Preschool Inclusion Critical Analysis - Essay Example

EMD 501 Critical Review of Article: Preschool Inclusion - What We Know and Where We Go from Here by Samuel L. Odom Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 2000 20(1): pp.20-27 Submission Date: Student Name: Sin Yan Lan, Grace Student No: 90849158 Table of Contents Page No. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Keywords ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Summary of the Article -------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Brief Account of the Reasons for Choosing the Article ---------------------- 4 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE-------------------------------------------------- 5 The Key Issues Raised in the Article---------------------------------------------- 6 The Main Findings from the Research Study and the Suggestions------- 6 The Arguments Put Forward by the Article-------------------------------------- 8 The Strengths and Shortcomings of the Article--------------------------------- 14 CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 REFERENCES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Introduction The inclusion of physically or mentally challenged children with their normally developing peers at the preschool level, is different from school age inclusion. Here the emphasis is on the requirement for initiating inclusion at the earliest. Preschool inclusion occurs when preschoolers who require special education or related services, “receive these services when they are enrolled full time in general early childhood settings with same-aged peers without disabilities” (Power-deFur & Orelove, 1997: p.131). Disabled children develop optimally in the least restrictive environment of the inclusive classroom. The inclusive settings may be community-based such as private preschool programmes in day care centres, or may be public school based preschool programmes. For inclusion to be successful, children with disabilities have to be provided with all the necessary supports, to facilitate their forming friendships with peers, to actively participate in all classroom activities, and to accomplish the individualised goals designed to meet his or her needs. Both the disabled children and their non-disabled peers benefit from the integrated environment (Power-deFur & Orelove, 1997). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to write a critical review of the article by Odom (2000). First, the article will be summarised, followed by a background section giving a brief account of the reason why the article was chosen, its significance and the relevance to one’s research interest. The critical review of the article will include an investigation of the topic and key issues raised in the paper; also the author’s findings and suggestions; the arguments put forward by the article; and an evaluation of the strengths and shortcomings of the paper. Key Words Preschool inclusion, Integration, Mainstream, Disabilities, Quality, Culture, Attitudes, Policy, Funding, Parental involvement A Summary of the Article In early childhood special education, it is now a primary service option to include children with disabilities with normally developing peers with typical growth patterns, in integrated classroom settings. This is a relatively new development, from the 1990s, although inclusion of preschool children was known since the early 1970s. There has been a gradual shift from special education programmes for school age children to those designed for preschool age children, to programmes in which children with disabilities are included in mainstream classrooms, with continued development in the settings offered for achieving improved outcomes (Odom, 2000). In this paper, the author Odom (2000) briefly investigates the literature available on the topic. Some research findings on preschool inclusive settings are as follows. Positive outcomes are reported for children with disabilities, as well as for typically developing children in inclusive settings. Normally developing children in inclusive classrooms interact socially with peers more frequently than children with disabilities. Children with mild disabilities are more likely to be placed in inclusive settings than those with severe disabilities. Positive behavioral and developmental outcomes have resulted from individualised instructional techniques and curricula employed in inclusive settings. The author has particularly proposed that “specialised instruction is a necessary aspect of successful inclusive preschool programmes” (Odom, 2000: p.21). Further, teachers generally have positive attitudes about including children with disabilities in their classrooms with typically developing children, but have concerns regarding lack of knowledge about children with disabilities. Family members’ positive attitudes about inclusive settings increase over time. Inclusion in its totality, goes far beyond the classroom setting to encompass community activities, with the natural environment providing many learning opportunities. Moreover, several social policy factors affect the implementation of inclusive programmes (Odom, 2000). The issues and inclusive programmes that may shape the future should propel this important movement for children and families. In this article, the author “speculates on five themes that may shape the future of inclusive programmes and services for children with disabilities” (Odom, 2000: p.20). These important parameters in the preschool inclusive setting are: the quality of inclusion, intensity and instruction, outcomes and goals, social integration, cost and funding. Brief Account of the Reasons for Choosing the Article There are a few reasons why I have selected this article “Preschool inclusion – what we know and where we go from here” by Odom (2000) for this assignment. Not much research on inclusion has been conducted in Singapore or in this part of the world, and therefore there is limited literature here on inclusive settings. I wanted to find out more, and after reading this paper (Odom, 2000) briefly, I found the article discussed a few very interesting points and issues which relate to