Position on Inclusion: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), every child who is eligible for special education services is entitled to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. The New Jersey Administrative Code [6A:14-4.3 (a)] states that “A full continuum of alternative placements shall be available to meet the needs of students with disabilities (3-21) for special education and related services.” This means that every child, regardless of disability, is entitled to an opportunity to be educated with children who are not disabled and to be provided with the supports and services necessary to implement the IEP to the maximum extent appropriate. [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.3 (c)3] “Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of a student with a disability from the student’s regular class occurs only when the nature or severity of the educational disability is such that education in the student’s regular class with the use of appropriate supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2 (a) 2]

So, when you sit down with the Child Study Team to discuss your child’s educational needs, you should begin by discussing what services your child needs, and then where those services would best be provided, looking at a continuum of options from least restrictive to more restrictive, depending on your child’s needs.

If your child is eligible for preschool special education and you and the district agree that a typical early childhood program is the most appropriate placement for your child to receive his special education services, the district is responsible for paying the tuition for the time that special services are being provided. This means that if your child is receiving the minimum 10 hours of preschool special education required by New Jersey State law [N.J.A.C. 6A 14-4.1 (d)], the district is responsible for paying for 10 hours of tuition. For example, if your child attends a program for 40 hours per week and receives 10 hours of special education services at the program, the district is responsible for paying 25% of your tuition. The district is also responsible for paying for any special education services that are written in your child’s IEP such as supplementary supports and services, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and/or a special educator.

Remember that when a child with a disability is served in a typical early childhood program, it is optimum for the child care provider to be a partner in the IEP implementation. Research has shown that most intervention occurs in between therapy sessions. While it is ultimately the district’s responsibility to ensure that the IEP is being properly implemented, collaboration is essential.

If you and the Child Study Team agree that your child needs a shadow/aide in order to implement his/her IEP in a typical early childhood setting, these supplementary aids and services must be written into the IEP. [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.3(a)1] The district is responsible for anything written into the IEP. Remember that inclusion is most successful when the proper supports are provided. These supports may include in-service training and ongoing collaboration between child study team members/related service providers and child care staff. These supports should be written into the IEP.

The questions you need to ask are:

• What goals and objectives in her IEP reflect her need for socialization with typical peers?

• Does she have an opportunity to interact with non-disabled peers over the course of her day in the preschool disabilities program in order to achieve these goals?

If the answer to the second question is that she does not have an opportunity to interact with non-disabled peers, then this would be an area for discussion with the Child Study Team. You might suggest that these goals be addressed at the typical program she attends in the afternoon for an agreed upon amount of time each week in order to achieve her IEP goals.

Once again, if you and the child study team agree with this arrangement, it would be beneficial to include a component in the IEP that addresses collaboration between child study team members and the typical child care staff so that the social-emotional goals can be adequately addressed in the typical setting.

Yes. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [Sect. 300.505 (d)], a parent may accept a portion of the IEP while rejecting other parts. It is suggested that you specify your acceptance of “related services only” on the signature page of the IEP.

N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2 (a) states: “Students with disabilities shall be educated in the least restrictive environment. Each district board of education shall ensure that: 1. To the maximum extent appropriate, a student with a disability is educated with children who are not disabled.” This means that it is the district’s responsibility to find a program in the least restrictive environment.

However, you can be a partner in this process. If your child is already attending a typical early childhood program that you feel is successfully including your child, you can suggest that the district visit the program and make it part of the evaluation. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4 3(d) (2) i & ii states: “Each evaluation of the student shall include functional assessment of academic performance, and where appropriate, behavior. Each of the following components shall be completed by at least one evaluator: i. A minimum of one structured observation by one evaluator in other than a testing session; (1) In the case of a student who is suspected of having a specific learning disability, one evaluator shall observe the student’s academic performance in the regular classroom.”

If the district is in agreement that this would be an appropriate placement for your child, the district could establish a relationship with that program. However, the district is not obligated to select the center you have chosen as long as they can provide an acceptable alternative. If the center you have selected is outside your home district, it is the district’s choice whether or not to use it.

There are districts in New Jersey that have relationships with early childhood programs outside their district, but it is up to each district to make that decision. However, if the district is unable to find an adequate program within their district, they may need to look outside their district for an appropriate inclusive placement.

Remember that regardless of whether your child receives special education services in a typical setting, child care providers are required by law (ADA) to make reasonable accommodations to include children with disabilities in their programs unless doing so would:

• pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others,

• result in an undue burden, or

• fundamentally alter their program

If your child is receiving his special education services at this center, your district is responsible for providing any supplemental aids and services necessary to successfully include your child in the program during the time the IEP is being implemented.

