Head Start Instructional Professionals’ Inclusion Perceptions and Practices

Abstract

This study considered the facilitators and barriers of successful inclusion in Head Start classrooms by examining the perspectives and practices of instructional professionals. A cross-sectional survey design was combined with direct observation in inclusive Head Start classrooms. Survey data were collected from 71 Head Start instructional professionals in three Head Start programs. Observations took place in nine classrooms to examine the practices of 19 instructional professionals using an observation rating scale. Participants identified a lack of professional development as the greatest barrier to successful inclusion. Participants believed that their inclusion needs were greater than the inclusion supports available to them. Inclusive classroom quality varied significantly among different classrooms. Study findings suggested that the instructional professionals appear to be key to successful inclusion in Head Start settings. Additional professional development for Head Start instructional professionals focused on effectively enacting inclusion practices could support high-quality inclusion for children with disabilities.

Keywords

inclusion Head Start teachers personnel descriptive studies

The Head Start program is the largest provider of inclusive services for preschool-age children with disabilities in the United States (Gallagher & Lambert, 2006). Children with disabilities in Head Start represent more than 15% of the preschool children served under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) Part B (Office of Special Education Programs, 2007). This already substantial figure is likely to continue to increase based on legislation that mandates that 10% of the actual enrollment be comprised of children with disabilities (Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007). However, there is a significant lack of empirical research on inclusion in Head Start (Macy & Bagnato, 2010; Purcell, Horn, & Palmer, 2007).

Inclusion researchers sought to identify factors that facilitate inclusion and those that serve as barriers to successful, high-quality inclusion. The facilitators and barriers to inclusion have become a major focus in inclusive education research for the past several decades and form the foundation for this study. Through a comprehensive review of the inclusion literature, we identified factors that can serve as facilitators or barriers to successful inclusion and divided them into six categories: (a) attitudes toward inclusion (e.g., Kossewska, 2006; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996); (b) families (e.g., Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Xu & Filler, 2008); (c) classroom environment, resources, and personnel (e.g., Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009; Tsao et al., 2008); (d) professional development (e.g., Baker-Ericzén, Mueggenborg, & Shea, 2009; Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler, 2010); (e) teacher knowledge, skills, and practice (e.g., DeVore & Russell, 2007; Rix, Hall, Nind, Sheehy, & Wearmouth, 2009); and (f) inclusive classroom quality (e.g., Hestenes, Cassidy, Shim, & Hegde, 2008; Knoche, Peterson, Edwards, & Jeon, 2006).

Inclusion research related to the inclusion facilitator/barrier categories supports the assertion that high-quality inclusion experiences are unique and challenging to implement at all levels, especially at the preschool level (McCormick, Noonan, Ogata, & Heck, 2001). Researchers and policy makers have called for further investigation of inclusion practices for diverse young children with disabilities (Guralnick, 2001; Odom et al., 2004; Rafferty & Griffin, 2005). Researchers (Batu, 2010; Leatherman & Niemeyer, 2005) have also called for a specific focus on the inclusion facilitators and barriers. No known studies to date have examined the full range of inclusion facilitators and barriers and their influence on the implementation of inclusion for children with disabilities in Head Start classrooms. This study is intended to begin to fill that gap.

The Division for Early Childhood/National Association for the Education of Young Children (2009) definition of early childhood inclusion includes the key components of access, participation, and supports. Using this definition as a critical lens, it is apparent that many barriers to the type of inclusion that promotes full access and participation and provides all of the required supports for children with disabilities could persist in Head Start settings (Buysse, Wesley, & Keyes, 1998; Purcell et al., 2007). Therefore, research must focus on how the instructional professionals in Head Start programs implement inclusion and the ways in which facilitators or barriers serve to support and/or inhibit the successful inclusion of young children with disabilities.

The purpose of this study is to consider the facilitators and barriers of successful inclusion in Head Start classrooms by examining the perspectives and practices of the instructional professionals. Specifically, the following research questions guided this study:

Research Question 1: What are Head Start instructional professionals’ perceptions of the needed facilitators for the successful inclusion of children with disabilities?

Research Question 2: What are Head Start instructional professionals’ perceptions of the availability of facilitators for the successful inclusion of children with disabilities?

Research Question 3: In what ways do Head Start instructional professionals provide access, participation, and supports for children with disabilities?

