At the crossroads: overcoming concerns to envision possibilities for toddlers in inclusive child care.
Lee, Yoon-Joo
Abstract. This paper describes the experiences of three toddlers
with developmental delays and their caregivers in an inclusive child
care center. Case study methodology was used to synthesize data
representing initial issues presented by parents, caregivers'
reflections on their relationships with the toddlers, and interactions
between toddlers with special needs, their caregivers, and their typical
peers within the child care setting. Analyses of parent interviews,
caregiver journals, and child observations yielded two overarching themes--concern and possibility. Both parents and caregivers expressed
specific concerns about children's behavioral differences, and how
they create challenges to inclusion, but they also envisioned the
possibility of increased social opportunities in inclusive child care
for children with disabilities. Caregivers found that working in an
inclusive setting created the possibility for early childhood
professionals to learn about and better understand developmental
differences. Implications for practice and future research are
discussed.
**********
The period from birth to age 3 is viewed across disciplines as a
time of rapid development, during which infants and toddlers need
individualized attention and families are most apt to benefit from
supportive services. As more and more mothers join the workforce, they
are relying increasingly on early childhood professionals for the care
and education of their infants and toddlers (Brault, 1992). The
importance of quality child care, particularly for the youngest
children, recently has taken on national significance (NICHD Early Child
Care Research Network, 1996). In spite of this increased interest in
general child care issues, however, little attention has been focused on
the child care needs of children at risk for developmental delays.
High-quality child care has been associated with more positive
outcomes for children. Quality child care, which is characterized by
more stable and educated teachers, a strong collaboration among teachers
as well as between parents and teachers, better teacher-child ratios,
more developmentally appropriate practices, and better administrative
support, can act as a buffer for children who are at risk biologically
and environmentally (Delaney, 2001; McCormick, Noonan, Ogata, &
Heck, 2001; Odom, Schwartz, & ECRII Investigators, 2002). More
information is needed, however, about the variety of challenges
presented by children with special needs before we can find effective
strategies for addressing them.
With increasing implementation of legislation that supports
integrating infants and toddlers with disabilities into programs
designed for their typically developing peers, awareness is growing
about the need to provide inclusive child care services to young
children with disabilities and their families (Recchia, 1995; Wesley,
1994). Findings from previous studies indicate many advantages to all of
the child participants in inclusive early childhood settings (Bruder,
Deiner, & Sachs, 1990; Odom, 2000; Odom et al., 2002; Peck, Carlson,
& Helmstetter, 1992; Ross, 1992; Walton, 2001). Children developing
typically have been observed to be more aware of other children's
needs, less uncomfortable with disability, and more accepting of human
difference (Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992; Walton, 2001). When
interacting with children with developmental delays, they seem able to
make adjustments in their responses to their companions' different
developmental levels (Guralnick, 1999). Mso, children with disabilities
have shown developmental gains, particularly in the areas of
communication and social skills (Odom & McEvoy, 1990), an added
benefit from increased interactions with typically developing children
in integrated settings (Buysse, Goldman, & Skinner, 2002). Because
very young children are not yet biased toward disability in the ways
that older children may be, young children with disabilities in
inclusive child care settings may have greater opportunities for full
participation in activities and interactions (Ross, 1992).
Researchers have uncovered multiple ways in which the social
interactions of children with disabilities are different from those of
typically developing children. Preschool children with disabilities have
been found to be less successful in their social bids to peers, appear
to take the lead in interactions less often, and tend to have more
disruptive play when entering the play group (Guralnick, Conner,
Hammond, Gottman, & Kinnish, 1996; Kopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992).
Children with disabilities tend to spend more time in solitary play and
onlooker behavior than their typically developing peers (Hestenes &
Carroll, 2000; Kopp et al., 1992). These children are also more likely
to remain in teacher-directed activities, and teachers engage in
interaction with them more often than do peers (Brown & Bergen,
2002).
Overall, children with disabilities seem challenged by child-child
interactions in ways that extend well beyond what would be expected
based on their general developmental level. Thus, a teacher's
presence and support may play an important role in facilitating
interactions between children with developmental delays and their
typically developing peers in inclusive classrooms (Hestenes &
Carroll, 2000). Teachers' initiatives are often necessary to engage
children with developmental delays in social interactions and get them
involved in non-solitary play (Harper & McCluskey, 2002). The impact
on teachers of supporting children with disabilities within inclusive
child care needs further exploration, as more studies have focused on
teachers' perceptions of inclusion than on their actual day-to-day experiences of providing care for young children and their families
(Recchia, Berr, & Hsiung, 1998).
Although research findings provide preliminary support for the
concept of inclusive child care for children, more attention must be
focused on meeting the special needs of families and on caregivers'
day-today challenges of providing high-quality inclusive care. In the
past, few training programs for child care providers or early
intervention professionals addressed the issues and skills involved in
providing services within an integrated or inclusion setting. This trend
is changing as professional preparation programs become increasingly
concerned with the issues of inclusion across early childhood settings
(Bruder, 1993).
