http://tec.sagepub.com/Education

Topics in Early Childhood Special

http://tec.sagepub.com/content/20/1/20The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/027112140002000104

2000 20: 20Topics in Early Childhood Special EducationSamuel L. Odom

Preschool Inclusion: What We Know and Where We Go From Here  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Topics in Early Childhood Special EducationAdditional services and information for    

  http://tec.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://tec.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 2000Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20

Preschool Inclusion:What We Know and Where We Go From Here

Samuel L. Odom,Indiana University

Inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood classrooms with typicallydeveloping peers has become a primary service option in early childhood special ed-ucation. In this paper, I briefly describe "what we know" from the literature aboutoutcomes of inclusion, social integration patterns, placement, definition, quality, in-struction, teacher attitudes, family attitudes, community participation, policy factors,and cultural influences. The concluding discussion addresses ongoing issues related todefinition, quality, intensity and instruction, outcomes and goals, social integration,and costs and funding.

Inclusion of preschool-age children with disabilities inclassroom settings with typically developing peers is a

relatively recent phenomenon. Although written aboutsince the early 1970s (Allen, Benning, & Drummond,1972; Bricker & Bricker, 1971), it only emerged as a ma-jor service alternative for children and families in the1990s. Inclusion has now, however, become a mainstay inthe field of early childhood special education. By recentcounts, over 50% of all preschool children with disabil-ities who are receiving services are in some form of in-clusive setting (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Thismovement from traditional special education programs,which were originally built on a downward extension ofspecial education designed for school-age children to

preschool-age children, to programs in which childrenwith disabilities are surrounded by typically developingpeers, is continuing to move forward. Many policy mak-ers and administrators in school systems now identify in-clusion as the first service alternative for young childrenwith disabilities, rather than a service provided becauseof parental advocacy.

At times, it may appear this important movementfor children and families is being propelled by emotion,advocacy, and accelerating momentum rather than beingguided by what we know about inclusive programs andissues that may shape the future. In this paper, I will of-fer my reflections (and, when noted, those of colleagues)about what we know about inclusion at the preschoollevel and speculate on five themes that may shape the fu-ture of inclusive programs and services for children withdisabilities.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUTPRESCHOOL INCLUSION?

In a recent exhaustive, and exhausting, review of the lit-erature, my colleagues and I (Odom, Wolery, et al., 1999)used an ecological systems framework to organize andsummarize the literature on preschool inclusion. Fromthat review, to which the reader is referred for an in-

depth description of research findings, we identified anumber of results that appear to be strongly supportedby the literature. These statements, reflecting what weknow about preschool inclusion, are summarized below.

Positive outcomes are reported for children with dis-abilities and typically developing children in inclusive set-tings. Other reviews of the literature have concluded thaton standardized developmental measures, children withdisabilities perform as well in inclusive settings as in tra-ditional special education settings (Buysse & Bailey, 1993;Lamorey & Bricker, 1993; Odom & Diamond, 1998). Inaddition, some individual studies suggest better perfor-mance in inclusive settings (Hundert, Mahoney, Mundy,& Vernon, 1998; Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989). Whenusing observational measures, researchers have foundthat the behavior of children with disabilities appears tobe positively affected by participation in activities andclassrooms with typically developing children (Gural-nick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman, & Kinnish, 1996;Hanline, 1993; Hauser-Cram, Bronson, & Upshur, 1993;Levine & Antia, 1997). In addition, participating in in-clusive settings appears to positively affect the attitudes

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

21

that typically developing children have toward childrenwith disabilities (Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992), aswell as increase their knowledge of certain types of dis-ability conditions (Diamond & Hestenes, 1994, 1996).

Children with disabilities engage in social interactionwith peers less often than typically developing children ininclusive classrooms. This is the most replicated findingin the preschool inclusion literature (e.g., Guralnick, 1980;Guralnick et al., 1996; Kopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992).Moreover, as a group, children with disabilities are atrelatively higher risk for peer rejection than typicallydeveloping children (Odom, Zercher, Li, Marquart, &

Sandall, 1998), which I will discuss in more detail in a

subsequent section. Although a range of social skills inter-ventions have been developed (Odom, McConnell, et al.,1999), Strain and Hoyson (in press) have aptly noted thattheir effectiveness is dependent on the complimentary ef-fects of a comprehensive and ongoing early interventionprogram. Moreover, Guralnick (1999) has recommendedthat effective interventions must also involve the parents.Since social integration, social competence, and social re-lationships have been identified as outcomes that we

hope to promote for children with disabilities, it is im-

portant to identify how we will assess progress made byindividual children, as well as the more general effects ofinclusive programs. This is an ongoing issue to which Iwill return.

