31

Elementary School Principals and

Their Needs and Issues for Inclusive
Early Childhood Programs

study examined the sociopolitical environment and issues confronting ele-

Mary Jane Brotherson,
lowa State University,
This mentary school principals as they work with young children with disabilities
and their families toward the elusive goal of inclusion. A participatory action re-
search model was used to gather information with 61 elementary principals in 13 fo-
Georgia Sheriff, cus groups interviews across the state of Iowa. Interview data from principals were
Drake University, analyzed to determine what they perceive as challenges to inclusion and their needs to
be effective leaders for change in early childhood programs. A gap continues to exist
Penny Milburn and between recommended practices and the reality of early childhood inclusion in the
Mary Schertz, lowa schools. Principals did not tend to see themselves as part of the solution for early child-
Department of Education hood education inclusion. Six themes are discussed, as well as implications and future
directions for early interventionists working with public school personnel.

We have a greater understanding of effective curriculum
and instructional models for inclusion in early childhood
education (ECE) programs (Odom et al., 1999; Peck,
Odom, & Bricker, 1993), yet after more than 25 years,
achieving widespread implementation of inclusive pro-
grams is largely an unmet goal (Gallagher, 1999; Peck,
Furman, & Helmstetter, 1993). This lack of policy im-
plementation is poignant given the development of con-
siderable numbers of validated strategies for educating
young children with disabilities in integrated settings
School administrators are key players in this socio-
political context and the efforts to implement educational
change (Fullan, 1991; Peck, Hayden, Wandschneider,
Peterson, & Richarz, 1989). They are integral players in
the forming, interpreting, and sorting of school re-
sources. School restructuring for inclusion is transform-
ing practices in classrooms, school buildings, and
districts across the country (Billingsley, Gallucci, Peck,
Schwartz, & Staub, 1996). In a recent study on inclusion,
one school administrator of early childhood programs

(Gaylord-Ross, 1989; Odom, McConnell, & McEvoy, was quoted as saying, &dquo;We project moving from 17

1992; Peck, Odom, et al., 1993; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). school-based (noninclusive) classrooms that we have this
Often what we know &dquo;stands in stark contrast to the ser- year to 4 next year. That obviously is the trend toward
vice delivery systems we have devised&dquo; (Gallagher, 1999, more community-based programs&dquo; (cited in Odom et al.,

p. 245). Why does this gap continue to exist between the
research base of effective strategies for inclusive pro-
grams and the reality of practice for inclusive programs?
Peck, Furman, et al. (1993) have argued that inattention
to the sociopolitical context of program implementation
is the central issue. Translating the educational policy of
inclusion or least restrictive environment (LRE) into ac-
tual practice may have more to do with the ideological
assumptions and organizational and community con-
texts than with the technical considerations of inclusive
programming.
1999). Although inclusion has been a focus of educa-
tional reform, a significant number of educational ad-
ministrators still &dquo;feel considerable discomfiture with at
least the practice, if not the concept, of inclusion&dquo;
(Billingsley et al., 1996, p. 44).
The voice of school administrators has been included
sparsely in research examining the implementation of in-
clusion. Janney, Snell, Beers, and Raynes (1995) exam-
ined integration in five Virginia school districts from the
viewpoints of general education teachers, special educa-
tion teachers, and administrators in 10 schools. In each

Address: Mary Jane Brotherson, lowa State University, Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
51 LeBaron, Ames, IA 50011.

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
32
of 10 schools, they interviewed the principal or assistant
principal. They primarily emphasized teacher perspectives
and learned from teachers that elementary school prin-
cipals were responsible for getting access to resources,
inservice training, new information, and for handling lo-
gistics and setting a positive tone in the building. Hamre-
Nietupski et al. (1999) reported case studies in three
rural schools in Iowa in which children with moderate
to severe disabilities were included into neighborhood
schools. They interviewed six teachers, one special edu-
cation and one general education teacher at each site and
reported that teachers in two of the schools were frus-
trated with perceived lack of administrative support.
Bringing young children with and without disabili-
ties together for early childhood education is not new
(Guralnick, 1990; Peck, Odom, et al., 1993). Since the
initial passage of federal law (now Individuals with Disa-
bilities Education Act of 1997 [IDEA], advocates have
strongly supported inclusion of young children with dis-
abilities with their age-appropriate peers (Odom &
McEvoy, 1988; Stainback, Stainback, & Forest, 1989;
Turnbull & Turnbull, 1978). The recent reauthorization
of IDEA further emphasizes supporting children with
disabilities in the general curriculum by requiring Individ-
ualized Education Programs (IEPs) to include statements
concerning &dquo;how the child’s disability affects involvement
and progress in the regular curriculum&dquo; (IDEA, 1997).
Some research has examined administrative support
more specifically related to inclusion and early childhood
education. Lieber et al. (1997) interviewed teachers, par-
ents, direct service providers, administrators, and policy-
makers at 16 early childhood programs nationwide and
found that administrative support contributed to posi-
tive relationships among adults who were implementing
inclusion. Administrative support included listening to
the concerns of staff members, showing confidence in
their abilities, and allocating resources for teacher plan-
ning time and training.
Buysse, Wesley, and Keyes (1998) examined the under-
lying barriers and supports associated with early child-
hood inclusion through a rating scale sent to 201 early
education professionals, 91 of whom were special edu-
cation administrators. Four factors emerged from factor
analysis including early childhood program quality, com-
munity resources, service coordination and integration,
and attitudes and beliefs. Lieber and colleagues (2000)
also conducted extensive interviews with ECE profes-
sionals in 18 early childhood programs across the coun-
try to determine factors of or barriers to the development
of inclusive preschool programs. Of the 202 interviews
they conducted, 13 were with principals or childcare di-
rectors, and 19 were with program administrators. They
found six factors that influenced initiation and imple-
mentation of the inclusive preschool programs: key per-
sonnel, shared vision, policies influencing practice,
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
training and external support, organizational structure,
and community influence.
Although administrative support has been identified
as an important factor for successful inclusion (Fullan,
1991; Hamre-Nietupski et al., 1999; Janney et al., 1995;
Lieber et al., 1997; Lieber et al., 2000; Salisbury, Pal-
ombaro, & Hollowood, 1993; Peck et al., 1989; Smith
& Hilton, 1997), few studies have specifically focused on
issues as elementary school principals see them. Systemic
movement toward inclusion of children with disabilities
into general education classrooms requires attention to
the broader contextual needs and issues identified, as un-
derstood by elementary principals.
Not all school districts serve 3- to 5-year-old children
with disabilities either in their elementary school buildings
or within community-based early childhood programs
(McDonnell, Brownell, & Wolery, 1997). However, in
many situations, elementary school principals are re-
sponsible for providing leadership in efforts to include
young children with disabilities into early childhood ed-
ucational programs. The principal may be the person at
the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting who
supervises the provision of the child’s free appropriate
public education and designates resources for the child’s
program. This specially designed instruction may be car-
ried out, according to the child’s IEP, in an early child-
hood special education program within the elementary
building, in a community-based early childhood setting,
which may or may not be located in the elementary school
building or in Head Start. Wherever the IEP team designs
services, it is essentially the elementary school principal
who provides the vision, leadership, and administrative
authority to make services available for children in his or
her district, within the context of the neighborhood and
community (Lieber et al., 2000). This is often the case
for young children with disabilities ages 3 to 5, but defi-
nitely the case for young children ages 5 to 8.
To help close the gap between the policy and prac-
tice of inclusive programs for young children with dis-
abilities, this study examined the sociopolitical context
of ECE inclusion from an elementary school principal’s
perspective. This study also examined the sociopolitical
ecology in which implementation takes place in Iowa
and addressed two specific questions: (a) What do prin-
cipals see as the challenges to inclusion in ECE pro-
grams ? and (b) What do elementary school principals
perceive as their needs so they can be effective leaders for
inclusion in early childhood programs serving young
children with disabilities?
~
z
Method
The study was a joint effort among Iowa State Univer-
sity, Iowa Department of Education, Drake University