my own experience with a disabled child in my class many years ago. I have also always wondered why there are many more children with disabilities in today’s world in comparison to the past, as well as the long waiting list to get into special education schools in Singapore. Further, as I was reading the paper by Odom (2000), I noted the positive attitudes by teachers as well as family members towards providing inclusive environments to children with disabilities in the United States of America. I could not help but challenge myself to think about the situation in Singapore in comparison to the States. Some of the issues discussed such as the cost, funding, and policy making, are challenging areas also for Singapore. Additionally, cultural influence plays an important role in Singapore in terms of inclusive settings. Then, a question arose, whether the approach to inclusion in the preschool stage implemented in the States, could be implemented in Singapore too; whether it was applicable in the Singapore context? Odom’s (2000) article which is being critically reviewed, touched on the important issues of preschool inclusion; hence it would be interesting to discuss it in depth. Lastly, the paper is a peered reviewed article, and was published in a well known academic journal: Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, Spring 2000, Volume 20, Issue 1, pages 20-27. The paper can also be found in Athens, a journal management system in University of East London with access to other journal sources. The paper is well paced, and written in a clear and concise manner by the author. Critical Review of the Article According to Power-deFur & Orelove (1997: p.131), “Inclusion is not an education issue; it is a lifestyle”, and encompasses all the daily activities that normal children generally undertake such as playing in the neighbourhood playground, going to the library or the mall, and similar activities. Preschool age children both with and without disabilities are at a formative period of getting to know each other. Early childhood educators and special educators recognise the requirement of including young children with disabilities in programmes with their peers who are developing normally. Through including preschool children who need special education in the normal classroom, all the children in the integrated environment are benefited considerably. Preschoolers with disabilities develop optimally in a least restrictive environment (LRE); and this requires extensive legislative, moral-philosophical and research support (Thompson, 1998). The Key Issues Raised in the Article The main issues raised in this article by Odom (2000) are: the outcomes of inclusion of preschool children with disabilities together with their peer group who are developing according to typical milestones, in an integrated learning environment; the extent of social interaction undertaken by children with disabilities as compared to the typically developing children in inclusive classrooms; teachers’ attitudes towards including children with severe disabilities in the general preschool setting; the quality in childcare environments and the quality in inclusive settings; the benefits of individualised instructional techniques and curricula; teachers’ attitudes and concerns regarding inclusive setting; the attitudes of family members of children with disabilities; and the social policy factors that affect the implementation of inclusive programmes. Some emerging and ongoing issues related to inclusion encompass: the definition of the term, the quality of inclusion, the intensity and further delineation of instruction, the outcomes of inclusion and related objectives, “the meaning of social competence and relationships, and the cost and funding of inclusion” (Odom, 2000: p.22). The Main Findings from the Research Study and the Suggestions More than thirty years of research and practice form the substantial basis for the formulation of policies, and practice. Some key findings have been obtained from the literature review on the topic of Inclusion at the preschool level integrating children with disabilities with normally developing children. Most young children with disabilities can have improved outcomes from inclusive preschool settings. There is increasing awareness regarding “the types of support professionals can provide to create productive learning environments for children with and without disabilities in inclusive settings” (Odom, 2000: p.25). In the field of inclusive learning for children with and without disabilities, decisions regarding inclusion programmes are based on the needs of individual children and the priorities and concerns of parents. Hence, it was seen that in certain cases and in particular settings, inclusive programmes do not provide the solution to the problems of children with disabilities. Another important finding of the literature review undertaken by Odom (2000) was that as a group, children with disabilities are at comparatively higher risk for peer rejection than typically developing children (Odom et al,1998). In this connection, a crucial suggestion advanced by Odom (2000) was that several types of social skills interventions are implemented, however their effectiveness is dependent on a comprehensive and continued early intervention programme. Further, for more beneficial results, effective interventions must also involve the parents (Guralnick, 1999). Outcomes that need to be promoted for children with disabilities is especially required in connection with social integration, social competence and social relationships. It is essential to recognise that Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) facilitates conditions for social inclusion through a policy framework. The six policies are: for integrated approach to policy development and implementation, a strong and equal partnership with the education system, a universal approach to access with special reference to children in need of support, public investment in services and infrastructure, participatory approach to quality improvement and assurance, appropriate training and working conditions for staff, sytematic attention