The document summarizes two observations of inclusive early childhood classrooms. The first observation was of a classroom using many developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) like individualized schedules, respectful collaboration with families, and seamless integration of related services. The second classroom focused more on direct instruction and treatment of disabilities rather than development and inclusion of typical peers. The author concluded the first classroom better supported the development of all children.

1. 1
Observation
Observation Paper for Outside Project
Stefanie J. Pratt
SPE 525
University of Phoenix
Running Head: Observation

2. 2
Observation
All children in the United States deserve a fair chance to be educated in
environments with their non-disabled peers. Research suggests that using
Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) can have academic benefit (Dunn,
1997). In the following observations, I went to two sites to observe if DAP was
being used in the inclusive classroom as well as the adaptations that were used in
the classroom.
Observation1: Rochester Childfirst Network – Inclusion Summer Program
My first observation was at the Rochester Childfirst Network. The
classroom was an inclusion classroom of three and four year olds. This classroom is
part of the SMILE (Successful Milestones in Learning Environments) program.
This has been the first year the agency has decided to provide services during the
summer. None of the children identified were required to receive 12 month
programming; this summer program is an experiment. As the program schedule is
only half-day the center does provide care after the program has finished in other
parts of the center and the families were welcome to take advantage of that if

3. 3
Observation
desired. The classroom was named the caterpillar room and when the children
“graduated” they moved to the butterfly room. The teaching staff consisted of
one teacher, one teaching assistant, one speech language pathologist, and two 1:1
aides. Five of the eleven children in the classroom, are children identified as
children with disabilities. Of those five children, one child has an autistic
spectrum disorder, one child has a social/emotional delay or disorder, one child has
a developmental delay, and the other two children have non specific
delays/disabilities requiring services. Most likely their IEP’s identify them as a
preschool child with a disability. The other six children are non-disabled peers.
The teaching staff informed me that they were unaware how non-disabled peers
were placed in the program, as the center has other programs where children could
be placed.
As I entered the classroom, I noticed that all of the shelves were labeled
with the names of each item as well as pictures of each item to create a print rich
environment. All of the items for children were on low shelves to access easily.
The room was well maintained and everything was off the floor and in its place.
The cleanliness, entrance, and room arrangement could facilitate the use of a
wheelchair in the room if necessary.

4. 4
Observation
The morning unfolded with the children arriving slowly. I arrived at the site
shortly before the class was to begin. As I met each of the staff, one of the 1:1
aides (Marie) was preparing the daily schedule for the student with the autistic
spectrum disorder (we will call him A). She did inform me that A might not enter
the classroom this morning because I am an unfamiliar adult, as he has a strong
need for high structure, routine and familiar faces. When A arrived, he saw me
and was very reluctant to enter the classroom. Having already preplanned the
scenario, Marie walked directly to meet A and his mother. She was upbeat and
after greeting A’s mother got down on A’s level and began to talk to A about what a
good day they were going to have with lots of fun activities. Marie especially
highlighted the music activity for later in the morning. A was still reluctant to
enter the classroom, part of A’s behavioral support involves allowing him to walk
with a staff person to help him feel more comfortable. Marie communicated to her
teaching team that she would be taking a walk with A and would be back soon.
I noticed many developmentally appropriate practices in this interaction
alone. Prior to A’s arrival Marie put together the schedule to support A’s need for
structure and routine. According to DAP guidelines teachers need to use a wide
variety of approaches to enhance learning and development (Bredekamp, 1997). By
using the schedule, Marie was practicing DAP. Also, when Marie greeted A’s

5. 5
Observation
mother she practiced DAP because of the obvious respect and collaboration she
exhibited in a short exchange and enthusiastically addressing a potentially
stressful situation (Bredekamp, 1997).
While A was on his walk, I observed the speech pathologist (Stacy)
delivering services to a student we will call J. After J had arrived and put his
personal things away he made his way to the housekeeping area for play. The
speech pathologist joined him and they began to engage in play. As Stacy was
delivering speech services, a non-disabled peer came over to join in. The non-
disabled peer was welcomed into the play experience, as Stacy continued to deliver
services. Stacy even included the non-disabled peer in the game. As Stacy
concluded her service delivery she quietly left the area and J and his peer
continued to play for several minutes.
Stacy delivered speech services while using DAP. J was given the
opportunity to direct his learning by choosing the place where it would happen
(Bredekamp, 1997). Also, Stacy fostered collaboration and friendship with a non-
disabled peer by not excluding the non-disabled peer “because it’s speech time”
(Bredekamp, 1997).

