Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis

*Joyce Mathwasa and Lwazi Sibanda*

## **Abstract**

Inclusive education within the Early Childhood Development settings has been identified as the most equitable practice for children with disabilities and is based on acknowledging it as a fundamental human right and a foundation for life-long learning for all children. Based on the concept of human rights, inclusion has been viewed as an ambiguous and imaginable consequence of excessive promise, which does not refer to early childhood; hence, practitioners have challenges in its applicability. This chapter aims to unravel the mysteries behind inclusion in early childhood, exploring the realities of what works and what does not work to inform policy making mechanism. Literature from renowned published work that focuses extensively on various countries across continents is reviewed. Local recently published and unpublished studies that scrutinise the association between practitioner qualification and quality of the ECD centres; those that have explored the success and challenges of inclusion in ECD will be examined. It is envisaged that this chapter would come up with best practices in the implementation and assessment of inclusive education in the ECD settings that will benefit children with disabilities, their parents or caregivers, and stakeholders.

**Keywords:** differentiated learning, emotional disturbances, inclusive education impairment, vulnerability

## **1. Introduction**

Globally, governments who are signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1] have produced several policies meant to provide equal educational opportunities to all children nationwide. As advocated through the Salamanca Statement in 1994, inclusive education is the central principle to ensuring equal educational rights for children with varied disabilities and special educational needs [2]. The principle of inclusive education has been merged into the legislation and policy in many countries and visible in numerous international organisations' statements and programmes such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [3, 4] the Council of the European Union Council [5], the European Commission [6], as well as the UNESCO (70). It was even incorporated into The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) [7] was more vocal on inclusivity in education. The principle of inclusivity has however over the years, lost much of its initial approach of having clear-cut

outcomes, to an ambiguous "procedure" [8] or has been vaguely defined, for example, the issue in the CRPD [7].

It entails that schooling of children, inclusive of those with severe disabilities, have admittance to regular classrooms with the assistance of suitable support. The initiative towards inclusive education is engrained within the principle of human rights, the preferment of social justice, the delivery of quality education, equality of opportunities and the right to basic education for all [9]. Such revolution in philosophy has brought about the new models of education that are more multifaceted and often entail diverse vicissitudes in the way schools function and in the expectations for teachers [10]. The principle introduced a new way of thinking turning the old one upside down. The change predestined that children's own readiness as obsolete and only concerned with their acceptance into mainstream education as required by the drive towards what is terms of "integration".

The analysis of practitioners' practice and early interferences for actual identification and screening children with disabilities for designing acceptablequality education has overshadowed much research that is predominantly associated to early childhood education [11]. In this tactic children's learning outcomes have been adopted as indicators of quality [12], indicating the efficiency of preschool education on the progression of children socially and cognitively [13–15]. Lately, the interest of researchers has centred on examining how children's participation influences the development of school events and architecture, viewing children's perception as self-confident learners and debating on the need to integrate children's perspectives in institutional organisational development [16, 17].

However, the studies undertaken by academics to scrutinise children's partaking revealed the importance of bearing in mind the child's voice and contribution in social situations. This idea is confirmed by Souza [18] who asserts that children can actively participate in the construction of knowledge. Notwithstanding evidence from extensive research showing competency and agency of children's participation in creating culture of their own learning, and the preceding knowledge on instructional practice of practitioners and the interaction between children, promoting involvement of children with disabilities in inclusive environments is still a challenge that requires further research. In their previous studies Ferreira et al. [19] assert that it is essential to deliberate on the complex of human development when dealing with the development of children with disabilities in inclusive school environments. Inclusive education includes espousal of human diversity, appreciation and supporting full participation of everyone perpetuating the rights of all children and the provision of education that is free from all forms of discriminatory beliefs and attitudes [20]. This notion came from the thought-provoking statements from Dewey as early as [21], and Freire et al. in [19] who claimed education as a political act that is never neutral which required the engagement of education as social justice and democracy, with emphasis on plummeting or eradicating oppression within and beyond educational practises and organisations.

### **2. The concept of inclusion in early childhood development**

Inclusion in Early Childhood Development (ECD) is a concept that has gained momentum in government settings and increased the zeal among educational researchers worldwide. It is a concept that has been complexly defined based on the vision. Internationally recognised definition of inclusion came from the outcome of Return to Salamanca Conference [22] which states that:

*Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

> *We understand inclusive education to be a process where mainstream school and early year's settings are transformed so that all children are supported to meet their academic and social potential, and which involves removing barriers in the environment, communication, curriculum, teaching, socialisation, and assessment at all levels [22].*

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), [23] also describes inclusion as,

*Early childhood inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential. The defining features of inclusion that can be used to identify high quality early childhood programs and services are access, participation, and supports.*

Inclusion in ECD programmes signifies including children with disabilities in children's early learning setup, together with their peers who do not have any disabilities; with great expectations and purposefully promoting involvement in all learning and social activities, enabled by adapted accommodations; and by means of evidence-based services to encourage all-round (cognitive, language, communication, physical, behavioural, and social–emotional) development of friendships with peers, and increasing the sense of be in the right place. This pertains to all young children with mild and severe disabilities inclusively with those without any disabilities. According to NAEYC [23] the dream for inclusion in ECD agendas and endorsements provided in the policy statement is based on the principles and definition set forth in their joint position statement with the Council for Exceptional Children's Division for Early Childhood (DEC).

Inclusive education means that different and diverse learners are taught side by side in the same classroom, enjoy field trips, engage in extra-curricular activities, and participate in the same sporting games together. Inclusive education upholds diversity and the distinctive contributions brought by every child to the classroom. In a genuinely inclusive setup, every child enjoys the safety and acceptance with parental participation in decision-making and setting learning goals that affect them. It is essential though that school personnel are afforded the relevant training, support, suppleness, and supplies to nurture, inspire, and react to the needs of all children. For decades, children with diverse special needs were secluded in separate institutions which fostered stigmatisation.

## **3. The human rights' perspective on inclusion**

Worldwide, governments and their citizens have come to appreciate human diversity and embrace the need to develop inclusive societies particularly in the face of increasing recognition of the adverse influences of ingrained structural inequities that undermine social unity and the gratification of human rights and freedoms. The World Declaration on Education for All in 1990 affirmed a devotion to "education for all" with explicit allusion to people with diverse disabilities, and the Salamanca Statement, that was adopted at the World Conference on Special Needs Education [24]. An inclusive society according to UNESCO [25] is a society for all, in which every individual has an active role to play. Such a society is based on fundamental values of equity, equality, social justice, and human rights and freedoms, as well as on the principles of tolerance and embracing diversity [26].

Inclusive education is a rights-based approach that creates prospects to go beyond a charity perspective, towards social justice. As write, Inclusive education is based on the philosophy of acceptance and is about the provision a framework within which all children, irrespective of their ability, gender, language, or cultural origin, can be respected equally with admiration and afforded equal opportunities' [27]. Based on the human rights there was need for cultural and educational revolution to eradicate all forms of prejudice and discrimination of children with disabilities [28]. Hence, inclusive education is viewed as a process that transpires on a daily basis within every educational set-up and as mentioned above, requires continuing dedication and contemplation of all professionals in children's early years.

Besides recognising the rights of people with disabilities to education, Article 24.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) [1] which forms the foundation of this discourse provides that:

*State Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, State Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning.*

In realising this right, Article 24.2 enforces State Parties to ensure that:

	- a.The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents, and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;
	- b.Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society.
	- a.Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality, and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live.
	- b.Reasonable accommodation of the individual's requirements is provided.
	- c.Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education.
	- d.Effective individualised support measures are provided in environments that maximise academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

The chapter highlights essential arguments on the importance of implementing inclusive education in the best interests of the child throughout the Commonwealth based on the Convention and explores the challenges experienced in the adhering to Article 24 of the UNCRPD [29].

## **4. The context of early childhood development**

Globally inclusive education is viewed differently by nations. For instance, in Ontario, Canada, Early Childhood Education (ECE) and intervention services are offered through health care, education, such as childcare and preschool facilities, and through social service agencies. Underwood [30] observed the challenge in understanding inclusive practice in early childhood as caused by the fragmentation of services and the funding that comes through government, private, or a mix of funding from both.

In the context of Finland and Brazil, both countries are committed to children's rights as they are signatories to the Salamanca Statement (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation [2, 31], or the Statement of the World Conference on Education for All [2], resulting in a set of inclusive reforms based on similar grounds [32–34]. Special education in these countries has been conducted in special classes or schools that turned to be a specialised service substituting for mainstream schooling. Mazzotta [35] observed that the belief in the medical perception of normality/abnormality enforced segregation of children with disabilities as a goal to specialised assistance. In the 1970s access to education became a right for all children in Finland and Brazil followed suite in 1988, with the recognition of a clear orientation of inclusive learning organised in the mainstream system [34, 36]. Following the set goals and agreements at the World Conference of Education for All (Jomtien, Thailand, 1990) and the World Conference of Education Special Needs (Salamanca, Spain, 1994), Brazil and Finland interpreted and embraced inclusive education aligning it in their national educational policies aiming for access and quality as proposed by UNESCO's [25] social justice agenda [37].

In England, children with disabilities are classified and defined as persons with special educational needs. According to Britain [38] (Children and Families Act, 2014):


Children with disabilities have access to learning in the mainstream schools in the United Kingdom (UK), even though there are specifically resourced and special schools, mostly for the blind and partially sighted children [39]. Parents have a choice to send their children to privately owned institutions that offer residential facilities.

There are six democratic assertions that underpin inclusive education in South Africa which state that: (a) all children and youth can learn under conducive learning circumstances and need unwavering, ongoing support; (b) there ought to be relevant support structures, ideal systems and methodologies that enable such support in the education system; (c) learners are different and the differences must be both acknowledged and respected; (d) learning does not only take place in the formal school, but also at home and in the community; (e) changes have to be made to attitudes, behaviour, teaching methods, curriculum and environment to meet the diverse and sometimes complex learning needs of all learners; and (f) all such efforts ought to be aimed at minimising barriers to learning while maximising the participation of all learners in the curriculum and culture of their educational institutions [38, 40]. Based on these assertions McConkey [41] added that inclusive education encourages 'full participation and equality' through enabling children with disabilities from obstructive family backgrounds a chance to interact with others and participate in the communal life activities. Consequently, inclusive education is a human right change agent which is used in a democratic way to understanding values that form beliefs in embracing human diversity [42, 43].

In South Africa (SA), in the United States of America (USA) as well as in the United Kingdom (UK), it is the democratic right for every child to access educational facilities that are in the vicinity of his or her home. There is a variation in SA due to limited full-service schools that can house learners with diverse disabilities and special learning needs, giving mainstream schools the leeway to refuse admission of learners with special learning needs (possibly because they feel they are inadequately equipped to offer unique learning needs to children). The other challenge is that there no clarity and step-by-step guidance to help parents choose suitable mainstream schools for their children. Without adequate education, parents cannot actively participate and select appropriate programmes and schools beneficial to their children.

Practically, the right to education in SA is not equivalent to having the right or freedom to choose an explicit school within the child's home area. Consequently, children may have the right of admission in schools within their environment, school personnel may deny them. This is a contradiction of education and human rights policies which impede the implementation of inclusive education [44]. This is a distressing fact showing that fight for education as a human rights agenda is still a faroff dream. Hence, according to Pather [45] there is need for continual policy revisits in order to fine-tune mechanisms for the implementation of inclusive education.

In Zimbabwe, inclusive education has been well-thought-out after the awareness that approaches such as integration and institutionalisation of special needs children did not yield desired outcomes [46]. The previous tactics were plagued by a plethora of implementation problems such as: lack of resources, lack of properly spelt out policies to guide practice, social consequences such as segregation and

*Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

stigmatisation of children with disabilities and the teachers' detrimental attitudes. Despite the desire and designed policies, inclusive education has not been fully embraced in Zimbabwe. Notwithstanding this development, inclusion in Zimbabwe has not been fully embraced. A minute number of children with disabilities and special educational needs in Zimbabwe have been included in special units or classes in the mainstream public schools, with the majority of them segregated in specialised institutions. Clearly, inclusivity in Zimbabwe is still a far-off dream for children with diverse disabilities and special learning needs and their parents.

## **5. Inclusive models**

The strategies and the development of inclusive education systems in different countries are influenced by factors such as their educational policies, the political opinions, socio-economical conditions and their cultural-historical factors [4, 47, 48]. Hence, it has been observed that students with 'special educational needs' in many countries are still educated in separate classrooms according to their disability within schools or are separately grouped in so called special schools sometimes without special guidance from specifically trained teachers [49]. There is a noticeable discrepancy occurring between the philosophical and practical dedication to inclusive education in various educational systems due to a lack of collaboration between politicians, scientists and school professionals [50]. Consequently, in order to adhere to policies, schools are accepting the challenge of teaching students with diverse special needs by just integrating them within the regular classroom contexts or by simply postulating what constitutes 'good education for all children' [51].

Due to lack of clarity in the philosophical foundations of inclusive education, a commonly understood and unambiguous interpretation of what signifies 'inclusive special needs education' makes it difficult to come up with widely accepted models of inclusive education. Hence, models are designed according to the political will to prioritise inclusion, learning environment and teacher preparedness in each country.

Griffith et al. [52] developed a '3-D' Model giving emphasis to the four elements of learning which are, knowledge, aptitudes, temperaments, and emotions, that are essential to the implementation of this model. These elements were merged into a three-phase instructional structure of activities starting with the development of a personality for caring.

#### **5.1 Phase 1-D**

The main emphasis in **phase one** is to inspire students' temperaments of sociability and caring which is the cornerstone of the application process. The major element in this phase is to ensure students enhance their knowledge and develop skills to have empathetic concern and dispositions of caring for students with disabilities.

#### **5.2 Phase 2-D**

In this phase the focus is on helping students to have a better understanding of those differences that are inclined towards alienating and separating classmates from one another. Griffith et al. [52] observed that what learners know and have experience is related to the attitudes they have towards peers who are alienated because they have certain mental, social, and/or physical differences from them. It is then essential to increase the knowledge and understanding concerning those students likely to be alienated to lessen some of this interruption among peers.

#### **5.3 Phase 3-D**

The final phase of intervention in this model is skill development. There is need to develop interaction and communication skills so that learners effectively interact with their peers prone to alienation due to their disability. Skill development is essential because caring and understanding may not logically convert into their capability to communicate and interact efficiently with disabled classmates. There are some conditions that have a tendency to strain relations and hinder effective dialogue, hence the need to develop the skills that enable communication.

The introduction of inclusive education was an effort to promote social recognition of and acquaintance with children with special needs and ultimately progressively more accepting them in regular schools. However, "a one size fits all" model may not work since disability comes in various degrees with some requiring personalised attention; environments vary and the level of understanding is different sometimes based on the political will and acceptance. Nevertheless, schools should be reconstructed such that they are proficient in educating all children, with educationalists advocating for the right to education for all children in response to the basic right and a human right that every single child, despite their disability are entitled to equal treatment with human dignity, thus, the emergent of inclusive education.

### **6. The role of the families in inclusive education**

Active parental involvement in all children's lives cannot be downplayed as research has proved that issues of diversity are best dealt with in the family [53]. Families are very important as they are viewed as change agents in the educational process where attitudes are built, norms and standards are set [54]. It has been argued that families of children without learning difficulties or any disabilities may not be keen to let their children mix and mingle with learners with disabilities and special educational needs because of the perception that these conditions may affect their own children's learning [55]. At the same time, informed parents who understand the actual meaning of inclusive education, have positive viewpoint, not only embrace inclusion but become advocates for it [56] and experience drives parents to ensure the improvement of children takes place and foster their personal and social development [57].

However, research has established that parents with children with disabilities and special educational needs are divided into two sets who are likely to take different positions. Some families are not keen to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools [58] while other families of children with SEN or disability, through research embrace inclusive education model identifying that social and emotional effects as one of the main benefits of inclusive education [59–61]. Some positive effects realised in an inclusive educational set up are that there is greater acceptance and sensitivity to individual differences from the schoolmates.

Children with disabilities and their families endure substantial barriers in accessing inclusive high-quality Early Childhood Development programmes. A substantial number of preschool children with disabilities are mostly offered education in segregated special schools isolated from their peers without disabilities [62]. Neuroscience and research has established that early years of all children's lives are crucial in the construction of early foundations of learning and well-being essential for later success in school and in life. It is in these early years that the children's brains need more nurturing as they develop rapidly, more so the experiences they share with their families, teachers, peers, and in their communities are influential to their development. It becomes crucial for families to expose a wide variety of rich experiences to children with disabilities and special educational needs where they can learn through play, interacting and engaging daily with their peers with and without disabilities. It is the responsibility of parents to ensure that children with disabilities are not segregated of stigmatised so that they build self-confidence to mix and mingle freely with other children without disabilities.

## **7. The role of the school in inclusive education**

Schools are expected to play a crucial role that ensures equitable practices in inclusive education for all school age children, yet, to this day, in spite of several well-known proclamations inclusive practices in the early years have not been as clearly correlated to an equity discourse. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1] clearly identifies the right of all children to 'access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live' (Article 24, Section 2.b). However, reference to early childhood is silent in this right to inclusive education. In recognition of the anomaly, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC), of a US based organisation the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) [63], released a joint position statement that describes early childhood inclusion as:

*Early childhood inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential. The defining features of inclusion that can be used to identify high quality early childhood programs and services are access, participation, and supports.*

In collaboration, Nutbrown and Clough [64] contend, 'respectful educators will include all children'. Nevertheless, the majority of early years professionals are still not sure about what inclusive involves and frequently misinterpret the concept. Evidence that comes from research suggests that inclusive education is better for everyone in that children learn and grow in ways that cannot be achieved when they are segregated institutions. Professionals in the early years need to be confident, competent, more flexible, and skilled, when dealing with inclusive education as they have the potential for positive social change including transformation for the lives of children. It is evident that the professionals in the early years play an influential role in bringing about genuine inclusion. Nevertheless, inclusion is a complicated and continuing process, that takes long a period and commitment working towards the development of a clear understanding of inclusion so that it can be implemented into practice.

A major responsibility of all professionals in the early years is to continuously reflect critically by vital engagement with inclusion through a process of examining views and practices [65]. This chapter intends to give support to the professionals and researchers in the early childhood years as they continuously mature in confidence and understanding and embark on the trek of becoming inclusive. Evidence from numerous studies show that inclusive education entails an incessant commitment to eradicating barriers that impede on the valued full participation and having children in the right place [66–68]. A critical fact to consider is that inclusive

#### *Education in Childhood*

education is not the domain of charitable 'do-gooders', but preferably an indispensable facet of a dynamic society. Inclusive education is not about awarding 'special favours', nor about modifying someone to match the obscure 'norm' so they can be allowed to participate in the communal activities. Inclusion, therefore, is about acceptance and recognition of every child as a valuable member of the society.

## **8. Preparation of teachers for inclusion in early years**

Teachers are important catalysts who can ensure that the philosophical orientation to inclusive education and its practice is accepted and practised in every department of education and by all learners. The preparation of highly qualified early childhood development (ECD) teachers has gained momentum globally in the twenty-first century era [59]. The apposite training of ECD teachers influences the quality of ECD provision. Studies have shown that the quality of ECD programmes improved with better-educated teachers. The ECD teachers who had a higher educational level provided high or moderate quality in their classrooms, more appropriate practices, better instructional activities, and positive response to families. They believed in providing instructional activities that were more developmentally suitable to young learners. Furthermore, it has been found that early childhood teachers with a higher educational qualification used easy-to-follow directions and innovative and high-level activities to motivate learners. This resulted in learners developing better social, language and cognitive abilities [69]. Hence, the early childhood education teachers' professional development should be considered as key constituent in the education of young learners.

In preparation of ECD teachers it is important to consider the philosophical approach such as inquiry-oriented teaching. Reflective inquiry accompanied with action is central to the preparation of teachers and the basis for their decision making. The level of reflectivity is a necessary element to teacher preparation and a significant aspect of quality in teacher education [65]. Accordingly, there is need for extensive training to equip the teacher to prepare ECD learners for a more structured learning. The ECD teacher should possess extensive knowledge of how young learners learn, the processes it involves and how human knowledge is structured [70].

Research studies in United States of America have indicated that a bachelor's degree and specialised early childhood training improved teachers' performance and the quality of early childhood programme. It was found that teachers with a bachelor's degree were more responsive to learners and provided more activities that promoted language development and emergent literacy than did teachers without a bachelor's degree. Teachers who had a bachelor's degree and some additional specialised content in child development or early childhood education were found to perform better and were considered to be qualified teachers [69].

Likewise, a study conducted in Britain revealed that learners who had highly qualified teachers also had high educational and social outcomes whereas those whose teachers were paraprofessionals showed low educational and social outcomes. Thus, globally, it is widely recognised that highly qualified personnel are a vital component of ECD programmes that result in improved quality of outcomes for young learners [70]. As a result, ECD teachers that are qualified and trained would be in a position to provide quality education and care. Consequently, the ECD learners who are taught by teachers with specialised ECD training have been found to be more sociable, exhibit a developed use of language and perform at a higher level on cognitive tasks than children who are cared for by less qualified teachers [70]. It is, therefore, evident from literature that teacher preparation predicts the quality of teaching to ECD learners.

*Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

There has been some sceptics who have queried the success of the inclusive education drive since its establishment in 2001, primarily for the reason that the teachers are not adequately trained [71, 72], and the trained still do not have confidence that they have grasped the content of their training in inclusive education [30]. Consequently, there is need for teachers to engage in a continuous training to accomplish efficacy and confidence, [73] by engaging strategies that could bring about effective implementation of inclusive education. The apathy experienced in the prevalent implementation of inclusive education has increased the cynics in the current approaches of educating people to develop a conviction in inclusive education as they are not changing people towards voluntary participation in the process.

## **9. Challenges in inclusive education**

Despite the years of implementation, barriers to inclusive education are still experienced worldwide. These barriers include inadequacies in policy and legal support, insufficient resources and facilities, lack of specialised staff, lack of effective teacher training, scarcity on pedagogical techniques, inflexible curricular, dearth of supportive leadership, and cultural attitudes.

Teachers as the main catalyst in inclusive education can be worst barricades through lack or inadequate training, their attitude and misinterpretation of policy. It is improbable that someone would intentionally aim to dehumanise people, but dehumanisation happens when some people are considered as 'other' to we and in that process 'them' and 'us' are created in which 'us' is perceived as more desirable or deemed 'better'. Thus, ensuring the success of inclusion is essential in order to understand the dehumanising practice of exclusion. However, ablism prejudice, chauvinism, classism, discrimination genderism, homophobia, and transphobia, are all central to the involvement of a process of dehumanisation. While racial segregation was earlier justified on the foundation that it was better for the 'them' (the oppressed), but concurrently preserving the superiority of the 'us' (the oppressors). Likewise, segregation that is based on impairment or 'disability' worldwide also frequently emanates from the assumption that it is better for 'them'. Dehumanisation, which is often subliminal, inadvertent, and enculturated, happens through a progression of stigmatisation.

## **10. Strategies for inclusive education**

Successful inclusive education implementation strategies have been categorised as the school and classroom level which encompass school structure and culture, teachers, and school leadership, and policy and national level implementation strategies which involve strengthening education management information systems (EMIS), encouraging curricular flexibility, and strengthening learning outcomes and promoting inclusive societies and economies [74]. Understanding the definition of early childhood inclusion should assist in creating high expectations for all child, regardless of ability, to enable them to reach their full potential.

### **11. School and classroom level implementation strategies**

Literature suggests that the first step in inclusive education implementation is to help schools understand their own challenges, assets, resources, value frameworks, stakeholders, and where to locate data and evidence. It is important for teachers to

have the knowledge and skills to create inclusive classrooms, as well as for school leadership to provide an inclusive and innovative environment for teachers to flourish. More sustainable inclusive education implementation would put more emphasis on inclusive pedagogy in pre-service teacher training for all teacher trainees, as well as sustained and continuous in-service development. This also positively affects teachers' attitudes towards inclusion by emphasising that it is within their professional role to include all children in their classroom and is not just the domain of specialists and special curriculum. Teachers can also be motivated to be more inclusive by providing more structured and supported expectations as to how they teach and as to what inclusive education 'looks like' in the classroom. There is evidence that inclusive teaching practices raise the achievement of all children in the classroom [74]. Furthermore, school leadership is crucial for the successful implementation of inclusive education. Thus, leaders should demonstrate positive values. Often the most inclusive and high-quality schools are those that have school leaders who lead with vision, inclusive values, motivation, autonomy, and trust in school staff [74].

## **12. Policy and national level implementation strategies**

It is vital that there should be national policy which clearly states that inclusive education is a right for all children. Strengthening education management information systems (EMIS) is important as it helps in providing a detailed and up-to-date school and student information that will support educational systems in understanding where and when children are not being fully included [74]. It is essential to have accurate data because it assists in finance and resource distribution, to identify barriers to inclusion and 'at risk' children, raise awareness of marginalisation, and facilitate communication between national and local levels. Encouraging curricular flexibility and strengthening learning outcomes is a critical strategy in implementation of inclusive education. It is evident that an increase in the diversity and breadth of learning outcomes, coupled with an increase in the variety of means that a student can achieve these learning outcomes, will facilitate successful implementation of inclusive education [74].

Promoting inclusive societies and economies is another important strategy in implementing inclusive education. Hence, including all children in schools leads to significant national economic gains, provided that there is a continuum of inclusion that bridges the transition from school to post-school activities (higher education, vocational training, work). Inclusive education is only successful as long as there are clear opportunities to benefit from learning and apply them to post-school outcomes and is especially important in rural and low-income countries [74]. It is important therefore, to establish a system where there is shared understandings about the meaning of inclusion and the creation of a system that supports for children with disabilities and their families.

## **13. Methodology**

Research methodology is how the researchers navigate the jungle of questions and queries to reach a conclusion. In this chapter a desk-based research that is also termed the systematic autopsy was adopted. It relies mostly on empirically researched secondary data which is collected devoid of extensive fieldwork. Preferably, published articles and data are used as important sources to the

*Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

inquiry [25]. In assembling this chapter, the researchers used information sourced from trustworthy journals, manuscripts and distinctively published articles that did not require a fieldwork survey. A desk-research is a method which is mainly developed by collecting data from existing resources while sitting at a desk. It is frequently believed to be a low-cost and effective technique when equated with field research. However, money and time are saved when researchers have the appropriate knowledge that can be applied as the benchmark of their research procedure. The other advantage to this method is that while it is economically in terms of time and money it has less bias and breach of ethics as there is no human interaction in data collection. Furthermore, in accumulating information for this chapter the researchers used knowledge related to the phenomenon from a broader global community. However, like all techniques it also has constraints, like the inability to authenticate on the stated facts, strict controls in accessing some publication that have pertinent material.

## **14. Discussion**

Empirical studies indicate that educators understand the concept of inclusive education at ECD level as that which is entrenched in education for all learners, including those with disabilities, through institutionalisation of learner responsive pedagogy. There is evidence from stakeholders that inclusive education at ECD level facilitates implementation of equitable and quality education for all, social cohesion, social acceptance of learners with disabilities, early acculturation to live and function in mainstream societies and exposition to mainstream careers and professions. This has been revealed by the findings of the study conducted in Zimbabwe [75]. In agreement, the results of the study conducted by Adewumi and Mosito [76] in South Africa showed that some schools exhibited good practices of inclusion of learners with disabilities during the teaching and learning process despite difficult working conditions as the schools were located in remote rural areas. It came out that teachers gave learners much support as they played the role of social workers and used innovative ideas to improvise inadequate learning materials.

However, Wanjiru [77] found that in Kenya there were numerous challenges that hindered the implementation of inclusion at ECD level. It came out that teachers were not well capacitated to teach learners with diverse needs in ECD classes as they lacked sufficient knowledge and skills. This was due to inadequate pre-service or inservice training to prepare teachers for inclusive education at ECD level. The results also revealed that teachers perceived the inclusion of learners with disabilities as a burden on them as it increased their teaching workload and delayed the completion of the syllabi, hence, negatively impacting on academic performance of learners without disabilities. Similarly, in their study in Zimbabwe [78] found that ECD teachers lacked competencies to understand the needs and scope of learners with diverse needs. The results indicated that teachers could not identify traits associated with special education needs in ECD learners as they had not done inclusive education during their pre-service training.

Nonetheless, Wanjiru [77] recommends that for inclusive education to be successfully implemented at ECD level, there is need for teachers to change their attitude towards learners with diverse needs, schools should provide adapted teaching and learning materials which responds to the needs of such learners, the curriculum needs to be flexible, and infrastructure should be modified to accommodate learners with special needs.

*Education in Childhood*

## **Author details**

Joyce Mathwasa1 \* and Lwazi Sibanda<sup>2</sup>

1 Early Childhood Development School of Excellence, University of Fort Hare, East London Campus, East London, South Africa

2 Faculty of Science and Technology Education, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

\*Address all correspondence to: jmathwasa@ufh.ac.za; jmathwasa1@gmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

## **References**

[1] UN (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)*.* Available at: http://www.un.org/disabilities/ convention/conventionfull.shtml [Accessed: 30 November 2020).

[2] UNESCO (1994). *The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education; Access and Quality.* Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June 1994, UNESCO.

[3] Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005) (Paris), Statistical Office of the European Communities, & Society for International Development. (2005). *Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data* (No. 4). Org. for Economic Cooperation & Development.

[4] OECD. (2015). "Inclusive Innovations in Education." Chap. 2 in *Innovation Policies for Inclusive Growth*, 35. Paris: OECD.

[5] Council, E. U. (2012). Council of the European Union. Press release, *7*.

[6] European Commission (2010), General Secretariat of the Council. www.european-council.europa.eu

[7] United Nations, (2007) UN General Assembly: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities A/RES/61/106: Resolution. 24 January 2007. Available from URL: http://www.unhcr.org/ refworld/docid/45f973632.html (accessed 6 Dec 2020)

[8] Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2000). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

[9] Kim, G. & Lindeberg, J. (2012). Inclusion for innovation. The potential for diversity in teacher education. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future Directions for Inclusive Teacher Education: An international Perspective (pp. 93-101): Routledge.

[10] Forlin, C, (2012a) Responding to the need for inclusive teacher education: Rhetoric or reality? In C Forlin (Ed) Future directions for Inclusive Teacher Education (pp2-12) New York: Routledge

[11] Boyd, B. A., Odom, S. L., Humphreys, B. P. & Sam, A. M. (2010). Infants and toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: Early identification and early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, *32*(2), 75-98.

[12] Dunst, C. J. & Trivette, C. M. (2009). Let's be PALS: An evidencebased approach to professional development. Infants & Young Children, *22*(3), 164-176.

[13] Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S. & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. *Teachers college record*.

[14] Gavaldá, J. M. S. & Qinyi, T. (2012). Improving the process of inclusive education in children with ASD in mainstream schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, *46*, 4072-4076.

[15] Kaminski, R. A. & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2017). Early literacy intervention for pre-scholars who need tier 3 support. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, *36*(4), 205-217.

[16] Jansson, B. S. (2015). *Social welfare policy and advocacy: Advancing social justice through 8 policy sectors*. Sage Publications.

[17] Nah, K. & Lee, S. (2016). Actualizing children's participation in the development of outdoor play areas at an early childhood institution. Action Research, 14(3), 335-351.

[18] Souza, M. P. R. (Ed). (2010). Ouvindo crianças na escola: abordagens qualitativas edesafios metodológicos para a psicologia [Listening to children in school: qualitative methods and methodological challenges for psychology]. São Paulo, Brazil: Casa do psicólogo.

[19] Ferreira, J. M., Mäkinen, M. & Amorim, K. S. (2016). Intellectual disability in kindergarten: Possibilities of development through pretend play. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 487-500.

[20] Cologon, K. (2014). Better together: Inclusive education in the early years. *Inclusive education in the early years*, 1-26.

[21] Dewey, J. (1916). Nationalizing education. Journal of Education, *84*(16), 425-428.

[22] Global Conference on Inclusive Education (2009) Salamanca, Spain. The Conference was organised by *Inclusion International & INICO* (Universidad de Salamanca) Sponsored by *FUNDACION ONCE, Spanish Ministry of Education, Spanish Confederation of Organisations in favour of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (FEAPS), Inclusion Europe***.**

[23] Lutton, A. & Ahmed, S. (2009). NAEYC revises standards for early childhood professional preparation programs. YC Young Children, *64*(6), 88.

[24] Education, O. S. N. (2004). Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality Salamanca, Spain, 7—10 June 1994. Special Educational Needs and Inclusive Education: Systems and contexts, *1*, 382.

[25] UNESCO. (2012b). Global thematic consultation on education in the post-2015 development agenda: Terms of reference. Paris: UNESCO-UNICEF.

[26] Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D. & Spandagou, I. (2009). *Inclusive education: International policy & practice*. London: Sage.

[27] Prosser, J., & Loxley, A. (2007). Enhancing the contribution of visual methods to inclusive education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, *7*(1), 55-68.

[28] Armstrong, F. & Barton, L. (2008). Policy, experience and change and the challenge of inclusive education: the case of England. In *Policy, experience, and change: cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education* (pp. 5-18). Springer, Dordrecht.

[29] Rieser, R. (2012). *Implementing inclusive education: A Commonwealth guide to implementing Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities*. Commonwealth Secretariat.

[30] Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher education, *28*(6), 911-925.

[31] United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1994). *The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education*. Paris, France

[32] Rajakaltio, H., & Mäkinen, M. (2019). The Finnish school in crosspressures of change. Euro-JCS, *1* (2).

[33] Rantala, A., Uotinen, S. & McWilliams, R.A. (2009) Providing Early Intervention within Natural

*Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

Environments: a cross-cultural comparison, Infants & Young Children, 22, 119-131.

[34] Rutanen, N., Costa, C. A. & Amorim, K. S. (2016). Instructional strategies, discipline, and children's participation in educational institutions for children under three-years-old: Cases from Brazil and Finland. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(6), 204-215.

[35] Mazzotta, M. (2001). Special Education in Brazil: history and public policies. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Cortez

[36] Sassi, M. J. & Moberg, S. J. (1990). Special education in Finland. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, *37*(2), 91-98.

[37] Mäkinen, M. & Mäkinen, E. (2011). Teaching in inclusive setting: Towards collaborative scaffolding. The new review of adaptation and schooling, 55(3), 57-74

[38] Britain, G. (2014). *Children and Families Act 2014: Chapter 6. Explanatory Notes*. Stationery Office.

[39] Royal National Institute of Blind People. (2014). Hanging by a thread Maintaining vital eye clinic support for people diagnosed as losing their sight. Retrieved from https://www.rnib.org. uk/sites/default/files/hanging\_by\_a\_ thread\_0.pdf

[40] Department of Education (2001). Education White Paper 6 (Special Needs Education): Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Government Printer.

[41] McConkey R. (2003). *Understanding and responding to children*'*s needs in inclusive classrooms: A guide for teachers*, UNESCO, Paris.

[42] Rieser, R. (2009). Inclusion, empowerment and the vital role of disabled people and their thinking. *Inclusive education across cultures: Crossing boundaries, sharing ideas*, 365-379.

[43] Swart, E., & Pettipher, R. (2005). A framework for understanding inclusion. Addressing barriers to learning: A South African perspective, 3-23.

[44] Van Rooyen, B., Le Grange, L., & Newmark, R. (2002). Construction of functionalist discourses in South Africa's education White Paper 6: Special needs education. International Journal of Special Education, *17*(2), 1-13.

[45] Pather, S. (2011). Evidence on inclusion and support for learners with disabilities in mainstream schools in South Africa: Off the policy radar? International Journal of Inclusive Education, *15*(10), 1103-1117.

[46] Mafa, O. (2012). Challenges of implementing inclusion in Zimbabwe's Education System. Online journal of Education research, *1*(2), 14-22.

[47] Hansen, J. H. (2012). "Limits to Inclusion." International Journal of Inclusive Education 16 (1): 89-98.

[48] Hardy, I. & Woodcock, S. (2015). "Inclusive Education Policies: Discourses of Difference, Diversity and Deficit." International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (2): 141-164.

[49] Agalianos, A. (2012). *Education and Disability/Special Needs*. Brussel: NESSE.

[50] Jahnukainen, M. (2015). "Inclusion, Integration, or What? A Comparative Study of the School Principals' Perceptions of Inclusive and Special Education in Finland and in Alberta, Canada." Disability and Society 30 (1): 59-72.

[51] Armstrong, D., A. C. Armstrong, & I. Spandagou.(2011). "Inclusion: By Choice or by Chance?" International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (1): 29-39.

[52] Griffith, K. G., Cooper, M. J. & Ringlaben, R. P. (2002). A Three-Dimensional Model for the Inclusion of Children with Disabilities, Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 1 (6).

[53] Carrillo, M.T. (2008) *Networks of inclusive educational institutions: A possibility of attention to* diversity. Forum on educational inclusion, attention to diversity and non-discrimination. Mexico City.

[54] Doménech, A. & Moliner, O. (2011a). Inclusive education from the perspective of families. Unpublished work.

[55] Cardona Moltó, M. C. (2009). Teacher education students' beliefs of inclusion and perceived competence to teach students with disabilities in Spain.

[56] Kalyva, E. Georgiadi, M. Y. & Tsakiris, V. (2010). Attitudes of Greek parents of primary school children without special educational needs to inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22 (3), 295-305.

[57] Logan, K. R. (1995). How Inclusion Built a Community of Learners. Educational Leadership, *52*(4), 42-44.

[58] Green, S. K. & Shinn, M. R. (1994). Parent attitudes about special education and reintegration: What is the role of student outcomes? Exceptional children, *61*(3), 269-281.

[59] Leyser, Y. & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International journal of disability, development, and education, *51*(3), 271-285.

[60] Seery, M. E., Davis, P. M. & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Seeing eye-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in agreement about the benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, *21*(5), 268-319.

[61] Turnbull, A., Edmonson, H., Griggs, P., Wickham, D., Sailor, W., Freeman, R., … & Warren, J. (2002). A blueprint for schoolwide positive behaviour support: Implementation of three components. Exceptional children, *68*(3), 377-402.

[62] Rutanen, N., de Souza Amorim, K., Colus, K. M. & Piattoeva, N. (2014). What is best for the child? Early childhood education and care for children under 3 years of age in Brazil and in Finland. International Journal of Early Childhood, *46*(2), 123-141.

[63] DEC/NAEYC. (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: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

[64] Nutbrown, C. & Clough, P. (2009). Citizenship and inclusion in the early years: understanding and responding to children's perspectives on 'belonging'. International Journal of Early Years Education, *17*(3), 191-206.

[65] Abel, M. B. (2015). *Faculty Beliefs in Early Childhood Teacher Preparation.* Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America.

[66] Frankel, E. B., Gold, S. & Ajodhia-Andrews, A. (2010). International preschool inclusion: Bridging the gap between vision and practices. Young Exceptional Children, *13*(5), 2-16.

[67] Lufti, H. (2009). Attitudes toward inclusion of children with special needs *Inclusion in Early Childhood Development Settings: A Reality or an Oasis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99105*

in regular schools (A case of study of parents' perspective). Educational Research and Review. 4 (4), 164-172.

[68] Theodorou, F., & Nind, M. (2010). Inclusion in play: a case study of a child with autism in an inclusive nursery. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, *10*(2), 99-106.

[69] Saracho, O. N. & Spodek, B. (2007). Early Childhood teachers' preparation and the quality of program outcomes. Early Child Development and Care, 177(1), 71-91.

[70] Chikutuma, T. (2013). *The Quality of Early Childhood Development Programmes in Harare Primary Schools in Zimbabwe.* Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

[71] Chataika, T., Mckenzie, J. A., Swart, E. & Lyner-Cleophas, M. (2012). Access to education in Africa: Responding to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disability & Society, *27*(3), 385-398.

[72] Dalton, E. M., Mckenzie, J. A. & Kahonde, C. (2012). The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa: Reflections arising from a workshop for teachers and therapists to introduce Universal Design for Learning. African Journal of Disability, *1*(1).

[73] Wiazowski, J. (2012). On the dirt road to inclusion. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 148-156

[74] Schuelka, M.J. (2018). *Implementing inclusive education.* K4D Helpdesk Report. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

[75] Majoko, T. (2017). Zimbabwean Early Childhood Education Special Needs Education Teacher Preparation for Inclusion. International Journal of Special Education*,* 32(4), 1-26.

[76] Adewumi, T. M. & Mosito, C. (2019). Experiences of teachers in implementing inclusion of learners with special education needs in selected Fort Beaufort District primary schools, South Africa. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-20.

[77] Wanjiru, N. J. (2017). *Teachers' Knowledge on the Implementation of Inclusive Education in Early Childhood Centers in Mwea East Sub-County, Kirinyaga County, Kenya*. Unpublished master's thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.

[78] Chinhara, H. & Sotuku, N. (2020). Continuous professional development for inclusive ECD teachers in Chiredzi Zimbabwe: Challenges and opportunities. Scientific African*,* 8(e00270), 1-12.

## **Chapter 8** Bringing Out the Best

*Brittany S. Hewett*

## **Abstract**

Bringing Out the Best (BOB) is an early intervention program that provides short term, free, family-centered, and community-based services that target children in early childhood (ages 0–5). A priority goal of the program is to increase the number of children that are healthy and ready to succeed as they enter school. Through trainings and technical assistance for educators and administrators, trainings and consultation for families, and screenings and individual interventions for children, specialists, families and teachers collaboratively develop individualized plans for increasing a child's success in the classroom and at home. BOB is in its 15th year of operation under the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at UNC Greensboro and has served over 2400 participants to date. With BOB's aim to increase the number of healthy children ready to succeed as they enter school, this chapter will emphasize that although elementary students may not be entering physical classrooms this year, the attendance for childcare centers has maintained if not increased; therefore, social and emotional learning are even more essential to the early care curriculum. This chapter will describe the previous processes in place at BOB as well as measures taken to reinvent those services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

**Keywords:** Social Emotional Learning, Development, Education, Early Childhood, School Readiness

## **1. Introduction**

Social–Emotional Learning has become a topic of much conversation in early childhood and elementary school settings over the last few decades [1]; many programs have been implemented with the aim of increasing children's social and emotional competencies and much has been learned about how our social and emotional capacities can influence our educational experiences [2, 3]. And, while great strides have been made in the understanding and implementation of social emotional learning programs, school building closures, quarantining, social distancing, and virtual learning are terms that have all but encompassed the last year of our lives. As a result, much public concern has been expressed regarding children's ability to progress academically, interact socially, and regulate their emotions in this "new normal."

Although students may or may not be entering physical classrooms this year and a return to consistent face-to-face instruction is still to be determined, the attendance for childcare centers has maintained and even increased as students enrolled in afterschool care may be attending center-based care full time. Child Care Centers across the world have remained open, have continued serving their children and families, with new, necessary, but strenuous, standard operating procedures in place. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly brought to light how essential early

childhood education services are to the well-being of our communities and the continuity of children's development. Now more than ever, the inclusion of social and emotional learning is an essential component to the early care curriculum. This chapter will begin by exploring social and emotional learning, its influence on children's school readiness, and one specific program, Bringing Out the Best (BOB), whose implementation aims to enhance social and emotional competencies for those connected to the early childhood age range. Additionally, the chapter will explore the program's processes in place, pre-pandemic, as well as how the program has navigated the various service provision changes brought about by the pandemic.

## **2. The role of social emotional learning in early childhood education and its relation to school readiness**

Social and Emotional Learning can be defined as the process through which we "acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions" {2]. Acquisition of these knowledge and skills are a fundamental part of children's overall development and serve well into our adult development. Additionally, such knowledge and skills contribute immensely to academic education as research has shown a number of correlated outcomes [2]. Social and Emotional learning specifically has been shown to be linked with 1) improvement in students'social and emotional skills, relationships with others, academic performance, and perceptions of their classroom and school climate, 2) a decline in students' anxiety, reduced behavior problems, and substance use, as well as 3) long-term improvements in students' prosocial behaviors and academic performance [2, 3]. Therefore, incorporating social and emotional learning curricula and content as early as possible should secure these benefits at an earlier rate.

With compelling links clearly established between social/emotional development, behavior and school success [2, 3], funds from the Office of Head Start and Child Care Bureau were allocated to create a national resource center focused on promoting the social emotional development and school readiness of young children birth to age 5. Thus, the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) was born and works to disseminate important, relevant research and evidence-based practices to early childhood programs across the United States. Of note, CSEFEL promotes the use of the Pyramid Model whose base is founded on an effective workforce and systems/policies that promote and sustain the use of evidence-based practices. The next tier of the pyramid focuses on nurturing and responsive relationships, followed by high quality supportive environments. Once these foundations are in place, if children are still experiencing social and emotional challenges, the pyramid moves to suggesting targeted social emotional supports aimed to model for and equip children with skills and strategies to address the challenges they face. At the top of the pyramid lies a section for intensive interventions for children whose challenges or needs exceed what was offered in the targeted supports. This Pyramid Model aims to support the development of social emotional competence in young children and is a pivotal resource for the Early Care and Education field as they prepare children for the transition to kindergarten.

### **3. Meeting a community need through bringing out the best**

In 2019, the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education released a report which detailed that there was a total of 242,710 children being

#### *Bringing Out the Best DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98646*

served in 5,786 regulated childcare facilities within the state [4]. Specifically, in Guilford County, it was estimated that there were over 32,000 children birth through 5 years of age and approximately 20% of those children (6,400 out of 32,000) would be at risk for social–emotional/mental health challenges [5]. Without targeted intervention, approximately 3,200 of these children could experience negative outcomes in mental health, cognitive development, and kindergarten readiness [6, 7]. These children are at greater risk for dismissal from preschool and childcare, which further reduces their chances of being ready for kindergarten [5].

Recognizing this need earlier in their local community, Dr. Terri Shelton and other scholars from the University of North Carolina Greensboro, the Center for Youth Family and Community Partnerships, and the Guilford County community sought to create a program to address Social Emotional Learning through a multi-tiered approach. Thus, Bringing Out the Best (BOB) came to fruition in 2006 and has since served the Guilford County community for 15 years. This program provides short term, free, family-centered, individually tailored, and community-based services that target children in early childhood (ages 0–5). The goal of this program is to increase the number of children in Guilford County that are healthy and ready to succeed as they enter school.

In the scope of this work, specialists enter into a variety of early childhood education settings (private and community centers, NC Pre-Ks, family childcare homes, etc.,), community locations, as well as children's homes to provide interventions ensuring that they bring out the best in every child's behavior and address a multitude of individualized needs. BOB exemplifies family-centered and community-based services as the program as a whole strives to build relationships with each child, family and teacher/program that specialists work alongside. Specialists take time to get to know the clients and meet them where they are, wherever that may be. Specialists work closely and collaboratively with children's families and childcare setting to develop goals that will build upon and hone the child's current skills (as well as the teacher/family's) while addressing areas for further work. Specialists develop strategies and interventions that align well with those goals and that teachers/families are able to implement. Specialists often re-evaluate and reassess to determine if those originally agreed upon goals have been reached and if new goals have developed. Most cases involve a tailored, consultative approach matching strategies with the specific referral question and increasing the capacity of families and/or providers/teachers to implement independently.

These services are rendered on a referral basis and children can be referred through a variety of sources whether it be their parent/guardian, teacher, childcare director, social worker or pediatrician. Children are referred to Bringing Out the Best for a variety of reasons, but the most common referrals are based upon emotion regulation concerns expressed by teachers/parents, followed by a close second of exhibiting aggression. As noted previously, social/emotional development and behavior and school readiness are intricately linked. Thus, while the overarching goal of the program focuses on children's school readiness, program administration and specialists are aware that much goes into the process of ensuring children are happy and ready to succeed as they embark upon kindergarten entry. Therefore, there are a number of additional goals that the program strives to achieve. With the aforementioned referral needs in mind, primary program aims are to 1) increase the capacity of providers/ teachers and families to identify and address children's needs, 2) lay the foundation to strengthen children's social emotional competence, 3) increase kindergarten readiness, and 4) enhance the quality of the education and care that children receive.

### **3.1 Increasing caregiver competencies and capacities**

Both research and personal practice have implicated the vital roles that teachers and families play in a formative span of children's development [8]. Cosford and

Draper [9] eloquently describe the similarities within the roles of teachers and families as: "both carry the expectation of concern for and commitment to fostering the development of children … " (p. 348). Thus, building upon the competencies and capacity of educators and families is an essential component to the linkage between children's well-being and learning [8]. As the goal of Bringing Out the Best is to increase the number of children in Guilford County that are healthy and ready to succeed as they enter kindergarten, through a holistic and strength-based approach that is culturally responsive, specialists build the competencies of the child and increase the capacity of their families and their teachers through classroom-based technical assistance, center and family-focused training workshops, targeted short-term home visiting, and referrals to other community supports and services so that competencies and capacity are built across both the home and center environments.