Issues such as the importance of a mutually supportive relationship
with parents need to be emphasized, as parents and teachers may disagree
about the values, processes, and scope of inclusion (Seery, Davis, &
Johnson, 2000). Increased and more authentic communication between
parents and caregivers has been shown to have a positive impact on the
degree to which children's needs are met (Devore &
Hanley-Maxwell, 2000). Parents are more likely to express positive
feelings toward inclusive settings when appropriate role models for
behavior, speech, and social skills can be provided (Hanson et al.,
2001; Odom, 2000; Seery et al., 2000; Walton, 2001). How an individual
setting is able to meet a particular child and family's needs over
time, however, may depend on a number of complex and intersecting variables. Research designed to help uncover these variables can inform
our understanding of this process, leading to improved practice and
care.
The purpose of this study was to explore the child care experiences
of three toddlers with special needs in an inclusive infant-toddler
child care center, with particular attention on parents' initial
concerns, caregivers' perceptions of their growing relationships
with the toddlers (see Recchia & Sekino, 1998), and the
children's experiences with peers. Findings from cross-case
analyses of the toddlers were synthesized to provide a closer look at
specific caregiving needs and challenges for families and caregivers,
and at the nature of the interactions between these children, their
teachers, and their typical peers within the child care setting.
The following research questions were explored in the study:
* What thoughts and feelings do these parents express regarding
their children's entrance into inclusive child care?
* How do the caregivers describe their developing relationships
with these toddlers with special needs?
* How are the issues raised by parents and caregivers reflected in
children's social experiences in the classroom?
Methods Setting
This study was part of a larger study focused on caregiver-child
relationships (Recchia, Sekino, Bautista, & Lee, 1998) conducted at
a university-based infant and toddler child care program that served as
a training site for graduate students studying infant and toddler
development and practice. The program provided relationship-based care
within the context of an early education setting. Caregivers learn to
observe and interpret children's cues, and respond contingently to
their needs and requests on an individualized basis, while supporting
their integration into the infant-toddler classroom. Care was provided
within an inter-age group for up to 10 children, ages six weeks to 36
months, with a consistent adult-child ratio of at least one adult to
three children. The mixed age group provided a natural context for daily
adaptations to the curriculum.
As an integral part of the center program, ongoing communication
between parents and caregivers took place in many ways. Written daily
communication forms, informal conversations at drop-off and pick-up, and
regularly scheduled conferences helped facilitate building relationships
with families, a critical component of family-centered practices
(Axtmann & Dettwiler, 2003).
Participants
Three toddler boys with special needs, their mothers and fathers,
and their "key caregivers" were selected for the case
portraits. These three boys were chosen based on their availability; at
the time of the study, they constituted the center's total
population of children with diagnosed disabilities. All children were
enrolled in the university-based infant/toddler child care center for a
minimum of 12 hours per week. Child characteristics are described in
Table 1.
Mothers and fathers of each of the toddler boys participated in the
Developmental Visit (see Procedures section). All of the families were
affiliated with the university in some capacity. Child A and Child C
were both cared for at home, primarily by their fathers, before being
enrolled at the center, while Child B was cared for at home by a nanny.
The key caregivers for these children were graduate students in
early childhood special education, enrolled in a practicum course at the
college that is based at the center. The caregivers ranged in age from
23 to 35 years, and had little (< 1 year) to no previous experience
working with this age group or in inclusive child care. Caregivers were
at different stages in their graduate training. Each caregiver was at
the center for a minimum of eight hours of caregiving per week.
Each student caregiver was assigned a study infant or toddler as
his or her "key child." As the "key caregivers" for
these children, the students were expected to pay extra attention to
them and to focus on them for their child observation assignments.
However, the students were jointly responsible for all of the children
at the center, and were not expected to have an exclusive one-to-one relationship with their key children.
As a research and training site that is integrated with the
university's early childhood master's and doctoral programs,
the center provides opportunities for ongoing study of teacher
preparation and teacher development. Thus, students, as opposed to lead
teachers, were selected as participants for this study.
Procedures
All data were recorded over the one-semester period during which
the student caregivers were beginning their work in the infant room.
Parent data were recorded shortly before their children began at the
center. Caregiver data were recorded weekly throughout the semester, and
child data were recorded at three intervals during the semester.
Parent Data. At program entry, families participated in the
Developmental Visit (Axtmann & Dettwiler, 2003), a videotaped intake
procedure that focused on child and family needs. Parents and their
child met for about one hour with the center director, an infant room
teacher, and the child's key student caregiver. The parent
interview, an integral part of the Visit, provided an opportunity for
parents to share their perspectives on their children. Parents were
asked to describe their children's special caregiving needs, and to
begin making a plan with the caregivers to help them care appropriately
for their children.
Caregiver Data. Student caregivers responded to a series of brief
questionnaires, one each week, as a part of their practicum assignments
throughout the first 15 weeks of their caregiving at the center. They
described: 1) how they were feeling more comfortable as caregivers, and
2) any changes in their relationships with the children. Responses were
recorded in student notebooks and students received regular feedback
from the course instructor.