School systems are more likely to place children withmild disabilities in inclusive settings than children withsevere disabilities. This may be due, in part, to how com-fortable teachers feel having children with severe disabil-ities in their classes (Eiserman, Shisler, & Healey, 1995;Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzlik, 1994). However, there maybe good reasons for including children with severe disabil-ities in general preschool settings. Hundert and colleagues(1998) found that children with severe disabilities whoparticipate in inclusive settings appear to score higher onstandardized measures of development than comparablechildren enrolled in traditional special education settings.

Inclusion means different things to different people.Programs identified as inclusive appear to vary on sev-eral different dimensions. In our study of inclusive pre-school programs, we found programs varying on the twodimensions of organizational context and individualizedservice delivery model (Odom, Horn, et al., 1999). Or-ganizational contexts included community-based child-care and preschool classes, Head Start classes, and publicschool classes. Individualized services were provided tochildren through either direct or collaborative itinerantteaching, team teaching (an &dquo;early childhood&dquo; approach),or a special education approach. McWilliam (1995) hasalso noted similar variations in providing therapy ser-vices in inclusive contexts.

The quality of the early childhood environments ininclusive settings appears to be, at least, comparable to qual-

ity in traditional special education classes and community-based early childhood programs serving only typicallydeveloping children. When general early childhood qual-ity indicators, such as the Early Childhood Environmen-tal Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1980), are used toassess quality, inclusive preschool programs receive com-parable or higher mean ratings in comparison to tradi-tional special education programs (LaParo, Sexton, &

Snyder, 1998) or regular early childhood education pro-grams (Buysse, Wesley, Bryant, & Gardner, 1999). How-ever, the quality of childcare environments in generalappears to be mediocre, and concerns about quality ininclusive environments exist (Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse,& Wesley, 1998). This is an ongoing issue to which I willreturn in a subsequent section.

Individualized instructional techniques and curric-ula have been employed in inclusive settings and have pro-duced positive behavioral and developmental outcomes.In a synthesis of our research findings, my colleagues inthe Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion ( 1998 )and I have proposed that specialized instruction is a nec-essary aspect of successful inclusive preschool programs.Such instruction may be naturalistic in nature (Rule, Lo-sardo, Dinnebeil, Kaiser, & Rowland, 1998) in that it

might blend with the activities and routines occurring inthe classroom, although more specialized activities maybe necessary at times (e.g., Frea, Craig, Odom, & John-son, 1999). However, progress is still needed to refine

techniques used in classroom settings, and I will return tothis theme later.

Teachers generally have positive attitudes about in-cluding children with disabilities in their classes, but con-cerns also exist. When asked, early childhood teacherssay that children with disabilities should be served in in-clusive settings (Eiserman et al., 1995), and they are con-fident about providing childcare (Dinnebeil, McInerney,Fox, & Juchartz-Pendry, 1998). However, teachers arealso concerned with their lack of knowledge about chil-dren with disabilities (Dinnebeil et al., 1998) and, asmentioned previously, are particularly concerned aboutenrolling children with severe disabilities.

Family members generally express favorable atti-

tudes toward the inclusion of their children in inclusiveprograms, and positive attitudes increase over time. Par-ents identify benefits to their children, such as increasedacceptance (Bailey & Winton, 1987), opportunities tolearn (Guralnick, 1994), and availability of good devel-opmental models (Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997). How-ever, they also express some concerns about inclusion,such as obtaining special services for their children (Peck,Hayden, Wandschneider, Peterson, & Richarz, 1989), aswell as large class size (Wesley, Buysse, & Tyndall, 1997),and staff preparation (Green & Stoneman, 1989). Ingeneral, the positive appraisals of parents appear to over-shadow the negative appraisals. The information about par-

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22

ents’ concerns should alert professionals to issues thatparents may feel are important for their children in in-clusive settings.

Children with disabilities engage in a range of com-

munity activities outside the preschool classroom, al-

though they may do so less frequently than typicallydeveloping children. Although my work has focused onclassroom inclusion, my colleagues and I have empha-sized that Inclusion, with a capital &dquo;I,&dquo; goes far beyondthe classroom. In fact, a goal of inclusion in educationalsettings should be that young children with disabilitiesare prepared for participation in life in the community.Yet, for preschool children, Ehrmann, Aeschleman, &Svanum (1995) found that children with disabilities par-ticipate less frequently in community activities than typ-ically developing children. Still, other researchers havefound that young children with disabilities do participatein some community activities with their parents (Beck-man et al., 1998; Guralnick, 1994) and that such increasedcommunity participation may be an important outcomeof early intervention programs (Bruder & Staff, 1998).Currently, the important work of Dunst and his colleagues(1999) is uncovering the many learning opportunitiesthat exist in natural environments in which children par-ticipate outside of the classroom.