Method

The study reports the quantitative findings from a mixed-methods study. A cross-sectional survey design was utilized (Creswell, 2008) combined with direct observation. Data were collected in the form of survey responses from the larger group of 71 participants and from an observational measure to rate inclusion quality in a subset of nine classrooms. A combination of direct observation or interviews and survey research has been previously used to account for the strengths and weaknesses in each form of data to understand teacher perceptions and classroom practices (Soukakou & Sylva, 2010).

Setting

The research was conducted in three Head Start program sites in a large, mid-Atlantic metropolitan area. Site A was a private/public nonprofit delegate agency where an independent city was the grantee. This site was comprised of multiple classrooms located in public school buildings. Site B was a government agency grantee that directly operated programs and delegated service delivery. The agency classrooms were located in one community center. Site C was public school system grantee that directly operated programs and had no delegates. Classrooms for site C were located in one public school building. Site B also operated three classrooms using state public preschool funding that were not separated in the data collection and analysis for the study. The different sites served a significant, but varied proportion of young children with disabilities. Two sites, Site A (9.63%) and Site C (10.80%), served a smaller percentage of children with disabilities than the national median of 12.04% and one site, Site B (14.29%), served a greater percentage of children with disabilities than the national median. Table 1 shows demographic information for the children in each of the three research sites (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011a, 2011b).

Table 1.

Demographics of Children Served in Study Research Settings.

Percentage of program enrollment by race	Black or African American	White	Asian	American Indian/Native Alaskan	Biracial or multiracial	Other race	Unspecified race
Head Start nationally	30.04	39.79	1.83	3.84	7.82	10.70	5.27
Site A	48.16	7.08	3.68	0.00	5.10	6.80	29.18
Site B	56.25	1.79	3.57	2.68	0.00	0.00	35.71
Site C	32.39	42.33	1.99	12.78	10.23	0.00	0.00

Note. Hispanic or Latino was not included as a category in the reporting system.

Participants

A group of 71 instructional professionals from the three program sites participated in the survey research portion of the study, while a subset of 19 instructional professionals were observed in nine classrooms. Table 2 provides information about the participants.

Table 2.

Study Participants at Each Research Site.

Site	Survey Participants	Classrooms/Instructional Professionals Observed
Site A	28	3/6
Site B	13	3/6
Site C	30	3/7
Total	71	9/19

Survey research participants

The survey instrument, the Supports Scale for Preschool Inclusion (SSPI; Kucuker, Acarlar, & Kapci, 2006), was administered with participants in the three Head Start program sites. The survey response rate across the three sites was 78%, with a 71.8% response rate at Site A, a 72.2% response rate at Site B, and an 88.2% response rate at Site C. Calculations [N_s = (N_p) (p) (1−p) / (N_p−1) (B/C)² + (p) (1−p)] (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009) to determine the appropriate sample size for the survey research portion of the study (N = 85 total instructional professionals across the three sites) indicated that a sample size of 65 or more participants was needed at the 90% confidence level. Therefore, the sample size of 71 survey participants was deemed appropriate to represent the population of the three Head Start program sites. Table 3 provides information about the survey respondents at each site.

Table 3.

Survey Respondents at Each Research Site.

Site	Teachers	Assistant teachers	Special education teachers	Total
Site A	15	13	0	28 (39.4%)
Site B	6	7	0	13 (18.3%)
Site C	15	14	1	30 (42.3%)
Total	36 (50.7%)	34 (47.9%)	1 (1.4%)	71

The survey research participants included 69 females and 2 males. They reported a wide range of years of teaching experience, levels of education, and amount of training. The range of the number of years the participants had been teaching was from less than 1 to 39 years (M = 12.13 years, SD = 8.79 years). The range of the number of years teaching in Head Start was from less than 1 to 37 years (M = 7.79 years, SD = 8.26 years). The highest percentage of participants had obtained a bachelor’s degree (35%), followed by participants with a child development associate (CDA; 33%), associate’s degree (18%), high school degree (9%), and advanced degree (7%). The range of the reported percentage of children with disabilities in participants’ classrooms was from 0% to 50% (M = 10.48%, SD = 10.72). Participants also reported that they had completed between 0 to 20 training courses that specifically addressed children with disabilities.

