Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01225-x

The Role of Early Care Providers in Early Intervention and Early

Childhood Special Education Systems
Mary E. Sheppard1   · Kaitlin K. Moran2

Accepted: 2 June 2021 / Published online: 11 June 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
Children with disabilities between the ages of 0–5 and their families are supported by a broad coalition of special education
and general education teachers and providers who collaborate in the planning and delivery of services. When services are
provided in early care settings (e.g., home care, center-based care, general education Pre-K), evidence has shown that the
integration of services can be a significant challenge for families. We interviewed 12 early care providers to determine their
role in special education service planning and provision. Thematic analysis of the data showed that early care providers are
often overlooked as contributing team members and frequently excluded from Individual Family Service Program (IFSP)
and Individual Education Program (IEP) development and meetings. Despite these challenges, early care providers acted as
advocates and information sources for families from referral and service provision through to the transition to kindergarten.
They also often advocated for inclusion, insisting that therapists embed therapy into the children’s routines. Our findings
showed that early care providers were critical to effective teaming and inclusive practices.

Keywords  Early intervention · Preschool special education · Early care provider · Collaborative teams

Introduction As a result, the status and role of ECPs as members of the

Educational researchers have long espoused the need for the
professionals who work with young children with disabilities
to work collaboratively to support not only the child, but
also the parents and caregivers (Erwin et al., 2001). As many
children from birth to three receive some care outside of the
home (e.g., home-care, center-based care) and most children
from three to five years of age attend a school or center-
based program for part of the day, effective collaboration
must include professionals working in these settings. The
non-special education professionals in these settings, here
referred to as early care providers (ECPs), vary in their train-
ing, education and certification. The nature of early care is
also such that children may spend time in multiple programs,
or in settings with varying degrees of structure and staffing.
* Mary E. Sheppard
msheppar@sju.edu
1
Department of Special Education, Saint Joseph’s University,
Philadelphia, PA, USA
2
Department of Teacher Education, Saint Joseph’s University,
Philadelphia, PA, USA
special education collaborative team are not well defined.
Recognizing the critical nature of collaboration in early
childhood (Bricker et al., 2020), and the unique position-
ing of ECPs, we interviewed providers in one large urban
district to determine how they view their role in providing
care and instruction to children with disabilities, in support-
ing families, and in working with special education service
delivery providers. We utilized Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
Systems Theory (1979) as a basis for this inquiry. Ecologi-
cal systems theory is closely aligned with the goals of Early
Intervention (EI) for children birth to three and Early Child-
hood Special Education (ECSE) for preschool-age children,
especially with regard to the importance of the interactions
of the individuals who work with children in each setting
(the micro-system). Our data were collected as a part of a
larger study that examined EI and ECSE practices in one
large, diverse, northeastern city (Moran & Sheppard, unpub-
lished manuscript).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