A range of social policy factors (e.g., program stan-dards, fiscal issues) affect the implementation of inclu-sive programs, and the interpretation of policy by keyadministrators appears to have the most substantial im-

pact. In our work (Janko & Porter, 1997), as well as thework of others (Smith & Rose, 1993), it is clear that pol-icy drives practice, and, more specifically, the interpreta-tion of policy by key administrators has a major effect(Kohanek & Buka, 1999). Major policy barriers to in-clusion appear to be related to program standards, fi-nancial issues, and personnel and staffing issues (Odom& Diamond, 1998). Although we know much aboutpreschool inclusion, our understanding of policy, partic-ularly fiscal issues, will continue to unfold, which is an-other point to which I will return.

Cultural and linguistic characteristics of communityand family shape the form that inclusion takes in theclassroom and access that children have to inclusive pro-grams. Although research has been surprisingly sparse inthis area, there is evidence that cultural issues affect fam-ilies’ perspectives on disability as well as teachers’ prac-tices and philosophies (Hanson et al., 1998). In addition,language differences between the home and school affectthe amount and type of communication between teach-ers and families, the development of the IndividualizedEducation Program (IEP), and children’s friendships andsocial relationships (Hanson, Guitierrez, Morgan,Brennan, & Zercher, 1997). Given the increased culturaland linguistic diversity and respect of diversity in U.S. so-ciety, one would expect this area of research to increasein the future.

EMERGING AND ONGOING ISSUESFOR THE FIELD

A solid knowledge base about preschool inclusion hasbegun to form, yet a number of persistent and importantissues exist for the field. Delineation of those issues can

provide a forum for discussion, and resolution of such is-sues could positively affect the lives of children, familymembers, teachers, and policymakers. The pressing is-sues are related to the definition of inclusion, the qualityof inclusion, the meaning of intensity and further delin-eation of &dquo;instruction,&dquo; the outcomes of inclusion andassociated goals, the meaning of social competence andrelationships, and the cost and funding of inclusion.

Definition of Inclusion

For years, there has been disgruntlement and outrightbickering about what is meant by the term inclusion.Nearly 20 years ago, we attempted to base definitions ofmainstreaming and integrated special education classeson the ratio of children with and without disabilities inthe class (Odom & Speltz, 1983). Others have made sim-ilar, but equally unsuccessful, attempts to bring clarity tothis definition (Filler, 1996; Guralnick, 1982). Some indi-viduals define inclusion as occurring only when childrenare in classes with ratio that reflect that of the natural

population (e.g., children with disabilities represent 5%-6% of the children in the class). Others have observedexcellent inclusive programs, such as team teaching HeadStart/Public School blended classes, in which a third ofthe children in the class have disabilities.

Many professionals agree that an important dimen-sion of inclusion is that children with disabilities attendthe same class as typically developing children (i.e., attend-ing the same hours in the same classroom) rather thanbeing in different classes and just sharing joint activitiesfor a portion of the day. Others may agree that thereneeds to be a &dquo;critical mass&dquo; of typically developing chil-dren (perhaps at least an equal number of children withand without disabilities) in order to make the classroomsomething different from a traditional special educationclassroom. By critical mass, I mean children with disabil-ities have opportunities to participate in activities androutines with children who are typically developing.

If we expect that children with disabilities will learn

from, interact with, and form relationships with typicallydeveloping children, then the children with disabilitiesneed to be around typically developing peers for a sub-stantial part of their day. Our observations of inclusivepreschool programs suggest young children with disabil-ities are in inclusive settings that meet the criteria of phys-ical membership and critical mass (Brown, Odom, Li, &

Zercher, 1999). When programs meet these two broadcriteria, it seems that providers might then shape their

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

23

programs in ways that fit their specific organization, lo-cation, circumstance, and most importantly, the childand family. In this way, program providers define inclu-sion by their actions. It should be noted that these twoparameters, however, are setting features. To provide asuccessful program for individual children, program pro-viders will also have to attend to the quality of the set-ting, as well as monitor outcomes that occur for children.

6?uality of InclusionThe quality of preschool inclusion has (at least) two di-mensions. The first is the quality of the early childhoodsetting, from a general early childhood perspective. Re-search conducted on the quality of the early childhoodenvironments that serve as inclusive settings for childrenwith disabilities was described previously. The generalconclusion that inclusive programs are of the same or

higher quality will not and should not allay the concernsthat parents may have about their child being placed ina setting that is good for all children. Ongoing examina-tion of quality in early childhood centers is an essentialresponsibility of program staff and parents.

