The inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood education: interdisciplinary research and dialogue

Introduction

The inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood education increasingly appears as a significant area of interest, given that the range of policies and practices followed in different countries have a different impact on children and their life chances (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 2017; Vlachou and Fyssa 2016; UNESCO 2020).

This special issue seeks to draw the links between Early Childhood Education and relevant disciplines such as Inclusive Education and Disability Studies. A fundamental principle of Early Childhood Education is the recognition that each child is unique with their own pace of learning and developing and capable of being actively involved in these processes (Bae 2009). Early Childhood Education is concerned with curricula that views each child as a social human being with past, present and future (Loizou 2017), and needs to be included in education in ways that appreciate their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978; Elkonin 2005). Like Early Childhood Education, Inclusive Education highlights the individuality of each child, and claims their right to receive quality education alongside their peers of the same age, in learning environments that encourage participation, collaboration, and academic and social achievement (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011; Lee and Recchia 2016; Puig and Recchia 2012; Recchia and Lee 2013; Slee 2019). Although inclusive education is concerned with the inclusion of all children in mainstream education settings, one scholarly direction is particularly interested in the inclusion of children with disabilities. Because children with disabilities continue to be excluded from mainstream education and education in segregating settings are still in place, the exclusion/inclusion binary thinking is of interest and in need of further exploration. Last but not least, Disability Studies and its interdisciplinary directions (Ware 2020) provide a rich theoretical framework that puts the child with disability at the centre, and critically discusses the experiences of children and families at school and in society, their paths in education, and the ways they are undervalued and marginalised by policies, practices, and discourses that exclude (Goodley 2017; Malllett and Runswick-Cole 2014; Puig and Recchia 2020).

Emerging themes and overview of special issue contributions

This special issue welcomed cutting edge research, with a focus on the education of children from birth to 7 years old, and aimed to initiate interdisciplinary dialogue that would contribute to theory and inform future policy and practice. It contains nine papers reporting on research conducted in different countries: Australia, Belgium (Flanders), Cyprus, Greece, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States of America (U.S.A.). The special issue reflects interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks, a range of methods and methodologies, presentation of findings in ways that can illuminate inclusive early childhood education and discussions that acknowledge the significance of the findings at local and international levels.

Adopting inclusive language was a priority for us as editors, and we were cautious to ensure that all individuals were addressed with respect to their human status and identities. Given the different policy and cultural contexts of the researchers, and the influences from varying literature developed in different countries, the use of terminology among the contributors differs. For example, person-first language is adopted by some researchers (i.e. children with disabilities) and identity-first language is used by others (i.e. disabled children). In one case, the use of the term ‘special educational needs’ is used, indicating consistency with the definition in place in the particular cultural context. We also acknowledged the different terms used for early childhood education settings in different countries, and tried to ensure that the term ‘inclusive’ was not used to refer to mainstream settings in which segregation was in place (e.g. provision of special education in self-contained classrooms).

Our readings of the papers collated for this special issue led us to the identification of three emerging themes. These are:

• Policies, teacher education programmes and discourses that hinder inclusive education

• Pedagogical approaches to inclusive early childhood education

• Experiences of children and parents that illuminate inclusive early childhood education

In what follows, we draw on the literature to elaborate on these themes, and we provide an overview of the papers.

Policies, teacher education programmes and discourses that hinder inclusive education

Despite the efforts undertaken by different countries to move towards inclusive education systems, education policies and teacher education programmes continue to promote the exclusion and segregation of children with disabilities (Slee 2019). Equating new policies termed as ‘inclusive’ with traditional integration policies seems contrary to the countries’ expressed commitment to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 24 on inclusive education (United Nations, 2006). Such policies legitimise attendance in special schools and special settings within the mainstream school. At the same time, teacher education programmes range from emphasising knowledge on impairments and individualised learning in segregating settings to taking an inclusive education approach (Symeonidou 2017). In many countries, ableist thinking continues to construct children with disabilities as unable, problematic, pitiful, and a burden to their families, school and society (Bolt 2018). Three of the papers in this special issue highlight how ableist policies and teacher education programmes initiate discourses that hinder inclusive early childhood education.

Karen Watson’s ethnographic study uncovers the disability discourses developed over time in Australia and sets out to uncover how they reflect the fears of early childhood educators who exclude children instead of including them. Watson adopts a poststructuralist theoretical framework to analyse three scenarios which were part of a larger study conducted with educators and children as participants. The analysis explains how fear towards children with disabilities guides educators’ thinking and discourses. In particular, Watson elaborates on the following: the fear of escape (educators see children with disabilities as a burden and they act as their guardians); the fear of disruption (educators see children with disabilities as a threat because of disrupting the learning of children without disabilities); and the fear of the embodied abject (contradictory feelings of fear and admiration for the disabled body which is considered to be different than the ‘normal’ body). Watson discusses the negative consequences of disability discourses guided by fear and enhanced by policies that segregate (e.g. labelling children with disabilities through diagnosis), and explains why alternative discourses need to address the understanding that human differences are part of human diversity.