892
Review of the Literature
Defining the EI/ECSE System
Each state decides how to implement IDEA (2004) for
their youngest children. In the mid-Atlantic state where
this research was conducted, EI for children ages 0–3 is
administered by the Department of Human Services which
contracts with local agencies to evaluate and provide ser-
vices. For children ages 3–5, ECSE is administered by the
Department of Education. The urban district that was the
focus for this study contracted with a large agency that
was responsible for the evaluation and services provision
(through its own preschools, private and Head Start pre-
schools, and sub-contractors) for all of the children eligi-
ble for services in the district.
We will be referencing the EI/ECSE system broadly
to include both age groups (0–3, 3–5), but specify ages
when necessary. We define system as “a set of parts or
components designed to create a complex interconnected
network with the goal of operating efficiently and sustain-
ably over time” (Bricker et al., 2020, p.2). The EI/SCSE
system in this city is dependent upon public, non-profit
agency, and private school personnel (to name a few) to
support children with disabilities and their families. Effec-
tive collaboration among stakeholders is critical for posi-
tive outcomes and a recommended practice in the field
(Bricker et al., 2020).
Collaboration in EI/ECSE
IDEA “Teams”
Each young child deemed eligible for an Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) (for children birth to three) or
an Individualized Education Program (IEP) (for children
ages 3–5) is required, by law, to have a group of profes-
sionals (referred to as the team) in place who are collec-
tively responsible for the development and implementation
of that plan. These professionals include the parent or legal
guardian, a school and/or agency administrator, a special
education teacher, a general education teacher, a profes-
sional who can interpret assessment results, the child if
appropriate, and other professionals (such as therapists)
as appropriate (IDEA, 2004, Section 300.321). Profession-
als can serve in more than one role (e.g. an administrator
with a teacher licensure can serve a dual role). Due to the
complexity of service provision in the EI/ECSE system,
children with disabilities and their families often work
with more providers (e.g. advocates, medical clinicians
and privately contracted therapists) than are required by
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901
law to be part of the team (Sheppard, 2012). Early child-
care providers (ECPs) are a group of professionals who,
in many cases, spend significant time with the children
in their care, but are largely not considered the general
education or special education teacher (due to a lack of
teacher certification and/or programmatic designation as
a school). As such, ECPs are often not legally required to
be included in IFSP/IEP development, service provision
and progress monitoring.
Teams More Broadly Defined
In EI/ECSE research, the term “team” most often refers to
the broad group of professionals who work with children
with disabilities and their families, moving beyond the
IDEA mandated members. How these professionals work
together to support children and families can be evaluated
to determine effectiveness. “Effective teams are those that
include individuals who have a major impact on a child’s
well-being and development and whose members work as
a coordinated unit” (Bricker et al., 2020, p.2). When team
members work collaboratively to provide educational and
therapeutic support to children with disabilities and include
families in decision making, children make better progress
and families report more satisfaction with services (Moes
& Frea, 2002; Hunt et al., 2004; Hundert, 2007). Parents
report that they recognize and appreciate professionals who
acknowledge the value of their contributions (Blue-Banning
et al., 2004). However, a high level of coordination takes
time, frequent communication, and openness on the part
of all of the adults involved (Wolery & McWilliam, 1998).
Transdisciplinary teaming is widely accepted as a best prac-
tice for families and professionals working together to sup-
port children (Horn & Jones, 2004; Kligo, 2006; King et al.,
2009; Bruder, 2010). Transdisciplinary teams integrate “a
child’s developmental needs across the major developmen-
tal domains during the design of interventions” (p. 7). This
model is viewed as efficient, because it pools the expertise
of team members together so that comprehensive services
can be provided (Bruder, 2010).
Who are Early Care Providers?
ECPs are here defined as adults who provide care to young
children outside of the home in center-based or home-based
programs, Early Head Start or Head Start programs, private
or public preschools. The titles and roles of ECPs may be
fluid. Examples of titles include home care provider, center
director/administrator/coordinator, lead teacher, floating
teacher and/or assistant teacher. Some ECPs act in multiple
roles depending on the type and size of the setting (e.g. a
home care provider also may act as lead teacher). Although
