Despite the increasing prevalence of inclusive early education programs, little is known about the organizational configurations and contexts of these programs, or the ways in which they are viewed by those who develop and use them. This article describes several lessons learned from a qualitative study of inclusive preschool programs. The lessons focus on the meanings of inclusion as it relates to the organizational and social contexts experienced and perceived by families, educators, and administrators. Implications for the field are discussed with regard to ideology and policy enactment, developmental appropriateness of organizations and curricula, and the configuration of programs and services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.) (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
2.
Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 179–194
3.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531
4.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Neville, P. (1994). America's children and families: An international perspective. In S. L. Kagan & B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first (pp. 3–27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
5.
Buysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings: A review of comparative studies. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 434–461
6.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109–206) Boston: Little, Brown.
7.
Donegan, M. M., Ostrosky, M. M., & Fowler, S. A. (1996). Children enrolled in multiple programs: Characteristics, supports, and barriers to teacher communication. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 95–106
8.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). A discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
9.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
10.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. W. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Israel, A. (1978). Some thoughts on the correspondence between saying and doing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 271–276
12.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1993). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Lieber, J. A., Beckman, P. J., Hanson, M. J., Janko, S., Marquart, J. M., Horn, E., & Odom, S. L. (1997a). The impact of changing roles on relationships between adults in inclusive programs for young children. Early Education and Development, 8, 67–82
14.
Lieber, J., Capell, K., Sandall, S. R., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E. M., & Beckman, P. J. (1997b). Inclusive preschool programs: Teachers' beliefs and actions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
Odom, S., Beckman, P., Hanson, M., Horn, E., Li, S., Lieber, J., Janko, S., Marquart, J., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (1996, December). Preliminary findings of the Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Division of Early Childhood, Phoenix.
16.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Wolcott, H. (1990). Making a study more ethnographic. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19(1), 44–72