There is a second dimension to the quality of pre-school inclusion that relates to the nature of the programfor individual children with disabilities. Carta, Sainato,and Greenwood (1988) have wisely reminded us that in-dividual children can have vastly different experiences inthe same classroom. Following from our special educa-tion philosophy of individualizing learning experiencesfor children with disabilities, the setting itself has to beindividually appropriate for the child with disabilities.Such appropriateness might be assessed through a child’sengagement in the classroom activities and routines, butthere are also broader classroom and program charac-teristics that reflect the inclusive quality of the program.For example, program philosophy, administrative sup-port, resources (i.e., training), collaboration amongprofessionals, opportunities for family choice, and inter-actions that teachers have with the child with disabilitiesall may reflect the extent to which inclusion is occurringand is supported in the preschool program. Having anagreed upon measure of the quality of inclusion wouldcertainly be a valuable contribution to the field, and thedevelopment of such a measure would be an importantdirection for future research.

Intensity and InstructionIn special education, an assumption made about and forsome children with disabilities is that some form of in-

struction must occur for a certain period of time and ata level intense enough to support learning. My colleaguesand I agree that specialized instruction is a necessary partof preschool inclusion (Early Childhood Research In-stitute on Inclusion, 1998); however, a question remains

about the form of instruction that needs to be providedand the meaning of intensity.

As noted in a previous section, naturalistic instruc-tion is a generic term for such specific interventions asactivity-based intervention (Losardo & Bricker, 1994),incidental teaching (Hart & Risley, 1968), mand-modelprocedures (Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980), milieuteaching (Kaiser, 1993), natural language training (Koe-gel, 1987), and time-delay prompting (Halle, Marshall,& Spradlin, 1979). These strategies differ from tradi-tional teacher-led instructional practices in that theteacher embeds the learning opportunity in the ongoingclassroom activities, builds on child interest, and pro-vides necessary support for child successes. Naturalistic

teaching strategies are valuable tools in inclusive settingsbecause they do not require a teacher to step out of hisor her role as leader in the classroom to lead a separateindividual or small group activity. Although many natu-ralistic intervention approaches have roots in behavior-ism, they are compatible with a constructivist philosophyin which children learn by following their interests

(guided by adult’s plans for the classroom setting). Thedown-side of this appealing methodology, however, is thecomplex planning and implementation process requiredfor effective use by teachers in classroom settings (Halle,1998; Warren, 1998). Nevertheless, because of their valuein applied settings, I expect that naturalistic procedureswill continue to evolve (e.g., Lieber, Schwartz, Sandall,Horn, & Wolery, 1999), and with that evolution will comegreater effectiveness and feasibility.

If such evolution occurs, the metric for intensity ofinstruction will change. That is, time spent in teacher-ledgroups or even discrete trial activities may no longer epit-omize the most intense form of instruction, although itstill could be the teaching strategy of choice for certainspecific skills. Rather, another measure of intensity ofinstruction might be the degree to which children are ac-tively engaged in meaningful learning activities in the class-room, as suggested originally by McWilliam, Trivette,and Dunst (1985). Such a form of learning by partici-pating fits very well with the theory of situated learning,proposed by Rogoff (1995), Lave and Wenger (1991),and others. At this point, the conscious application of sit-uated learning theory to classroom instruction has beenmost visible in the discipline of math education (Cobb &

Bowers, 1999). Its promise for guiding instruction andlearning in inclusive preschool classrooms is immense,and I expect that such applications will occur in the fu-ture.

Outcomes and Goals

Parents, policymakers, administrators, and teachers allwant to identify important outcomes that accrue for chil-dren with disabilities in inclusive settings. As noted pre-viously, outcome-oriented reviews of the literature have

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24

focused on children’s performance on standardized de-velopmental measures (e.g., Buysse & Bailey, 1993). Inlooking forward to important new directions for pre-school inclusion, my colleagues and I have recommendedthat we expand our assessment of outcomes for children(McWilliam, Wolery, & Odom, in press).

The work of Schwartz, Peck, and colleagues (Billings-ley, Gallucci, Peck, Schwartz, & Staub, 1996; Schwartz,Staub, Gallucci, & Peck, 1995) provides guidance forsuch expansion. Following an inductive, empirical ap-proach, they observed school-age children with severe dis-abilities included in general education settings. Across a3-year program of research with 35 children, they found,as have others, that one important outcome is the skillsthat children acquire in inclusive settings. However, twoother important groups of outcomes also were identified:membership (e.g., children’s participation as a full mem-ber of the class) and relationships (e.g., as reflected bychildren’s interaction with peers and adults). An assess-ment approach that looks more broadly at meaningfuland important effects for children, such as the one pro-posed by Schwartz et al., will certainly guide us towardproductively planning programs for young children andfamilies in the future. The challenge will be to select spe-cific assessment measures that generate accurate and re-liable information on these child outcomes.