to monitoring and data collection, and a long-term agenda for research and evaluation (Friendly & Lero, 2002: pp10-11). The ECEC ensures that quality is considered to be a priority, to ensure equal opportunities, development and learning of preschool children in the inclusive setting (OECD, 2001). The ECRII (1998) supports the concept that programmes, and not children have to be ready to meet the needs of inclusion. That is, it is essential that programmes are improved further, to obtain enhanced results. Further, it is essential that policy makers and administrators in school systems facilitate increasingly improved inclusion programmes. This will help to ensure that inclusion will remain as the first service alternative for young children with disabilities, rather than a service provided on the basis of parental advocacy (Odom, 2000). Bennett (2003) notes that a deep-rooted division exists between care and education; and there is considerable delay in investing in care services for children in the early years. The Arguments Put Forward by the Article The author Odom (2000) argues in his article, that researchers have found that the behaviour of children with disabilities is beneficially impacted by participating in activities and classrooms with typically developing children. At the same time, typically developing children were also impacted, resulting in their improved attitudes towards children with disabilities, besides enhanced knowledge of types of disability conditions. Another argument put forth by the author is that severely disabled children are less likely to receive the service of an inclusive setting, as compared to children with mild disabilities. It is essential to note that children with severe disabilities should be included in general preschool settings, since it helps them to score higher on standardised measures of development, than those children who are equally disabled but are placed in traditional special education settings (Dinnebeil et al, 1998). Clough & Nutbrown (2004) found from their research on preschool educators’ perceptions on inclusive settings that most of them agreed that they were beneficial. The perceptions and beliefs of teachers to inclusion-related needs and barriers was found to affect their attitudes to including preschool children with disabilities in the mainstream classroom. Participation in training and serving children with disabilities directly impacted teachers’ positive attitude towards an inclusive setting (Mulvihill et al, 2002). Moreover, teachers’ perceptions were strongly related to the description of the child’s abilties and learning needs. Generally, teachers reported that “they were most comfortable and needed the least amount of support and classroom adaptations” (Huang & Diamond, 2009: p.171) for a child with physical-motor disability such as cerebral palsy. Teachers reported lower comfort levels and increased needs for classroom adaptations and supports for children with severe intellectual disabilities, compared with other children. Inclusion programmes vary on several dimensions, mainly organisational context and individualised service delivery model. Organisational contexts include community-based childcare and preschool classes, Head Start classes and public school classes. Individualized services were provided through either direct, collaborative, team-teaching, or a special education approach (McWilliam, 1995). Odom (2000) argues that in general, the quality of child care environments appear to be mediocre. The development of specialised instruction programmes with improved classroom techniques are called for. Some of the barriers to implementing policy are related to programme standards, financial, personnel and staffing issues. Language differences between the home and school, and cultural issues impact families’ perspectives on disability, teachers’ practices and philosophies, the extent of communication between teachers and families, children’s friendships and social bonding, development of individualised education programmes (Odom, 2000). Further, the quality of inclusion should be reviewed in early childhood centres by programme staff and parents. Moreover, in relation to quality, individual children can have greatly differing experiences in the same classroom, hence the setting has to be individually appropriate for the child with disabilities. The inclusive quality of the programme is usually revealed in the programme philosophy, administrative support, resources such as training, collaboration among professionals, and interactions between teacher and child with disabilities (Carta et al, 1988). Naturalistic teaching strategies are valuable tools in inclusive settings, because a teacher does not have to lead a disabled individual or small group separately, while at the same time carrying out her role as leader in the classroom. Naturalistic intervention approaches are compatible with a constructivist philosophy in which children learn by following their interests, while being guided by adults’ plans for the inclusive setting. However, one of the limitations of this method is the complex planning and implementation process required for teachers to achieve successful outcomes in the classroom settings (Halle, 1998). However, because of their value in applied settings, naturalistic methods should be improved further, for greater effectiveness and feasibility. With increased improvement, the metric for intensity of instruction will change. Rather than the most intense form of instruction being teacher-led groups or discrete trial activities which still work best for teaching specific skills, learning by participation may be a more intense form of instruction, which is in line with the theory of situated learning proposed by Rogoff (1995). In the discipline of maths education, the situated learning theory has been most evident. According to Cobb & Bowers (1999), it has great promise for the future in guiding instruction and learning in inclusive preschool classrooms. Odom (2000) on the aspect of outcomes has focused on children’s performances on standardised developmental measures. An expansion in the assessment of