ECPs may or may not be part of the team that develops
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901 893
IFSPs/IEPs, they are absolutely essential to its implemen-
tation (Knoche et al., 2006; Wall et al., 2006; Tang et al.,
2012). ECPs support families of children with disabilities
by providing information and assistance (Ceglowski et al.,
2009). In addition, when special education services are pro-
vided outside the home, the ECP communicates with special
education and service providers directly about service provi-
sion (Freeman & Valkil, 2004).
Early childhood education in the United States is highly
fragmented in terms of education and licensure requirements
(Cryer & Clifford, 2003). Some states, such as the one where
the data were collected for this study, require that the direc-
tor of the center have a bachelor’s degree in a field related
to education (or comparable training or credits) and that an
employee should be 18 years of age (or 16 years of age,
if enrolled in a childcare training program). The state no
longer has a preschool specific education teacher licensure
(elementary licensure includes pre-K) (PA code § 3270.31).
In home-care settings, the provider may be registered, or
have a license or certification, though many do not. The vari-
ability of requirements for ECPs in this state, and in many
places in the country, has created a system with many com-
plexities (Moran, 2019).
Inclusive Practices in EI/ECSE
Best practice research recommends that young children
with disabilities are educated and receive therapeutic ser-
vices in their natural environment (DEC/NAEYC, 2009;
Barton & Smith, 2015). The natural environment is defined
as the environment where the child would be if he or she
did not have a disability. For many young children with dis-
abilities, child care programs and settings are the natural
environments for EI/ECSE services (Weglarz-Ward et al.,
2020). It is further recommended that special education and
therapeutic services, when provided in early care settings,
be embedded in a developmentally appropriate curriculum
(Grisham-Brown et al., 2001). In order for these services
to have maximum developmental benefit, service providers
need to work with family members and ECPs as coaches
in a consultative capacity to teach them to implement the
interventions, increasing the likelihood that caregivers and
teachers will continue the support practices throughout the
daily opportunities (Dinnebeil et al., 2001).
Barriers to Inclusive Practices
Several studies have shown that there are barriers to the
inclusion of children with disabilities in their natural envi-
ronments. For example, Barton and Smith (2015), identi-
fied workforce barriers as impacting the early care general
and special education professionals in public and nonpublic
settings, including a “lack of specialized training, lack of
communication and collaboration, beliefs about typical set-
tings, and approaches to instruction and curriculum” (p.73).
EI/ECSE providers have also reported difficulties embed-
ding services into everyday routines in early care settings
and utilizing a coaching model because they were unclear
about their role (Fleming et al., 2011) which, according to
Weglarz-Ward et al. (2020), can be attributed to a lack of
communication and collaboration between ECPs and service
delivery providers.
The Current Study
This work was conducted in the context of Bronfebren-
ner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, which highlights
the importance of the interconnectedness of individuals in
settings (the micro-system) where children are cared for.
He stated that the “activity, role, and interpersonal relation
constitute the elements or building blocks of a microsystem,”
(p.22). In this study, we evaluated the role of the ECPs and
how, in that role, they worked with special education teach-
ers and therapists to support families of children with dis-
abilities who reside in one large urban area. The research
question guiding the study was: What is the role of ECPs
in the team supporting young children with disabilities and
their families?
Methods
Study Design
This study was designed as an interview-based qualitative
study aimed at capturing insights on EI/ECSE from the per-
spective of ECPs working in the largest city of one mid-
Atlantic state. These data were collected as a part of a larger
study of the EI/ECSE system in the city across multiple
stakeholder groups. We used a phenomenological approach
to examine more deeply the role of one critical team mem-
ber (Creswell et al., 2007). After Institutional Review Board
approval (IRB) was granted, we conducted semi-structured
interviews with ECPs across the city. In order to increase the
trustworthiness of the study’s results, transcripts were shared
with participants for comments and corrections (Shenton,
2004).
Participants
Recruitment efforts targeted participants from a range of
early care options for young children in one large, diverse,
urban environment. We shared and posted IRB approved
flyers across different neighborhoods in the city as part of
recruitment efforts. We used maximum variation purposive
sampling to ensure that we reached ECPs who had direct,
13