Child Data. Children were videotaped in play interactions with
their peers and key caregivers for 15-minute intervals in the
center's activity room at three intervals during the semester.
Videotapes were later reviewed and coded for observed social behaviors,
in line with previous studies on adult-child and peer interactions
(Eckerman, Davis, & Didow, 1989; Holemberg, 1980; Howes, 1988).
These observation data were also examined in another study that compared
the social experiences of these three children to the experiences of
their typically developing peers (Lee, 1999).
Coding Process
Parent Data. Developmental visit videotapes and reflective notes
were reviewed for each of the three study families. Particular attention
was focused on responses to the question, "Does your baby have any
special caregiving needs?" Parent anecdotes that described aspects
of children's strengths and needs, as well as any expressed
concerns regarding inclusion, were recorded for further review. Once all
parent data were collected, anecdotes were examined across all three
cases for emergent themes, as well as for areas of similarity and
difference.
Caregiver Data. Caregiver notebooks were reviewed for specific
responses relevant to caring for key children with special needs. These
relevant anecdotes were recorded for further review. After all the
caregiver data were collected, anecdotes were reviewed across cases to
look for emergent themes.
Child Data. Each video segment was divided into coding intervals,
based on meaningful units of activity and child transition, and each
interval was coded separately. The coding system took three perspectives
into account: that of the target child, the key caregiver, and peers.
Rather than tracking the quantity of initiations and responses, the
researchers chose to record whether or not these behaviors occurred
during a given interval. Interactive play videos were coded for
instances of initiation, responsiveness, and social exchange. These
variables have been repeatedly identified in the literature as essential
components of social skills (Eckerman et al., 1989; Holemberg, 1980;
Howes, 1988).
First, each target child's initiations and responses were
coded, indicating whether the target child was engaging a key caregiver
or peer (coding A for adult and P for peers), in order to clarify these
differences in children's interactions with others. Second,
peers' social behaviors (initiation/ responsiveness) toward the
target child were coded. Whenever a social interaction occurred between
the target child and any peer, the level of social
exchange--coordinated, interfering, tangential, or unrelated--was coded
(see Lee, 1999, for a full description of the coding).
Finally, key caregivers' responses to their key children
(target children) and peers were coded for all specific behaviors
observed during the coding interval. Key caregiver response categories
were taken from the coding system used by Recchia (1997). When the
coding was completed, each 15-minute segment was summarized to present
an overview of the key child's behavior. Anecdotal descriptions of
specific social interactions were recorded to provide a clearer picture
of how the key child interacted with the key caregiver and other
children. These anecdotal descriptions were used as the basis for this
study.
Reliability
To establish inter-rater reliability, the two researchers met
several times to review the videotaped observations together, coding the
same data. This served as an important initial step in clarifying
different definitions and terms in the coding system and becoming adept
in using the coding procedure. Following this collaborative review of
the videotapes, both researchers reviewed the same three full segments
(33 percent) separately, then came together to compare their coded
variables. Reliability was computed using the formula
agreements/agreements + disagreements. After reaching an 87 percent
reliability rating on these jointly coded tapes, the remaining
observations were coded by just one researcher.
Results and Discussion
After all phases of coding were completed, findings were
synthesized for each case, and cases were examined alongside each other
for overarching themes. Cross-case analyses revealed two overarching
themes in the data: concern and possibility. These themes were heard in
both parents' and caregivers' voices and related to the
challenges and strengths of individual children, demonstrated in their
interactions with peers and teachers.
Theme of Concern and Challenges for Toddlers With Disabilities
Parents. Each of the parents expressed concern about their children
being different from others, and about the ways in which their
children's differences might create challenges within the inclusive
setting. They shared concerns related to their children's
diagnoses, and expressed their sometimes ambivalent feelings about
whether their children's unique needs would be met in the child
care setting. Parents also provided information that would help the
caregivers understand their children better.
Child A's parents seemed to be most concerned with physical
and language development. His mother provided very factual information
regarding A's delays: "Since he has low muscle tone, when he
goes up the slide he doesn't realize if he is in danger.... Because
of his verbal delays, we're starting to use some sign language
because he can't say any words." Child C's mother not
only expressed her concerns about his development, but also provided
additional information to address the ways that she saw her child
compared to others his age. "He's a little bit delayed in
language," she said. "He is not doing many things that other
kids his age are doing, so I would like someone that is with him to help
him with that, to stimulate him." Two comments made by Child
B's parents focused on his social skills, and relating to other
children. They were concerned that Child B would be unnoticed since he
was very shy and spent too much time by himself.
Father: He is very shy. He's not very aggressive. I worry
about him. I want him to be in a situation where he's with other
children and he's socializing, but I worry that he won't let
his needs be known. I have fears that he will be ignored because either
the other children are louder or making more noise.... He can sit by
himself for a really long period of time, so he did things on his own.
The [previous] nanny did not talk to him or cuddle him or interact with
him.