Activities encompassed within the specific services provided include that specialists, families and teachers work collaboratively to develop individualized plans for increasing a child's success in the classroom and in the home. Bringing Out the Best (BOB) uses both evidence-based and evidence-informed strategies to guide the framework for service provision. BOB uses an array of evidence-based/evidenceinformed (EB/EI) practices and strategies to support the social emotional development of young children.

Further, through a consultation/coaching model based on the Evidence Based Practice Pyramid Model and techniques from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Association's Center for Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation [5], specialists are able to focus special attention on building upon and improving the capacities of children's caregivers in order to support their children's social emotional development. Specifically, these strategies inform the way they approach technical assistance, coaching/consultation, and develop specific child, provider/teacher, and family strategies and interventions.

Through intentional processes and practices such as those described above, the adults in children's lives then demonstrate an increased capacity to identify and address children's needs in the classroom and at home, ultimately reducing behavioral challenges. Additionally, when caregivers understand children's social–emotional/developmental needs and use evidence-based strategies to address behavioral challenges, children who have or are at risk for social–emotional or developmental challenges will be supported in their emotional, social, and cognitive development and will be more likely to succeed in kindergarten.

### **4. Previous processes in place at BOB**

The program is within its 15th year of service and has served over 2400 participants to date. Prior to the onset of COVID-19, approximately 150 children were referred to BOB annually and approximately 120 of those children's families elected to receive services. Throughout those 15 years of service and considerable caseload, the program has modified its service provision since its original development through a number of means to improve the quality of those services. Specifically, and most recently, prior to the onset of COVID-19 in the United States, BOB was involved in a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process which modified the Program's process map of how services are provided (see Appendix 1). Of note, one of the most fundamental changes implemented through this CQI process required more teacher/provider involvement and collaboration throughout the development of strategies and goal planning. This was made possible through more effective

#### *Bringing Out the Best DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98646*

communication means and time management practices to ensure providers were able to be present and involved in the process. In the past, specialists may not have been able to meet with teachers outside of the classroom, or while teachers were not responsible for the supervision of children. With this new piece of the process map in place, in order to receive the services of the program, center administrators would need to ensure that teachers were able to meet outside of the classroom during their working hours. This would ensure teachers would be able to provide more insight regarding children's needs or behavior to the specialists, play an integral role in the development of appropriate strategies to address children's needs as well as provide honest thoughts and feedback regarding their implementation of those strategies, while not being pulled in different directions with competing responsibilities.

## **5. Measures taken to reinvent those services during the COVID-19 pandemic**

Amidst the ongoing pandemic, the Bringing Out the Best program staff have been intentional and methodical in their thinking of ways to still provide their much needed and sought-after services to the Guilford County community (see Appendix 2). Although the Center for Disease Control has issued specific guidelines, and additional stipulations have been put in place by the Governor of the State of North Carolina, and further, as well as child care administration policies that limit access to child care centers in order to slow the spread of COVID-19, the BOB team has managed to maintain their caseloads by implementing options for virtual visits via video conferencing software (i.e., Zoom, Google Hangouts), phone consultation, and providing materials and interventions via curbside service at the program's location as well as dropping off materials to the child care center/homes of clients. Additionally, the program was awarded additional grant funding by a local initiative focused on children's school readiness to purchase additional software to reinvent their service provision. This particular software promotes true reflection for teachers/providers as they can securely view video recordings of their classroom experiences throughout the day for self-reflection, share recordings with a specialist for discussion and soliciting feedback, and/or share with an administrator/coach for evaluation purposes [10].

Additionally, in terms of training/family education, the BOB program staff have altered this element of their work to accommodate virtual learning. Staff members have created information rich, engaging, and thought-provoking presentations that are available to the public through their website (https://bringingoutthebest.uncg. edu/). The staff have also intensified their social media presence to multiple platforms to provide tips and/or resources to families and care providers multiple times per week. They have collaborated with a variety of community partners to provide easily accessible and digestible information related to children's development, their behavior, and how to answer children's questions about the pandemic and its effects.

As uncertainty of what the future will entail still lingers, the BOB program staff is still striving to achieve the primary program aims of: 1) increasing the capacity of providers/teachers and families to identify and address children's needs, 2) laying the foundation to strengthen children's social emotional competence, 3) increasing kindergarten readiness, and 4) enhancing the quality of the education and care that children receive. Although the elements of provision have changed drastically, the program staff are resilient and dedicated to the children, families and childcare

providers of Guilford County. They continue to contribute in creative ways to the children's successful entrances to kindergarten and beyond.

## **6. Conclusions**

In conclusion, Social Emotional Learning is a crucial element to children's classroom experiences and overall development. Research has continuously shown how this construct is related to children's emotional well-being and their academic outcomes. This chapter describes, in depth, a program situated in the Southeastern United States that focuses on children's social–emotional development and its connection to their school readiness in early childhood education settings.

## **Acknowledgements**

The author would like to acknowledge the Creator of Bringing Out the Best: Dr. Terri Shelton, and the Staff of the Bringing Out the Best program for their willingness to share about the work they do to support children, families, and early educators in vital areas of children's development. Center Director: Dr. Christine Murray, Program Director: Janet Howard, Assistant Program Director: Leslie Alexander, Program Specialists: Courtney Barrett, Joy Herrera, and Danita Washington, and Administrative Assistant: Debra Fortune. In addition, the author would like to acknowledge both the Guilford Partnership for Children and the Cemala Foundation for their generous funding to ensure the work of Bringing Out the Best continues during these trying times.

For more information regarding the program, implementation or opportunities for expansion to your area, please contact Center Director, Dr., Christine Murray at cemurray@uncg.edu or visit the program website at https://bringingoutthebest. uncg.edu/

## **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## **Appendix 1: Amended for Publication BOB Case Management Process Narrative**








*Notes: This is a moving target. Federal, state, and local directives are constantly changing. We must be able to adapt quickly in response to community needs, changing restrictions and guidelines, and capacity to meet the needs under the restrictions of our funding structure.*

*Education in Childhood*

## **Author details**

Brittany S. Hewett University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: bsh011189@gmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Zins JE, editor. Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say?. Teachers College Press; 2004 Apr 15.

[2] The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). What is SEL? [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://casel. org/what-is-sel/

[3] The Center on the Social Emotional Foundations in Early Learning (CSEFEL). [Internet]. 2020. Available from: http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/

[4] North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Division of Child Development and Early Education Child Care Analysis Detail. 2020.

[5] Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (IECMHC). Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Toolbox [Internet]. 2018. Available from https://www.samhsa. gov/iecmhc/toolbox

[6] Brennan EM, Bradley JR, Allen MD, Perry DF. The evidence base for mental health consultation in early childhood settings: Research synthesis addressing staff and program outcomes. Early Education and Development. 2008 Dec 3;19(6):982-1022.

[7] Hepburn KS, Perry DF, Shivers EM, Gilliam WS. Early childhood mental health consultation as an evidencebased practice: Where does it stand. Zero to Three. 2013;33(5):10-19.

[8] Murray-Harvey R, Slee PT. School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International. 2010 Jun;31(3):271-295.

[9] Cosford B, Draper J. 'It's almost like a secondment': parenting as professional development for teachers. Teacher Development. 2002 Oct 1;6(3):347-362.

[10] SWiVL. Video Collaboration for Schools. [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.swivl.com/

## **Chapter 9**