If the child care provider is incurring additional costs in order to accommodate your child beyond the minimum 10 hours of special education, they may not charge you additional fees. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a child care provider must spread any additional costs incurred across the entire parent body. This means that, for example, if it costs the center $100 more per week to include your child and there are 100 children in the center, every parent should be asked to pay $1 more per week.

It is the child care provider’s responsibility, according to the ADA, to make reasonable accommodations that won’t cause an undue burden to them. While the ADA is vague in its definition of ‘undue burden,’ the U.S. Department of Justice would look at the overall resources of the organization in determining what is an ‘undue burden.’ This means that while a family child care provider would probably not be expected to make costly accommodations such as installing an elevator, a university affiliated center, national child care chain or YMCA may be required to do so, depending upon their resources. The Justice Department looks at the resources of the umbrella organization in making their determination.

Furthermore, according to the ADA, even if a child care provider does not currently serve children with disabilities, they should be in the process of preparing their facilities for children with disabilities by removing any existing barriers that are easily removed, such as installing offset hinges to doors or grab bars in bathrooms.

The need for toileting is not a valid reason for rejecting children with disabilities, even if the provider has a general rule about excluding children over a certain age unless they are toilet trained. Under state regulations, the child care provider must have an approved toileting area if toileting services are provided for any child, regardless of age.

This means that children with special needs would have typical role models for all areas of development. But more importantly, they would be part of their communities from an early age.

Research has shown that children who are properly supported in typical early childhood settings develop socially, behaviorally and developmentally as well, if not better than, their counterparts in segregated settings. Research has also shown that the more children spend time being educated in segregated settings, the greater the likelihood that they will be in segregated settings throughout their lives into adulthood.

Inclusion of preschool-age children with disabilities in classroom settings with typically developing peers is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although written about since the early 1970s (Allen, Benning, & Drummond, 1972; Bricker & Bricker, 1971), it only emerged as a major service alternative for children and families in the 1990s. Inclusion has now, however, become a mainstay in the field of early childhood special education. By recent counts, over 50% of all preschool children with disabilities who are receiving services are in some form of inclusive setting (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). This movement from traditional special education programs, which were originally built on a downward extension of special education designed for school-age children to preschool-age children, to programs in which children with disabilities are surrounded by typically developing peers, is continuing to move forward. Many policy makers and administrators in school systems now identify inclusion as the first service alternative for young children with disabilities, rather than a service provided because of parental advocacy.

In a recent exhaustive, and exhausting, review of the literature, my colleagues and I (Odom, Wolery, et al., 1999) used an ecological systems framework to organize and summarize the literature on preschool inclusion. From that review, to which the reader is referred for an in-depth description of research findings, we identified a number of results that appear to be strongly supported by the literature. These statements, reflecting what we know about preschool inclusion, are summarized below.

Positive outcomes are reported for children with disabilities and typically developing children in inclusive settings. Other reviews of the literature have concluded that on standardized developmental measures, children with disabilities perform as well in inclusive settings as in traditional special education settings (Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Lamorey & Bricker, 1993; Odom & Diamond, 1998). In addition, some individual studies suggest better performance in inclusive settings (Hundert, Mahoney, Mundy, & Vernon, 1998; Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989). When using observational measures, researchers have found that the behavior of children with disabilities appears to be positively affected by participation in activities and classrooms with typically developing children (Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman, & Kinnish, 1996; Hanline, 1993; Hauser-Cram, Bronson, & Upshur, 1993; Levine & Antia, 1997). In addition, participating in inclusive settings appears to positively affect the attitudes that typically developing children have toward children with disabilities (Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992), as well as increase their knowledge of certain types of disability conditions (Diamond & Hestenes, 1994, 1996).

Children with disabilities engage in social interaction with peers less often than typically developing children in inclusive classrooms. This is the most replicated finding in the preschool inclusion literature (e.g., Guralnick, 1980; Guralnick et al., 1996; Kopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992). Moreover, as a group, children with disabilities are at relatively higher risk for peer rejection than typically developing children (Odom, Zercher, Li, Marquart, & Sandall, 1998), which I will discuss in more detail in a subsequent section. Although a range of social skills interventions have been developed (Odom, McConnell, et al., 1999), Strain and Hoyson (in press) have aptly noted that their effectiveness is dependent on the complimentary effects of a comprehensive and ongoing early intervention program. Moreover, Gurlanick (1999) has recommended that effective interventions must also involve the parents. Since social integration, social competence, and social relationships have been identified as outcomes that we hope to promote for children with disabilities, it is important to identify how we will assess progress made by individual children, as well as the more general effects of inclusive programs. This is an ongoing issue to which I will return.

School systems are more likely to place children with mild disabilities in inclusive settings than children with severe disabilities. This may be due, in part, to how comfortable teachers feel having children with severe disabilities in their classes (Eiserman, Shisler, & Healey, 1995; Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzlik, 1994). However, there may be good reasons for including children with severe disabilities in general preschool settings. Hundert and colleagues (1998) found that children with severe disabilities who participate in inclusive settings appear to score higher on standardized measures of development than comparable children enrolled in traditional special education settings.