Another consideration is the interesting relationshipbetween outcomes and program goals. That is, one canwork backward from outcomes found by programs toinfer goals-that are implicit (or perhaps explicit) in in-clusive programs. An assessment of skills as a valued out-come for children suggests that goals for children areeducational- or skills-oriented in nature. Certainly, Bricker(1978, 1995) has noted the importance of children’s learn-ing as an objective for inclusive programs. The broadenedassessment of child outcomes suggests other legitimateand appropriate goals exist for children in inclusive pre-school settings. The assessment of children’s relationshipssuggests a goal for children in inclusive preschool class-rooms is the development of relationships with peers.Both Guralnick (1990) and Strain (1990) have proposedthat the formation of social relationships with peers is

an important goal for children with disabilities. Assess-ing membership as an outcome suggests that becoming afully vested member of the class is an important goal forinclusion. Understanding the multiple goals for childrenwith disabilities in inclusive preschool programs is an im-portant first step in designing instructional strategies thatlead to meaningful child outcome.

Social IntegrationIf children with disabilities are to reap the benefits of

participation in classes with typically developing chil-dren, they must be socially integrated into the inclusive

program. As Guralnick (1999) has noted, there is not yeta well-established criterion for determining the degree towhich children are successfully socially integrated. Inaddressing this issue for children with mild disabilities,he proposes that &dquo;social integration is achieved when

typically developing children are connected to and main-tain the same quality of interpersonal relationships withchildren with mild developmental delays as they dowith children without delays&dquo; (p. 72). He further states,&dquo;Whether indexed by social exchanges, prosocial behav-iors, friendships or assessed via observational or peersociometric measures, diverse groups of preschool-agedchildren with disabilities are less preferred playmates bytypically developing children than are other typically de-veloping children&dquo; (p. 72). As noted previously, other au-thors have found similar interaction patterns, and aconclusion one might draw from this body of data is that.most children with disabilities fail to meet the social in-

tegration criterion.The criterion proposed by Guralnick suggests that

children with disabilities should achieve a level of social

performance comparable to other children without disa-bilities in the classroom. This normative standard cer-

tainly is a worthwhile goal toward which programs shouldstrive; however, from an inclusion and interventionistperspective, standards of success need to be individuallydetermined. When a child enrolls in an inclusive pro-gram, the teacher-and possibly other team members-should determine the child’s level of social competenceand integration. From that information, they would es-tablish realistic goals for the child and plan learningopportunities that lead to a greater degree of social inte-gration or advanced social competence. Successful socialintegration would be evaluated by progress that the childmakes on individual goals. For some children with dis-abilities, the normative standard may be a realistic goal.For other children, simply responding to peer overturesor actively participating in dramatic play activities withpeers may be a more realistic goal. Reaching those goalswould be the standard for success for those children.

At a program level, one might choose such globalcriteria as the social acceptance or social rejection of in-dividual children with disabilities as the standard for

judging social integration. That is, at a minimum, wewould want to ensure that children with disabilities arenot socially rejected. A positive program outcome couldbe that children with disabilities are socially accepted bypeers. Social acceptance is often measured by peer rat-ings given by all the children in the class (Asher, Single-ton, Tinsely, & Hymel, 1979) and could be confirmed byclassroom observations of children’s interactions with

peers as well as parent and teacher reports of friendships.Conversely, social rejection could be measured by verylow ranking on mean peer rating scores, again confirmedby observations and teacher and parent reports of lack of

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

25

friendships. In an analysis using such a multimethod as-sessment, we (Odom, Zercher, Li, Marquart, & Sandall,1998) found that about one third of our sample of 80children with disabilities enrolled in inclusive preschoolsettings were well accepted, one third of the sample wassocially rejected, and one third fell in the middle betweenacceptance and rejection. Using the social acceptance andrejection criteria, these data suggest, in agreement withGuralnick (1999), that children with disabilities in inclu-sive settings are at high risk for social rejection, but therealso appears to be a substantial minority that are well ac-cepted.

Cost and FundingAlthough many policy barriers exist for preschool inclu-sion (Smith & Rose, 1993), two of the barriers mentionedvery frequently by policymakers and administrators arerelated to the actual cost of inclusion and the processof using available funds to support inclusive services. Acommon perception among some administrators is thatinclusive programs cost more than traditional special ed-ucation programs; however, there is virtually no pub-lished data to confirm or discount this suspicion. As aresult, policy makers must base decisions about programson general impressions and their best guesses aboutcost. In a study now being prepared for publication, we(Odom, Hanson, Lieber, Marquart, Sandall, & Wolery,1999) compared the costs of services for matched groupsof children with disabilities enrolled in inclusive andtraditional special education programs operating in fivestates. Although there were variations in costs acrossstates, in four of the five states, the inclusive preschoolprograms cost less per child than the traditional specialeducation programs. Variation in costs were associatedwith the types of services provided and expenses assumedby the school district (e.g., Did they pay tuition to thechildcare center?). We anticipate that this initial studywill be extended in the future by more detailed analysesof specific costs for different types of services, as well asthe association of costs to quality of preschool programsand child outcomes. However, from our data, it does notappear that inclusive programs are more expensive thantraditional special education programs and they may infact be less expensive.