Head Start, and Iowa elementary school principals. The
study used a participatory action research (PAR) model
(Meyer, Park, Grenot-Scheyer, Schwartz, & Harry, 1998)
with elementary principals collaboratively involved
throughout many stages of the research process. Ele-
mentary school principals were included in the design of
the questions, follow-up discussions, data analysis and
interpretation, and writing.
Design
The investigation combined both qualitative and quanti-
tative methods in three phases of research. The first
phase involved data collected from seven focus groups of
principals to identify ECE inclusion practices, needs,
challenges, and visions for quality programs. Analysis of
those data identified six themes of principals’ percep-
tions (see Table 1). The second phase involved translat-
ing those themes into a survey that was sent to all
elementary school principals in Iowa. The third phase in-
volved a second round of six focus groups with princi-
pals to further understand six initial themes identified
and to explore priorities and strategies for elementary
school principals. Phases one and three (two rounds of
focus groups with principals) served as the primary data
sources for this analysis. Survey data were used as sec-
ondary data sources to understand and interpret the in-
formation principals were sharing in focus group
interviews. This study focuses on reporting only Phases 1
and 3 of the overall study.
The mixed method design and interplay between
focus groups and survey served several purposes. Phase 1
of the focus groups grounded our understanding of prin-
cipals’ perspectives in their issues and language and
identified major themes. In Phase 2, the survey, we broad-
ened that understanding by asking principals across
Iowa to validate and respond to the issues identified.
Finally, the last round of focus groups, Phase 3, provided
us with an opportunity to obtain feedback from princi-
TABLE 1. Six Themes identified in Focus Groups with Elementary School Principals
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
33
pals on what was learned, what needed clarification or
elaboration, and what the priorities were for action.
Participants
This study was conducted in Iowa, a predominately rural
statewith a few metro/urban areas. In Iowa there are 85
Shared Visions early childhood programs located in ele-
mentary school buildings. These programs are at-risk
programs for 4-year-olds funded through state dollars.
Thirty districts are also operating early childhood pro-
grams using Title I funds through the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Many districts are also using
empowerment funds from the state’s general budget for
early childhood programs. Young children with disabili-
ties are being served in these programs as well as in pri-
vate preschools, Head Start Centers, childcare centers,
and kindergarten classrooms.
Across the two phases, 13 focus groups were con-
ducted with 61 elementary school principals. Thirty-five
elementary school principals participated in the first
round of seven focus groups. For this round, purposive
sampling was used to select principals in four quadrants
of the state based on the following criteria: (a) Principals
were representative of metro/urban and rural geographic
areas; (b) they were representative of a variety of ECE
program options, including programs within buildings,
community-based early childcare programs, and out of
district programs; (c) they included both women and
men with 3 or more years of experience; and (d) they
each had an interest in discussing early childhood special
education issues. Twenty-six additional elementary
school principals (four principals had also participated in
the first round) participated in the second round of focus
groups. These principals self-selected themselves by indi-
cating on the survey that they wanted to be contacted for
further participation.
Table 2 provides demographic information as well
as the types of programs principals were currently pro-
viding children, their major fields of study, and the orga-
34

TABLE 2. Focus Groups with Elementary School Principals

Note. ECSE =
early chidhood special education; NAEYC= National Association for the Education of Young Children; CEC = Council for Exceptional
Children.

nizations they turn to for support on ECE issues. The Procedures

majority programs provided to children (0-5) eligible
of
to receive early childhood special education support
were self-contained programs. Interesting to note is that
one-third of these elementary principals had no back-
ground of study in elementary, special, or early child-
hood education. The National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and Council for
Exceptional Children/Division of Early Childhood
In Phase 1, the first round of focus groups, principals
drove between 15 minutes (in metro/urban areas) to 1 %
hours (in rural areas) to attend a focus group. Two re-
searchers served as moderator and comoderator leading
the discussions using a similar set of focus group ques-
tions with each group. Initially, &dquo;grand tour&dquo; questions
were asked with more structured follow-up questions

(CEC/DEC) were rarely indicated as organizations that based on participants’ individual responses (see Table 3
provided support on issues of ECE. for sample questions). Oftentimes, the principals focused

Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015

TABLE 3. Focus Group Interview Questions
on broader issues of early intervention, even though the
questions asked focused on inclusion.
Focus groups lasted approximately 2 hours and
were followed with debriefing sessions with all four re-
searchers involved in the study. The interviews took
place over a 1-year period. All focus groups were audio-
taped and transcribed verbatim. Initial data analysis
identified six themes, which were then used to organize
the survey and the second round of focus groups.
In Phase 2, all elementary school principals of rec-
ord in Iowa (a total of 916) were sent a survey. The Iowa
Department of Education provided their names and
mailing addresses. The wording for the items came from
the principals’ discussions in the first round of focus
groups. Several elementary school principals gave feed-
back on wording and clarity, and based on this feedback,
the final questionnaire was written. For the purposes of
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
35
the survey, principals were asked to define early child-
hood as birth to age 5.
The six themes were used to generate items for the
questionnaire. Each of the six themes identified in the fo-
cus groups had several questions. Principals were asked
to respond on a Likert scale ( 1 strongly agree to 5
strongly disagree) to 37 questions in each of six areas.
Principals were asked to voluntarily give their name, ad-
dress, and telephone number if they were interested in fu-
ture involvement in work groups on these issues. One
hundred and fifty principals identified themselves; 26
principals from this group attended the second round of
focus groups. Principals self-selected themselves for the
second round of focus groups based on their availability
to attend. All were invited to a central location for a day,
and 26 principals said they were able to attend at that
time.
 36
In Phase 3, the second round of focus groups, all
principals were divided into six focus groups. These six
groups corresponded to the six major themes identified
in the first round of focus groups. In these groups, prin-
cipals were asked to expand the understanding and in-
terpretation of the initial themes and to identify priorities
and strategies for elementary school principals. Members
of the research team and two additional ECE state con-
sultants moderated focus groups. Principals were ran-
domly assigned to groups of about seven persons that
included moderators and recorders. In Iowa, a new
Unified ECE teaching endorsement defines ECE as ages
birth through 8 years, but for the purposes of these dis-
cussions, principals were asked to focus on ECE in the
birth to age 5 programs.
Two recorders were used in each group, and each
group shared responses to a set of consistent questions
(e.g., What do these data tell us? Are these data consis-
tent with what you know? Does other or additional in-
formation exist? What do you see as priorities in this
theme?). Recorders included one principal in each group
and one additional person (graduate assistant or state de-
partment personnel). The recorded notes from each
group were transcribed for analysis. Following the indi-
vidual focus groups, the entire group of 26 principals
convened to discuss all of the six areas. All of the princi-
pals were given the opportunity in large group discussion
to address any or all of the six theme areas. This discus-
sion was recorded and transcribed.
Data Analysis
Data from the focus groups in phases one and three were
analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967) to code, classify, and compare emerg-
ing categories generate themes. The re-
as a means to
search team was composed of four researchers who met
regularly to develop interview questions, debrief after fo-
cus groups, discuss key emerging issues, and generate ini-
tial conceptual coding categories based on the issues
forming in the data. Data analysis was guided by ac-
knowledged qualitative procedures to identify emerging
themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Tesch, 1990).
A graduate assistant working on the project tran-
scribed all transcripts in entirety. A preliminary list of
categories emerged from initial reading of the tran-
scripts. Each of the four researchers individually reread
the transcripts and identified and coded statements. The
research team then met and reviewed all coded state-
ments and discussed agreements and disagreements in
order to reach consensus on categories. When disagree-
ments occurred, the team reviewed transcripts and sur-
vey data to reach consensus on the categories and
themes. As a final check, all transcripts were reread with
the identified categories to make certain no data were
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
missed and to see if any interpretations could be clari-
fied.
Several steps were taken to ensure that the data col-
lected and interpreted accurately reflected the experi-
ences of the participants. The following verification
procedures were used in this study to address trustwor-
thiness and credibility of findings (Creswell, 1998; Guba,
1981).
Triangulation. Triangulation was accomplished by
using multiple researchers and multiple methods (focus
groups and surveys) to increase understanding of the is-
sues that elementary principals face. Collectively, the re-
searchers had backgrounds in early childhood, early
childhood special education, education policy, and Head
Start, as well as experience in delivering inclusive pro-
grams in early childhood special education and training
school administrators in local school districts. Also, one of
the researchers was the parent of two young children with
disabilities who were integrated into an ECE program.
Debriefings. Peer debriefings were extremely
Peer
important to understanding and interpreting the data
and allowed for exploration of different researchers’ per-
ceptions and interpretations. The research team met reg-
ularly to solicit input from elementary school principals,
to plan data collection procedures, to discuss issues of
data collection, to debrief after conducting focus groups,
to discuss emerging themes, to prepare preliminary re-
sults for discussion, and to clarify data interpretations
and implications. The research team reviewed interpreta-
tions to assure they were consistent and supported in the
data.
Member Checks. To further ensure that the inter-
pretations accurately reflected the principals and their
experiences, six elementary school principals involved in
the study were brought together for a day of discussions
and feedback on the accuracy and clarity of the data and
results. These principals confirmed the accuracy of the
data collected and made additional comments regarding
family support and future action. In addition, two ele-
mentary principals reviewed and provided feedback on a
draft of the manuscript. Both principals indicated agree-
ment with the manuscript and reported that these were
findings &dquo;principals definitely need to think about.&dquo;
Survey. The survey data was used as a secondary
data source to enrich the understanding of the qualitative
data gathered in focus groups. This article cannot present
those findings in detail (separate manuscript in prepara-
tion) ; however, the survey did support the salience and
understanding of the six themes. For the data collected in
the survey, phase two of the study, Dillman’s (1978) pro-
cedures were used to mail questionnaires and follow-up