Mother: It's tough for a child like him.... It's a
delicate balance because on the one hand we want him to be stimulated as
a child but on the other hand we don't want him to be overwhelmed or taken over.
Caregivers. Parents' concerns seemed to be reflected in the
caregivers' approaches to working with the children. In their
weekly journals, the caregivers shared the ways in which they related
differently to the children with special needs. All three student
caregivers expressed the importance of building relationships with
parents as a means of getting to know their key children better. Each
mentioned significant instances of communication with parents in their
notebooks. They seemed to look to the parents to provide information
about their key children, which would help them to better understand the
children's special needs. All of the caregivers felt excited and
satisfied when parents shared information with them. Following are some
excerpts from their journals, used here to illustrate these points.
(Child A's caregiver): Sensory diet: Both parents on different
occasions explained the how's and why's to me. Mom brought me
a pamphlet to read that went more into depth about it. It made me feel
good that they trusted me with this because he is my key child and
didn't just go to other caregivers who have known A longer.
(Child B's caregiver): I got to meet with B's parents
again and talk to his PT.... Meeting with B's parents helped.
Several ideas were shared about how to make B more comfortable in both
separating and supporting his physical development.
(Child C's caregiver): I feel very comfortable with C's
family. I guess it's because we've known each other from the
start.... I am interested to know what C's occupational therapy,
physical therapy, and speech therapy programs are and to see how to
complement them with C's activities in the center.
From the caregivers' points of view, communication with
parents was an important component of building a trusting relationship.
Information from parents also helped them to better understand the
challenges they met as they worked to support children's
interactions with peers. Caregivers' weekly reflections on their
experiences in the classroom demonstrated a growing awareness of their
concern for the children. Child C's caregiver, who seemed to be a
very good observer of her own behaviors and interactions with her key
child and other children, had this to say:
I realize that although I am consciously
trying to interact with C,
when I'm with other kids it's so easy
for me to ignore him or not to hear
what he is saying, despite his very
clear message.... How difficult it
must be for children like C who are
not heard as much as other children
who make lots of noise.
She also worked indirectly through peers to involve Child C in play
with them, incorporating higher levels of facilitation and explanation.
However, even though C responded positively to her interventions, he
needed consistent cues to maintain interactions with peers. Although
Child B's caregiver occasionally attempted to facilitate
interactions with peers, the child expressed limited interest.
Children. Observations of the children at play provided evidence
that validated parent and caregiver concerns. For example, most of the
time, Child A and Child B remained passive, showing low levels of
responses toward peers. These two children had very subtle ways of
expressing their emotions and communicating to others. Because it was
hard to understand their social intentions in some cases, it was less
likely that their social interactions with other children could be
easily extended. The following anecdotes provide examples of the
children's classroom interactions.
Even when Child A gestures and vocalizes
to another child "come, come,"
his peer does not respond to Child A's
initiation. Only the key caregiver understands
Child A's gesture and asks
him, "Are you telling him to come?"
The key caregiver and Child B are
playing with puzzles at the table.
Child B attempts to give a puzzle piece
to another boy. The boy just looks away
from Child B and turns his body away.
Child A often "tuned out" others' behaviors. He
appeared to become immersed in his own activities and enjoyed playing
alone. Child B, on the other hand, generally stayed close to the
caregiver and directed his initiations and responses to her rather than
to peers. He initiated through vocalizing, gesturing, locomotion, and
physical contact. Usually, his interactions with peers consisted of
looks and occasional gestures. Sometimes he just sat near the caregiver
and watched other children playing. Following are some examples of the
children's behavior.
Child A is playing with two cars. The
caregiver asks, "Where are those two
cars going?" He vocalizes without looking
at the caregiver.
The caregiver and Child B are sitting
on the floor. Another child is holding
a big yellow ball. The caregiver asks
the other child, "Do you want to roll
the ball to Child B?" The other child
says "no" and walks away. When Child
B looks at the other child and points
to the ball, the caregiver says, "Go get
it. Go get it. There is the ball." Child
B looks briefly at the other child, walks
closer to the caregiver and touches her.
As these examples indicate, the children's high level of
self-absorbed play, and the frequency of play with caregivers rather
than peers, made it more difficult for caregivers to extend their social
play with peers. Overall, the social interactions of the three children
with developmental delays usually constituted a single exchange
(initiation/ response). They often related to peers through indirect
interaction. As a result, all of the caregivers tried to facilitate
children's interactions with peers, and worked directly and
indirectly through peers to involve them in play with others. However,
the toddlers with disabilities, especially Child A and Child B, were
often more interested in either playing by themselves or staying near
their caregivers. The caregivers needed to work hard at facilitation and
explanation. The following anecdotes provide some examples.
Child A and another child are playing
at the water table side by side. The
other child turns toward Child A,
touches his smock, and vocalizes to
him. After glancing at the key
caregiver, Child A touches his peer's
T-shirt and vocalizes to him. The
caregiver says to the other child, "You
are wet," then asks Child A, "Are you
wet?" Child A walks away from the
table.