Inclusion means different things to different people. Programs identified as inclusive appear to vary on several different dimensions. In our study of inclusive preschool programs, we found programs varying on the two dimensions of organizational context and individualized service delivery model (Odom, Horn, et al., 1999). Organizational contexts included community-based childcare and preschool classes, Head Start classes, and public school classes. Individualized services were provided to children through either direct or collaborative itinerant teaching, team teaching (an “early childhood” approach), or a special education approach. McWilliam (1995) has also noted similar variations in providing therapy services in inclusive contexts.

The quality of the early childhood environments in inclusive settings appears to be, at least, comparable to quality in traditional special education classes and community-based early childhood programs servings only typically developing children. When general early childhood quality indicators, such as the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1980), are used to assess quality, inclusive preschool programs receive comparable or higher mean ratings in comparison to traditional special education programs (LaParo, Sexton, & Snyder, 1998) or regular early childhood education programs (Buysse, Wesley, Bryant, & Gardner, 1999). However, the quality of childcare environments in general appears to be mediocre, and concerns about quality in inclusive environments exist (Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse, & Wesley, 1998). This is an ongoing issue to which I will return in a subsequent section.

Individualized instructional techniques and curricula have been employed in inclusive settings and have produced positive behavioral and developmental outcomes. In a synthesis of our research findings, my colleagues in the Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion (1998) and I have proposed that specialized instruction is a necessary aspect of successful inclusive preschool programs. Such instruction may be naturalistic in nature (Rule, Losardo, Dinnebeil, Kaiser, & Rowland, 1998) in that it might blend with the activities and routines occurring in the classroom, although more specialized activities may be necessary at times (e.g., Frea, Craig, Odom, & Johnson, 1999). However, progress is still needed to refine techniques used in classroom settings, and I will return to this theme later.

Teachers generally have positive attitudes about including children with disabilities in their classes, but concerns also exist. When asked, early childhood teachers say that children with disabilities should be served in inclusive settings (Eiserman et al., 1995), and they are confident about providing childcare (Dinnebeil, McInerney, Fox, & Juchartz-Pendry, 1998). However, teachers are also concerned with their lack of knowledge about children with disabilities (Dinnebeil et al., 1998) and, as mentioned previously, are particularly concerned about enrolling children with severe disabilities.

Family members generally express favorable attitudes toward the inclusion of their children in inclusive programs, and positive attitudes increase over time. Parents identify benefits to their children, such as increased acceptance (Bailey & Winton, 1987), opportunities to learn (Guralnick, 1994), and availability of good developmental models (Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997). However, they also express some concerns about inclusion, such as obtaining special services for their children (Peck, Hayden, Wandschneider, Peterson, & Richarz, 1989), as well as large class size (Wesley, Buysse, & Tyndall, 1997), and staff preparation (Green & Stoneman, 1989). In general, the positive appraisals of parents appear to over-shadow the negative appraisals. The information about parents’ concerns should alert professionals to issues that parents may feel are important for their children in inclusive settings.

Children with disabilities engage in a range of community activities outside the preschool classroom, although they may do so less frequently than typically developing children. Although my work has focused on classroom inclusion, my colleagues and I have emphasized that Inclusion, with a capital “I,” goes far beyond the classroom. In fact, a goal of inclusion in educational settings should be that young children with disabilities are prepared for participation in life in the community. Yet, for preschool children, Ehrmann, Aeschleman, & Svanum (1995) found that children with disabilities participate less frequently in community activities than typically developing children. Still, other researchers have found that young children with disabilities do participate in some community activities with their parents (Beckman et al., 1998; Guralnick, 1994) and that such increases community participation may be an important outcome of early intervention programs (Bruder & Staff, 1998). Currently, the important work of Dunst and his colleagues (1999) is uncovering the many learning opportunities that exist in natural environments in which children participate outside of the classroom.

A range of social policy factors (e.g., program standards, fiscal issues) affect the implementation of inclusive programs, and the interpretation of policy by key administrators appears to have the most substantial impact. In our work (Janko & Porter, 1997), as well as the work of others (Smith & Rose, 1993), It is clear that policy drives practice, and, more specifically, the interpretation of policy by key administrators has a major effect (Kohanek & Buka, 1999). Major policy barriers to inclusion appear to be related to program standards, financial issues, and personnel and staffing issues (Odom & Diamond, 1998). Although we know much about preschool inclusion, our understanding of policy, particularly fiscal issues, will continue to unfold, which his another point to which I will return.