outcomes, is required to be developed. An important outcome is the skills that children acquire in inclusive settings. Other essential results relate to children’s participation as a full member of the class, and relationships as seen in children’s interactions with peers and adults. These will help to guide the planning of productive programmes in future. The main task is to select specific assessment measures that generate accurate and reliable information on outcomes for the child. Programme goals are strongly related to the outcomes. Goals for children are educational or skills-oriented in nature. Children’s learning is an important goal of inclusive programmes. Other important goals are: the development of relationships with peers, and the child becoming a fully vested member of the class. These multiple goals have to be kept in mind while designing instructional strategies for children with disabilities in inclusive preschool programmes. For children in inclusive settings to benefit from the specially designed programmes, they need to be socially integrated into the inclusive programme. In the case of children with mild disabilities, “social integration is achieved when typically developing children are connected to and maintain the same quality of interpersonal relationships with children with mild developmental delays as they do with children without delays” (Guralnick, 1999: p.72). Various methods of assessing social relationships are used: for example, observation of social exchanges, prosocial behaviours, friendships, or evaluation through peer sociometric measures. These assessments have provided the evidence that diverse groups of preschool age children with disabilities are less preferred playmates by typically developing children, while other typically developing children are preferred in most cases. Thus, most children with disabilities fail to meet the social integration criterion (Guralnick, 1999). It is important that children with disabilities should achieve a level of social performance that is comparable to other children without disabilities in the classroom. Programmes should strive towards this normative standard as a worthwhile goal, although standards of success need to be individually determined from an inclusion and interventionist perspective. The teacher and other team members need to assess the child with disabilities for level of social competence and integration. This information will help to establish realistic goals for the child, and to plan learning opportunities that can result in increased social integration or advanced social competence. Progress that the child makes on individual goals will help to determine the extent to which social integration is successfully achieved by the child. The normative standard may be a realistic goal for some children with disabilities, but for others, merely responding to peer initiation of interaction, “or actively participating in dramatic play activities with peers may be a more realistic goal” (Odom, 2000: p.24). The least outcome that the inclusive programme is required to achieve would be to ensure that children with disabilities will not be rejected socially. Social integration can be measured by the level of acceptance or rejection as the standard, with social acceptance of a child with disabilities as the positive outcome of a well designed programme. Ratings given by all the other children in the class help to determine social acceptance; and “this is confirmed by observations of children’s interactions with peers as well as parents’ and teachers’ reports of friendships” (Odom, 2000: p.24). A research study conducted by Dietrich (2005) on friendships between preschool aged children with and without disabilities in two inclusive classrooms, revealed typical friendships with characteristics commonly found in friendships during the preschool age period. On the other hand, social rejection can be measured as very low ranking on average rating scores of peer group, and is also confirmed by observations and teachers’ and parents’ reports of lack of friendships. According to a study conducted by Odom et al (1998), from a sample of 80 children with disabilities in inclusive preschool settings, one-thirds of the children were well accepted, one-thirds were socially rejected, and one-third were on the margin between acceptance and rejection. These data are in alignment with Guralnick (1999), confirming that children with disabilities in inclusive settings are at high risk for social rejection. Two of the several barriers to cost and funding policies which are the responsibility of policy makers and administrators, are related to the actual cost of inclusion and the process of using available funds to support inclusive services. In most cases, it was found that the inclusive preschool programmes cost less per child as compared to the traditional special education programmes. There were variations in cost depending on the types of services provided, and costs were associated with quality of the preschool programmes and child outcomes. The policies that determine how money is spent is a second set of barriers related to funding. Sometimes programmes overcome such funding barriers because of the flexibility with which administrators manage budgets, use funds from different sources, and understand and implement policy (Odom, 2000). The Strengths and Shortcomings of the Article Among the strengths of this article, is the fact that the author, Samuel L. Odom is a well-known academician, researcher and scholar, with several similar research papers to his credit, based on preschool inclusion. The author’s writing style is clear and precise, and the formatting of the article is sequential and systematic. Odom’s knowledge of the subject, extensive interest in the subject, and analytical skills are evident in this literature review presented by him, on preschool inclusion. Besides the key issues pertaining to outcomes of preschool inclusive settings, quality of inclusion and the social policy factors that affect the implementation of inclusive programmes, the article addresses several other aspects of preschool inclusive settings in detail, and