Child C is playing with a girl of his age
at the sandbox. The caregiver is also
sitting next to them. The caregiver
teaches the girl a game that compares
the quantity of sand presented in two
hands. When the caregiver puts out
two hands, Child C just touches the
sand in the caregiver's hand, while the
girl looks at the caregiver's two hands.
The girl holds sand in her hands and
repeats several times, "Show me, show
me which hand has the most." Then,
she turns to Child C and asks him several
times, "Show me which hand has
more." Child C just looks at her with
a smile and explores the sand in the
sandbox. The caregiver intervenes and
asks the girl, "Can I choose?"
In the second example, Child C responded positively to the
caregiver's interventions, but continued to need cues to maintain
an interaction with his peer. He seemed unable to process his
peer's attempts to involve him in a problem-solving game, and
focused on the simpler sensory task of exploring the sand. After
repeated attempts to involve him in higher level play with no
appropriate response, the peer reluctantly engaged the teacher in the
game.
Overall, social exchanges with peers occurred infrequently; when
they did, they remained unrelated or tangential. As in the example
described above, the limited social skills of the toddlers with
disabilities made it difficult for them to be engaged in sustained play
activities with peers without ongoing adult support.
Interfering exchanges were observed infrequently, and they were
usually initiated by a peer. All three children sometimes responded with
negative behaviors, but rarely initiated them. The following anecdote describes one of these rare occurrences.
Child A is going up the slide, as the
caregiver sits alongside it. As Child A
is sliding down, another child goes to
the slide. They take turns sliding
down. Then, the other child sits on top
of the slide as Child A attempts to go
up. He begins to vocalize "no" to Child
A with an attempted hitting gesture.
Child A responds in the same manner,
although neither actually makes contact
with the other. The caregiver does
not intervene. When the other child
eventually comes up the slide, the two
children just look at each other.
There were more frequent interfering exchanges in Child C's
observations because of one particular girl who often approached him in
negative ways, as demonstrated in the following example. It seemed that
C's experiences were colored by this power dynamic.
The caregiver and Child C are sitting
outside of a big cardboard box. Child
C watches the other children with interest,
including one girl who is very
engaged in the game of moving in and
out of the box. The caregiver asks him
"Do you want to join the game?" He
gets up and walks to the opening of the
box. He looks into the box and says
"Hi." The caregiver says, "Hello, he is
saying hello to you." The girl moves
out of the box quickly and forcefully,
shouting "NO," pushing Child C away.
The caregiver explains to her that he
can also go in the box, but the girl
keeps saying no. When the girl tries
to push Child C with the door of the
box, the caregiver holds her and explains
to her that it is not okay, as
Child C looks on with concern.
In summary, the children with developmental delays had difficulty
maintaining social exchanges with peers for an extended period of time,
and needed the help of caregivers' facilitations and interventions
to make connections with their peers. Parents' and caregivers'
concerns about the children's abilities seemed to be validated in
these observations of their play.
Theme of Possibility and Strengths of Individual Children
Parents. Despite their expressed concerns, both parents and
caregivers also had hopeful expectations for the children. Parents
seemed to view the inclusive setting as a place where their children
would have opportunities for developmentally meaningful experiences.
They especially looked to the inclusive environment as a place where the
children would have the chance for developmentally appropriate social
experiences. They expressed hope for different intervention strategies
and acknowledged their children's potentials. Each of the families
clearly communicated their hopes about their children attending the
center, as shown in the following anecdotes.
Father (Child A): I think he will thrive
in this situation. I can't offer him this
no matter how many little playgroups
I go to or to the park.... My biggest
thing is because of the low tone and of
his coordination, when he is playing
with other kids he might bump into
them. He is just starting to walk backwards.
He will spin around and he'll
fall flat, or he'll be running and he'll
bump into or trip on something. Just
protect him from that but still encourage
him to do stuff.
Father (Child C): By this age he should
be eating by himself. We don't want
to let him [go] without eating but at
the same time we want him to eat [independently]
.... We are concerned
with his speech delay. His receptive
skill is between 15 and 18 months. His
communication skill is between 18 and
22 months, so he's behind. He is going
to be 27 months.... We hope this environment
will help him to start talking
with other kids.
Parents also seemed to want to communicate that their children were
capable and needed acknowledgment for their capability.
Mother (Child B): My worry is people
may think that he doesn't do things
and that he doesn't understand just
because he approaches things so slowly
and tentatively. I want to make sure
that everybody is realizing that he is
able and he just needs to be given the
chance. He's capable of doing a lot of
things.
Parents seemed to know their children's strengths and needs
and clearly communicated them to the staff. They also expressed concerns
that their children might look different and behave differently from
others, yet they held many hopes for the possibility of potentially
positive experiences in group care.
Caregivers. Caregivers appeared to believe more in the theme of
possibility as they built close relationships with their key children.
As time progressed, the caregivers felt a very special bond not only
with the parents but also with the children. They seemed to connect with
their key children in different ways than they did with the other
children, as demonstrated in this comment by A's caregiver:
"He tried to bite me today (in a friendly way) and I thought it
might be a good sign because his mom had mentioned that he only does
stuff like that with people he's close to."