reminders. Returned questionnaires were assigned con-
secutive identification numbers and entered into a com-
puter database. All entries for all items were checked for
accuracy. A total of 916 surveys were sent to all elemen-
tary school principals in Iowa. A total of 693 surveys
were returned for a total return rate of 75.6%. Of these,
655 (71.5%) were usable and were coded. Means and
standard deviations were calculated on the 37 items to
enrich the understanding of the six themes identified in
the first round of focus groups. Means ranged from 2.59
to 4.54 and standard deviations ranged from .59 to 1.23.
Results
The study addressed two specific questions: (a) What do
principals see as the challenges to inclusion in ECE pro-
grams ? and (b) What do elementary school principals
perceive as their needs in order to be leaders for inclusion
for early childhood education programs? The issues
these elementary school principals encountered were
complex and varied depending on school district and
community resources, geographic location of schools, and
individual background and knowledge of ECE. Prin-
cipals ranged in the degree to which they embraced the
concept and the practice of inclusion of young children
with disabilities. Six major themes, however, emerged
from the data to help us understand the sociopolitical en-
vironment confronting elementary school principals:
1. Where are all these children coming from?
2. Who has the personnel to teach these chil-
dren in ECE?
3. Major pieces of the inclusion puzzle are
missing.
4. Families must be supported earlier.
5. Collaboration is the key to making
’
changes.
6. Where do we get training and support
address these new ECE inclusion issues?
Understanding of these themes was supported and
enhanced by data from the survey. In the survey, princi-
pals instructed to relate their responses to their is-
were
sues and needs for inclusive early childhood programs.
Within that context, the four highest means follow:
~ I believe teachers need time for relevant
staff development (M = 4.54, SD .59). =
~ As a principal, my role is to help teachers
to recognize the need to change and grow
(M 4.49, SD .61 ).
= =
~ I believe parents need to be supported early
through services such as parenting classes,
.
behavioral classes, literacy programs
(M 4.43, SD .71 ).
= =
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
37
. In my experience, successful inclusion of
children with disabilities requires greater
collaboration with community agencies
(M =
4.40, SD =
.67).
Perceived Challenges to Inclusion
The first three themes helped to answer the question,
&dquo;What contributes to inclusion challenges for elementary
school principals with early childhood programs?&dquo;
Where Are All These Children Coming From? These
principals overall reported more young children with dis-
abilities in their districts. They speculated on the reasons
for this: more pressures on families in our society, greater
medical advances for children with medical problems, or
more at-risk families in their communities. Some prin-
cipals, particularly those from rural areas, stated that
overall their enrollments were down, yet the number of
children in special education was increasing. Within this
increase, these principals were experiencing a greater
range of the types of disabilities and the severity of dis-
abilities. The two disabilities affecting children discussed
most frequently were challenging behaviors and signifi-
cant health care needs.
Principals talked about their dilemma of not want-
ing young &dquo;BD children&dquo; in self-contained or segregated
classrooms, yet feeling as though they had few options
for these children. One principal talked about this dil-
emma :
I would like to see a better way from self-
contained BD or LD rooms, very honestly. I’d
like to see all kids handled in a classroom, if
that were possible, with assistance so that we
.
could keep little kids with their friends in
their neighborhoods without removing them
to .
and attaching this label to them. You know
, these kids know what BD means, only they
probably think B stands for bad.... If we
didn’t have them out of their home environ-
ment I would see that as a real plus.
Another principal summed up the issue this way:
I have kindergartners placed in BD
seen more
settings than I ever have before ... five-year-
old kids are coming to us with some serious
handicaps that deep-seated and severe
are so
and dangerous, literally dangerous, that we
are placing kids and labeling them earlier than
ever before. ,
A number of principals shared the concern that ser-
vices were inadequate for this population of young chil-
38
dren with challenging behaviors, and they had little in-
formation on how to proceed. One principal’s account
represents many we heard:
The whole area of behavioral disorders is
lacking anywhere you go. I think it is espe-
cially difficult at the preschool level when we
identify or label kids at the preschool with a
behavioral disability. We have to, it is just a
huge question-what are the best services and
how are we going to provide for that? It’s
frustrating not only for integration reasons
but because there isn’t a lot of information
out there.
Many of these principals talked about the challenges and
difficulties presented by serving young children with be-
havioral challenges, and the most frequent strategy dis-
cussed for addressing this issue was early placement in
&dquo;BD classrooms.&dquo;
Some of the principals in the second round of focus
groups commented that they &dquo;don’t really get enough
specialized training in early childhood and special edu-
cation and challenging behaviors might be an area on
which to focus some specialized training for administra-
tors.&dquo; Principals also indicated they were serving more
children with autism, severe cerebral palsy, and multiple
disabilities.
Who Has the Personnel to Teach These Children?
Many principals experienced severe shortages in quali-
fied personnel to teach in both ECE and Early Childhood
Special Education (ECSE). As one principal remarked, &dquo;I
have 500 applications for any position that I have in the
building-except for special education, I have about
three. And if those three are not acceptable, I’ve got
zero.&dquo; Principals shared that they needed broadly skilled
teachers, ECE teachers with expertise in special educa-
tion and ECSE teachers with expertise with &dquo;regular
kids.&dquo; Some principals indicated that without this blend
of skills, general education teachers were not supportive
of inclusion, and ECSE teachers could not teach in inte-
grated classrooms. Another principal characterized the
issue this way: &dquo;I really do want someone with experi-
ence because this is not my area; you know the last child
development classes I had were 20 years ago.&dquo;
Several of these principals discussed their role as
one to help staff change and grow. This finding was sup-
ported in the survey data as well, but principals indicated
they lacked the time and resources to support creative
and relevant staff development activities. Principals from
rural areas in particular noted that ECSE teachers felt
isolated: &dquo;They need to see that they are not the only
teachers struggling.&dquo; The need to see how things are
done in different ways was echoed by several principals.
One principal summed this up when she said, &dquo;One of
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
the best things I think you can do is have teachers go to
other school districts and take a look at their programs!&dquo;
A barrier that several principals discussed was the need
for money to hire substitutes and then find good substi-
tutes so those teachers could get out of their buildings.
Similar to this issue was the need for mentors for new
teachers and the means for new teachers and mentors to
spend time together. Within this discussion, however,
none of the principals described any ongoing, organized
strategies for teacher professional growth. Support for
ECE teachers seemed to be a scattered approach largely
dependent on availability of personnel and resources.
An additional training need widely discussed by
principals was the need for quality paraprofessionals in
ECE. Many of the principals talked of a growing number
of paraprofessionals needed in their programs, teachers
with limited skills to supervise them, sketchy perfor-
mance evaluations for paraprofessionals, and the need
for paraprofessional incentives to stay on the job. These
principals suggested that greater efforts should be placed
into networking staff development opportunities and us-
ing Internet and distance learning strategies to a greater
degree. The principals in this study felt that informing
districts of what staff development is available and when
it is available could lead to more training and support for
teachers and paraprofessionals.
Major Pieces of the Inclusion Puzzle Are Missing.
Although many of these principals wanted inclusion to
be successful for children, they described pieces of the
inclusion puzzle that were missing for them. Lack of
funding, space, and time were identified frequently as
challenges to inclusion. As one principal shared, &dquo;We
know how, but we just do not have the resources.&dquo;
Another principal echoed this sentiment:
We all battle funding issues with creativity.
You can only be poorly creative for so long.
Some of us can be more creative than others
when we don’t have any resources ... but
you still need money whether it’s to go some-
where, change something, train someone, pur-
chase something for kids-that’s my biggest
barrier.
Several principals discussed lack of time for plan-
ning and follow up when inclusion was attempted. They
indicated it was hard for ECE teachers to have time for
staffings and hard for ECSE teachers to have time to con-
sult and monitor IEPs. As lack of time for planning was
discussed, none of the principals talked about how they
were restructuring teacher-planning time to allow for
times of joint planning. Incompatible regulations among
ECE programs were also cited as a policy barrier. For ex-
ample, a couple of principals felt that different program