provides references from numerous authors’ works. The strengths of this article inlcude the fact that a large number of empirical studies by various researchers have been addressed, leading to great depth in the analysis of the literature. Evidence from research studies strengthen the arguments, and help to support evidence-based practice and policy making. On the other hand, one drawback is that, this article by Odom (2000) was written nearly a decade ago, and the research papers he has used for presenting this literature review are slightly older. Another limitation is that besides Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), some other policies that support preschool inclusive environments in the United States have not been mentioned, such as: Americans for Disability Act (ADA), Free Appropriate Education (FAPE), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy (Onaga & Martoccio, 2008). Conclusion This paper has critically reviewed Odom’s (2000) research paper based on preschool inclusion for children with disabilities. A critical review of the article included key issues raised in the review of literature, the author’s findings and suggestions, the arguments put forward in the article, and an evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the article. The author has highlighted the importance of achieving successful outcomes through proper designing of inclusive programmes for preschoolers with disabilities. Moreover, the importance of quality in the programmes, and the need to emphasize social integration of the child with disabilities, have been underscored. Funding policies for providing effective programmes should be improved by the administrators, moreover, it has been empirically found that preschool inclusive settings are not more expensive, and sometimes cost less than traditional special education environments. The author’s suggestions for future work in the field include: improving the preschool programmes for inclusion by school administrators and policy makers. Also, early intervention programmes involving teachers and parents should support the crucial development of social skills and social integration of children with disabilities. References Bennett, J. (2003). Starting strong. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 1(1): 21-48. Carta, J.J., Sainato, D.M., & Greenwood, C.R. (1988). Advances in ecological assessment in classroom instruction for young children with handicaps. In S. Odoms & M. Karnes (Eds.). Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: A research base. Baltimore: Brookes Publications. pp.217-239. Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C. (2004). Special educational needs and inclusion: Multiple perceptions of preschool educators in the U.K. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2): 191-211. Cobb, P. & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28: 4-15. Dinnebeil, L.A., McInerney, W., Fox, C., & Juchartz-Pendry, K. (1998). An analysis of the perceptions and characteristics of child care personnel regarding inclusion of young children with special needs in community-based programmes. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18: 118-128. Dietrich, S.L. (2005). A look at friendships between preschool-aged children with and without disabilities in two inclusive classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 3(2): 193-215. ECRII (Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion). (1998, October). Eight inclusion synthesis points. (ECRII Brief, No.11). The United States of America: ECRII Publications. Friendly, M. & Lero, D.S. (2002). Social inclusion through early childhood education and care. Working Paper Series. The Laidlaw Foundation. Retrieved on 25th July, 2009 from: www.laidlawfdn.org/cms/file/children/lero.pdf Guralnick, M.J. (1999). The nature and meaning of social integration for young children with mild developmental delays in inclusive settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 22: pp. 70-86. Halle, J. (1998). Fidelity: A crucial question in translating research to practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 21: pp.294-296. Huang, H-H. & Diamond, K.E. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ ideas about including children with disabilities in programmes designed for typically developing children. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 56(2): 169-182. McWilliam, R.A. (1995). Integration of therapy and consultative special education: A continuum in early intervention. Infants and Young Children, 7(4): 29-38. Mulvihill, B.A., Shearer, D. & Van Horn, M.L. (2002). Training, experience, and child care providers’ perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17: 197-215. Odom, S.L. (2000). Preschool inclusion – what we know and where we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1): pp.20-27. Odom, S.L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J., & Sandall, S. (1998). Social relationships of preschool children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Paper presented at the Conference on Research Innovations in Early Interventions. Charleston, SC. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2001). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Summary report, Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care. Retrieved on 25th July, 2009 from: http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/bn/startingstrong.html Onaga, E.E. & Martoccio, T.L. (2008). Dynamic and uncertain pathways between early childhood inclusion policy and practice. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 2(1): 67-75. Power-deFur, L.A. & Orelove, F.P. (1997). Inclusive education: practical implementation of the least restrictive environment. London: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing socio-cultural activities on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.). Sociocultural studies of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.139-164. Thompson, B (1998). Introduction to the preschool inclusion manual. Chapter 1. Retrieved on 24th July, 2009 from: www.circleofinclusion.org/english/pim/manual.pdf Read More