Also, the caregivers were very eager to understand their key
children and tried to be responsive to their needs. B's caregiver
worked hard to read his expressions of separation, stating: "As B
spends more time with us, I think he is a little more uneasy than he was
the first few days. Seeing him so upset is communicating a lot to
me." And C's caregiver wrote the following anecdotes in her
journal, sharing her philosophy: "I always try to put myself in the
child's shoes. If I am this child, what would be fun for me?
Sometimes it does not work but it's been useful in avoiding having
conflicts with them." She also described her growing understanding
of C's approach to sensory materials:
He seems too careful about touching
the paint (like not wanting to get his
hands dirty). He does the same thing
with play dough and goop. He loves
watching it, loves watching other children
manipulate the material, but he's
reluctant to really handle the materials
himself.
Although the caregivers had difficulty at times with their own
feelings of protectiveness toward the children with special needs, they
challenged themselves to provide opportunities for peer interactions.
They worked hard to encourage and support meaningful integrated social
experiences for the children. Videotaped observations of children's
play showed that the caregivers demonstrated a range of behaviors with
their key children. Caregivers of Child A and Child B tended to
articulate their responses to key children more than to peers when peers
were present. On the other hand, the caregiver of Child C often chose to
work through peers to involve her key child when more competent peers
were present.
As the caregivers built strong relationships with their key
children, they began to think more about their perceptions of them and
they reflected more on their practice. For example, Child B's
caregiver communicated how she was able to see his ability beyond his
delays. This related to one of the concerns expressed by Child B's
mother--that the caregivers learn that he could do more than what they
might think him capable of.
B has been more independent, which
has helped me to look at him differently.
Because B is walking and interacting
more, I can see him differently.
We have played more games/activities
than usual. I can now do things with
him and other children.
Children. Careful observations across time unveiled children's
unique ways of participating in the social community of the classroom.
The theme of possibility expressed by parents and caregivers resonated
in these data. In the following example, taken from videotaped
observations, Child B used physical contact and locomotion to initiate
and respond in interactions with his key caregiver, demonstrating his
communicative competence.
The caregiver and Child B are playing
with a puzzle. Another child joins
them. The other child looks down at
the table and stands up several times.
He bangs the puzzle piece and then
throws the piece several feet away.
The caregiver says to the other child,
"Go get it. Where is it? It's all the way
over there." The boy just walks to the
yellow ball near the table and plays
with it. Child B, who was doing the
puzzle, walks slowly to the puzzle
piece, picks it up, and brings it to the
caregiver. Child B smiles when she
says "Thank you."
Across time, Child C used more vocalization and gestures as well as
locomotion in his initiations and responses to both peers and adults. He
was very aware of others' activities and often followed them with
interest. For example, when he saw a child in the sandbox, he said
"hi" to her, making a positive attempt to initiate an
interaction. Compared to Child A and Child B, Child C was more
emotionally responsive. He often expressed both positive and negative
emotions. He smiled frequently in response to others and expressed
negative feelings when he was approached by peers in a negative way.
Also, Child C had a strong interest in younger children. He often stayed
near a caregiver who was holding a baby, watching the baby very
carefully. The following anecdote shows how he liked to play with a
younger child.
Child C holds a wooden caterpillar,
dragging it on the floor. Behind him,
a younger child crawls after the caterpillar.
Child C slowly walks away from
the child, looking at him and saying
"mine." The caregiver says to the
younger child, "Sorry, C wants to play
with it." The younger child continues
to slowly crawl after him. The
caregiver suggests that Child C give
another toy to the child. The caregiver
gets another toy and gives it to Child
C. Child C picks up the toy, puts it in
front of the baby, and talks to him.
All three children were interested in other children's
activities and aware of what was going on in the classroom. Although
peer interactions did not occur frequently, there were several episodes
in which children imitated others' behaviors. Child A was very
interested in one particular boy in the classroom, and the following
episodes show how they liked to imitate each other.
Child A holds a toy in his mouth as he
goes up the slide. When a caregiver
tells him to take it out of his mouth
because it is not safe, he does. After
watching Child A, his friend at the
table also puts a toy in his mouth and
walks to the slide.
Child A is playing at the water table.
When the same boy mentioned above,
who is playing alongside him, puts two
objects on his head, Child A does the
same thing. The two children smile,
and the caregiver says, "You are getting
wet." The children splash the
water.
Summary. As discussed above, parents and caregivers expressed
strong feelings of possibility for children with disabilities in the
inclusive child care center, and on many levels, the children were very
capable of being integrated into this environment. Successful
integration was enhanced by a high level of support from the caregivers
and open communication with parents. Despite having these supports in
place, however, some persistent issues continued to be presented by the
children with special needs that created ongoing challenges for fully
integrating them in social experiences with their peers.
Parents' and caregivers' initial concerns continued to be
reflected in the children's social behavior. Children with
disabilities initiated less frequently and in more subtle ways, and were
often less appropriately responsive to their peers. They relied on their
caregivers for social support at a much higher level than most of the
typically developing children at the center (see Lee, 1999; Recchia
& Sekino, 1998). Although each of the children made consistent
positive gains in social development, their social experiences with
peers remained qualitatively different.
