Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
3, 2000
From an ecological perspective, the inclusion of children in school-age child care (SACC) requires
collaboration among policy makers, educators, parents, and child care providers. Both typically and
atypically developing children benefit from inclusive programs, yet they pose challenges for caregivers primarily due to lack of training, resources, and identification of successful inclusive program
components. The process of successful SACC inclusion should be at the forefront of human service
and research agendas.
KEY WORDS: school-age child care; inclusion; school-age children with special needs.
INTRODUCTION
The enactment of Public Law 101-336 (American
Disabilities Act [ADA]), in July of 1990, mandated the
full participation of individuals with disabilities into
American society (Shea & Bauer, 1994) therefore making it unlawful to discriminate against individuals with
disabilities in all arenas (e.g., employment, public transportation, public accommodations, and local and state
government services). This impacts the provision of services by child care centers, especially publicly funded
child care, who can no longer offer separate programs for
children with special needs, but must include these children in their regular programs. As with most changes in
educational curriculum and philosophy, the full integration of children with special needs into child care programs, specifically school-age child care (SACC), is easier said than done. For purposes of tbis article, schoolage child care is defined as child care for school-age children before and after school, and during full days when
school is not in session (e.g., teacher workdays, holidays,
summer vacation). The term "full inclusion" implies tbat
185
1082-3301/00/03O0-0185$18.0O/0 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
186
This narrative illustrates some of the issues associated with implementing the ADA mandate in a schoolage child care program. An inclusive program approach
would assure that children with disabilities aie included
in all activities and actively involved based on their individual needs and interests (Bricker, 1995).
The purpose of this article is to discuss the inclusion
of children with special needs in school-age child care
programs. First, the need for SACC inclusion is discussed from an ecological perspective. Second, the benefits of inclusion for school-age children in regular education programs and early childhood preschool programs
are highlighted. Third, the challenges of SACC inclusion
are discussed.
187
atypically developing children into the same program
and the benefits of this approach to children and families.
A review of the research on the outcomes and implications of including children in general education programs (Bradley, King-Sears, & Tessier-Switlick, 1997;
Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Brown et al., 1987; Lipsky &
Gamer, 1989; Madden & Slavin, 1983) and preschool
child care (DeKlyen & Odom, 1989; Guralnick &
Groom, 1988; Honig & McCarron, 1988; Jenkins,
Odom, & Speltz, 1989; Lefebvre & Strain, 1989;
McEvoy etal., 1988; Peck, Palyo, Bettencourt, Cooke, &
Apolloni, 1988) has demonstrated that the blending of
typically and atypically developing children into the
same program can be beneficial to all children.
Unfortunately, research on the inclusion of children with
special needs in general education programs is not completely generalizeable to SACC because it focuses on the
learning of academic skills rather than the enriching
extracurricular skills that are emphasized in SACC. For
example, general education programs focus on skills
such as reading and writing, whereas SACC programs
might emphasize creative (e.g., art, music, dance, wood
working) activities and peer interactions. Although learning Cakes place in SACC programs, the program goals are
considerably different. Therefore, a review of the
research related to the inclusion of preschool children in
early childhood settings is also relevant when examdning
benefits in SACC programs. Preschool classrooms are
often extended day programs that focus on child-initiated, child-directed, and teacher-supported environments
that are individually appropriate, age appropriate, and
culturally appropriate (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
These classrooms support the creative expressions of
children and emphasize interactions with peers.
Specifically, program structure and social interaction studies in preschool child care settings (DeKlyen &
Odom, 1989; Guralnick & Groom, 1988; Honig &
McCarron, 1988; Lefebvre & Strain, 1989; McEvoy et
al., 1988; Peck et ai, 1988) between typical and atypically developing children consistently suggest that organized and stnictured interventions can increase positive
child outcomes. Likewise, follow-up studies of students
with special needs in general education settings have
found that students placed in segregated programs are
more often unemployed and often have lower self-esteem
than those who were mainstreamed in school (Brown et
al., 1987; Lipsky & Gamer, 1989). Moreover, when services and programs are provided in inclusive settings,
children tend to develop into more independent adults
with less financial assistance from public institutions
(Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Madden & Slavin, 1983).
Social development in an inclusive setting is enhanced
188
because it is "normal or real world" and provides opportunities for social skill improvement and practice.
Inclusive settings provide students with and without special needs opportunities to interact, communicate, develop friendships, assist one another, and work together
(Bradley et ai, 1997). Furthermore, Willis (1994) found
that typically developing students in inclusive settings
gain skills and insights related to tolerance and the appreciation of human differences. Overall, most of the child
outcomes in the studies reviewed report positive results
in inclusive programs. The most reoccurring finding in
the preschool literature has been that child interactions in
inclusive settings do not happen without consistent,
planned, and structured efforts (Lamorey & Bricker,
1993).
Specific to SACC settings. The School-Age/Special
Needs Study (Fink, 1988) was conducted by the SchoolAge Child Care Project of the Wellesley College Center
for Research on Women. The goals of the SchoolAge/Special Needs study were to develop a comprehensive knowledge base, to develop criteria for quality inclusive school-age child care programs, and to identify program models that offer high-quality experiences to
school-age children with special needs which can be
emulated. Data in the study were collected by gathering
information from parents, from child care providers,
resource and referral centers, and special educators.