Cultural and linguistic characteristics of community and family shape the form that inclusion takes in the classroom and access that children have to inclusive programs. Although research has been surprisingly sparse in this area, there is evidence that cultural issues affect families’ perspectives on disability as well as teachers’ practices and philosophies (Hanson et al., 1998). In addition, language difference between the home and school affect the amount and type of communication between teachers and families, the development of the Individualized Education Program (IEP), and children’s friendships and social relationships (Hanson, Guitierrez, Morgan, Brennan, & Zercher, 1997). Given the increased cultural and linguistic diversity and respect of diversity in U.S. society, one would expect this area of research to increase in the future.

For years, there has been disgruntlement and outright bickering about what is meant by the term inclusion. Nearly 20 years ago, we attempted to base definitions of mainstreaming and integrated special education classes on the ratio of children with and without disabilities in the class (Odom & Speltz, 1983). Others have made similar, but equally unsuccessful, attempts to bring clarity to this definition (Filler, 1996; Guralnick, 1982). Some individuals define inclusion as occurring only when children are 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 observed excellent inclusive programs, such as team teaching Head Start/Public School blended classes, in which a third of the children have disabilities.

Many professionals agree that an important dimension of inclusion is that children with disabilities attend the same class as typically developing children (i.e., attending the same hours in the same classroom) rather than being in different classes and just sharing joint activities for a portion of the day. Others may agree that there needs to be a “critical mass” of typically developing children (perhaps at least an equal number of children with and without disabilities) in order to make the classroom something different from a traditional special education classroom. By critical mass, I mean children with disabilities have opportunities to participate in activities and routines with children who are typically developing.

If we expect that children with disabilities will learn from, interact with, and form relationships with typically developing children, then the children with disabilities need to be around typically developing peers for a substantial part of their day. Our observations of inclusive preschool programs suggest young children with disabilities are in inclusive settings that meet the criteria of physical membership and critical mass (Brown, Odom, Li, & Zercher, 1999). When programs meet these two broad criteria, it seems that providers might then shape their programs in ways that fit their specific organization, location, circumstance, and most importantly, the child and family. In this way, program providers define inclusion by their actions. It should be noted that these two parameters, however, are setting features. To provide a successful program for individual children, program providers will also have to attend to the quality of the setting, as well as monitor outcomes that occur for children.

The quality of preschool inclusion has (at least) two dimensions. The first is the quality of the early childhood setting, from a general early childhood perspective. Research conducted on the quality of the early childhood environments that serve as inclusive settings for children with disabilities was described previously. The general conclusion that inclusive programs are of the same or higher quality will not and should not allay the concerns that parents may have about their child being placed in a setting that is good for all children. Ongoing examination of quality in early childhood centers is an essential responsibility of program staff and parents.

There is a second dimension to the quality of preschool inclusion that related to the nature of the program for individual children with disabilities. Carta, Sainato, and Greenwood (1988) have wisely reminded us that individual children can have vastly different experiences in the same classroom. Following from our special education philosophy of individualizing learning experiences for children with disabilities, the setting itself has to be individually appropriate for the child with disabilities. Such appropriateness might be assessed through a child’s engagement in the classroom activities and routines, but there are also broader classroom and program characteristics that reflect the inclusive quality of the program. For example, program philosophy, administrative support, resources (i.e., training), collaboration among professionals, opportunities for family choice, and interactions that teachers have with the child with disabilities all may reflect the extent to which inclusion is occurring and is supported in the preschool program. Having an agreed upon measure of the quality of inclusion would certainly be a valuable contribution to the field, and the development of such a measure would be an important direction for future research.

In special education, an assumption made about and for some children with disabilities is that some form of instruction must occur for a certain period of time and at a level intense enough to support learning. My colleagues and I agree that specialized instruction is a necessary part of preschool inclusion (Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, 1998); however, a question remains about the form of instruction that needs to be provided and the meaning of intensity.

As noted in a previous section, naturalistic instruction is a generic term for such specific interventions as activity-based intervention (Losardo & Bricker, 1994), incidental teaching (Hart & Risley, 1968), mand-model procedures (Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980), milieu teaching (Kaiser, 1993), natural language learning training (Koegel, 1987), and time-delay prompting (Halle, Marshall, & Spradlin, 1979). These strategies differ from traditional teacher-led instructional practices in that the teacher embeds the learning opportunity in the ongoing classroom activities, builds on child interest, and provides necessary support for child successes. Naturalistic teaching strategies are valuable tools in inclusive settings because they do not require a teacher to step out of his or her role as leader in the classroom to lead a separate individual or small group activity. Although many naturalistic intervention approaches have roots in behaviorism, they are compatible with a constructivist philosophy in which children learn by following their interests (guided by adult’s plans for the classroom setting). The down-side of this appealing methodology, however, is the complex planning and implementation process required for effective use by teachers in classroom settings (Halle, 1998; Warren, 1998). Nevertheless, because of their value in applied settings, I expect that naturalistic procedures will continue to evolve (e.g., Lieber, Schwartz, Sandall, Horn, & Wolery, 1999), and with that evolution will come greater effectiveness and feasibility.