Observation participants

The criteria for selection of observation classrooms were that classrooms must have contained at least one child with a disability identified through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process and that the instructional professionals were willing to participate in the study. Program or center directors or assistant directors identified the classrooms and instructional professionals at each site. The directors nominated the observation classrooms because only certain classrooms included children with disabilities and for confidentiality reasons, the directors could not identify the classrooms with children with disabilities to the researcher until the parents of the children with disabilities in that classroom consented to allow their child to participate in the study and reveal the disability status of the child to the researcher. Eleven total classrooms staffed by 25 instructional professionals were identified for the potential pool of research participants. Of this identified sample, two classrooms were not included in the observations because the parents of the children with disabilities did not provide consent for their child’s participation in the study. Of the 19 instructional professionals observed, 9 teachers, 9 assistant teachers, and 1 special education teacher were included.

Data Sources

The SSPI developed by Kucuker et al. (2006) is a survey instrument designed to assess preschool instructional professionals’ views of what is needed for successful inclusion and their perceptions of the availability of these supportive factors in their settings. For each item, respondents indicate “how necessary each statement is for successful inclusion” (necessity dimension) and the “degree you have this support/source” (support dimension) for each item on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a great extent). The instrument includes 34 items, and the total scores range from 34 to 136 for the necessity and support dimensions.

The Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP) developed by Soukakou (2007) is a structured observation rating scale with a focus on classroom practice and the quality of instructional support that instructional professionals provide to promote the active engagement of children with disabilities in classroom activities while meeting their individual needs. The ICP measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale with the lowest degree of quality (1) representing practices that are considered harmful or highly inappropriate and the highest degree of quality (7) reflecting practices that are thought to promote inclusion and meet individual needs. On the scale, each of the odd numbers has a label (the even numbers are not labeled), where a score of 1 indicates an inadequate level of classroom quality, a score of 3 indicates a minimal level of classroom quality, a score of 5 indicates a good level of classroom quality, and a score of 7 indicates an excellent level of classroom quality. Therefore, low-quality inclusion practices are signified by low scores (1–3) on the measure’s items, and high-quality inclusion practices are signified by high scores (5–7). The scores used in the data analysis reflect an aggregate of the practices of all of the instructional professionals observed in each classroom. Ten of the 11 items from the measure were utilized for the purpose of this study. Item 11 on the measure was excluded from the data collection because it required reviewing each child’s IEP, and permission for this was not obtained. Classroom observations were conducted in each classroom (n = 9) for a period of 2 hr.

Data Analysis

For the SSPI, descriptive statistics were calculated, including the total mean scores, the overall mean scores of all of the items, and the maximum and minimum scores for the total and overall mean scores for the necessity and support dimensions for the total group of instructional professionals. Total scores were calculated for the necessity and support dimensions to determine the magnitude of the needs and supports that the instructional professionals perceived. The differences between the overall mean scores of all of the items from the necessity and support dimensions were also calculated. The items on the measure were grouped by inclusion facilitator/barrier categories. Mean scores were calculated for the facilitator/barrier categories of (1) attitudes toward inclusion; (2) families; (3) classroom environment, resources, and personnel; (4) professional development; and (5) teacher knowledge, skills, and practices. The necessary and supportive factors were ranked within the inclusion facilitator/barrier categories to determine the facilitator/barrier categories that the instructional professionals found to be the most and least necessary and most and least available.

The participants’ mean scores across the items in the necessity and support dimensions were compared for the variables of teacher role (teacher and assistant teacher), Head Start program site, years of overall teaching experience, years of teaching experience in the Head Start program, level of education, and the amount of training specifically related to children with disabilities. One-way analysis of variance tests were conducted for the variables of program site, years of teaching experience, years of teaching experience in the Head Start program, and level of education for the necessity dimension and the support dimension. Multiple comparison tests (Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference [HSD] Test) were then conducted to find out the source of any difference. A t-test for independent groups was conducted to identify any difference among group means for the variable of teacher role. T-test analyses were also conducted for differences between the necessity and support dimensions for the overall mean score for all of the items and also for the mean scores of each of the inclusion facilitator/barrier categories. Because of the very small number of responses to the open-ended items (two responses), these data were not included in the analysis.