requirements between Head Start programs and state at-
risk programs made it hard for inclusion.
Lack of space was a missing piece for many princi-
pals. Principals were not always comfortable with using
community-based early childhood programs, and in
rural areas, such programs may not have been available.
When principals could not place programs &dquo;out in the
community,&dquo; they preferred reverse integration and co-
location models. Several gave reduced tuition to typically
developing peers to develop the reverse integration mod-
els within their school buildings. For some, maintaining
administrative control of the program was preferable to
community options, yet this did create a greater need for
space. One principal remarked,
Somehow we must convince our community
and school board of the need to include early
childhood in our school. We have an excellent
working relationship with the [ECE] program
in town, but it would be much better if it
were in our school.
Other missing pieces were identified: lack of acces-
sibility in very old school buildings, lack of knowledge
about how to evaluate the quality of programs for inclu-
sion, and lack of knowledge on the part of school board
members regarding the importance of early childhood
education. Many principals spoke of wanting inclusion
to work. One principal noted, &dquo;I truly, truly believe early
intervention is the key.&dquo; A few indicated, &dquo;very mixed
feelings on these issues,&dquo; but overall, principals sup-
ported inclusion and some shared examples of successes.
However, most often the principals’ examples were of
what teachers were accomplishing for successful inclu-
sion, not examples of support strategies in which they
were engaged to make inclusion successful.
Principals’ Needs to be Leaders
for Inclusion
The second three themes helped to answer the question,
&dquo;What do elementary school principals perceive as their
needs so they can be effective leaders for inclusion in
early childhood programs serving young children with
disabilities? &dquo;
Families Must be Supported Earlier. These princi-
pals articulated that supports to young children and their
families must occur early. Many of the principals felt the
issue of support to families was closely linked to the idea
of reducing the need for inclusion. The discussion among
principals focused on the idea that if schools could work
with families earlier, then there would not be as much
need for special education services as these young chil-
dren entered school. The concern about reaching families
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
39
and children early was echoed again and again. One prin-
cipal shared his concern about reaching families earlier:
When I see some of these students coming in
who are identified in our preschool handi-
capped class, I wish somehow that they had
been identified earlier because we could have
been working with parents, helping parents
before they got to 4 years of age.
Another principal shared similar concerns:
I think picking up kids at 5 years old after
they have learned all these negative things
that become dysfunctional ... is absolutely
ludicrous. We do things that do not make
sense at all. We ought to be putting a whole
lot of energy, resources, money into continuity
[of services] from birth; they should not start
at age 5, they ought to start at age 1 ... in
the long run it would pay for itself.
Principals discussed a number of strategies and pro-
grams that they were using in their school districts. Some
offered early &dquo;read to your child&dquo; programs; others pro-
vided parenting and discipline classes. Another principal
described &dquo;learning kits&dquo; that went back and forth from
school so parents were able to provide educational and
literacy activities at home. Emphasis of much of the dis-
cussion was &dquo;getting parent the skills&dquo; they were per-
ceived to need in order to support their child’s learning.
A few principals talked about &dquo;problem parents&dquo; who
were &dquo;over advocates&dquo; for their child’s educational needs.
Many principals spoke emotionally about the soci-
etal changes that were creating changes to which schools
must respond. Principals explained they were serving
more families in need and at risk and they had increasing
minority populations. Some principals felt children were
coming to school without preschool experiences because
these programs were not affordable or accessible to fam-
ilies. This was especially true in rural areas that often
lacked any preschool program options. As one principal
exclaimed,
Dick and Jane and Sally and Spot don’t
live here any more, and they’re not coming
back ... I think it is society that’s made us
realize that we’ve got to change, and we want
those kids because the sooner we have them,
the more likely we’ll be able to help them be
successful.
Principals talked about the need to reach out to
families and provide them with a warm and safe envi-
ronment. One principal expressed this view by stating,
40
Those folks that we are talking about typi-
cally had poor school experiences themselves
and to say OK come on in to school and talk
with us or do something-they are very hesi-
tant to do that. But if we can get out into the
home and establish some type of rapport and
develop a relationship that eases them into the
school, I think that would be very powerful.
Another principal’s statement serves as yet an addi-
tional example. When asked what his vision for inclusion
in early childhood would look like, he stated,
We need to involve them [parents] more and
have a place that they feel safe-most of these
parents don’t feel comfortable coming into
our school so they stay away ... they are the
ones you actually want most to come in ...
you have to make it an open and fun place
for kids, and when parents see that it is an
open, fun, non-threatening place for their
kids, they would feel comfortable coming
in-almost more like a mall, you know,
a play place.
While the majority of principals in the focus groups
shared the feeling that schools need to provide more
support to families, several comments from the survey
indicated that some principals felt this was not a role
that could be expected from schools. Several principals
echoed similar sentiments in the survey: &dquo;There may be
a need for greater support for families, but I am not con-
vinced that schools should bear the responsibility&dquo;; &dquo;It is
difficult to ask schools to add more-our plates are over-
flowing already&dquo;; &dquo;The schools cannot solve family prob-
lems&dquo; ; &dquo;We can’t do it all&dquo;; and &dquo;How can we do more?&dquo;
Although some differences of opinion were ex-
pressed, the majority of focus group and survey data
overwhelmingly agreed with the need for schools to sup-
port families to a greater degree. One of the principals in
the second round of focus groups who focused on this
theme said, &dquo;I was personally surprised about how im-
portant this whole issue has become.&dquo; At the conclusion
of the second round of focus groups, principals set pri-
orities that would assist them in being more effective
leaders for inclusive ECE programs. Supporting families
was the second highest priority, with only increased
funding being identified as a higher priority. Much of the
funding need discussed was for hiring personnel to work
with families.
Principals discussed strategies to address families’
needs, such as greater accommodation for working par-
ents, more trained personnel to go to families, greater
knowledge of exemplary family programs, school wrap-
around (before and after school) services, and greater
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
collaboration with community agencies. But by far the
strategy discussed most often to address family needs
was the development of &dquo;family resource centers.&dquo; One
&dquo;
principal remarked, I think that a family resource cen-
ter is needed in every elementary school building where
family services can be brought right to the school.&dquo;
Another principal shared, &dquo;I think getting the family re-
sources center started where you have all the community
services available within your school building is some-
thing I hope will happen very soon.&dquo;
Another principal emotionally stated, &dquo;I would like
to have DHS [Department of Human Services], I’ll give
up my office, I’ll find a closet someplace if I could have
DHS there on a weekly basis so families can be aware of
what programs are available.&dquo; And another principal
commented,
We are talking about
developing a family re-
source center ... one of the things we want
is the county health nurse who could provide
services, DHS would be there, the Head Start,
[and other] community action services. All
of them would function out of the school
building!
For many of these principals, the family resource
center concept focused
was on low income or &dquo;at-risk&dquo;
families. In discussions with several principals, it seemed
that the principals wanted someone else to help with the
&dquo;responsibility for families.&dquo; For those principals, the
family resource center would be staffed by people who
&dquo;understand the stresses of family&dquo; and who would be
responsible for &dquo;getting kids ready for school.&dquo;
Collaboration is the Key to Making Changes. Two
categories of collaboration emerged from the data. One
was tied closely to the theme of collaboration with com-
munities to support families. The second was tied to the
importance of collaboration for successful inclusion. As
one principal stated, &dquo;Collaboration is the only way we
are going to make changes.&dquo;
On the issue of family support, principals recog-
nized that multiple agencies must work together to serve
the needs of at-risk children and families. Principals dis-
cussed needing more collaboration with social service
agencies, such as family resource centers and foster care.
They recognized more collaboration with the medical
community, including home health agencies, as necessary
for children with significant health care needs.
Principals asked the question, &dquo;Who is going to fa-
cilitate or coordinate between schools and these other
agencies?&dquo; Many of the principals discussed the need for
time to coordinate and the need for funding to hire ad-
ditional personnel. One principal commented, &dquo;Some
districts now are hiring a family advocate-someone to