These persistent challenges to inclusion create ongoing dilemmas
for parents and caregivers in community-based child care settings.
Inclusion provides opportunities for children with special needs to
observe and learn from their more socially competent peers, as well as
for caregivers to grow professionally, but additional help is often
needed by observant and sensitive caregivers who are willing to take the
time to build positive relationships with children that facilitate their
comfortable social integration. For these three children, the growth of
positive relationships, between children and caregivers and between
caregivers and parents, was a key element to fostering their successful
inclusion.
Implications for Practice and Research
Findings from this study are situated within a particular
educational setting, and must be interpreted within this contextual
framework. This setting provided a level of support that may not be
replicable in other settings. However, studying these issues within such
a supportive context, and with students who are learning to be teachers,
allowed the researchers to look more deeply at the processes involved in
learning to meet the needs of children with disabilities in child care.
The findings suggest a number of interesting implications for practice
and future research.
First, parents of children with special needs had specific concerns
about their children entering child care. Establishing and maintaining
open communication with these families was important to the caregivers
as well as the parents. Programs that strive to be inclusive must take
into consideration the need for ongoing communication between caregivers
and parents of children with disabilities, and provide additional
opportunities for these exchanges of information.
Caregivers of children with special needs expressed initial
concerns about their ability to adequately meet both the needs of
children and the expectations of parents. Across time, they developed
perceptions of closeness to their key children that were more powerful
than those of the other caregivers (see Recchia et al., 1998). This may
have come about in part because the behavior of these children was more
difficult to read, and because they were often less responsive to
caregivers who knew them less well. Caregivers who are assigned key
children with special needs may find that these children are more
dependent on them for care and interaction than their typical peers,
especially as they are first establishing relationships with them. These
caregivers need support to continue to meet the challenges presented by
the children in their care. Although this study suggests that the use of
key caregivers can be a helpful structure for working with children with
disabilities, particularly as a vehicle for developing relationships
with children and families and learning about children's individual
strengths and needs, this may not be easy to carry out in all community
child care settings.
In a classroom environment where lower teacher-child ratios cannot
be ensured, successful inclusion might require more creative staffing
patterns to provide children with special needs the support that they
need to be successful. Programs must become more adept at integrating
community resources, such as early intervention specialists, student
teachers, and community volunteers. Scheduling patterns may need to be
reconsidered to capitalize on quiet times throughout the day as
opportunities to work more closely with children with special needs in
small groups. Coordinated and collaborative efforts are needed to best
serve inclusion in child care.
These qualitative descriptions of the social interactions of
children with special needs indicate limited levels of social exchange
and expression. Caregivers may need to take greater responsibility in
facilitating play for these children. This, too, can be particularly
challenging when staffing ratios are not adequate to provide the time
and space for caregivers to focus their attention in these ways.
Although these practices may seem daunting at first, it is
important to keep in mind that understanding and accommodating
individual differences is an ongoing process for all of those involved
with young children. Thinking inclusively requires a willingness to
expand our own perspectives on the possibilities for children's
experiences in early care and education. The purpose of this study was
not to provide specific suggestions for intervention, but rather to
explore the underlying processes that contribute to parents' and
professionals' understanding of inclusion as it relates to their
own settings.
As more children with special needs are integrated into inclusive
child care, parents and professionals must find ways to work together to
create supportive experiences for them, based on authentic
communication. Center policies and practices may need to be adjusted to
accommodate increased opportunities for communication with parents, and
for staff development and training that focuses on responding to
individual differences in children. Caregivers need support and
understanding as they work to create inclusive curriculum, and to
develop strategies for responding inclusively to a variety of child
needs. Administrative support for inclusion is essential to its success
(Craig, Haggart, Gold, & Hull, 2000).
Much additional research is needed to help articulate the ways in
which particular inclusion strategies are being used successfully across
different child care settings. Although it is clear that the benefits of
true inclusion come not from simply sharing classroom space, but from
providing appropriate support in order to maximize all children's
potential, this support must be provided in ways that are compatible
with center structures and policies.
Table 1
Characteristics of Children
A B C
Age at time 25 months 13 months 27 months
of study
Total months 8 months newly enrolled newly enrolled
in program
Special needs Infantile Mild hypotonia Hypotonia
stroke Sensory Mild motor Motor/language
integration delay delay
disorder
Authors' Acknowledgment:
We would like to thank the children, families, graduate students,
and staff who so graciously supported and participated in our research
efforts. We are also grateful to Adora Bautista and Yumiko Sekino for
their help with the initial data coding and analysis process.
References
Axtmann, A., & Dettwiler, A. (2003). The developmental visit.
Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Brault, L. M. J. (1992). Achieving integration for infants and
toddlers with special needs: Recommendations for practice. Infants and
Young Children, 5(2), 78-85.