Indeed, this study clearly identified the need and desire
for children with special needs to be included in SACC
initiatives. The study uncovered a variety of approaches
to staffing, funding, administration, and training in programs serving atypically developing children, indicating
not just one successful approach for inclusion. Although
the Wellesley study was an excellent beginning, providing the field with valuable information about school-age
child care, little information has been collected on the
subject in the last 10 years.
A more recent study completed in collaboration
with Wellesley, The National Study of Before and After
School Programs (Seppanen, et al., 1993), provided the
first nationwide picture of the prevalence, structure, and
characteristics of SACC programs for children ages 5-13
by examining 1,300 SACC programs from a sample of
144 counties in the United States. The three most common locations for SACC programs were child care centers (35%), public schools (28%), and religious institutions (14%), with approximately one half of the programs using space shared with another program. The
average hourly staff-child ratio for all programs is 8.9:1.
Furthermore, a number of important concerns were identified in the study: (a) SACC programs were serving a
small number of minority and low-income children, and
189
1982). Recent child care findings (Helburn, 1995;
Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1990) are focused on key
indicators of high quality care, program improvements,
and the relationship between child care and the family
environment. Similarly, recent inclusion research is
focused on designing high-quality inclusive programs. A
SACC research agenda should begin by examining the
many variables (i.e., staff-child ratios, level of teacher
training, ratios of typically developing children to atypically developing children) external to inclusion that can
account for a SACC program's success rather than limiting studies to child outcomes.
The National School-Age/Special Needs Study
(Fink, 1988) outlined implications and study findings for
parents, educators, and child care providers. This study
pointed out that in 1988 there were few places in the
United States where more than one out of four parents
could find high quality school-age child care for their
child with special needs. Fortunately, there are professionals in the United States that know how to design
appropriate and enriching SACC for children with special needs if parents, educators, and child care providers
voice their opinions and knowledge to the community.
Fink outlined several important directions for parents,
educators, and child care providers to take before high
quality inclusive SACC will be a reality. Fink (1988) recommended that parents make their need for child care
known to public school personnel and resource and referral programs, as well as within advocacy and service
organizations. Likewise, public school districts need to
allocate resources to school-age child care for children
with special needs or develop partnerships with agencies
to run inclusive programs in schools.
Identification of important program elements is
only the initial phase in facilitating successful inclusion.
Lamorey and Bricker (1993) pointed out that community-based programs currently do not have the necessary
resources or personnel to implement effective programs
and that future program development will be limited.
However, Peck (1995) suggested that difficulties arise
when inclusion is postponed until the system is ready.
For instance, changes in resources, professional roles,
and classroom practices are more likely to occur when
the program is pressured to be inclusive. The establishment of effective inclusive school-age child care programs can occur on a program by program basis, where
parents are in need of a service and SACC providers are
committed to being inclusive.
CONCLUSION
The inclusion of children with special needs is a
complex interactive relationship between the many eco-
190
logical systems that intluence a child's developmenl.
Thus the implementation, as well as the challenge of
inclusion, is more complex than the passage of ADA in
1990. Clearly, typically developing as well as atypically
developing children benefit from inclusive school-age
child care. However, implementing an inclusive program
must be more purposeful and thoughtful than the add-on
method recognizing that the optimal amount of resources
or trained staff may not available initially. The success of
school-age child care inclusion depends on program variables such as teacher-child ratios, the level of provider
training and experience, ratio of typically developing to
atypically developing children, and type and severity of
the child's disability. Optimally, staff can serve the child
with special needs when they are working coUaboratively with parents, general education teachers, and SACC
staff to meet the needs of each individual child.
REFERENCES
Bradley, D. F., King-Sears, M. E., & Tessier-Switlick, D. M. (1997).
Teaching .students in inclusive settings: From theoiy to practice.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentaliy appropriate practice in earlv childhood programs. Washington. DC:
National As.sociation for the Education of Young Children.
Bricker, D. D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early
Inten-ention. 79,179-194.
Britiker, R. P., & Thorpe, N. E. (1984). Integration of severally handicapped students with the proportion of IEP objectives achieved.
Exceptional Children, 51. 168-175.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, L.. Rogan, P.. Shiraga, B., Zanella, A. K., Kessler. K., Bryson,
F., VanDeventer, P., & Loomis, R. ( 1987). A vocational follow-up
evaluation of the 1984-86 Madison Metropolitan School District
graduates with severe intellectual disabilities. Madison:
University of Wisconsin and Madison Metropolitan School
District.
Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Fein, G. G. (1983). Early childhood programs. In M. Haith & J. Campos (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and developmental psychology, (pp. 9171000). New York: Wiley.
DeKlyen, M., & Odom, S. L. (t989). Activity structure and social interactions with peers in developmentally integrated play groups.
Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 342-352.
Fink, D. B. (1988). School-age children with special needs: What do
they do when school is out? Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Guratnick, M. J. (t981). Progratiimatic factors affecting child-child
social interactions in mainstreamed preschool programs.
Exceptional Education Quarterly, 7(4), 71-91.
Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Major accomplishments and future directions
in early childhood mainstreaming. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 10, 1-17.
Guralnick, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1988). Peer interactions in tnainstreamed and specialized classrooms: A comparative analysis.
E.\ceptionat Children. 54, 415-425.
Hall, A. H. (1997). Unpublished namtive.
Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Diech. S., & Holcomb, P (1991). The