do that coordination, someone who knows agencies and
can be more neutral.&dquo; The neutral issue was mentioned
several times. One principal explained his view as &dquo;red
tape and power struggles with outside school agencies
makes me want to handle this at school alone, but I
know it can’t be done.&dquo; Another commented, &dquo;Political-
territorial situations among agencies get complicated and
cumbersome. &dquo;
The importance of collaboration for successful in-
clusion was discussed as necessary for securing space for
children with special needs in community programs, work-
ing with Head Start and other community-based early
childhood programs, and helping dual program place-
ments to be successful. When collaborating with com-
munity programs, principals expressed concern over how
to judge the quality of community programs. One prin-
cipal asked a question echoed by several: &dquo;When kids
[with disabilities] are in the community-based programs,
are they quality programs?&dquo;
An interesting strategy discussed by a few principals
was their district’s commitment to providing space and/
or financial support to local community-based ECE pro-
grams in order to secure the stability of the community
program. This was especially true of rural districts where
early childhood program options were limited. One prin-
cipal characterized this in the following way:
Another issue I might add is funding for the
self-sufficient community preschool program.
A lot of times, I think in particular smaller
school districts, finding that they have to lean
on the school district’s shoulder to stay afloat.
With the program we have, we are housing
them. Those teachers aren’t making what they
,
need to be making. We will put everything
on the table for them; we’re not paying the
teachers. The families of the students in the
program are actually paying tuition for the
teacher’s salaries, but we are supplying the
paper, the supplies, everything that is out
there. So it is very difficult to keep these pro-
grams afloat if they don’t lean on someone’s
shoulder, such as the school district.
Building the capacity of personnel in the area edu-
cation agencies to support community collaboration was
another strategy discussed in the second round of focus
groups. One principal asked, &dquo;Could there be a way that
area consultants could do more of the two-way commu-
nication ?&dquo; Area education agency personnel were also
seen as a valuable resource to help develop placements
for children in community programs and to evaluate the
quality of those programs.
Where Do We Get Training and Support to Address
These ECE Inclusion Issues? Administering ECE programs
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
41
presents a challenge to many elementary school princi-
pals for two major reasons: They lack background and
support in early childhood, and they perceive a number
of barriers. One principal remarked, &dquo;Funding, facilities,
and time! As an elementary principal, I would need an
ECE director who is competent to help administer and
coordinate programs.&dquo;
Principals indicated limited training and ongoing sup-
port in early childhood education. One principal stated,
&dquo;I’m a secondary certified teacher, so I had no experience
with young children, especially in the special education
area.&dquo; Very few principals had received training perti-
nent to working with young children or young children
with special needs. Principals were required to use pro-
gram models and staff configurations, with which they
were often unfamiliar (e.g., reverse integration, commu-
nity-based program, Head Start), and they relied heavily
on teachers for knowledge of inclusionary practices and
curricula. Their main organization for ongoing support
was the School Administrators of Iowa, and very few in-
dicated knowledge of or support from professional groups
such as Council for Exceptional Children-Division of
Early Childhood or the National Association for the Edu-
cation of Young Children.
Many stated that the support they did receive was
from the Area Education Agency consultants and team.
Several discussed the need to inform their local school
boards in order to build ECE programs and to receive
the professional staff development they needed for them-
selves and their staff. One principal noted, &dquo;I go to the
school boards and superintendent for support. They play
such a key role for administrators who want to learn
more and need the support and time and resources.&dquo;
In the second round of focus groups, the third pri-
ority identified for assistance in being an effective leader
in ECE services was &dquo;training for administrators.&dquo; In two
groups, the principals were clearer about when and where
they wanted training (7:00 a.m. on the distance learning
network, Iowa Communications Network) than on what
the training content should be. One principal stated, &dquo;To
be better leaders, we need more strategies to deal with
special needs. It is so overwhelming to try to be an expert
in every area. It is unrealistic, and so we need to know
where to go for the resources, whether it’s through the
area education agency or somewhere else.&dquo; They also
identified more links with higher education, more informa-
tion for the School Administrators of Iowa, and making
use of distance education options (Iowa Communica-
tions Network) as strategies to address their needs for
training and support.
It is important to recognize that serving young chil-
dren with disabilities was only a piece of the demanding
jobs that many of these principals faced. Yet it was a very
challenging piece that was added to their ever-increasing
jobs. Several principals spoke emotionally about increased
42
role expectations. One principal stated, &dquo;I am pulled in too
many directions. Can’t do it all, though I work 60 hours
a week.&dquo; Another principal added, &dquo;My traditional du-
ties continue to increase along with these added expec-
tations.&dquo; Another shared, &dquo;The role as principal has
become so demanding and stressful that I need to con-
sider other career options.&dquo;
Discussion
This study examined what principals perceived as the
challenges to inclusion in ECE programs and what they
perceived as their needs to support leadership for inclu-
sion in early childhood programs. Sixty-one elementary
school principals serving young children with disabilities
were interviewed in 13 focus groups across Iowa. The fo-
cus group data were also enriched by a statewide survey
of principals on inclusion. Six themes were identified
that helped explain the issues of inclusion as perceived
by elementary school principals. This study is not the en-
tire picture for any one principal; it only reflects pieces of
the contexts in which they work.
The results of this study are limited to principals in
Iowa. Although elementary school principals have the
opportunity to play a leadership role for inclusion in some
states, in others, inclusion for preschool children does
not occur in elementary school buildings or under the
auspices of principals in the community. Not all states
have elementary school principals implementing ECE in-
clusion, which limits the generalizability of this study.
While not exhaustive or mutually exclusive, the six
themes in this study point to three difficulties that con-
fronted elementary school principals as they sought to
include young children with disabilities into programs
with typically developing peers: increasing numbers of
challenging children, limited qualified personnel, and
missing pieces for inclusion. The findings also point to
three supports principals identified to be effective leaders
for inclusion: early support for families, community col-
laboration, and information on ECE inclusion issues.
Most of the principals in this study indicated they
supported inclusion for young children with disabilities.
But the reality of inclusion was elusive. These principals
were seeing more and more children with greater sever-
ity and diversity of disabilities. Many were unsure how to
serve them, and they often could not find and/or train
qualified teachers to teach them. Most felt they did not
have the time, money, or space to develop inclusive ECE
programs. These principals were experiencing what we re-
ferred to as inclusion jetlag, a gap between research sup-
ported and legally mandated inclusion practice and the
reality of ECE inclusion in their schools. Most did not have
training or background in ECE, and ECE was only one
small piece of their job as elementary school principals.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Many of these principals tended to see issues of in-
clusion as outside of themselves and their control, a find-
ing supported in earlier research (Peck et al., 1989).
These principals talked about what funding they needed,
what families should do, what community programs
should do, what teachers needed, what system changes
were needed, but not about changes in their behavior.
They did not seem to see themselves as a solution for ECE
inclusion. They did not actively talk about what they were
doing to get information. Their comments did not in-
dicate internal reflection on how they might change or
specific ideas on what they needed to be more effective
leaders. Rather, their focus appeared to center on the
lack of time, money, space, personnel, and information
to make inclusion happen. Many of their comments gave
the impression that the focus was on what others needed
to do to make inclusion happen: &dquo;Send us better trained
teachers,&dquo; &dquo;Send children to school ready to learn,&dquo;
&dquo;Give us more money for training,&dquo; &dquo;Give us family re-
source centers,&dquo; or &dquo;Send us information.&dquo;
Principals often focused on broader issues of early in-
tervention, even though the interview questions focused
on inclusion. It was difficult for some principals to make
a meaningful distinction between including children with
disabilities before they &dquo;go through the process of eli-
gibility&dquo; or afterward. Many of the principals’ comments
lead to the interpretation that issues of inclusion were
tied to the idea of reducing the need for inclusion (i.e., if
we work with families earlier, then we won’t need as
much inclusion, or if community agencies could take a
more supportive role with children and families, it may
reduce the need for inclusion). These perceptions of ele-
mentary school principals mirror some national general
education perceptions and are consistent with the
change in policy direction of the 1997 reauthorization of
IDEA (Gallagher, 1999). Principals are putting inclusion
into a larger policy picture. The message seems to be if we
could reach families at risk earlier and get greater sup-
portive cooperation from our communities, then maybe
we would have fewer children with special education
needs to &dquo;include.&dquo;
Some of the findings of this study may be more no-
table in what elementary school principals were not
telling us. Turnbull, Turnbull, and Blue-Banning (1994)
contended that to be fully included, young children must
have the opportunity to build meaningful relationships
that have the long-term potential for friendship. The issues
of peer social interactions and friendships are fundamen-
tal to efforts to promote inclusion (McEvoy, Odom, &
McConnell, 1992); yet, these principals were not talking
about the need for social interactions or building friend-
ships for young children through inclusion. They gave a
few examples that could be interpreted as building friend-
ships, but friendships were never stated as a vision or out-
come related to inclusion.

