inclusion used in this study is one that was developed by Bochner and Pieterse and adapted by Denholm in 1989. This measure asks re- spondents to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree that children with a range of specific disabling conditions or special needs should be enrolled in a regu- lar preschool or child care program. (See question 3.1 in Appendix B.) Research has indicated that the na- ture of a child’s disability is one of the factors that influences staff’s attitudes. Generally, the more com- plex the disability, the less positive the attitude. Children with emo- tional and behavioural issues have also been regarded with some con- cern (Denholm, 19906; Eiserman,
Shisler & Healey, 19957; Stoiber,
Gettinger & Goetz, 19988). In this
study we wanted to learn if the at- titudes of early childhood profes- sionals across Canada were influ- enced by, or related to, specific needs of the children.
Staff were asked to rate on a 5- point scale (with 1 = strongly dis- agree and 5 = strongly agree) whether they felt children with spe- cific characteristics should be en- rolled in regular child care pro- grams. The most striking result was that early childhood profes- sionals generally held extremely positive attitudes toward the inclu-
sion of children with special needs for all children, regardless of level or type of disability.
Across thirty different conditions or special needs, the average score for all front-line staff was 4.1, with ECEs having a mean score of 4.0 and in-house R Ts obtaining a mean score of 4.2 out of a maxi- mum of 5.0. In fact, in 17 of the 30 conditions, 80% or more front-line staff agreed or strongly agreed that children should be included in regular early childhood programs. As was the case with directors, few staff expressed strong disagree- ment. Lower average ratings on particular items generally reflected more answers of “uncertain.” These responses from our front-line staff indicate very strong support for inclusion as an appropriate practice in general in early child- hood programs. While there was some variation in responses that reflected staff’s concerns about in- cluding children with more serious conditions, our research findings did not show a large discriminatory gradient based on the nature of a child’s disability. This is particu- larly noteworthy since previous re- search has noted more positive at- titudes toward inclusion for chil- dren with milder difficulties, such as learning disabilities or moder- ate delay, than for children with behaviour problems or more severe needs. What was striking were the comments from these staff that in- dicated that it was not the children who were the issue, but rather the availability and adequacy of sup- port services and resources that affected their responses.
“In most situations my answer is also dependent on a number of variables: physical environ- ment, philosophy of the pro-
gram, curriculum focus, number of children, skill of leaders, amount of adult/professional support, as well as looking at individual needs of child and family. You just can’t do a ‘dump’ and ‘run’... It is impor- tant to provide a range of pro- gram types to meet the indi- vidual needs of children and families in our community. If we are to include children, we must be committed to providing the necessary support to make it work. If the right supports are in place, I believe most children can be successfully included.”
(An ECE in British Columbia, with 10 years experience in the field)
“When I disagree that some chil- dren should attend it is because of the lack of support if the cen- tre is not integrated (with sup- port people!) or if the physical layout of a centre is not suit- able.” (On-site resource teacher in
Ontario who has worked for 10 years in the child care field) There were only eight circum- stances in which fewer than 75% of front-line staff agreed that chil- dren with a particular condition should be included, as shown in Table 7.3.
Several points are worth noting. First, in most cases, it is the na- ture of the assistance that is re- quired for inclusion to be success- ful that appears to be the deter- mining factor in these situations. The assistance required appears to range from structural modifica- tions that are needed to enable children to have adequate access within the environment; to assis- tance with personal tasks, such as catheterization with which staff may be unfamiliar; to the need for an extra pair of hands or an addi-
tional staff person when one-on-one supervision is required to allow the child to participate safely. A second point is that even in cases when staff are more hesitant, a substan- tial proportion, often a majority of ECEs and RTs, still agree that a child should be included in a regu- lar program with appropriate sup- port. A third point is that staff’s re- sponses match directors’ responses very closely. (Directors attained an average score of 4.2 on the same scale, and were hesitant about most of the same conditions as were staff. See Table 8.2.) A final point, exem- plified in the quotes below, is that staff’s experiences modify their at- titudes. Positive experiences add to staff’s skills and self-confidence; more difficult situations suggest where the limits to success may lie. In other quotes from staff scattered throughout this chapter, it is evi- dent that among the concerns staff have is the availability of the sup- ports that are needed to ensure that
inclusion is successful for all of the children in a classroom or centre.
“Having experienced a number of children with different needs at this centre, I have become more comfortable with the chil- dren. I remember being told I would have to catheterize a child and being quite uncomfort- able. Once I had to do it, though, I realized it wasn’t that big of a deal.” (ECE,
Alberta, 1 year in the field)
“I have learned that faculty and staff have much to do with the ability of a centre to care for one or more children with special needs. Uncontrollably aggressive behaviour, Tourette’s Syndrome were children we could not care for successfully. One-on-one su- pervision was a great help for other conditions where funding allowed.” (Early Education
Teacher, Yukon, 7 years, adminis- tration)
Circumstances in Which Fewer Than 75% of Front-Line Staff Agreed or Strongly Agreed That Children with Special Needs Should Be Enrolled in Regular Early Childhood Programs
Table 7.3
artificial bowel - no parent assistance 51.8% 46.5% 57.1%
A child who at times is uncontrollably aggressive 58.7% 57.4% 59.6%
A child who is blind 69.1% 60.6% 78.9%
A child who has a phobic resistance to school
attendance 63.9% 62.9% 64.9%
A child who has a multi-disabling condition 71.8% 66.7% 77.6%
A child who often cannot recognize situations
involving danger to himself/herself 73.5% 70.3% 77.2%
* Statistically significant difference between ECEs and RTs, p<.05
Disability or Condition Percent of Front-Line Staff Who Agreed or Strongly Agreed All Staff ECEs RTs
A child with mobility difficulties - access 41.8% 32.2% 51.9%
unsuitable
A child who requires catheterization -
no parent assistance * 53.3% 42.6% * 63.6% * A child who requires assistance with
7.32 Staff’s Beliefs About Inclusion