates, T. J. (2014). Teaching and learning in the early years. In
L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Special Education, Volume 2 (pp. 613-631).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing
Frank, L. (2016). The 2016 report card on child and family poverty in Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS:
Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives/Nova Scotia.
Friend, M., & Shamberger, C. (2008). Inclusion. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A
reference handbook (pp. II-124-II-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gallagher, P. A., Steed, E. A., & Green, K. B. (2014). Teacher preparation: Early
intervention/Early childhood special education. In P. T. Sindelar, E. D. McCray, M. T. Brownell, & B.
Lignugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Special Education Teacher Preparation (pp. 387-
404). New York, NY: Routledge.
Guralnick, M. J. (2011). Why early intervention works: A systems perspective. Infant and Young
Children, 24, 6-28.

Harvard Centre of the Developing Child. (2007). A science-based framework for early childhood
policy: Using evidence to improve outcomes in learning, behavior, and health for vulnerable children. Center on
he Developing Child Harvard University. Retrieved from:
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/a-science-based-framework-for-early-childhood-policy/
Jordon, A., Schwartz, E., McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing general education elementary
teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535-542.
Lawrence-Brown, D., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2014). Condition critical: Key principles for
equitable and inclusive education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lifter, K., Mason, E. J., & Barton, E. E. (2011). Children’s play: Where we have been and
where we could go. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 281-197.
MacNaughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2011). Parent/guardians and professionals in early childhood
settings. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D. (2010). Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts.
Toronto: York University School of Health Policy and Management.
Mitchell, S. & Thorpe, K. (2018). Assessment, early identification and individualized learning.
In C. Collett, (Ed.) Disability and inclusion in early years’ education (pp. 26-56). New York: Routledge.
Mogharreban, C.C., & Burns, D. A. (2009). Moving to inclusion pre-kindergarten classrooms:
Lessons from the field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 407-414.

Odom, S.L., Buysse, V. & Soukadou, E. (2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A
quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 344-356
Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., & Snow, K. L. (2007). School readiness and the transition to
kindergarten in the era of accountability. Exceptionality Education International, 21(2), 62-73.
Petrakos, H.H. & Lehrer, J.S. (2011). Parent/guardians’ and teachers’ perceptions of transition practices in
kindergarten. Exceptionality Education International, 21(2), 62-71.
Porter, G. & AuCoin, A. (2012). Strengthening inclusion, strengthening schools. Report of the
review of Inclusion Education programs and practices in New Brunswick Schools. Fredericton, NB:
Province of New Brunswick.
Purdue, K., Ballard, K. & MacAruthur, J. (2001). Exclusion and inclusion in New Zealand early
childhood education. Disability, discourses and contexts. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 9(11), 37-49. Doi: 10.1080/09669760120044178
Recchia, S., & Lee, YJ. (2013). Inclusion in the early childhood classroom. What makes a
difference? New York. Teachers College Press.
Rous, B. S. & Hallam, R. A. (2012). Transition services for young children with disabilities:
Research and future directions. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 232-
240.

Silas, D. (2014). Guide to the SEN Code of Practice: What you need to know. London, UK:
Douglas Silas Solicitors.
Valle, J. W., & Connor, D. J. (2011). Rethinking disability: a disability studies approach to
inclusive practices. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wong, S., Press, F., Sumsion, J., & Hard, L. (2012). Collaborative practices in Victorian early
years services: 10 project sites. Victoria, AU: Victorian Government Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development.

Building the bridge to success: Best practices regarding identification and intervention for young children at risk of school failure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Building the bridge to success: Best practices regarding identification and intervention for young children at risk of school failure

Similar to Building the bridge to success: Best practices regarding identification and intervention for young children at risk of school failure (20)

More from Caribbean Development Bank

More from Caribbean Development Bank (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Building the bridge to success: Best practices regarding identification and intervention for young children at risk of school failure