The literature on inclusion speaks to the importance
of a &dquo;shared vision&dquo; in the school community (Lieber et
al., 1997; Lieber et al., 2000; Salisbury, Palombaro, &
Hollowood, 1993; Hamre-Nietupski et al., 1999). In
their study on the nature of inclusion in an elementary
school, Salisbury and her colleagues (1993) found that
an &dquo;explicit value base&dquo; was key to building a commu-
nity where all members of the school felt connected and
belonged. Lieber et al. (2000) identified &dquo;shared vision&dquo;
as a key influence on initiation and implementation of in-
clusive programs. From the principals in this study, we
did not hear discussions on the importance of building a
sense of community for children. A strong value base or
school consensus of core beliefs may have been central
for these principals, but they did not discuss this when
asked about their vision or role in implementing quality
ECE inclusive programs.
In the discussions on family resource centers and
family support, &dquo;family-centered&dquo; was not a term that was
spoken by principals. Principals spoke more often in terms
of how families could support schools, how to work
with problem parents, and what kind of parent training
programs they were providing. Although parent training
can be an important element of a family support pro-
gram (Mahoney et al., 1999), principals need a broader
view of family support within a continuum of support
options and a greater awareness of family-centered prin-
ciples.
Lack of planning time for inclusion is not a new con-
cern. Several studies have identified it as an inclusion is-
sue (Janney et al., 1995; Salisbury et al., 1993; Wolery,
Wertz, Caldwell, Snyder, & Lisowski, 1995), but prin-
cipals in this study did not seem to take leadership in
identifying any strategies to address this need. These
principals had no discussion of formalized planning time
for inclusion. They did not speak about strategies they
were using to help them change staffing patterns so
teachers could get more training and planning time.
Having provided these interpretations, we offer a
caveat. We have gathered only a partial picture of what
the lives of these principals include. Also the 61 princi-
pals who participated may have done so because they
had concerns and struggles with how to address ECE in-
clusion. It was exceedingly clear, however, in all our dis-
cussions with these principals that ECE was only one
very small piece of a very large, sometimes overwhelm-
ing job as principal of an elementary school. As one prin-
cipal stated, &dquo;We can’t know it all!&dquo; Yet as leaders in
their schools, they play a vital role in ensuring that young
children with disabilities have the opportunity to learn
with peers in general education classrooms. As more chil-
dren with disabilities are included in the general educa-
tion classroom (IDEA, 1997), there is a critical need for
adequate support and preparation of elementary school
principals for successful inclusion.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
43
Future Directions
In her article emerging criteria for quality in qualitative
on
and interpretive research, Lincoln ( 1995 ) stated that the
most promising criteria are relational and essentially col-
lapse the distinction between quality (rigor) and research
ethics. As researchers, we have a responsibility to recog-
nize, validate, and respond to the relationship between
the inquirer and those who participated in the inquiry.
Two of the quality criteria described by Lincoln
(1995) are voice and reciprocity. What are the voices of
these principals telling us? What is the reciprocity of the
research? These principals gave up their much-valued time
in hopes to be heard on these issues. They trusted their
voices would make a difference. The collective voices of
the participants in this study are saying loudly they need
help in implementing this policy of inclusion. If we truly
want to move forward on narrowing the gap between
the policy and the reality of inclusion, we must heed the
voice of principals and as a field respond with support.
In future research, principals who are successful at
inclusion should be asked to share their experiences with
others. Case studies could examine how some principals
are more successful and resilient than others in overcom-
ing barriers to ECE inclusion. In addition, if principals
have limited information on ECE recommended prac-
tices, it would be instructive to know how they are mak-
ing decisions. How do they hire ECE teachers, evaluate
teachers, and evaluate community ECE program? How do
they collaborate successfully with community agencies?
If more principals could be given support to serve
preschool-age children with disabilities the education
policy of inclusion for all children might be enhanced.
Lieber et al. (2000) reported, &dquo;Central office administra-
tors used it [inclusion] as an opportunity for principals
to get used to the notion that children with and without
disabilities should be served together. If that experience
was successful, principals would be more likely to accept
the change for their school-aged population&dquo; (p. 96).
Implications for Practice
For those wishing to support principals in developing in-
clusive preschool ECE programs, this research offers sev-
eral implications for practice. First, it is critical to
understand the magnitude of the principal’s role and
how ECE is only one piece of an ever-expanding posi-
tion. The work of inclusion has to fit into the bigger pic-
ture of their jobs. Second, the concept of &dquo;shared vision&dquo;
is critical to building a supportive inclusive community.
Parents, teachers, community personnel, and supportive
agencies all must share and hold to a vision of inclusion
for children with disabilities and their families. That vi-
sion could explore the issues of building community,
friendships, and family-centered support.
44
Third, information and training are needed for prin-
cipals to become effective leaders in implementing inclu-
sive programs. Principals also need to invest in ongoing
professional growth and renewal of ECE teachers and
their paraprofessionals. Strategies must be developed to
get information on current research and recommended
practices on inclusion into the hands of elementary prin-
cipals.
In addition, public school collaboration with com-
munity agencies serving families is essential to respond to
a society that is placing greater demands on children and
families. Principals are right-public schools cannot do
this by themselves. Inclusion is only one aspect of a greater
need for community collaboration and partnerships.
Elementary school principals do not bear the entire
responsibility for inclusion of young children with dis-
abilities. As early interventionists, we need to examine
how we have or have not included principals in address-
ing ECE. We need to include them in our conferences,
discussions, and research. We hope that this research
provides opportunities for early intervention profession-
als and elementary school principals to reflect on their