Data analyses for the scores from the nine classrooms on the ICP used descriptive statistics. Mean scores across the 10 items were calculated for all of the classrooms, as were the mean scores and standard deviations of the individual items on the scale across the classrooms. The items were also ranked to determine the degree of quality of the specific practices in the measure. The distribution of the classrooms by ICP mean scores across the nine observation classrooms was also computed where average scores were rounded to the whole number reflecting the closest scale point. The rounded ICP mean score across the classrooms was also determined.

Results

The findings from the SSPI and ICP shed light on the participants’ perceptions of and practices for including young children with disabilities in their Head Start classrooms.

SSPI

The mean total score for the necessity dimension was 123.75 (SD = 14.53) with 136 being the highest possible total score. The overall mean score of all items was found to be 3.65 (SD = 0.43) for this dimension on a scale of 1 to 4, where a score of 3 indicates that the inclusion facilitator is somewhat necessary and a score of 4 indicates that the inclusion facilitator is necessary to a great extent. The mean total score for the support dimension was 98.37 (SD = 21.01) with 136 being the highest possible total score. The overall mean score of all items was found to be 2.89 (SD = 0.62) for this dimension on a scale of 1 to 4, where a score of 2 indicates very little availability and a score of 3 indicates that the inclusion facilitator is somewhat available.

T-tests and omnibus F-tests indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in the necessity or support dimensions for any participant characteristic, except in the necessity dimension for the characteristic of level of education. Table 4 provides the results of the inferential analyses. There was a significant effect of level of education at the p < .05 level on the overall mean score of all items in the necessity dimension. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s HSD test indicated that the participants with a high school degree (n = 5, M = 3.09) had a lower mean score than participants with a CDA (n = 22, M = 3.70), participants with a bachelor’s degree (n = 25, M = 3.74), and participants with an advanced degree (n = 6, M = 3.77). The mean score in the necessity dimension for participants with a high-school degree did not significantly differ from participants with an associate’s degree.

Table 4.

Results of Inferential Analyses for Survey Results.

Participant characteristic	Necessity dimension	Support dimension
Teacher role	t(68) = 1.345, p = .183	t(53) = 1.90, p = .063
Head Start site	F(2, 1) = .700, p = .500	F(2, 1) = .212, p = .183
Years teaching	F(6, 1) = 1.608, p = .160	F(6, 1) = 2.058, p = .809
Years teaching in Head Start	F(6, 1) = 1.782, p = .168	F(6, 1) = 1.855, p = .103
Level of education	F(4, 1) = 3.853, p = .007^a	F(4, 1) = 1.443, p = .230
Number of training courses about children with disabilities	F(5, 1) = 1.835, p = .129	F(5, 1) = .668, p = .650

Statistically significant difference.

Tests for the difference among the mean scores for the different inclusion facilitator categories in the necessity and support dimensions were not statistically significant. The difference between the overall mean score of all the items in the necessity dimension (3.65), and the overall mean score of all the items in the support dimension (2.89) was 0.76, indicating a higher overall level of perceived need of inclusion facilitators than availability of those facilitators. The scores in the necessity dimension were higher than the mean scores in the support dimension for all five inclusion facilitator/barrier categories included in the analysis (see Figure 1). The greatest difference between the necessity and support dimensions was 0.84 in the category of professional development, indicating that participants perceived this category as the greatest barrier to successful inclusion. The smallest difference was 0.67 for the category attitudes toward inclusion, indicating that this inclusion category was perceived as the smallest barrier or not a significant barrier to successful inclusion.

Figure 1.

Mean scores in the needs and support dimensions by inclusion facilitator categories.

ICP

The ICP composite score, the mean of the 10 items for each classroom, was 4.67 (SD = 0.73) on a 7-point Likert-type scale where a score of 3 indicates a level of minimal classroom quality and a 5 indicates a level of good classroom quality. The lowest rated classroom had a composite score of 3.1 and the highest rated classroom had a mean score of 5.6. Table 5 indicates the mean score for the ICP measure in each of the observation classrooms. The rounded mean score of the 10 items for all of the classrooms is 5, which indicated an overall level of classroom quality of good across the classrooms. This suggested that the observed teachers were providing good-quality inclusion practices to facilitate the access, participation, and supports for the children with disabilities in their Head Start classrooms. The analysis of the distribution of rounded scores for each classroom indicated that the majority of the classrooms (55%) were ranked as having good-quality inclusion practices with a score of 5. The next most frequent score was 4 with 22% of the classrooms, followed by the scores of 3 and 6, each with 11% of the classrooms. There were no classrooms with the rounded scores of 1, 2, or 7.

Table 5.

Observation Classrooms Inclusive Classroom Profile Scores.

Classroom	Mean score	SD	Minimum	Maximum
A1	3.10	0.74	2	4
A2	5.00	0.67	4	6
A4	4.70	0.67	4	6
B1	5.40	0.97	4	7
B2	5.60	0.70	5	7
B3	4.20	0.63	4	6
C1	4.70	0.95	4	7
C2	4.80	0.79	4	6
C3	4.44	0.53	4	5
Total mean score	4.67	0.73	2	7

Table 6 displays the mean scores for all classrooms for the 10 individual items on the ICP, ranking them from the highest to the lowest mean scores. The items with the highest scores were related to instructional practices for whole group activities and within the cognitive domain. The lowest ranked items were related to practices that required the instructional professionals to interact with a small group of children or with children individually and within the social-emotional domain. The ICP scores for the nine observation classrooms provided additional detail about the inclusion facilitator/barrier category of inclusive classroom quality.

Table 6.

Ranking of Item Mean Scores on the Inclusive Classroom Profile.

Item	Mean score	SD	Minimum	Maximum
9. Transitions between activities	5.22	0.97	4	7
8. Adaptations of group activities	5.00	1.50	3	7
1. Adaptations of space and materials/equipment	4.89	0.60	4	6
6. Adult–child social communicative interactions	4.78	1.09	3	6
10. Feedback	4.78	0.97	3	6
5. Membership	4.67	0.87	4	6
7. Support for social communication	4.44	1.13	2	6
4. Conflict resolution	4.44	0.73	3	5
3. Adult’s guidance of children’s play	4.38	0.92	3	6
2. Adult involvement in peer interactions	4.00	0.87	2	5

Discussion

The findings from the SSPI and the ICP underscore the many factors that influence the inclusion of young children in preschool settings such as Head Start.

SSPI

The findings from the SSPI highlight the levels of perceived inclusion needs and supports in the three Head Start programs. The overall mean score of 3.65 in the necessity dimension indicates that the participants perceived the majority of the factors as highly necessary. The results mirror one of the key findings from the body of early childhood inclusion research reviewed, which indicated that a variety of facilitators need to be in place for successful inclusion rather than a single factor or single type of factor. The survey participants seemed to reflect this belief, as indicated by the mean score over 3.35 for each item and the high overall mean score. The significantly lower overall mean score for all of the items of 2.89 in the support dimension suggests that key facilitators of successful inclusion were not available to the instructional professionals in these Head Start programs from their perspectives. The gap between the instructional professionals’ perceived needs and supports indicates that they did not believe they had all of the needed facilitators to successfully include young children with disabilities in their classrooms and that barriers to the successful inclusion in these settings persist. This disparity suggests that changes in the Head Start program need to be considered to provide instructional professionals with all of the supports that they need for successful inclusion.

The analysis of the inclusion facilitator/barrier categories from the survey findings highlight areas in which changes are needed. The minimal gap between the instructional professionals’ perceived inclusion needs and supports in the area of attitudes toward inclusion indicates that many instructional professionals in these Head Start programs have a positive attitude toward inclusion and children with disabilities. It also suggests that they believe families, children, and administrators have positive attitudes toward inclusion and toward children with disabilities. These findings reflect trends of the reviewed literature, which provide evidence that positive attitudes toward inclusion are following an upward trend for all early childhood inclusion stakeholders. However, the analysis also indicated that positive attitudes alone could not facilitate the successful inclusion of children with disabilities in these Head Start settings. The areas of professional development and classroom environment, resources, and personnel served as the most significant barriers to successful inclusion. The statistically significant difference in mean scores in the necessity dimension based on the participants’ level of education also supported this finding, which underscores that a lack of professional development for the instructional professionals can serve as an inclusion barrier. At the same time, the barrier in the category of classroom environment, resources, and personnel showed that these instructional professionals perceived additional structural support, such as material and personnel resources, was needed.

ICP

While the perspectives of the instructional professionals provide useful information and can strongly influence their practices, direct observation of their inclusion practices provided a more complete view of inclusion in these Head Start settings. The results from the analysis of the observational ratings tool, the ICP, indicated that the inclusive classroom quality at the classroom level varied significantly among different observation classrooms. In classrooms with low-quality inclusion based on the ICP composite score, the children did not have the individualized supports that they needed, and their full access and participation was not evident. While the children in these classrooms were physically a part of the classroom, inclusion in a more complete sense was not taking place and therefore the practices needed to promote positive outcomes for the children with disabilities were not evident. In classrooms with high-quality inclusion, the instructional professionals used specific and targeted instructional strategies, such as providing adaptations of instruction and materials to meet the individual needs of the children with disabilities. The scores on the individual items on the ICP suggested that additional support and training for meeting the needs of children with disabilities in small groups, in play situations, and to meet their social and emotional needs would be beneficial. Therefore, teacher knowledge, skills, and practices also emerged from the study as key to facilitating successful inclusion.

Limitations

Although the instrument developers established the reliability and validity of each of the standardized measures (SSPI and ICP) in inclusive early childhood settings, neither instrument had been specifically utilized within the Head Start program in any known studies. In addition, due to a lack of time and resources to achieve interrater reliability using the ICP instrument, the scores on the measure were based on the judgments of a single researcher. In terms of the research setting and study participants, the three Head Start sites were selected because they were already participating in the professional development research project with which the study was affiliated. It should also be noted that administrators at each Head Start site identified the classrooms where the observations took place. Furthermore, findings were based on a subsample from one region and would not be generalizable to regional or national samples. Time and resource limitations also reduced the number of classrooms where observations were conducted.

The results from this study suggest that inclusion in Head Start is complex and requires approaches to examine inclusion broadly. Therefore, additional research that examines a range of inclusion facilitators and barriers rather than a single aspect of inclusion in isolation seems warranted. The findings also suggest that the factors examined in this study could serve as a facilitator or barrier depending on how these factors interact in a particular classroom context.

Implications

Instructional professionals appear to be the key to successful inclusion in Head Start settings. The findings from this study align with Moen’s (2008) claim that the most crucial factor for inclusive education is the instructional professional. Although other inclusion facilitators that are less directly related to or controlled by the classroom teachers and assistant teachers had some influence on the inclusion perceptions and practices of the study participants, it was the instructional professional herself or himself at the center of successful inclusion in these Head Start settings. Additional essential inclusion facilitators must be made available to all Head Start instructional professionals to support their inclusion practices and equalize their perceived needs and supports. A key inclusion facilitator identified through this research that is most needed in these Head Start classrooms is professional development to increase the instructional professionals’ knowledge and skills related to specialized inclusion practices.

Many questions regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in Head Start settings persist, suggesting the need for additional research focused on instructional professionals’ perceptions of and practices for including young children with disabilities in their classrooms. Replicating this study in other types of Head Start programs (such as Early Head Start programs or migrant Head Start programs), Head Start programs in other geographic locations, or using a national sample of Head Start instructional professionals could provide a more comprehensive picture of inclusion across all Head Start programs. Comparisons between perceptions and practices in Head Start and other preschool programs serving a similar population of students, such as state-funded public prekindergarten programs could also shed additional light on the unique characteristics of inclusion in the Head Start program. Due to the fact that the categories of professional development, classroom environment, resources, and personnel, and teacher knowledge, skills, and practices appeared to represent the areas of greatest need for Head Start instructional professionals, an intervention study that provided targeted professional development to Head Start instructional professionals and examined its effectiveness would be a useful next step based on the study presented here. Children with disabilities can and must be successfully included in Head Start classrooms with high-quality early education experiences for all children.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Baker-Ericzén

Mueggenborg

M. G.

Shea

M. M.

(2009). Impact of trainings on child care providers’ attitudes and perceived competence toward inclusion. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 196–208. doi:10.1177/0271121408323273

Batu

E. S.

(2010). Factors for the success of early childhood inclusion & related studies in Turkey. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 2, 57–71.

Buysse

Wesley

P. W.

Keyes

(1998). Implementing early childhood inclusion: Barrier and support factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 169–184.