A second set of barriers related to funding are thepolicies that govern how money is spent. In some states,public schools are allowed to pay the tuition of childrenwith disabilities enrolled in community-based programsfor an &dquo;educationally relevant&dquo; portion of the day, al-though in other states such use of funds is not allowed.Similarly, some programs will not allow special edu-cation teachers to work in settings in which typicallydeveloping children are enrolled because the teachers’salaries are paid with special education funding. These

and other funding issues rapidly put the brakes on anyattempt to establish inclusive preschools for young chil-dren. Yet, programs sometime overcome such fundingbarriers. The key facilitators appear to be the flexibilitywith which administrators manage budgets, use fundsfrom different sources, and interpret policy (Janko &

Porter, 1997). The fiscal challenge to inclusion is a sub-stantial one that will not go away soon. In the future, weexpect that a range of options will continue to unfold ascreative administrators committed to preschool inclusioninnovatively shape policy to support children’s programs.

CONCLUSION

For young children with disabilities and their families, aresounding theme for the 2lst century is that &dquo;programs,not children, have to be ’ready for inclusion&dquo;’ (EarlyChildhood Research Institute on Inclusion, 1998). Thirtyyears of research and practice have produced a knowl-edge base that informs policy and practice. Admittedly, inthis field programmatic decisions are based upon the needsof individual children and the concerns and priorities ofparents. So, in some context and for some children, in-clusive programs may not be the answer. However, nowmore than anytime in the past, we have a greater aware-ness of the types of support professionals can provide tocreate productive learning environments for children withand without disabilities in inclusive settings. With politi-cal will, local leadership, willing parents, and committedteachers, most young children with disabilities can bene-fit from inclusive preschool settings

AUTHOR’S NOTE

Preparation of this article was supported by Grant No. H024K60001from the Office of Special Education Programs. Address: Samuel L.Odom, School of Education, Indiana University, 201 North Rose,Bloomington, IN 47405-1005

REFERENCES

Allen, K. E., Benning, P. M., & Drummond, W T. (1972). Integrationof normal and handicapped children in a behavior modificationpreschool: A case study. In G. Semb (Ed.), Behavior analysis andeducation (pp. 127-141). Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, S. (1979). A re-liable sociometric measure for preschool children. DevelopmentalPsychology, 15, 443-444.

Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (1998).Inclusion in the context of competing values in early childhood ed-ucation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27-48.

Bailey, D. B., & Winton, P. (1987). Stability and change in parents’ ex-pectations about mainstreaming. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 7, 73-88.

Beckman, P., Barnwell, D., Horn, E., Hanson, M., Gutierrez, S., &

Lieber, J. (1998). Communities, families, and inclusion. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 13, 125-150.

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26

Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion intopractice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Chil-dren, 64, 115-131.

Billingsley, F. F., Gallucci, C., Peck, C. A., Schwartz, I. S., & Staub, D.(1996). "But those kids can’t even do math": An alternative con-ceptualization of outcomes for inclusive education. SpecialEducation Leadership Review, 13, 43-55.

Bricker, D. (1978). A rationale for integration of handicapped and non-handicapped preschool children. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), Early in-tervention and the integration of handicapped and non-handicappedchildren (3-26). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 19, 179-194.

Bricker, D., & Bricker, W (1971). Toddler Research and InterventionProject Report—Year I. IMRID Behavioral Science MonographNo. 20, Nashville, TN: Institute on Mental Retardation andIntellectual Development.

Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., Li, S., & Zercher, C. (1999).Ecobehavioral assessment in inclusive early childhood programs: Aportrait of preschool inclusion. The Journal of Special Education,33, 138-153.

Bruder, M. B., & Staff, I. (1998). A comparison of the effects of typeof classroom and service characteristics on toddlers with disabili-ties. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 26-37.

Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental out-comes in young children with disabilities in integrated and segre-gated settings: A review of comparative studies. Journal of SpecialEducation, 26, 434-461.

Buysse, V., Wesley, P. W., Bryant, D. M., & Gardner, D. (1999). Qualityof early childhood programs in inclusive and noninclusive settings.Exceptional Children, 65, 301-314.

Carta, J. J., Sainato, D. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (1988). Advances inecological assessment of classroom instruction for young childrenwith handicaps. In S. Odom, & M. Karnes (Eds.), Early interven-tion for infants and children with handicaps: A research base

(pp. 217-239). Baltimore: Brookes.Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning

perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28,4-15.