practices and to build ECE partnerships.*
AUTHORS’ NOTE .
Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone and should
not be interpreted to have agency endorsement.
,
. =
..
REFERENCES
Billingsley, F., Gallucci, C., Peck, C.
A., Schwartz, I., & Staub, D.
(1996). But those kids can’t do math: An alternative concep-
even
tualization of outcomes for inclusive education. Special Education
Leadership Review, 3 (1), 43-55.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Buysse, V., Wesley, P. W., & Keyes, L. (1998). Implementing early child-
hood inclusion: Barriers and support factors. Early Childhood Re-
search Quarterly, 13, 169-184.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choos-
ing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design
method. New York: Wiley.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallagher, J. (1999). Knowledge versus policy in special education.
In R. Gallimore, L. Bernheimer, D. L. MacMillan, D. Speece, &
S. Vaughn (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on children with
high-incidence disabilities (pp. 245-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gaylord-Ross, R. (Ed.). (1989). Integration strategies for students with
handicaps. Baltimore: Brookes.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded the-
ory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of natu-
ralistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Jour-
nal, 29, 75-92.
Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Major accomplishments and future directions
in early childhood mainstreaming. Topics in Early Childhood Spe-
cial Education, 10(2), 1-17.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
Hamre-Nietupski, S., Mckee, A., Cook, J., Dvorsky, S., Nietupski, J.,
& Costanza, C. (1999). Going home: General and special education
teachers’ perspectives as students with moderate/severe disabilities
return to rural neighborhood schools. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 235-
259.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20
U.S.C § 1401.
Janney, R., Snell, M., Beers, M., & Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating stu-
dents with severe disabilities into general education classes. Excep-
tional Children, 16, 425-439.
Lieber, J., Beckman, P. J., Hanson, M. J., Janko, S., Marquart, J. M.,
Horn, E., & Odom, S. L. (1997). The impact of changing roles on
relationships between professionals in inclusive programs for young
children.Early Education and Development, 8(1), 67-82.
Lieber, J., Hanson, M., Beckman, P., Odom, S., Sandall, S., Schwartz,
I., & Wolery, R. (2000). Key influences on the initiation and imple-
mentation of inclusive preschool programs. Exceptional Children,
, 83-98.
67
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and
interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1
(3), 275-289.
Mahoney, G., Kaiser, A., Girolametto, L., MacDonald, J., Robinson,
C., Safford, P., & Spiker, D. (1999). Parent education in early in-
tervention: A call for a renewed focus. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 19(3), 131-140.
McDonnell, A. P., Brownell, K., & Wolery, M. (1997). Teaching ex-
perience and specialist support: A survey of preschool teachers
employed in programs accredited by NAEYC. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 17, 263-285.
McEvoy, M. A., Odom, S. L., & McConnell, S. R. (1992). Peer social
competence intervention of young children with disabilities. In S.
Odom, S. McConnell, & M. McEvoy (Eds.), Social competence of
young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for interven-
tion (pp. 113-133). Baltimore: Brookes.
Meyer, L. H., Park, H., Grenot-Scheyer, M., Schwartz, I. S., & Harry,
B. (1998). Participatory research approaches for the study of the so-
cial relationships of children and youth. In L. H. Meyer, H. Park,
M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S. Schwartz, & B. Harry (Eds.), Making
friends (pp. 3-29). Baltimore: Brookes.
Odom, S., Horn, E., Marquart, J., Hanson, M., Wolfberg, P., Beckman,
P., Lieber, J., Shouming, L., Schwartz, I., Janko, S., & Sandall, S.
(1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organizational context and in-
dividualized service models. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(3),
185-199.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S., & McEvoy, M. (1992). Social competence
of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for inter-
vention. Baltimore: Brookes.
Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (1988). Integration of young children
with handicaps and normally developing children. In S. Odom &
M. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with
handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 241-268). Baltimore: Brookes.
Peck, C. S., Furman, G. C., & Helmstetter, E. (1993). Integrated early
childhood programs: Research on the implementation of change in
organizational contexts. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.),
Integrating young children with disabilities into community pro-
grams: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation.
(pp. 187-205). Baltimore: Brookes.
Peck, C. S., Hayden, L., Wandschneider, M., Peterson, K., & Richarz,
S. A. (1989). Development of integrated preschools: A qualitative
inquiry into sources of concern by parents, teachers, and adminis-
trators. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 353-364.
Peck, C. S., Odom, S., & Bricker, D. (1993). Integration young children
with disabilities into community-based programs: From research to
implementation. Baltimore: Brookes.
Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., & Hollowood, T. M. (1993). On
the nature and change of an inclusive elementary school. The

Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
18(2), 75-84.
Smith, J. D., & Hilton, A. (1997). The preparation and training of the
educational community for the inclusion of students with develop-
mental disabilities: The MRDD position. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 3-10.
Stainback, W, Stainback, S., & Forest, M. (Eds.). (1989). Educating all
students in the mainstream of regular education. Baltimore: Brookes.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Turnbull, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (1978). Free appropriate public ed-
ucation: Law and implementation. Denver, CO: Love.
Downloaded from tec.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 18, 2015
45
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., & Blue-Banning, M. (1994).
Enhancing inclusion of infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families: A theoretical and programmatic analysis. Infants and
Young Children, 7(2), 1-14.
Wolery, M., Wertz, M., Caldwell, N., Snyder, E., & Lisowski, L.
(1995). Experienced teachers’ perceptions of resources and sup-
ports for inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 15-26.
Wolery, M., & Wilbers, J. (Eds.). (1994). Including children with spe-
cial needs in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.