In her work, Nicole Eilers employs a theoretical framework of disabled children’s childhood studies to analyse the policy regulating individualised education programmes (IEPs) and educational placements for children with disabilities in the U.S.A. Eilers refers to Section 1414 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and argues that the particular policy framework constructs children with disabilities as deficient, dependent, and incompetent. She provides anecdotes to describe the current IEP process, the language which is used, and the way children are treated throughout the process. She then draws on disabled children’s childhood studies perspectives to show possibilities for relationships of interdependence and interrelatedness in inclusive early childhood education. Eiliers recognises that other countries have similar ableist and exclusionary policies which construct children with disabilities as unable to participate in decisions about their education. Rather, they are seen as passive recipients of interventions that are decided for them by professionals conducting their assessments. It is concluded that children with disabilities need to be seen as necessary participants in their own education, and therefore, a participatory approach for inclusion needs to be taken.

Fyssa, Tsakiri and Mouroutsou investigated the beliefs of Greek student-teachers studying to become infant-toddler teachers and kindergarten teachers. Framing their study within Inclusive Education and Critical Disability Studies, they conducted a survey which sought student-teachers’ opinions on their self-efficacy for inclusion and parental empowerment. Their main findings suggest that there are differences between the self-efficacy of pre-service infant-toddler teachers and pre-service kindergarten teachers which is linked with differences in initial teacher education programmes. For example, one finding was that initial teacher education programmes mainly take a medical model approach which highlights the different impairment categories and the view that there’s a deficit inherent within the child. Another finding was that pre-service kindergarten teachers had more opportunities to attend single-unit courses on the education of children with disabilities, compared to pre-service infant-toddler teachers, and this may explain some differences in their views on self-efficacy. In relation to their potential to empower parents, the findings suggest that pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for implementing policy, organising inclusion, and collaborating is linked with their expressed self-efficacy for parental empowerment. The authors suggest that the initial teacher education of early childhood education teachers needs to be infused with an inclusive and Critical Disability Studies approach, which would enable teachers’ understanding of their role in inclusive education and the significance of collaborating with parents.

Pedagogical approaches for inclusive early childhood education

The literature is rich in pedagogical approaches that value early childhood age children. Such approaches require placing children at the centre of all educational decisions, considering them as human beings with a past, present and future, and encouraging their active participation in learning, while at the same time respecting their individual learning profiles and developmental pace (Loizou 2017). These pedagogical principles are put aside when it comes to children with disabilities, as diagnoses which leads to labelling and specialist support outside the mainstream class are considered more important (Spandagou et al. 2020). Inclusive education, however, is about not segregating children from their peers, but supporting them in the class environment (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Thus, for inclusion to take place in early childhood settings, teachers need to have developed commitment both to the principles of Inclusive Education and Early Childhood Education. Put simply, they need to be confident that they can include all children in their class through pedagogical approaches considered valid in Early Childhood Education. Three papers in this special issue explore the pedagogical approaches for inclusive early childhood education.

To begin with, Simoni Symeonidou and Eleni Loizou examine how early childhood education teachers included children with disabilities in public schools in the Republic of Cyprus. Through a sample of purposively selected teachers who were committed to the values of inclusive education and early childhood education, the researchers developed a portrait narrative of an imaginary teacher. The imaginary teacher’s daily decisions on free play, outdoor play, and structured activities at circle time, and decisions on classroom environment that ensure emotional safety are the outcome of teachers’ inclusive profiles and the individual children they taught over the years. The researchers map teachers’ approaches with the assumptions of inclusive pedagogy, and suggest that some of the principles that ensure the implementation of inclusive pedagogy in early child education are not relying on specialist provision/segregation, not engaging in ableist discourses and viewing all children as humans, and finding ways to work collaboratively with other adults without underestimating the gaps in ideology and practice.

The work of Eva Siljehag and Mara Westling Allodi targeted in-service early childhood teachers and a special teacher in Sweden and sought to examine their professional learning experiences from the implementation of an evidence-based curriculum called Play Time/Social Time for supporting play and social interaction. Adopting a theoretical framework of Inclusive Education, the authors explored how teachers supported children’s interaction in play groups and how their professional experiences were enriched as part of their involvement in the implementation of the Play Time/Social Time curriculum. According to the findings, the teachers acquired skills of including children in play and encouraged their interaction with their peers. The authors highlight the finding that teachers’ observations of children’s interactions led them to realisations that some children increased their interaction with their peers, or made eye contact more frequently. The authors suggest that teachers appreciated the structured approach of the programme Play Time/ Social Time, which facilitated their professional learning and collaboration with their colleagues.