894 Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901

and in many cases, extensive experience with the topic (Pal-
inkas et al., 2015). To ensure that participants served fami-
lies that were diverse economically, racially, and culturally,
we targeted different regions in the city (Patton, 2002). We
reached out to professional and personal contacts and cold
called local childcare programs. Roughly 83% of our partici-
pants were recruited in this manner and the remaining were
recruited using a snowball method (Palinkas et al., 2015),
with referrals from other participants.
We interviewed 12 ECPs representing 15 early care
sites (see Table 1). Providers represented home-care set-
tings, childcare centers, Early Head Start and Head Start
programs, and public PreK programs. Their training ranged
from on-the job training to an Ed.D in Educational Lead-
ership, with most participants having an undergraduate or
graduate degree in education or a related field. All but two
participants were female. One participant was also the par-
ent of a child with a disability, while a second participant
worked a second job as a special education service provider.
Data Collection
Interviews occurred in a variety of mutually agreed upon
locations determined by participant availability and prefer-
ence. In some cases, we conducted individual interviews
over the phone. Some interviews were conducted with
more than one participant, but none with more than three.
Most of the individual interviews were conducted with both
researchers present. We audio recorded all sessions and we
both took notes. Participants were asked to sign the con-
sent form before their interviews. The interviews lasted
between 45 min and 1.5 h. We used a semi-structured for-
mat guided by specific questions regarding knowledge of
and experiences with the EI/ECSE in the city. Primary and
follow-up questions were asked throughout to allow for the
exploration of emergent themes. Examples included: Can
you describe the children/families in your care? How did you
learn about early intervention? What is the level of collabo-
ration among those involved (parents/caregiver, healthcare
providers, service delivery team members, etc.)? What are
some of the challenges you face as in your provider/person-
nel role when it comes to referring children? What about
once a child has a diagnosis?
Data Analysis
All interview recordings were transcribed in full. We each
reviewed transcriptions for quality assurance. Data analy-
sis was an iterative, multi-step process during which codes
were initially identified based on analyses of transcriptions
and researcher notes. The Dedoose data management sys-
tem was used for coding. There were two rounds of coding.
During the first round, each author analyzed the same two
transcripts. We utilized the research questions as a guide and
developed a preliminary code book that illustrated trends
(Roberts et al., 2019). We reviewed and refined these codes
to develop primary and secondary codes. In the second
round of coding, we individually coded all of the transcripts
using the primary and secondary codes. We utilized deduc-
tive coding in our analysis to determine our themes (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). We each compared results, and resolved
any discrepancies through discussion until consensus was
reached.
We conducted a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,
2006). Themes, as described by Viasmoradi et al. (2015)
are a “a thread of underlying meaning implicitly discovered

Table 1  Participants
Gender Years in the field Role Educational background/experience Ages of children
served in program

Early Care Providers

1 F 2 Home Care Provider Certified Teacher, Ed.D 0–5
2 M 4 Director, Childcare Center B.S. ECE* 0–5
3 M Inter-mittent Director, Childcare Center Time in the family business 0–5
4 F 10 Administrator, Head Start L.S.W., M.S. Law and Policy 3–5
5 F 20 Administrator, Head Start M.S. Education 3–5
6 F 25 Administrator, Head Start M.S. ECE Leadership 3–5
7 F 26 Director, Childcare Center Time in the field 0–5
8 F 23 Coordinator, Childcare Center B.S. ECE 0–5
9 F 11 Director, PreK Program M.S. Human Services 3–5
10 F 10 PreK Teacher, School District Certified Teacher, B.S. ECE 3–5
11 F 30 PreK Teacher, School District Certified Teacher, B.S. ECE 3–5
12 F 25 PreK Teacher, School District Certified Teacher, B.S. ECE 3–5