If such evolution occurs, the metric for intensity of instruction will change. That is, time spent in teacher-led groups or even discrete trial activities may no longer epitomize the most intense form of instruction, although it still could be the teaching strategy of choice for certain specific skills. Rather, another measure of intensity of instruction might be the degree to which children are actively engaged in meaningful learning activities in the classroom, as suggested originally by McWilliam, Trivette, and Dunst (1985). Such a form of learning by participating 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 situated learning theory to classroom instruction has been most visible in the discipline of math education (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). Its promise for guiding instruction and learning in inclusive preschool classrooms is immense, and I expect that such applications will occur in the future.

Parents, policymakers, administrators, and teachers all want to identify important outcomes that accrue for children with disabilities in inclusive settings. As noted previously, outcome-oriented reviews of the literature have focused on children’s performance on standardized developmental measures (e.g., Buysse & Bailey, 1993). In looking forward to important new directions for preschool inclusion, my colleagues and I have recommended that we expand our assessment of outcomes for children (McWilliam, Wolery, & Odom, in press).

The work of Schwartz, Peck, and colleagues (Billingsley, Gallucci, Peck, Schwartz, & Staub, 1996; Schwartz, Staub, Gallucci, & Peck, 1995) provides guidance for such expansion. Following an inductive, empirical approach, they observed school-age children with severe disabilities included in general education settings. Across a 3-year program of research with 35 children, they found, as have others, that one important outcome is the skills that children acquire in inclusive settings. However, two other important groups of outcomes also were identified: membership (e.g., children’s participation as a full member of the class) and relationships (e.g., as reflected by children’s interaction with peers and adults). An assessment approach that looks more broadly at meaningful and important effects for children, such as the one proposed by Schwartz et al., will certainly guide us toward productively planning programs for young children and families in the future. The challenge will be to select specific assessment measures that generate accurate and reliable information on these child outcomes.

Another consideration is the interesting relationship between outcomes and program goals. That is, one can work backward from outcomes found by programs to infer goals that are implicit (or perhaps explicit) in inclusive programs. An assessment of skills as a valued outcome for children suggests that goals for children are educational- or skills-oriented in nature. Certainly, Bricker (1978, 1995) has noted the importance of children’s learning as an objective for inclusive programs. The broadened assessment of child outcomes suggests other legitimate and appropriate goals exist for children in inclusive preschool settings. The assessment of children’s relationships suggests a goal for children in inclusive preschool classrooms is the development of relationships with peers. Both Guralnick (1990) and Strain (1990) have proposed that the formation of social relationships with peers is an important goal for children with disabilities. Assessing membership as an outcome suggests that becoming a fully vested member of the class is an important goal for inclusion. Understanding the multiple goals for children with disabilities in inclusive preschool programs is an important first step in designing instructional strategies that lead to meaningful child outcome.

If children with disabilities are to reap the benefits of participation in classes with typically developing children, they must be socially integrated into the inclusive program. As Guralnick (1999) has noted, there is not yet a well-established criterion for determining the degree to which children are successfully social integrated In addressing this issue for children with mild disabilities, he proposes that “social integration is achieved when typically developing children are connected to and maintain the same quality of interpersonal relationships with children with mild developmental delays as they do with children without delays” (p. 72). He further states, “Whether indexed by social exchanges, prosocial behaviors, friendships or assessed via observational or peer sociometric measures, diverse groups of preschool-aged children with disabilities are less preferred playmates by typically developing children than are other typically developing children” (p. 72). As noted previously, other authors have found similar interaction patterns, and a conclusion one might draw from this body of data is that most children with disabilities fail to meet the social integration criterion.

The criterion proposed by Guralnick suggests that children with disabilities should achieve a level of social performance comparable to other children without disabilities in the classroom. This normative standard certainly is a worthwhile goal toward which programs should strive; however, from an inclusion and interventionist perspective, standards of success need to be individually determined. When a child enrolls in an inclusive program, the teacher—and possibly other team members—should determine the child’s level of social competence and integration. From that information, they would establish realistic goals for the child and plan learning opportunities that lead to a greater degree of social integration or advanced social competence. Successful social integration would be evaluated by progress that the child makes on individual goals. For some children with disabilities, the normative standard may be a realistic goal. For other children, simply responding to peer overtures or actively participating in dramatic play activities with peers may be a more realistic goal. Reaching those goals would be the standard for success for those children.