SeonYeong Yu and Rakyung Kim examine the representation of human diversity in early childhood classrooms in South Korea. The authors adopt a Disability Studies framework, and they particularly employ the concept of ableism which is expressed through oppressive pedagogies. In their study, they used a list of questions to record the level to which early childhood classrooms have disability-related materials. For example, the authors were interested in whether there are images of children with disabilities in the classroom, whether children have access to books in Braille, etc. Their findings suggest that disability representation is extremely limited, although classes with children with disabilities had higher disability representation. Another finding was that teacher professional learning and years of experience were positively correlated with the level of disability representation in the class. The discussion raises issues that are important at the local level (e.g. the relevance of the findings with the South Korean culture) and internationally (e.g. the relevance of the findings with the negative portrayal of disability in children’s books, teachers’ fear in raising disability issues in the curriculum, etc.).

Experiences of children and parents that illuminate inclusive early childhood education

Children and families have a central role in inclusive early childhood education. This means that their views need to be heard and respected, all decisions should be taken in collaboration with them, and they should be empowered to be active participants in all aspects of their educational trajectory. Goodley, Runswick-Cole and Liddiard (2016) invite us to think in terms of the ‘DisHuman child’, the child who is first and foremost a human being, and whose disability encourages us to rethink or trouble existing knowledge about oppressive policies, practices, and thinking. Similarly, rather than viewing families as suffering or in grief for raising a child with disabilities, we are invited to see them as parents who aim to do the best for their child, and this often entails not conforming to existing segregating structures which emphasise therapies rather than learning. In this special issue, one paper explores the agency of a child and two papers look into parents’ experiences and views from their children’s attendance in early childhood settings.

Susan Recchia and Seung Eun McDevitt report on a phenomenological case study of a two-year-old toddler diagnosed with autism, with the pseudonym Miguel. Adopting a theoretical framework of Early Childhood Education and Inclusion, the authors also draw on ideas from Disability Studies, such as the right to belong linked with the social-relational model of disability. They engage with the complexities of Miguel’s journey to become a member of a university-affiliated early childhood setting in the U.S.A. The authors sought to understand the agency of the child and his experience of belonging in the class community mainly through non-participant researcher observations and teacher documentation. A close look at Miguel’s first year in childcare shows his agency, how he interacted with children and adults, how he used environmental supports to engage with space, and how he developed the sense of being a member of the toddler classroom. The authors elaborate on ‘true inclusion’ as one that respects each child’s agency, and a community which encourages the development of sense and identity.

In their study, Victoria Puig and Tara Evenson interviewed parents whose children with disabilities attended a university-affiliated early childhood setting. The researchers’ theoretical framework combined elements from Inclusive Education and Early Childhood Education. The analysis of parents’ interviews shed light on everyday practices that parents appreciated or struggled with, such as daily communication, distinctive communication with a member of the staff with whom they formed a ‘special bond’, lingering words expressed by professionals who either empowered or hurt them, and their definitions of inclusion. The authors conclude that parents value collaboration with education professionals and their opinions need to be taken into consideration. In addition, the authors argue, parents should not be presented with the dilemma to place their child in a mainstream class where s/he is not welcomed or choose a self-contained setting. Instead, professionals need to collaborate with parents, and think of ways to create truly inclusive settings and practices.

Elisabeth De Schauwer, Hanne Vandenbussche and Geert Van Hove look into parents’ views on the kind of support they find valuable in early childhood settings in Flanders, Belgium. The authors draw on Disability Studies to acknowledge that the experiences of families are nuanced since they may entail appreciation of their family status, uncertainty about the support they will receive, engagement in complex relations with professionals, and so on. The analysis of the interviews with parents of children with disabilities attending early childhood settings revealed themes that were considered important for parents, such as deciding upon the type of childcare (mainstream or special), negotiating the power of professionals in dealing with labels (which led to support), their experiences in the childcare centre, and their own evaluation of the childcare setting. In the particular context where a culture of exclusion is still in place, and childcare centres have one adult for a large group of children, parents were happy when their child was accepted in a child care setting and received reasonable accommodations in daily routines (e.g. feeding), and when they had good communication with all professionals involved. The authors build on ‘enabling care’ which is the kind of care parents look for in a local context that does not always coincide with or guarantee the inclusion of children in childcare settings.

Concluding remark

We thank all contributing authors for their commitment to bringing together ideas from Early Childhood Education, Inclusive Education, Disability Studies and its interdisciplinary directions, and present their research in ways that illuminate the way forward. We hope that the papers of the special issue will contribute to the advancement of inclusive early childhood education and engage researchers, practitioners and politicians in constructive dialogue with children with disabilities and their families, aiming to find ways to include, rather than unquestionably follow paths leading to exclusion.