Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Programs and Quality in Early Childhood Education

311

Implications for Further Research 

Although these new efforts are encouraging, there continues

to be a dearth of empirical research on the role of child tem-

perament in early childhood group settings. Much more

work remains to be done. There are many areas of child tem-

perament research that have direct implications for early

childhood education. The first of these is the direct education

of caregivers and teachers about the origins and significance

of individual differences in children’s behavioral styles so as

to avoid misattributing all these differences to central ner-

vous system dysfunction or parenting. Second, research is

demonstrating that temperament has an impact on the way

children experience, and affect, their environments. Active

children are often criticized by staff for their restlessness

when a programmatic modification may be in their interests.

Children who need time to adapt to new situations require

teachers who have the patience to help them overcome their

period of hesitation (Soderman, 1985). There is particular

concern about children whose temperaments challenge and

frustrate caregivers and about peers who may be the recipi-

ents of rejection or neglect, leading to the development of

secondary problems. More work is needed in formulating ef-

fective training programs that will bring about both signifi-

cant attitudinal and behavior management changes in

caregivers. This is particularly important in view of the fact

that families of children with challenging temperament-re-

lated issues may seek assistance from ECE staff. Because

there is often an overlap between this group of children

and those diagnosed at school age with attention-deficit/

hyperactivity disorder or oppositional defiant disorder, early

intervention agencies should recognize that these children

are at very high risk when the fit is poor and should be eligi-

ble for services under such circumstances (Andersen &

McDevitt, 2000).

No less important than applying research about tempera-

ment risk factors is an appreciation of the fact that tempera-

ment traits can serve also as assets (Carey & McDevitt,

1995). Researchers would do well to explore how specific

temperament traits may benefit children in their interactions

with adult caregivers, with peers, and with the curriculum of

ECE programs, and practitioners need to avoid automatically

associating the word “temperament” with risk factors. Carey

and McDevitt stated the key questions for the conduct of re-

search on temperament in day care this way:

What kinds of children do better in what kinds of care arrange-

ments? Does a child’s temperament influence his or her behavior

with peers and child care professionals in the day care situation

in the same ways as in the home? How can we deliver day care

that best meets the needs of parents and children? What happens

when there is a poor fit between the child’s characteristics and

the handling provided by the day care facility? How is this dis-

sonance best detected? Will the management principles that

seem to work for parents in the home also prove effective in the

day care setting? What do day care workers generally know

about important mental health matters, including temperament

differences? Where do they get such information, and how suc-

cessfully do they apply it? What is the best way to augment such

knowledge? What benefits can be demonstrated for its use? What

are the consequences of day care workers not having this knowl-

edge? For aggressive or non-compliant behavior, what manage-

ment strategies beside time-out are suitable? How can parents

and day care workers best collaborate for the well-being of the

child? (Carey & McDevitt, 1995, p. 90)

Closing Thoughts on Child Temperament

The field of early childhood education has made great strides

and, indeed, has demonstrated leadership in showing respect

to cultural diversity among young children and their families

and in serving as teachers of, and advocates for, young chil-

dren with disabilities and social risk factors. A burgeoning

body of empirical studies in a wide range of fields has led to

a consensus that child temperament exists, can be reliably

measured, and is an important and universal individual dif-

ference among infants and young children that can serve as

an asset or create risk. Respecting diversity among young

children must now be extended to respecting this diversity in

behavioral style. Early childhood researchers and practition-

ers will undoubtedly rise to the challenge of the new millen-

nium by absorbing and applying the substantial knowledge

that has been accumulated about temperament in the past four

decades. We can look forward to seeing further attention to

this important variable in empirical studies, in personnel

preparation, and in curricula and programming.

PROGRAMS AND QUALITY IN EARLY

CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Compensatory Programs and Early Childhood

Special Education

The title of “father of the kindergarten” was given to

Friedrich Froebel. If Froebel is granted this acknowledge-

ment, then the title of mother of early childhood special edu-

cation (ECSE) should be granted to Maria Montessori

(1870–1952). Indeed, Montessori anticipated the broad

sweep that the field would make across the spectrum of child-

hood experiences and needs. In 1901 she became the director

312

Early Childhood Education

of the “orthophrenic” school associated with the University

of Rome, a former asylum for city children, most of whom

were likely intellectually disabled or autistic. She mounted a

campaign to reform the system that had previously confined

these children to a life of isolation and neglect. Montessori

understood the need they had for purpose in life, for stimula-

tion and for achieving a sense of self-worth. Anticipating the

modern ethos, Montessori emphasized the importance of

showing respect to all children and of teaching them self-care

skills as well as to observe and respect the world around

them. Also foreshadowing current trends, Montessori took an

interest in children who were at risk because they were poor. 

