HISTORIA DE RECLUSIONES PENITENCIARIAS PREVIAS

turned away from the 63 centres for which directors provided infor- mation. (Note: Other families who might have approached these cen- tres, or who made only preliminary or indirect inquiries, are not rep- resented in these estimates.) Most directors indicated they had turned away only a few children, but ten programs were not able to accept the applications of ten or more chil- dren with special needs in their community.

The reasons most commonly given for not accepting a child with spe- cial needs were then classified into several domains. A centre may refuse a child for a variety of rea- sons. Our analyses suggest that the they create empty half-day slots in

the afternoons in full-day programs that are harder for many centres to fill, and create more half-day staff- ing patterns. Children who might benefit from longer days or who might experience better, more reli- able, less fragmented care arrange- ments are also deprived of the op- portunity to stay with their teach- ers and peers under these circum- stances. On the other hand, one director commented that limiting children with special needs to part- time was a strategic choice, since it allowed more children to participate by sharing the space available. This rationale may seem reasonable in circumstances when access to high quality programs is limited, but it can create other difficulties that impede children’s developmental and social progress and their parents’ access to employment.

6.3 TO WHAT EXTENT ARE CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS NOT ACCOMMODATED IN CHILD CARE PROGRAMS? Directors in our sample were asked if they had turned down any chil- dren with an identified disability or

Reasons Children with Special Needs Are Limited to Part-Time Attendance*

Table 6.3

Reasons Given Number of Programs

Parent’s choice/seen as best for child 12 Subsidy available for part-time attendance only 35 Resource teachers/support workers only available 11 part time or part day

Overall staffing can’t accommodate full day 11

Transportation constraints 7

Difficulty with nap time, health procedures, etc. 6

* Some directors provided more than one reason why some children with special needs are limited to part-time attendance.

most common threads running through the reasons given and the individual comments directors made indicate that the main barri- ers do not emanate from a lack of willingness on the part of child care staff or a lack of commitment to inclusion. Most commonly, direc- tors’ responses suggested that lim- its placed on the centres them- selves limit the centre’s capacities to accept more children. Limited funds or staffing, or provincial poli- cies often translate into a “maxi- mum number” of children with spe- cial needs a centre can accept, or a perceived maximum number or degree of complexity of needs that centre staff feel they can handle without compromising the quality of care provided to other children or experiencing serious stress themselves. Other factors were also operating, as shown in Table 6.4. Further analysis of the reasons given by directors of specialized,

designated, and regular programs revealed some interesting differ- ences. Directors of specialized pro- grams were most likely to say that children were turned down because the program already had its maxi- mum number of children with spe- cial needs and/or because the pro- gram could not address the com- plex needs of the child and family at the time. These were also the two most common reasons given by di- rectors of designated programs. Directors of both designated and regular programs more often stated that they were limited by a lack of funding and the lack of (or loss of) resource teacher support or sup- port from other professionals and agencies to assist them in their work with children with special needs. Interestingly, only directors of regular programs indicated that access to the centre (transporta- tion) and staff being untrained, unwilling, or burned out were fac-

Table 6.4

Main Reasons That Caused You to Turn Down a Child (Children) with Special Needs*

Reasons Given # of Programs

A) Program or Funding Constraints

Already had maximum number of children with special needs 30 No funding available; centre not eligible for special funding 20 Physical access to program or rooms would be problematic 7 Unable to access external support services

(resource teachers, physiotherapists, etc.) 6 Loss of centre-based resource teacher or support worker 4

B) Perceived difficulty in meeting child’s needs; Inability to accommodate

Complex health concerns could not be addressed 10

Child too aggressive 9

Child needs 1:1 staffing, more structured program 26

Difficult to meet parents’ expectations 2

C) Staff attitudes or lack of training

“I have always supported the concept of inclu- sion, but the dollars are so scarce now and the ‘regular’ children are so needy that my staff simply can’t cope with a special needs child within ex- isting ratios.” (director of a regular centre in Québec)

Staff not trained or not willing 5

D) Other Reasons

Centre is full 7

* Some directors provided more than one reason for not being able to accommodate a child with special needs in their program.

tors in refusing to accept a child with special needs into their pro- gram (five directors cited these as reasons). Directors of regular pro- grams also gave what one might describe as “normative” reasons for turning away children with special needs, i.e., the fact that the centre itself was full.

An interesting point of comparison was available to us as a result of the You Bet I Care! national study of child care programs conducted in 1998. When asked a parallel question to the one used in the present study, directors in close to 40% of the national sample re- ported not having been able to ac- cept at least one child with special needs into their program in the three years prior to data collection (which would have been 1995- 1998).

Centre directors in the YBIC! study provided a number of reasons for not accepting children with special needs whose parents had applied to their programs, with most direc- tors providing more than one rea- son. The most common reasons given for not accepting children with special needs were:

✦ insufficient funds to provide for the required additional staffing (55.1%);

✦ the building would have required structural modifica- tions (33.2%);

✦ staff did not feel adequately trained to care for the child (25.9%);

✦ the centre already had its maxi- mum number of children with special needs (22.4%);

✦ insufficient funds for necessary equipment (17.3%);

✦ limited access to external con- sultants (e.g., physiotherapist, resource teacher, early interven- tion consultant) (16.6%); and ✦ limited capacity or willingness

on the part of staff to include children with complex problems or challenging behaviours (18.6%).

The major similarity in findings across YBIC! and our current study is that limited funding and limited additional staffing restrict centres’ capacities to include children with special needs. The major differ- ences between the two studies sug- gest that in a broader population of centres physical accessibility and staff attitudes and training are likely to be more significant barri- ers than was observed in our more selected sample.

6.4 CENTRE PRACTICES RELATED TO INCLUSION

Directors provided information about a number of centre practices that are important to successful inclusion. In most cases, directors indicated that program and activ- ity planning and curriculum modi- fications, communication and in- volvement with parents, and the effective coordination of actions taken with or involving other pro- fessionals in the community involve both the director and centre staff, and team work and communication among centre personnel.