At a program level, one might choose such global criteria as the social acceptance or social rejection of individual children with disabilities as the standard for judging social integration. That is, at a minimum, we would want to ensure that children with disabilities are not socially rejected. A positive program outcome could be that children with disabilities are socially accepted by peers. Social acceptance is often measured by peer ratings given by all the children in the class (Asher, Singleton, Tinsely, & Hymel, 1979) and could be confirmed by classroom observations of children’s interactions with peers as well as parent and teacher reports of friendships. Conversely, social rejection could be measured by very low ranking on mean peer rating scores, again confirmed by observations and teacher and parent reports of lack of friendships. In an analysis using such a multimethod assessment, we (Odom, Zercher, Li, Marquart, & Sandall, 1998) found that about one third of our sample of 80 children with disabilities enrolled in inclusive preschool settings were well accepted, one third of the sample was social rejected, and one third fell in the middle between acceptance and rejection. Using the social acceptance and rejection criteria, these data suggest, in agreement with Guralnick (1999), that children with disabilities in inclusive settings are at high risk for social rejection, but there also appears to be a substantial minority that are well accepted.

Although many policy barriers exist for preschool inclusion (Smith & Rose, 1993), two of the barriers mentioned very frequently by policymakers and administrators are related to the actual cost of inclusion and the process of using available funds to support inclusive services. A common perception among some administrators is that inclusive programs cost more than traditional special education programs; however, there is virtually no published data to confirm or discount this suspicion. As a result, policymakers must base decisions about programs on general impressions and their best guesses about cost. In a study now being prepared for publication, we (Odom, Hanson, Lieber, Marquart, Sandall, & Wolery, 1999) compared the costs of services for matched groups of children with disabilities enrolled in inclusive and traditional special education programs operating in five states. Although there were variations in costs across states, in four of the five states, the inclusive preschool programs cost less per child than the traditional special education programs. Variation in costs were associated with the types of services provided and expenses assumed by the school district (e.g., Did they pay tuition to the childcare center?). We anticipate that this initial study will be extended in the future by more detailed analyses of specific costs for different types of services, as well as the association of costs to quality of preschool programs and child outcomes. However, from our data, it does not appear that inclusive programs are more expensive than traditional special education programs and they may in fact be less expensive.

A second set of barriers related to funding are the policies that govern how money is spent. In some states, public schools are allowed to pay the tuition of children with disabilities enrolled in community-based programs for an “educationally relevant” portion of the day, although in other states such use of funds is not allowed. Similarly, some programs will not allow special education teachers to work in settings in which typically developing children are enrolled because the teachers’ salaries are paid with special education funding. These and other funding issues rapidly put the brakes on any attempt to establish inclusive preschools for young children. Yet, programs sometimes overcome such funding barriers. The key facilitators appear to be the flexibility with which administrators manage budgets, use funds from different sources, and interpret policy (Janko & Porter, 1997). The fiscal challenge to inclusion is a substantial one that will go away soon. In the future, we expect that a range of options will continue to unfold as creative administrators committed to preschool inclusion innovatively shape policy to support children’s programs.

For young children with disabilities and their families, a resounding theme for the 21st century is that “programs, not children, have to be ‘ready for inclusion’” (Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, 1998). Thirty years of research and practice have produces a knowledge base that informs policy and practice. Admittedly, in this field programmatic decisions are based upon the needs of individual children and the concerns and priorities of parents. So, in some context and for some children, inclusive programs may not be the answer. However, now more than anytime in the past, we have a greater awareness of the types of support professionals can provide to create productive learning environments for children with and without disabilities in inclusive settings. With political will, local leadership, willing parents, and committed teachers, most young children with disabilities can benefit from inclusive preschool settings.

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

Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 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 education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27-48.

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

Beckman, P., Barnwell, D., Horn, E., Hanson, M., Gutierrez, S., & Lieber, J. (1998). Communities, families, and inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 125-150.

Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 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 conceptualization of outcomes for inclusive education. Special Education Leadership Review, 13, 43-55.

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

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

Bricker, D., & Bricker, W. (1971). Toddler Research and Intervention Project Report—Year I. IMRID Behavioral Science Monograph No. 20, Nashville, TN: Institute on Mental Retardation and Intellectual Development.

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

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

Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings: A review of comparative studies. Journal of Special Education, 26, 434-461.

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

Carta, J. J., Saintano, D. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (1998). Advances in ecological assessment of classroom instruction for young children with handicaps. In S. Odom, & M. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention 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 understanding of disability: Experiences leading to elaboration of the concept of hearing loss. Early Education and Development, 5, 30-309.

Diamond, K., & Hestenes, L. (1994). Preschool children’s conceptions of disabilities: The salience of disability in children’s ideas about others. 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 childcare personnel regarding inclusion of young children with special needs in community-based programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 188-128.

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. Manuscript submitted 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 children with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16, 331-343.

Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Healey, S. (1995). A community assessment of preschool providers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Journal of Early 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 effects of structured social integration and group friendship activities for promoting social interaction with peers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 230-242.

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

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

Gurlanick, M. J. (1980). Social interaction among preschool handicapped 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 and drawbacks of early childhood mainstreaming. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 168-183.

Guralnick, M. J. (1999). The nature and meaning of social integration for young children with mild developmental delays in inclusive settings. 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 on the 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 to practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 294-296.

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

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

Hanson, M. J., Gutierrez, S., Morgan, M., Brennan, E. L., Zercher, C. (1997). Language, culture, and disability: Interacting influences on preschool 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 Research Quarterly, 13, 185-210.

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

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1968). Establishing use of descriptive adjectives in 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 effects of the classroom environment on the social and mastery behavior of preschool children with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 479-497.

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

Janko, S., & Porter, A. (1997). Portraits of inclusion through the eyes of 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 integration and structured play on the development of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 55, 420-428.

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

Koegel, R. (1987). A natural language teaching paradigm for nonverbal autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 17, 189-200.

Kohanek, T., & Buka, S. L. (1999). Influential factors in inclusive versus 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 and their correlates: Preschoolers with developmental delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 357-367.

Lamorey, S., & Bricker, D. D. (1993). Integrated programs: Effects on young 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 characteristics in segregated and inclusive early childhood settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 151-168.

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

Levine, L. M., & Antia, S. D. (1997). The effects of partner hearing status 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. In C. Seefeldt (Ed.), The early childhood curriculum: A review of the research (pp. 243-264). New York: Teachers College Press.

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

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

McWilliam, R. A., Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (1985). Behavior engagement 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 children with 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. Unpublished Manuscript.

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 service 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 supporting the social competence of young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 75-91.

Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1983). Program variations in preschools for 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: A review from an ecological systems perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication.

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

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

Peck, C. A., Hayden, L., Wandschneider, M., Peterson, K., & Richarz, S. (1989). Development of integrated preschools: A qualitative inquiry into sources of resistance among parents, administrators and teachers. 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 Modification, 4, 361-382.

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Education (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washignton, 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 professional perspectives on early intervention: An exploration using focus groups. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 435-456.

Adopted: April 1993
Revised: December 1993

Inclusion, as a value, supports the right of all children, regardless of their diverse abilities, to participate actively in natural settings within their communities. A natural setting is one in which the child would spend time had he or she not had a disability. Such settings include but are not limited to home and family, play groups, child care, nursery schools, Head Start programs, kindergartens, and neighborhood school classrooms.

DEC believes in and supports full and successful access to health, social service, education, and other supports and services for young children and their families that promote full participation in community life. DEC values the diversity of families and supports a family guided process for determining services that are based on the needs and preferences of individual families and children.

To implement inclusive practices DEC supports (a) the continued development, evaluation, and dissemination of full inclusion supports, services, and systems so that options for inclusion are of high quality; (b) the development of pre-service and in-service training programs that prepare families, administrators, and service providers to develop and work within inclusive settings; (c) collaboration among all key stakeholders to implement flexible fiscal and administrative procedures in support of inclusion; (d) research that contributes to our knowledge of state of the art services; and (e) the restructuring and unification of social, education, health, and intervention supports and services to make them more responsive to the needs of all children and families.

1920 Association Drive 1444 Wazee Street, Suite 230
Reston, VA 22091-1589 Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (800) 845-6CEC Phone: 303-620-4579
Voice/TTY: (703) 620-3660
Fax: (703) 264-949

Children with disabilities are, first and foremost, children, and then children who may need support or adaptations for learning. The term “special needs” refers to a wide range of developmental disabilities or learning needs that may occur in different areas and to varying degrees. Traditionally, children with special needs were pulled out of regular classrooms and grouped together as if all their needs were alike. Relatively few children with disabilities were served in community-based early childhood programs apart from Head Start or public school programs.

In 1992, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) established equal rights for people with disabilities in employment, state and local public services, and public accommodations including preschools, child care centers, and family child care homes. The ADA has helped more and more educators recognize that developmentally appropriate classrooms are places where all children can and should learn together.

Early childhood teachers’ strong knowledge of child development helps them to successfully teach young children with all talents, interests and abilities. In effective inclusion programs, teachers adapt activities to include all students, even though their individual goals may be different. At times, early childhood professionals and children may benefit from the assistance of related professionals such as physical therapists and other school personnel who recognize children’s individual interests and strengths.

Some raise concerns about the advisability of creating inclusive environments: Will inclusive classrooms hinder the academic success of children without special needs? How will an inclusive environment meet the needs of children with disabilities? Will children without special needs lose out on teacher time? How can early childhood professionals access resources, support and training? While these questions are valid, parents and teachers will find that creative modifications help all children’s learning. According to the director of one NAEYC-accredited center, “Inclusion has helped us better focus on meeting the needs of every child in our program.”