6. 6
Observation
As my observation continued, I noticed many other DAP practices happening
in the classroom. The other staff in the classroom helped the other children get
ready for the day’s activities and engage in the centers that were already set up as
they arrived. Children were free to choose what activities they wanted. Staff
joined the children in chosen activities and had conversations about what they
were doing and they engaged the children with each other in conversation. I did
observe one of the greatest examples of a push-in service in my professional
experience. The OT came in to provide services to a few specific students but did
so in a large group game. As the OT came in children were told when they finished
with their activities they could join her on the circle rug. As each child finished in
his/her own time they put their activities away and joined the game on the rug.
Just before the game began the OT communicated to the staff in the room the
children that needed to join the game and the staff encouraged those children to
join the game. This game flowed from the centers that had been open and were
being closed as children left. There were no large, screaming announcements about
the children having to join the large group activity or that there were only five
minutes left before a tumultuous transition to get everyone on the circle rug. It
was a smooth transition and the game kept going until all children had joined the
game. In the meantime, A had returned from his walk. As the game transitioned

7. 7
Observation
to something else, the children received a finger puppet they were going to take
through a tri-colored tunnel. All of the children were encouraged, when ready to
pass through the tunnel. All of the children on the rug had many chances to go
through the tunnel. A had a chance to sit with Marie and watch while holding one
of the finger puppets. At the end of the session, the OT came and spoke with A
and thanked him for his participation. I think this activity was the most inclusive
of everything, I observed. I also want to note how the teaching staff worked as a
collaborative team to assist all of the children in engaging in the program and
therefore all of the children will benefit from the program.
There were no physical adaptations to the classroom environment, but it did
seem conducive to children who may need to use a wheelchair in the classroom.
The playground, however, was a typical playground that wouldn’t be conducive to a
child with movement disabilities. The program would have to adapt the playground
in order to serve a child who required the use of a wheelchair.
Observation 2: Augustin Children’sCenter
My second observation took place at the Augustin Children’s Center. This
center was originally apart of the local chapter of United Cerebral Palsy. However,
the local affiliate has split from the national organization and is now known in the
area as CP Rochester. This organization provides a wide area of services to people

8. 8
Observation
from birth to death. The facility has some of the best state of the art services
for all of the people they serve. Upon my arrival I was given a complete tour of
the facility and a briefing of all of its services. I arrived in the pediatric wing of
the building in which there are speech services, occupational therapy services,
physical therapy services, and adaptive physical education. As well as a fully
adapted playground that can accommodate any disability. The playground included
adaptive swings and equipment to climb on and a surface suitable and friendly to
wheelchairs. All of the facilities in this building were completely handicap
accessible in the truest sense of the terms.
This program had a similar half-day schedule to the first site. The
program I visited had eight children and only one child was a non-disabled peer.
The accounting for this was that most of the families of the non-disabled children
typically choose not to go to the school in the summer. They are however, more
than welcome to join if desired. On my tour, I was told that I would observe a
highly educational and highly structured program. The staff in the room consisted
of a Special Education teacher, a caregiver, a volunteer, a 1:1 aide and a speech
pathologist. The children in the room had more significant disabilities than the
previous site. Many of the children were non-verbal or minimally verbal. The first
activity was block play. I immediately noticed that all of the block play was