An Overview of the History of Early Childhood

Special Education 

In 1907 Montessori began an experimental school in the

poorest part of Rome to demonstrate that her educational

methods could be effective with inner-city preschoolers who

were not disabled. She also anticipated the contemporary ap-

proach to the field of ECSE by applying herself to a rigorous

analysis of research on the education of the mentally handi-

capped, focusing on the work of two French doctors, Jean

Itard and Edouard Seguin. Itard’s work with the Wild Boy of

Aveyron brought into focus another constant theme in con-

temporary ECSE, the long-standing question of the relative

weights of nature and nurture in children’s development.

Seguin’s influence was to encourage Montessori in her

already-strong belief in making education systematic and

specific. Although many consider Seguin to be the father

of special education, it is an irony of history that in North

America Montessori’s influence was not felt in the education

of young children with special needs as much as it was in the

development of Montessori nursery schools for normal chil-

dren of middle- and upper-middle-class parents. 

Indeed, in most Western countries the early education of

young children at risk for compromised development was a

neglected field until shortly after World War II. Although

each modern state has followed its own path in developing

and expanding services for children at risk, the United States

is unique in mandating these services—a mandate that has

driven academic research as much as it has program delivery.

As a result, much research on the education of young children

at risk has been conducted in the United States, and it is

therefore the American experience in the field that followed

federal legislation that will be reflected, for the most part, in

this section. 

As was described in the opening section of this chapter,

the theme of nature versus nurture was present in the earliest

years of the field of early childhood education. The 1961 pub-

lication of McVicker Hunt’s Intelligence and Experience

fueled a renewed emphasis on the role of environmental ex-

perience in cognitive development. In 1965 the U.S. federal

government initiated the first Head Start program, a summer

initiative to bring America’s poorest children into programs

in which they would receive stimulation and nutrition and

that would involve their parents in a broad-sweeping and

early attempt to provide compensation for the known detri-

mental effects of poverty and social disadvantage on chil-

dren’s development. These early short-term programs were

followed by programs that were more intensive and broader

in conceptualization. Consequently, by 1972 a mandated

quota of 10% of children with disabilities in Head Start pro-

grams was established. And although the Education for All

Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142), passed in 1972, did

not cover children from birth to 3 years of age, in time ser-

vices for preschool-aged children were mandated, and stan-

dards and incentives for providing services to infants and

toddlers were included. One outcome of international signif-

icance in the American legislation and experience has been

the emergence of a unified discipline that subsumed all the

early childhood risk factors under its umbrella: ECSE. This

new field was heralded by the formation of the Division for

Early Childhood as a subsection of the Council for Excep-

tional Children in 1973 (McCollum, 2000).

Early childhood special education is the branch of the field

of early childhood education that addresses the diverse edu-

cational needs of children with disabilities and developmen-

tal delays. The field has also come to include children whose

developmental risk was at first seen to arise from the disad-

vantage of being raised in certain family and sociocultural

contexts. Although the term compensatory education has

been used to describe the aim of programs attempting to

make up for presumed deficits in children’s environments,

many theorists now regard it as unreasonable to think in

terms of a dichotomy between children with endogenous

difficulties and those with problems arising from environ-

mental factors. It has been known for some time now that

many risk factors arising from social conditions, such as ma-

ternal ingestion of alcohol, are translated into biological

problems in children. In addition, many genetic risk factors

are triggered only in the presence of certain environmental

conditions. Recent neurobiological research has confirmed

the potentially devastating impact of social stresses on young

children’s neurodevelopment. Recent medical research has

also shown that the technologies that are used to sustain sur-

vival of very high risk infants may create additional disabili-

ties in those children.

