Research to Practice Summit

Forms of Preschool Inclusion ¹

by Sam Odom

• Investigator
• School of Education
• Indiana University, Bloomington

Confusion over terminology used to describe preschool settings that include with and without disabilities has existed for over 25 years. Initially, programs placing young children with and without disabilities in the same classes or activities were identified as "integrated" (Allen, Benning, & Drummond, 1972; Bricker & Bricker, 1971; Guralnick, 1976). Head Start began integrating children with disabilities in the early 1970s (Ensher, Blatt, & Wincchel, 1976). By the late 1970s, "mainstreaming" a term used originally in programs for school-aged children (Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard, & Kukic, 1975), was applied to early childhood programs (Bricker & Sandall, 1979; Karnes & Lee, 1979). Throughout the 1980s, integration and mainstreaming appeared to be used synonymously (Odom & McEvoy, 1988).

During the early 1990s, terminology shifted again and programs containing children with and without disabilities were described as "inclusive" (Stainback & Stainback, 1990). For some researchers, inclusion had a specific meaning that was different from integration and mainstreaming (e.g., Siegel, 1996). For example, several advocacy and professional organizations interpreted inclusion as full time involvement of children with disabilities in typical early childhood programs in the natural proportions that occur in the general population (Division for Early Childhood, 1993: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 1988). Yet, programs may label any planned participation as inclusion regardless of the percentage of time spent together or the ration of children with and without disabilities.

In the literature, there have been descriptions of individual program identified as community-based (Brown, Horn, Heiser, & Odom, 1996), integrated special education (odom & Speltz, 1983), Head Start (Buscemi, Bennett, Thomas & DeLuca, 1996), and dual enrollment (Donegon, Ostrosky, & Fowler, 1996). However, there has been little focused discussion about the range of preschool inclusion programs that may exist in community and/or public school settings and the dimensions on which they might vary. We propose that a useful step in this research is to examine programs identified as inclusive that occur in naturalistic settings (e.g., in communities, Head Starts, public schools), to describe the diversity that exists across the programs, and to categorize that diversity in a way that would aid in communication among researchers, program providers, and parents.

The purpose of this study was establish an initial descriptive categorization of inclusive programs for preschool children. The specific questions addressed are:

1. Along what dimensions do inclusive preschool programs vary? and
2.   What are the characteristics of these program types?

Investigators employed a range of quantitative and qualitative data collection strategies. Quantitative strategies consisted of direct observation of individual children using an ecobehavioral observational system called the CASPER-II (Brown, Favazza, & Odom, 1995), an observer impressions questionnaire completed after each observation, the Battelle Developmental Inventory, a peer rating sociometric assessment, and a friendship questionnaire. Qualitative data included participant observations; semi-structured interviews with professional, administrators, and family members; and document analysis. The case studies and summaries described below drew upon all of these data sources.

At each site, investigators first organized their data by program, and, using both the qualitative and qualitative data, created program descriptions and case studies. Case studies were then shared with investigators at the other sites. After reading all the program descriptions, using the categories, investigators classified the programs at their individual sites. Categories were next refined through discussions among all the investigators, and an initial, two-dimensional descriptive framework (described later) was established. New categories and definitions were established. New categories and definitions were established after a third iteration of classification and discussion among investigators, and final revision occurred after receiving feedback from a program participant. As a last step, these categorical descriptions were reviewed by 13 state preschool (619) coordinators who concurred that the context and models identified were occurring in their state.

The resulting analysis revealed that these programs varied on the two dimensions of organizational context and individualized service delivery models. Organizational contexts included community-based child care, Head Start, public school-child care, public school-Head Start, public-school-early childhood education, and dual enrollment. The individualized service models that programs followed were itinerant-direct service, itnerant-collaborative/consultative, team teaching, early childhood, early childhood special education, and integrative/inclusive activities.

Implications for Inclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the variations in programs identified as inclusive. From our analysis, programs varied along the two dimensions of organizational context and models of individualized services. These dimensions map well onto the ecological systems framework proposed by Brofenbrenner (1979), each reflecting variables operating at different ecosystem levels. The individualized service models would represent variables operating within the microsystem (i.e., actions of individuals within the inclusive class settings) and mesosystem levels (i.e., actions of individuals outside of the classroom that affect children). The organization context would represent variables operating at the exosystem level (i.e., administrative or social policy level).

Viewing inclusion from an organizational perspective provides a framework for examining policies that underlie the creation and maintenance of inclusive programs. As other have found (Smith & Rose, 1973), and our research is beginning to reveal, factors associated with the organizational context may well serve as barriers to and facilitators of inclusion. For example, in order for community-based programs to operate, some of the school systems developed policies that allowed the use of funds to pay tuition for children with disabilities attending private child care centers and also allowed staff to travel in the community rather than work within a school building. The flexibility and creativity of administrators appeared to serve as facilitators for such programs, while barriers existed when flexibility was absent (Janko & Porter, 1997). At other sites, state policy prohibited funding being spent in that way, which was a barrier.

Head Start programs serve as another example of organizational contexts in which facilitators and barriers exist. National head Start policies dictated that inclusion occur, however the degree to which public schools provided support for children with disabilities in Head Start programs appeared to be determined by both formal and informal agreements established between the two agencies. Such agreements (or lack thereof) operated as facilitators and barriers. When Head Start was administered by public school organization, intra-agency organizational variables (e.g., whether the early childhood programs for young children with disabilities were administered through a Special Education division or any Early Childhood division of the organization) appeared to affect the implementation of inclusion. In our research, we are attempting to untangle the complex issue of social policy (Janko & Porter, 1997), but the first step in this research has been to understand the different organizational contexts in which inclusive classes operate.

Viewing inclusion from an individualized service model perspective allows an examination of barriers and facilitators existing at the microsystem (i.e.. actions of individuals within classroom) and mesosystem (i.e., actions between adults outside of the classrooms that affect children and classrooms) levels. For example, the itinerant models of service delivery were used often by programs in this study. The degree to which itinerant services were delivered directly or collaboratively affected the experiences of children in classrooms. The collaborative process was influenced by the roles and relationships of the adults (Lieber et al., 1997). Both roles and relationships and professional philosophy may function as barriers to or facilitators of inclusion. The type of individualized service model planned and implemented by programs undoubtedly related to the participants' goals of inclusion. Bricker (1978) identified rationales for integration as being psychological-educational, social-ethical, and legal-legislative.

If rationales can be translated into goals, the psychological-educational rationale could be stated as an instructional goal (e.g., children will meet their IEP objectives) Bricker, 1995). It may well be that certain individualized service models emphasize this goal most strongly (e.g., both itinerant models; team teaching; early childhood special education model). The social-ethical rationale could well be translated into a "membership" goal (i.e., children with special needs become active members of the class or peer group) (Billingsley, Gallucci, Peck, Schwartz, & Staub, 1996; Ferguson,1994). Other service models may emphasize this goal more strongly (early childhood integrative activities). Our future research will address the issue of goals and service models.

If a range of program types can be identified with their associated goals, such information may ultimately inform decisions about placements for children. Such decisions could be based on goals that match families' wishes and goals exemplified by program's implementation.

References

¹ Presented at the Research to Practice Summit, July 30-31, 1998, Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System in collaboration with the Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI).