Assessing the Comfort Zone of Child Care Teachers in Serving Young Children With Disabilities

Abstract

This study employed 2 methods to assess the attitudes of 52 general early childhood teachers serving young children with disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings. The first consisted of a structured interview using an index of functional child characteristics to assess professional comfort in serving an individual child. The second consisted of a rating scale to assess global attitudes toward the benefits and drawbacks of inclusion. Findings indicated significant differences in teachers' comfort levels as a function of severity of the child's disability across all domains. Predicted comfort scores were lowest when the child was reported to have severe to profound disabilities in the areas of leg functioning, muscle tone, and appropriate behavior.Inclusive programming for young children with disabilities and their families is still considered by many to be an innovative practice. Previous research suggests that, among the many factors that determine successful implementation of innovation in the schools, teacher attitudes play a central role (Stein & Wang, 1988). Although a number of studies have documented that parents of preschoolers with and without disabilities, particularly parents of children who participated in an inclusive setting very little is known about the attitudes of general early childhood personnel toward the inclusion of young children with disabilities in general child care and preschool programs.Volk and Stalhman (1994) speculated that attitudes toward inclusion among general early childhood personnel could range from concern about self-competence in meeting individual needs to feelings of sympathy and sadness for a child or resentment about having to assume additional responsibilities and learn new skills.The majority of studies examining adult attitudes toward individuals with disabilities can be divided into two groups. Initial studies involved measures of attitudes toward disabilities or disability subgroups using broad categories (e.g., mentally retarded, deaf, physically disabled; Antonek & Livneh, 1988). This approach has been criticized because of differences in how categorical labels are used and interpreted and because of the variability that exists among individuals with the same disability label (Home, 1985; Ward & Center, 1987).

Early Childhood Teachers' Ideas about Including Children with Disabilities in Programmes Designed for Typically Developing Children

“…A consistent finding from studies in the United States is that many early childhood teachers report they are not confident in their ability to teach children with disabilities in their classrooms designed for typically developing children (Buysse et al, 1996;Odom & Bailey, 2001). In general, when a preschool program receives a referral of a child with a disability and has no policy regarding inclusion, teachers will be consulted about their willingness to include the child.…”

“…Teachers' perceptions of their own competence, satisfaction with education and training, and satisfaction with support services are related to more positive attitudes (Buysse, Wesley, & Keyes, 1998). Teachers have more positive attitudes about including children with milder disabilities than children with significant emotional and behavioural needs, and they express significant concerns about including children with more severe disabilities in their general education classrooms (Avramidis et al, 2000a(Avramidis et al, , 2000bBuysse et al, 1996;Dinnebeil et al, 1998;Dupoux et al, 2005;Engelbrecht et al, 2003). However, some important issues regarding the effects of the presentation about a child's disability are still unresolved.…”

“…Buysse and her colleagues have suggested that including more descriptive statements of referents, instead of (or in addition to) a disability label, may result in more accurate reflections of teachers' behaviour in survey responses (Buysse et al, 1996). We note that, however, a disability label is required in order for a child to be eligible for special education in many countries.…”

“…International literature has shown that teachers appear more willing to include children with mild disabilities or children who do not inhibit learning in their peers (e.g., those with poor communication skills or Down syndrome) than children with significant disabilities or children who need teachers' significant involvement (e.g. those with autism, emotional or behavioural difficulties) (Avramidis et al, 2000a(Avramidis et al, , 2000bBuysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey, 1996;Dinnebeil, McInerney, Fox, & Juchartz-Pendry, 1998;Dupoux et al, 2005;Eiserman et al, 1995;Engelbrecht et al, 2003). In these studies, teachers were asked to respond to questions that presented only the child's disability label (e.g., Down syndrome, learning disability) or general area of need (e.g., mobility, vision, behaviour) without information about a child's individual strengths and difficulties.…”

L’inclusion en service de garde au Québec : la situation d’une étape essentielle

“…Il s'agit notamment des attitudes négatives des principales parties prenantes (Wolery, Brookfield, Huffman, Schroeder, Martin, Venn et Holcombe, 1993;Bricker, 1995), de ratios personnel-enfants trop bas 79 volume XXXIX:2, automne 2011 www.acelf.ca et de l'insuffisance de personnel de soutien (Wolery et al, 1993), du manque de places disponibles (Hanson et al, 2001), de l'accès limité aux ressources et à de l'équipement adapté ainsi que du manque de formation adéquate du personnel (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes et Bailey, 1996;Spivak et al, 2002;Praisner, 2003). Le type et la gravité du handicap peuvent aussi influer sur la probabilité qu'un enfant soit inclus dans un service de garde.…”