*Early Childhood Education

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901 895
at the interpretive level and elements of the subjective under-
standing of participants” (p. 101). The primary theme that
emerged was: ECP responsibilities in relation to the EI/
ECSE system. The three primary codes that supported the
theme were communication, collaboration, and advocacy.
Findings
Our primary theme illustrated how ECPs view their respon-
sibilities related to EI/ECSE. The perspectives offered by
participants spoke to both positive and negative experiences
exercising their duties. ECP data evidenced a commitment to
the children in their care, an understanding of child develop-
ment and their desire to advocate for families.
Communication with Families
All ECPs described establishing a line of  communica-
tion with young children’s families as a key responsibility.
Communication was particularly important when providers
needed to share concerns about children’s development so
that the referral process could ensue. For children who quali-
fied for services, communication was also key in relaying
progress seen in the learning environment.
ECPs Communicate Concerns to Families
Every participant highlighted the importance of timeliness,
transparency, and support as key to having positive interac-
tions with parents when they became concerned about the
development of a child in their care. Concerns were most
often identified through routine screenings and/or general
classroom observations. Each ECP had a very clear response
for how he or she shared concerns about a child’s devel-
opment with parents. One provider, for example, stated,
“We take meetings with parents very quickly to discuss
issues. We don’t hold off. We want to get things out in the
open, we want communication to be flowing quickly and
fluidly so that we can help them.” This sense of urgency
was echoed across all participants. Additionally, ECPs were
acutely aware of their role, not only of sharing information
about what they were seeing in a timely fashion, but also of
informing families about the EI/ECSE process.
Prior to communicating concerns with families, most par-
ticipants spoke about compiling data to support their obser-
vations. For example, one provider shared, “When delivering
this type of information, you should be sensitive and just
base it on the facts. Only facts, not what I feel, cause I don’t
feel anything. It’s like, this is what I observe.” For the ECPs
who discussed collecting data, diligence helped to ensure
that parents who may not “see this at home” understood
what ECPs concerns were and why a referral to EI/ECSE
was necessary.
Each ECPs shared at least one example of a why families
would be reluctant to pursue a referral and how they would
support that family. They described how first-time parents
may not have a reference point for typical children’s develop-
ment. They also reported that families expressed concerns
about the stigma of disability, or assumed that a diagnosis
automatically resulted in a prescription for medication. To
address the concerns of those who were reluctant to seek
services, ECPs described various strategies from “gently
laying the groundwork” through continuing data collection
to recommending that one issue (usually speech) be evalu-
ated first. “Speech is a lot easier. People are more open. And
sometimes that’s just the avenue that we need to get in that
door… so that if something else pops up then we can talk
about it.” Although ECPs provided examples of different
strategies, they were universal in their empathy and com-
mitment to ensuring that the referral took place.
ECPs Communicate Children’s Progress to Families
All ECPs described multiple ways in which they provided
updates to families on a child with a disability’s progress.
Methods of communication included face-to-face informal
interactions at pickup and drop off, phone calls, text mes-
sages, and written notes. Every ECP reported that EI/ECSE
service delivery providers had their own systems for com-
municating with families, and said that while some EI/ECSE
service delivery providers gave copies of progress notes to
families, ECPs, or both, many did not. Consequently, many
families looked to ECPs to make sense of what their chil-
dren’s EI/ECSE service provision looked like day-to-day and
to provide information about the intervention strategies and
techniques being used. Universally, ECPs described trying
to observe EI/ECSE sessions (when they were conducted in
the classroom) and relaying information to families when
asked and/or when necessary.
The ECPs in leadership roles (administrator, director,
coordinator, home-care provider) also spoke about keeping
track of the services being provided in order to help families
hold service providers accountable for children’s progress.
This group described variability in the quality of EI/ECSE
service providers contracted by the city and felt that some
contracted entities offered more consistent and higher qual-
ity service provision when compared to others. According
to one ECP in an administrative role, “We keep a record
because we have a sign-in book downstairs. So, we can track
if they’re keeping up with the sessions and whatnot. Parents
do ask if they come.” As many children had multiple thera-
pists (e.g. speech and occupational therapy) traveling to see
them during a given week, families relied on ECPs to let
them know if EI/ECSE service providers were showing up
13

896
to sessions or not. In the instances where they were not, ECP
leaders could support families by giving them evidence to
show to their service provider agencies.
Collaboration with EI/ECSE Service Providers
All ECPs described their attempts to collaborate with EI/
ECSE service providers in order to ensure the needs of the
child and the early care center were being met. ECPs in all
roles tried to work with EI/ECSE service providers to deter-
mine scheduling. In addition, every ECP described attempts
to share expertise, information, and resources in order to
support children in their care when EI/ECSE service provid-
ers were not present, which was most of the time.
ECPs Help to Coordinate Services
Each ECP had multiple children in their care who were
receiving services and most spoke about the challenges of
having numerous providers in and out of their settings. To
alleviate these challenges, ECPs frequently took a direct
role in coordinating the service, and sometimes, the meet-
ing schedule. They described how they would work with EI/
ECSE service providers to determine appropriate times of
the day to come. One ECP explained her process as,
I schedule everything. Like they [the families] just sort
of like leave it to me. So, because they’re coming to the
school, so sometimes if they [the families] have a his-
tory of not great attendance, that therapist might give
me a call and say ‘Hey, is such and such in?’ and I’ll be
like, ‘Yeah.’ And then sort of go from here. And then
when they scheduled like the group meetings with the
parent, and the teacher, and the specialist, then I’ll look
on their calendar and I’ll schedule it because I’m the
one that knows the teacher’s schedule and I’m going
to have to be that person that’s going to have to cover
or whatever or just make space.
With scheduling, ECPs had to balance factors such as
the setting’s daily schedule and staffing, the child’s daily or
weekly schedule if a child was seeing multiple therapists, the
number of children in a classroom working with a therapist
at the same time, meeting space availability, and children’s
daily and weekly attendance.
ECPs Engage in Collaborative Practices with EI/ECSE Service
Providers
All participants reported both successful and unsuccessful
attempts to collaborate with EI/ECSE service providers in
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901
order to improve outcomes for children with disabilities in
their care. In the instances where collaboration included a
sustained sharing of expertise, information, and resources,
ECPs explained it could be highly effective, even transfor-
mational for both the child and the classroom. The most
successful strategies included both informal (daily updates
through conversation and notes) and formal practices
(weekly logs, progress monitoring. and transition meet-
ings and the use of platforms like Class Dojo) as a part
of this work.
ECPs reported two pervasive challenges that hindered
effective collaboration with EI/ECSE service providers.
All participants cited one or both of these challenges. The
first was that ECPs were largely left out of the develop-
ment of IFSPs and IEPs and often did not have access to
the final IFSP/IEP document because it was up to the fam-
ily to provide it, and most did not. Although participants
noted that IFSP/IEP meetings frequently occurred on-site
in their settings, ECPs reflected that, more often than not,
the development process was not collaborative. Echoing
this sentiment, one provider stated,
I guess what I gather is, I’ve seen the reports that
they put together. They take what we report, and I
guess they use that to help them with developing
the IEP, but it’s not collaborative in like they come
to us and we meet with them while they’re putting
the IEP together... It’s usually just a recap of what’s
happening. They don’t really ask for a lot of teacher
input believe it or not, even though they have them
[the IEP meetings] on site.
Participants who were able to compare these situations
to the positive outcomes that resulted when they were able
to access to the IFSP/IEP and worked closely with the EI/
ECSE service providers to ensure that a child’s goals and
objectives were addressed throughout the day were espe-
cially frustrated by the lack of access.
A second point of frustration stemmed from not having
enough time to talk with EI/ECSE service providers so
that information and strategies could be shared. “It would
be nice if we had a chance to really talk to the therapist to
find out if there were some things we could be doing in the
classroom, and we could work together” stated one ECP.
She then continued, “But it’s just not set up in the system
to be able to do that in a way where we could really focus
on [it].” As a result of a lack of common planning time,
consultative service or formalized communication proto-
cols, ECPs, particularly those in teaching roles, described
squeezing informal conversations in whenever they could.
However, they expressed a desire and willingness to sit
down and talk with the EI/ECSE service providers com-
ing into their classrooms to better coordinate instruction.
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901 897
Advocating for Children and Their Families
To varying degrees, all ECPs also found themselves in what
can be described as advocacy roles for the children with