Conderman

Johnston-Rodriguez

(2009). Beginning teachers’ views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53, 235–244. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.4.235-244

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

DeVore

Russell

(2007). Early childhood education and care for children with disabilities: Facilitating inclusive practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 189–197. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0145-4

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: A tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Division for Early Childhood/National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: FPG Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina.

Gallagher

P. A.

Lambert

R. G.

(2006). Classroom quality, concentration of children with special needs, and child outcomes in Head Start. Exceptional Children, 73, 31–52.

10.

Guralnick

M. J.

(2001). A framework for change in early childhood inclusion. In Guralnick

M. J.

(Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 3–35). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

11.

Harvey

M. W.

Yssel

Bauserman

A. D.

Merbler

J. B.

(2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 24–33. doi:10.1177/0741932508324397

12.

Hestenes

L. L.

Cassidy

D. J.

Shim

Hegde

A. V.

(2008). Quality in inclusive preschool classrooms. Early Education and Development, 19, 519–540. doi:10.1080/10409280802230973

13.

Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act Amendments of 2007, PL 110–134, 121 Stat. 1363 (2007).

14.

Knoche

Peterson

C. A.

Edwards

C. P.

Jeon

H.-J.

(2006). Child care for children with and without disabilities: The provider, observer, and parent perspectives. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 93–109. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.01.001

15.

Kossewska

(2006). Looking for predictors of attitudes towards mainstreaming of exceptional children. Baltic Journal of Special Education, 14, 67–75.

16.

Kucuker

Acarlar

Kapci

E. G.

(2006). The development and psychometric evaluation of a support scale for pre-school inclusion. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 643–659. doi:10.1080/03004430500147524

17.

Leatherman

J. M.

Niemeyer

J. A.

(2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors influencing classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 23–36. doi:10.1080/10901020590918979

18.

Leyser

Kirk

(2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 271–285. doi:10.1080/1034912042000259233

19.

Macy

Bagnato

S. J.

(2010). Keeping it “R-E-A-L” with authentic assessment. National Head Start Association Dialog, 13(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/15240750903458105

20.

McCormick

Noonan

M. J.

Ogata

Heck

(2001). Co-teacher relationships and program quality: Implications for inclusive preschool settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 119–132.

21.

Moen

(2008). Inclusive educational practice: Results of an empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 59–75. doi:10.1080/00313830701786628

22.

Odom

S. L.

Vitztum

Wolery

Lieber

Sandall

Hanson

M. J.

. . . Horn

E. M.

(2004). Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of research from an ecological systems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 4, 17–49.doi:10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00016.x

23.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). Child count and environments 2007, other sata collections (non-child count) 2006-2007 [Data files]. Retrieved from https://www.ideadata.org/PartBData.asp

24.

Purcell

Horn

Palmer

(2007). A qualitative study of the initiation and continuation of preschool inclusion programs. Exceptional Children, 74, 85–99.

25.

Rafferty

Griffin

K. W.

(2005). Benefits and risks of reverse inclusion for preschoolers with and without disabilities: Perspectives of parents and providers. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 173–192. doi:10.1177/105381510502700305

26.

Rix

Hall

Nind

Sheehy

Wearmouth

(2009). What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms? A systematic literature review. Support for Learning, 24, 86–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01404.x

27.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.

28.

Soukakou

E. P.

(2007). Assessment of classroom quality in inclusive preschool settings: Development and validation of a new observation measure (Unpublished D. Phil Thesis). Department of Education, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

29.

Soukakou

E. P.

Sylva

(2010). Developing observation instruments and arriving at inter-rater reliability for a range of contexts and raters: The early childhood environment rating scales. In Walford

Tucker

Viswanathan

(Eds.), The sage handbook of measurement (pp. 61–86). London, England: SAGE.

30.

Tsao

L. L.

Odom

S. L.

Buysse

Skinner

West

Vitztum-Komanecki

(2008). Social participation of children with disabilities in inclusive preschool programs: Program typology and ecological features. Exceptionality, 16, 125–140. doi:10.1080/09362830802198203

31.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011a). Head Start Program Information Report for the 2010-11 (National Level Summary Report). Retrieved from https://hses.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/pir/reports

32.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011b). Head Start Program Information Report for the 2010-11 (Program Level Summary Report). Retrieved from https://hses.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/pir/reports

33.

Filler

(2008). Facilitating family involvement and support for inclusive education. The School Community Journal, 18, 53–71.