Diamond, K., & Hestenes, L. (1994). Preschool children’s understand-ing of disability: Experiences leading to elaboration of the conceptof hearing loss. Early Education and Development, 5, 30-309.

Diamond, K., & Hestenes, L. (1996). Preschool children’s conceptionsof disabilities: The salience of disability in children’s ideas aboutothers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 458-475.

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 specialneeds in community-based programs. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 18, 118-128.

Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., Hamby, D. W.,& McLean, M. (1999). Natural learning environments for infants,toddlers, and preschoolers with or at-risk for delays. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion. (1998, October).Eight inclusion synthesis points (ECRII Brief, No. 11). Nashville,TN: Author.

Ehrmann, L., Aeschleman, S., & Svanum, S. (1995). Parental reports of

community activity patterns: A comparison between young childrenwith disabilities and their nondisabled peers. Research in Develop-mental Disabilities, 16, 331-343.

Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Healey, S. (1995). A community assess-ment of preschool providers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Journal ofEarly Intervention, 19, 149-167.

Filler, J. (1996). A comment on inclusion: Research and social policy.Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development,10 (2 & 3), 31-33.

Frea, W, Craig, L., Odom, S. L., & Johnson, D. (1999). Differential ef-fects of structured social integration and group friendship activitiesfor promoting social interaction with peers. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 22, 230-242.

Gemmell-Crosby, S., & Hanzlik, J. R. (1994). Preschool teachers’ per-ceptions of including children with disabilities. Education and Train-ing in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29,279-290.

Green, A. L., & Stoneman, Z. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathersof nonhandicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention, 13,6-13.

Guralnick, M. J. (1980). Social interaction among preschool handi-capped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 248-253.

Guralnick, M. J. (1982). Mainstreaming young handicapped children:A public policy and ecological systems analysis. In B. Spodek (Ed.),Handbook of research in early childhood education (pp. 456-500).New York: Free Press.

Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Social competence and early intervention.Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 3-14.

Guralnick, M. J. (1994). Mothers’ perceptions of the benefits anddrawbacks of early childhood mainstreaming. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 18, 168-183.

Guralnick, M. J. (1999). The nature and meaning of social integrationfor young children with mild developmental delays in inclusive set-tings. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 70-86.

Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., Hammond, M. A., Gottman, J. M., &

Kinnish, K. (1996). Immediate effects of mainstreamed settings onthe social interactions and social integration of preschool children.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 359-377.

Halle, J. (1998). Fidelity: A crucial question in translating research topractice. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 294-296.

Halle, J., Marshall, A. & Spradlin, J. (1979). Time delay: A technique toincrease language use and facilitate generalization in retarded chil-dren. A Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 431-439.

Hanline, M. F. (1993). Inclusion of preschoolers with profound dis-abilities: An analysis of children’s interactions. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 28-35.

Hanson, M. J., Guitierrez, S., Morgan, M., Brennan, E. L., Zercher, C.(1997). Language, culture, and disability: Interacting influences onpreschool inclusion. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,17, 307-336.

Hanson, M . J., Wolfberg, P., Zercher, C., Morgan, M., Gutierrez, S.,Barnwell, D., & Beckman, P. (1998). The culture of inclusion:Recognizing diversity at multiple levels. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 13, 185-210.

Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1980). Early childhood environmentalrating scale. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1968). Establishing use of descriptive adjectivesin the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged preschool children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 109-120.

Hauser-Cram, P., Bronson, M. B., & Upshur, C. C. (1993). The effectsof the classroom environment on the social and mastery behavior of

preschool children with disabilities. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 8, 479-497.

Hundert, J., Mahoney, B., Mundy, F., & Vernon, M. L. (1998). A de-scriptive analysis of developmental and social gains of children withsevere disabilities in segregated and inclusive preschools in southernOntario. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 49-65.

Janko, S., & Porter, A. (1997). Portraits of inclusion through the eyesof children, families, and educators. Seattle: University of

Washington, Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion.Jenkins, J. R., Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1989). Effects of integra-

tion and structured play on the development of handicapped chil-dren. Exceptional Children, 55, 420-428.

Kaiser, A. P. (1993). Functional language. In M. Snell (Ed.), Instructionof students with severe disabilities (4th ed., pp. 347-379). NewYork: Macmillan.

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

27

Koegel, R. (1987). A natural language teaching paradigm for nonver-bal autistic children. Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 17, 189-200.

Kohanek, T., & Buka, S. L. (1999). Influential factors in inclusive ver-sus noninclusive placements for preschool children with disabilities.Early Education and Development, 10, 191-208.

Kopp, C. B., Baker, B. L., & Brown, K. W (1992). Social skills andtheir correlates: Preschoolers with developmental delays. AmericanJournal on Mental Retardation, 96, 357-367.