Programs and Quality in Early Childhood Education

313

Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Early Childhood

Special Education 

The complexity of the difficulties that face contemporary

young children is matched by the need for multidisciplinary

academic inquiry informed by many specialties and with a

knowledge base of evidence-based practices that are repro-

ducible in a field that continues to be marginalized and un-

derfunded. One consequence of the scope and diversity of

needs in the field of ECSE has been a major effort, in past

decades, in the development of a professional identity.

McCollum (2000) discussed how, between 1976 and 1985,

several related movements were influential in shaping the

nature of ECSE. The development of empirically based sys-

tematic instruction, furthered by academic investigation

based on current learning theories, came first. Second, atten-

tion to preventing school failure became a mandate of the

states, and the beginnings of a relationship between early

childhood education and ECSE were forged as attempts

were made to identify those young children who might be in

need of early intervention. Third, increasing attention was

paid to the noninstructional roles of teachers as ecological

theory began to influence the way that interventionists un-

derstood the importance of the social context of develop-

ment. Finally, younger and younger children began to

receive attention and intervention programs because infants

and toddlers grew rapidly.

The impact of these diverse influences challenged the as-

sumption that this new field was a branch of special educa-

tion alone. As the influence of other specialties was brought

to bear on the questions of how best to help young children

whose development might not proceed well, the new field

was increasingly being referred to not only in educational

terms. In keeping with paradigm shifts that occurred in early

childhood education in general, ecological perspectives

transformed the way in which relationships between culture,

society, family, and the individual child were construed. In

addition, the vocabulary of health and human services be-

came recognizable in the discourse of the field, which be-

came more broadly known as early intervention. This term,

which was formerly used exclusively to refer to a point of

time in a clinical intervention, had now become a separate

area of study and of practice. As Bailey (2000) has com-

mented, in the past three decades the field of early interven-

tion has grown rapidly from its inception to its current state

of maturity.

As diverse as its origins were, it is to the credit of its lead-

ing thinkers that the field of early intervention has reached a

remarkable consensus about its goals, methods, values, and

achievements. This consensus, sharpened by the presence of

self-critical dialogue within its ranks, is well demonstrated

by the publication of two recent special issues of Topics in

Early Childhood Special Education (TECSE) that present a

compelling picture of the field as it stands today: Early Child-

hood Special Education in a New Century: Voices from the

Past, Visions for Our Future, Parts 1 and 2. These papers

provide rich and often personal historical accounts of issues

as far-ranging as personnel preparation, remedial teaching,

inclusion, new theoretical understandings, child care, social

conditions, the role of governments in mandating services,

methodological issues, interdisciplinary relations, and inter-

ventions for specific disabilities. Only some of the major

themes of these special issues will receive attention here:

(a) inclusion; (b) new theoretical and empirical influences,

including a clearer conceptualization by Dunst of family-

centered intervention as evidence-based practice; (c) lessons

learned from the past; (d) current issues in personnel prepara-

tion; and (e) the impact of legislation on services.

The Principle and Practice of Inclusion 

Zigler and Styfco (2000) pointed out that Head Start pro-

grams were deliberately segregationist at their conception.

The idea was to provide special and separate programs for

young children from disadvantaged environments. Although

this practice effectively cut them off from opportunities to

learn in the company of peers from wealthier backgrounds,

at the time it was considered that these children would not

otherwise attend community nursery schools. Rather, the

motivation was to offer them enriching opportunities, in-

cluding nutritional and health care, that could not be pro-

vided by their homes. Likewise, programming for young

children with disabilities was equally separate because it

was thought that community preschool teachers did not

know how to teach them. The inclusion of young children

with disabilities in regular preschool and day care programs

began slowly, and with much resistance. It is of interest that

inclusion is less often justified on empirical grounds than de-

fended in terms of a philosophical position regarding the

rights of children with disabilities to experience the same

privileges as those without. The emergence of day care into

the field of early childhood education added a new dimen-

sion to these issues as educational questions became inter-

twined with questions about custodial care and the needs of

working parents.