Research shows that the benefits of inclusive classrooms reach beyond academics. This is particularly important for young children, who learn best when they feel safe, secure and at home in their classrooms. An environment that encourages young children’s social and emotional development will stimulate all aspects of their learning.

Children in inclusive classrooms

• demonstrate increased acceptance and appreciation of diversity;

• develop better communication and social skills;

• show greater development in moral and ethical principles;

• create warm and caring friendships; and

• demonstrate increased self-esteem.

Early childhood professionals who have successfully included young children with special needs note that, contrary to some expectations, they needed few adaptations to meet the needs of all children. They report not necessarily needing more staff, money or expertise, but rather support from peers and specialists, willingness to adapt to new environments, and positive relationships with families.

Professional development programs, supplemental support staff, and team-work by parents and school personnel will help achieve inclusion’s ultimate goal: to provide a challenging and supportive educational experience for all children.

© 1996 by National Association for the Education of Young Children. Reproduction of this material is freely granted, providing credit is given to the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Beginning July 1, 1998, the New Jersey Early Intervention System requires that early intervention services to children and families be delivered in natural environments. Each family is a part of a team that works together to develop an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). The IFSP team identifies the things the family would like to see happen for themselves and their child. These are called outcomes. The team must then work together to identify the natural environments and routines of the family to meet these outcomes. This will allow the team to plan how early intervention services can best support the family in reaching their goals.

Providing services in natural environments is not just the law. More importantly, it reflects the core mission of early intervention, which is to provide support to families to help their children develop to their fullest potential. We have learned many important things about how babies and families can benefit the most from early intervention. This is consistent with a focus on natural environments.

We have learned that:

The requirement that services be delivered in natural environments does not mean that early intervention programs cannot help parents meet other parents who have children with similar delays or disabilities. Parent support and training can—and should—continue to be provided with parents want it. Support services may take place at an early intervention facility, on the telephone, in a library, in a parent’s home, over the Internet, etc. Early intervention providers should also help parents identify sources of support in their neighborhood or community. These supports will remain with a family long after early intervention ends when the child turns 3.

If the outcomes stated on a child’s IFSP cannot be met appropriately in a natural environment, the law allows that the service can be provided in a specialized setting. The IFSP must contain a statement explaining whey the outcome cannot be met in a natural environment. The IFSP team must also plan how the child will be helped to transfer these skills to their every day routines and how the outcome can eventually be met in a more natural environment.

For further information about natural environments, please contact your service coordinator or early intervention provider. Further assistance is available from your Regional Early Intervention Collaborative (REIC), Family Outreach Coordinator or the REIC’s Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator.

Department of Education
PO Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

To: Chief School Administrator
Director of Special Education
Director of Early Childhood Education

From: Barbara Anderson, Assistant Commissioner
Division of Student Services
Margretta Reid Fairweather, Assistant Commissioner
Division of Early Childhood Education

Subject: Access to District Administered Early Childhood Programs for Children with Disabilities

This memo is to insure that districts are including preschool pupils with disabilities in general education early childhood programs when appropriate. Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and New Jersey Administrative Code 6A:14 specify the requirements local school districts must follow in providing special education and related services to students with disabilities. Districts must provide a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), to meet the needs of a child with a disability through an individualized education program (IEP).

Special education regulations require that to the maximum extent appropriate students with disabilities, including those who are preschool aged, must be educated with children who are not disabled. IEP teams must first consider district general education early childhood programs when making placement decisions for any preschool student with an IEP. Early Childhood Program Aid districts must ensure that preschool special education students with disabilities are included in these programs when appropriate.

To assure equal access to children with disabilities, districts operating general education preschool programs and districts planning to implement preschool programs should consider the following issues: recruitment of children for district early childhood programs, information to families and operational design of programs.

District information to the community to educate families about the availability of early childhood programs must include a statement clearly communicating that access to these programs is available to children with disabilities.

Placement of a student with a disability is determined at least annually. For children who are presently in classes for the preschool disabled, the IEP team will consider the early childhood general education program with appropriate supplementary aids and services as a placement option at the annual review meeting.

For children who are entering the system through the identification process, the IEP team will consider the district’s early childhood programs as the general education program. Decisions for placement will be determined through the IEP process.

N.J.A.C. 6A:14 4-4.1 (c) requires that the length of the school day and the academic year of programs for students with disabilities, including preschoolers, be at least as long as that established for nondisabled students. Districts operating both general and special education programs must ensure that the length of the school day and the academic year of preschool special education classes are at least as long as those classes for preschool nondisabled students.

For additional information, contact Barbara Tkach, Preschool/Special Education Coordinator (609) 984-4950.

BA/MRF/BG/btk