Lamorey, S., & Bricker, D. D. (1993). Integrated programs: Effects onyoung children and their parents. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D.Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into

community-based programs: From research to implementation(pp. 249-269). Baltimore: Brookes.

La Paro, K. M., Sexton, D., & Snyder, P. (1998). Program quality char-acteristics in segregated and inclusive early childhood settings.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 151-168.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheralparticipation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Levine, L. M., & Antia, S. D. (1997). The effects of partner hearing sta-tus on social and cognitive play. Journal of Early Intervention, 21,21-35.

Lieber, J., Schwartz, I., Sandall, S., Horn, E., & Wolery, R. A. (1999).Curricular considerations for young children in inclusive settings. InC. Seefeldt (Ed.), The early childhood curriculum: A review of theresearch (pp.243-264). New York: Teachers College Press.

Losardo, A., & Bricker, D. (1994). Activity-based intervention and di-rect instruction: A comparison study. American Journal on MentalRetardation, 98, 744-765.

McWilliam, R. A. (1995). Integration of therapy and consultative spe-cial education: A continuum in early intervention. Infants and YoungChildren, 7(4), 29-38.

McWilliam, R., Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (1985). Behavior en-gagement as a measure of the efficacy of early intervention.

Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 33-45.McWilliam, R. A., Wolery, M. R., & Odom, S. L. (in press). Instructional

perspectives in inclusive preschool classrooms. In M. J. Guralnick(Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore:Brookes.

Odom, S. L., & Diamond, K. A. (1998). Inclusion of young childrenwith special needs in early childhood education: The research base.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 3-25.

Odom, S. L., Hanson, M. J., Lieber, J., Marquart, J., Sandall, S., &

Wolery, R. (1999). The cost of preschool inclusion. UnpublishedManuscript.

Odom, S. L., Horn, E. M., Marquart, J., Hanson, M. J., Wolfberg, P.,Beckman, P., Lieber, J., Li, S., Schwartz, I., Janko, S., & Sandall, S.(1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organizational context and ser-vice delivery models. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 185-199.

Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., Peterson, C., Ostrosky,M., Chandler, L. K., Spicuzza, R. J., Skellenger, A., Creighton, M.,& Favazza, P. (1999). Relative effects of interventions supportingthe social competence of young children with disabilities. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 19, 75-91.

Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1983). Program variations in preschoolsfor handicapped and nonhandicapped children: Mainstreamed vs.integrated special education. Analysis and Intervention in

Developmental Disabilities, 3, 89-104.Odom, S. L., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., Hanson, M. J.,

Beckman, P., Schwartz, I., Horn, E. (1999). Preschool inclusion: Areview from an ecological systems perspective. Manuscript submit-ted for publication.

Odom, S. L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J., & Sandall, S. (1998).Social relationships of preschool children with disabilities in inclu-sive settings. Paper presented at the Conference on ResearchInnovations in Early Intervention, Charleston, SC.

Peck, C. A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacherperceptions of outcomes for typically developing children enrolledin integrated early childhood programs: A statewide survey. Journalof Early Intervention, 16, 53-63.

Peck, C. A., Hayden, L., Wandschneider, M., Peterson, K., & Richarz,S. (1989). Development of integrated preschools: A qualitative in-quiry into sources of resistance among parents, administrators andteachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 353-364.

Rogers-Warren, A., & Warren, S. F., (1980). Mands for verbalization:Facilitating the display of newly taught language. Behavior Modi-fication, 4, 361-382.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes:Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprentice-ship. In J. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alverez (Eds.), Socioculturalstudies of mind (pp. 139-164). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Rule, S., Losardo, A., Dinnebeil, L., Kaiser, A., & Rowland, C. (1998).Translating research on naturalistic instruction into practice. Jour-nal of Early Intervention, 21, 283-293.

Schwartz, I. S., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Peck, C. A. (1995). Blendingqualitative and behavior analytic research methods to evaluate out-comes in inclusive schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5,93-106.

Smith, B. J., & Rose, D. R. (1993). Administrator’s policy handbookfor preschool mainstreaming. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Strain, P. S. (1990). LRE for preschool children with handicaps: Whatwe know and what we should be doing. Journal of Early Inter-vention, 14, 291-296.

Strain, P. S., & Hoyson, M. (in press). On the need for longitudinal, in-tensive social skill intervention: LEAP follow-up outcomes for chil-dren with autism as a case in point. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriatepublic education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth annualreport to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals withDisabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Warren, S. F. (1998). Back to the future? Journal of Early Intervention,21, 297-299.

Wesley, P. W, Buysse, V., & Tyndall, S. (1997). Family and professionalperspectives on early intervention: An exploration using focusgroups. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 435-456.

at UNIV OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE on October 9, 2014tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from