Although there have been many separate rationales in-

voked from time to time as policy makers and trainers have

sought to persuade communities to move toward the adoption

314

Early Childhood Education

of inclusive practices, Bricker (2000) reminded us that the

movement was originally driven by a clearly formulated de-

velopmental integration approach, which emerged from ex-

amining the detrimental effects of institutionalization on

young children. She commented that this was by no means a

well-accepted notion at the time. Her account of the gradual

acceptance of the principle of inclusion demonstrates how

quickly a questioned idea becomes its opposite: “Perhaps the

biggest change has been the shift in perspective of inclusion

from an idea about how to improve services to young chil-

dren with disabilities to a human ‘right’ that has become

closely tied to important movements focused on social equal-

ity” (p. 17). She acknowledged that inclusion is still hotly de-

bated despite an apparent consensus about its desirability, as

evidenced by position papers put forth by organizations such

as the Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Excep-

tional Children. Bricker herself stated that

the continuing debate over inclusion will do well to focus on

the reality of current parental choices when facing placement

options for their children. For many parents, the debate

raging at the philosophical level may be very different from the

realities they face when deciding on a placement for their child.

(p. 17)

On a more optimistic note, Odom (2000) argued that

thirty years of research and practice have produced a knowl-

edge base that informs policy and practice. . . . [N]ow,

more than any time in the past, we have a greater awareness

of the type of support professionals can provide to create pro-

ductive learning environments for children with and without

disabilities and inclusive settings. With political will, local lead-

ership, willing parents, and committed teachers, most young

children with disabilities can benefit from inclusive settings.

(p. 25)

It is noteworthy that Odom did not use the rather absolute

statements—that inclusion benefits all children—that have

entered the position papers put out by both professional and

advocacy organizations.

The issues that surround the implementation of inclusion

and the emergence in the next decades of large-scale research

projects bring us to consider the strengths and struggles of the

endeavor to subject early intervention programs to rigorous in-

quiry. The Head Start experience demonstrates how essential it

is to consider how laudable programs can fail in the details of

their implementation when errors are made early in their plan-

ning. Zigler and Styfco (2000) acknowledged the extent of

the problems that surrounded Head Start from its inception:

First was an exclusionary ethos, in which economically

disadvantaged children were served separately from their peers

from wealthier homes. This segregation extended to excluding

those who were disabled until recent times. Second, the lack of

a broad unitary goal in favor of a set of discrete objectives led

to a misconception of Head Start as a cognitive enrichment

program and a decreased emphasis on its original interest in

social competence. The third problem was that programming

was based on the questionable construct of school readiness.

Finally, and perhaps most seriously, was lack of attention to

quality. The first of these problems and the difficulties sur-

rounding solutions to it were discussed earlier. The likelihood

that topics of school readiness, social competence outcomes,

and quality of programming will continue to be pressing issues

in the field is acknowledged briefly here. 

As researchers look at outcomes in diverse populations,

they will be challenged to define common goals that should

receive emphasis in the education of all at-risk young chil-

dren. It is therefore of significance that the special issues of

TECSE that were published in the summer of 2000 high-

lighted two interrelated themes: social competence and lan-

guage development. In examining the question of social

competence, Strain and Hoyson (2000) used research on

social-skills intervention with children with autism to illus-

trate how increasingly sophisticated theoretical formulations

of essential research-to-practice questions have produced

gains in our ability to engender “rapid, occasionally sustain-

able, and socially meaningful changes in children’s social

behavior” (p. 116). They identified four basic assumptions

that historically have been used to determine the targets of

intervention: (a) the notion that the difficulty with communi-

cation is intrinsic to the individual; (b) the notion that the in-

dividual has acquired the difficulty as a result of a

long-standing interactional history; (c) the notion that

dyadic interactions between children sustain the problem;

and (d) the notion that the entire ecology of the child with

special needs is responsible for altering its norms and the

manner in which it structures opportunities for social inter-

action.

Arguing that none of these assumptions is sufficient to

produce effective intervention, they described how a fifth as-

sumption has led to a comprehensive research-to-practice

model for children with autism in the past two decades: the

LEAP program. The positive results of LEAP are presented

to illustrate the potential of both short- and long-term positive

benefits of interventions that are individualized and data-

driven, have a generalization (transfer of skills) focus, maxi-

mize learning opportunities, and add a focus on family skills

to the preschool intervention. These results identify the inten-

sity of the intervention as a critical variable in yielding sus-

tainable, long-term outcomes. One of their conclusions will

likely be absorbed as the next generation of researchers