Brown, M., & Bergen, D. (2002). Play and social interaction of
children with disabilities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
17(1), 26-37.
Bruder, M. B. (1993). The provision of early intervention and early
childhood special education within community early childhood programs:
Characteristics of effective service delivery. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 13(1), 19-37.
Bruder, M. B., Deiner, P., & Sachs, S. (1990). Models of
integration through early intervention/child care collaborations. Zero
to Three, 10(3), 14-17.
Buysse, V., Goldman, B. D., & Skinner, M. L. (2002). Setting
effects on friendship formation among young children with and without
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 503-517.
Craig, S., Haggart, A., Gold, S., & Hull, K. (2000). Expanding
the circle of inclusion: The child care director's role. In S.
Sandall & M. Ostrosky (Eds.), Young exceptional children monograph series No. 2 (pp. 27-36). Denver, CO: DEC.
Delaney, E. M. (2001). The administrator's role in making
inclusion work. Young Children, 56(5), 66-70.
Devore, S., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (2000). "I wanted to see
if we could make it work": Perspectives on inclusive childcare.
Exceptional Children, 66(2), 241-255.
Eckerman, C. O., Davis, C. C., & Didow, S. M. (1989).
Toddlers' emerging ways of achieving social coordination with
peers. Child Development, 60, 440-453.
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(1), 70-86.
Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., Hammond, M. A., Gottman, J. M.,
& Kinnish, K. (1996). The peer relations of preschool children with
communication disorders. Child Development, 67, 471-489.
Hanson, M. J., Horn, E., Sandall, S., Beckman, P., Morgan, M.,
Marquart, J., Barnwell, D., & Chou, H. (2001). After preschool
inclusion: Children's educational pathways over the early school
years. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 65-83.
Harper, L. V., & McCluskey, K. S. (2002). Caregiver and peer
response to children with language and motor disabilities in inclusive
preschool programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 148-166.
Hestenes, L. L., & Carroll, D. E. (2000). The play interactions
of young children with and without disabilities: Individual and
environmental influence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2),
229-246.
Holemberg, M. C. (1980). The development of social interchange patterns from 12 months to 42 months. Child Development, 51, 448 456.
Howes, C. (1988). Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(1, Serial No. 217).
Kopp, C. B., Baker, B. L., & Brown, K. W. (1992). Social skills
and their correlates: Preschoolers with developmental delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(4), 357-366.
Lee, Y. (1999). Social experiences of toddlers with developmental
delays in inclusive child care. Unpublished master's thesis,
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
McCormick, L., Noonan, M. J., Ogata, V., & Heck, R. (2001).
Co-teacher relationship and program quality: Implications for preparing
teachers for inclusive preschool settings. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(2), 119-132.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics of
infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269-306.
Odom, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we
go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 20-27.
Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M.A. (1990). Mainstreaming at the
preschool level: Potential barriers and tasks for the field. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 4861.
Odom, S. L., Schwartz, I. S., & ECRII Investigators. (2002). So
what do we know from all this? Synthesis points of research on preschool
inclusion. In S. L. Odom, P. J. Beckman, M. J. Hanson, E. Horn, J.
Lieber, S. R. Sandall, I. S. Schwartz, & R. A. Wolery (Eds.),
Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool
programs (pp. 154-174). New York: Teachers College Press.
Peck, C.A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and
teacher perceptions of outcomes for typically developing children
enrolled in integrated early childhood programs: A statewide survey.
Journal of Early Intervention, 16(1), 53-63.
Recchia, S. L. (1995). Initiating inclusion practices for infants,
toddlers, and families: Training, research, and service delivery needs.
Insights From the Center for Infants and Parents, 2(1), 1-4.
Recchia, S. L. (1997). Teacher-child social communication code
book. Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University, New
York.
Recchia, S. L., Berr, C. N., & Hsiung, M. (1998). Caregiver
perceptions and child-caregiver interactions in a newly inclusive infant
child care center. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(2), 111-116.
Recchia, S. L., & Sekino, Y. (1998, April). Supporting the
development of sensitive caregiving relationships for toddlers in
childcare. Poster presented at the 11th Biennial Conference on Infant
Studies, Atlanta, Georgia.
Recchia, S. L., Sekino, S., Bautista, A., & Lee, Y. (1998,
July). Meeting the needs of children with disabilities in child care:
Practical challenges and implications for on-going research. Poster
session presented at the Head Start Fourth National Research Conference,
Washington, DC.
Ross, H.W. (1992). Integrating infants with disabilities? Can
"ordinary" caregivers do it? Young Children, 47(3), 65-71.
Seery, M. E., Davis, P. M., & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Seeing
eye-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in agreement about the
benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, 21(5),
268-278.
Walton, T. (2001). Why inclusion benefits everyone. Child Care
Information Exchange, 139, 76-79.
Wesley, P. W. (1994). Providing on-site consultation to promote
quality in integrated child care programs. Journal of Early
Intervention, 18(4), 391-402.
Susan L. Recchia
Teachers College, Columbia University
Yoon-Joo Lee
Brooklyn College, City University of New York