9. 9
Observation
teacher directed. The teacher directed the children in building a tower with a
pattern versus asking the children what pattern they can build. The speech
pathologist was also working with two students and again directed the students in
what to build in the process of giving speech services instead of assisting the child
in initiating a building project and delivering the services within that context. I
noticed that staff minimally encouraged peer to peer interaction. If students
weren’t interested in building they could color. The activity provided was a copied
coloring sheet. In that activity there wasn’t any conversation during the activity
and the activity seemed to have no purpose. The activity after the block/coloring
time was snack. Snack time was a time in which a myriad of services were
provided. At this center all services are push-in unless the services are extremely
intense. During snack time, there were more adults in the room then children.
While eating one child received OT services, a second SLP came in to provide a
service to one child, the Special Ed teacher and the other SLP worked with
another child, other service providers worked with other children and all of which
became difficult to track and observe. I observed both SLP’s and the Special Ed
teacher providing specific speech services involving picture exchange
communication system (PECS). At one point during the snack, one SLP used her
hands to direct one student’s attention to the Special Ed teacher when he wanted

10. 10
Observation
to communicate with his friend sitting next to him. After snack the class made
their way to Adaptive PE. This was probably the only place where I witnessed DAP.
The gym was set up in centers and the children were given choices in where they
wanted to play and what tools/toys they wanted to use. However, there still wasn’t
any peer to peer communication in these activities.
I didn’t notice many DAP practices happening in this environment. The
school is approved by the NYS board of education and invites non-disabled peers to
the site from the local school district. I didn’t notice that the environment was
print rich and I didn’t notice many books in the classroom. This concerns me. Even
though, a number of the students are significantly disabled they are with their
non-disabled peers and the non-disabled students do need exposure to print to
develop literacy skills. The teaching in the room didn’t enhance development and
learning, it was mainly focused on treatment (Bredekamp, 1997). Also, concerning
the snack time, I felt that a huge opportunity was lost for peer to peer
interaction. I think at least the speech services could’ve been delivered in the
context of supporting efforts to get a peer to peer conversation going. With the
speech service where PECS was being used the student was required to make a
choice of what she would like a bite of and give that to the SLP and then receive a
bite. I’ve never liked teaching someone to use PECS in this manner. I think that at

11. 11
Observation
mealtime of any sort the person with a disability should be able to pick up the food
he/she wants and eat without first having to tell someone. I think this service
costs the person with a disability a great deal in independence. I was told that the
purpose of the service was to teach the student to use the PECS to communicate
and understand the symbols in front of her. I think that a better approach would
have been to show the PECS after she choose what to eat and not before. In that
approach the student doesn’t seem to need to ask permission to take a bite. I
realize that all of these services are required by the IEP’s. I just think there is a
better approach to reaching the goal.
Another area that seemed inappropriate is that, when all of the adults were
present at snack time, in between trials the service providers had conversations
with each other that didn’t include the students and sometimes were about the
students. This doesn’t respect the dignity of all students and again all students
are loosing out on an opportunity to develop language and conversation skills with
each other, which in time will form the bonds of friendships (Bredekamp, 1997).
In this instance, it appears that treatment for the special need superseded
the need to support development for all children. Children with special needs need
to develop their abilities in the areas of cognition, social interaction, emotional
expression, language expression, and literacy like their non-disabled peers. All of

12. 12
Observation
these areas seemed to be neglected in some of the activities provided. The school
was only focused on treatment of the disability. I don’t think treatment alone
enhances the total development of the individual.
In conclusion, I would say I would want my child to attend the first
site I observed. Despite all of the state of the art services available to the
students at the second site, I saw very little developmentally appropriate practice.
I would like to see a place where the facilities of site two and the practice of site
one were one place. That would probably be the perfect combination. This
experience taught me a great deal about observing, the types of services available
in my area, how I want my practice to be, how I would like to see inclusion happen
in my classroom.

13. 13
Observation
Bibliography
Bredekamp, S. &. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs.
Washington DC: NAEYC.
Dunn, L. &. (1997, October). Developmentally Appropriate Practice: What Does Research Tell Us.
Retrieved August 8, 2007, from Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting:
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1997/dunn97.html
Novick, R. (1996, April 11). Developmentally Appropriate and Culturally Responsive Education: Theory in
Practice. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory:
http://www.nwrel.org/cfc/publications/DAP2.html#Disabilities