disabilities in their care. ECPs frequently helped children
who qualified for services to get them. They also alerted
parents and providers when services were not being deliv-
ered consistently or when services did not reflect inclusive
classroom practices.
ECPs Advocate for Children in Need of Services
In describing their role in the EI/ECSE system, participants
universally highlighted how challenging the system could
be for families to navigate, particularly for those with lim-
ited economic resources and for those with limited English
proficiency. To support families in need, ECPs reported fre-
quently assuming a greater role in helping children access
services. Examples of this work include helping families
make phone calls and completing the paperwork to directly
refer children to the agencies in charge of EI/ECSE so the
family would not have to. One provider recounted,
I first give them the number, but sometimes they’ll tell
me… Listen, they might be a little bit intimidated to do
it, so I’ll go ahead and say it, and I’ll do it with them
and I’ll talk with them. I’ll be the mediator so that still
gets, the process still gets done.
As mediators and advocates, ECPs were passionate in
their depictions of themselves in these roles. ECPs in leader-
ship roles in particular, understood the system and its chal-
lenges, and they were able to leverage their experience to
directly support families trying to access services.
ECPs Advocate for Best Practices
In addition to helping children access services, all ECPs con-
sidered it their role to ensure that children in their care were
receiving quality services. Participants proudly described
instances where they intervened or pushed back in order to
protect the needs and best interests of children. Exemplify-
ing a wiliness to advocate on behalf of a child, one ECP
recalled,
They came up to do an evaluation on one of my chil-
dren. And I just think it was overwhelming, and I had
to stop. I had to stop them because it was about five of
them. And they were like shaking things in his face….
And it was so weird to me and so my kid was shutting
down and I just didn’t like it and I just stopped it. I
went and I got him out of there and I took him back
upstairs. And I said this is over. I was like, it’s too
much for him. I was like, he’s never seen you guys
before. [They] said to me, ‘you’re a bit aggressive’.
And I was like, ‘you’re not helping the situation. So,
you probably should go. Like, now.’ That’s my person-
ality, and I took him back upstairs.
Other participants recounted similar situations. As
the professionals most knowledgeable about children’s
strengths, challenges, and limitations in the early learning
environment, ECPS felt it was incumbent upon them to step
in if necessary.
Many ECPs also described their efforts to ensure that
children with disabilities were not unnecessarily pulled out
of their classrooms by EI/ECSE service providers during
service provision. These participants expressed concern that
EI/ECSE service providers would often remove students
with disabilities from activities with their peers without dis-
abilities. They reported concerns that this practice impeded
both professional collaboration for teachers and naturally
occurring learning opportunities for children. Participants
further argued that children did not like being separated from
their peers, that children were more capable of participating
in the learning environment than EI/ECSE service provid-
ers assumed, and that ECPs in teaching roles would have a
difficult time implementing strategies and techniques they
could not first observe. One ECP administrator whose center
had seen so many violations of inclusion that a policy was
created and publicly posted stated,
This is why we have this policy and this is why we had
the policy… [For when the service delivery personnel
says] ‘We’re pulling out.’ No you’re not, we want you
in the classroom…. It falls to me [the administrator]...
That falls on us to be that advocate to say, ‘Hey, we
need you to push in.’ We know some things for speech,
if they might need to be quiet and they might need to
move their mouths a certain way, that we have rooms
that they can go to, but the door has to be open.
While only one participant reported enacting a formal
policy, other participants who observed children being
unnecessarily removed from classrooms described approach-
ing the service delivery providers directly and, if necessary,
reporting their concerns to the contracted entities and/or
families.
Discussion
Bronfebrenner (1979) posited that young children’s devel-
opment was influenced by the multiple systems (e.g., home,
school, community, society) in their environment. The sys-
tems that directly interact with children (micro-systems) are
influenced by the actions and interactions of the individuals
13

898
(e.g., parents, care providers, teachers) who function in
that system. We examined the role of the ECP in order to
know more about how systems support children with dis-
abilities and their families, The results of this study showed
that ECPs play an active and critical role communicating
with children’s parents, collaborating with special educators
teachers and therapists, and advocating for high quality ser-
vice delivery. We also identified, based on the perspectives
of participants, barriers specific to these activities.
The Need for Systematic Communication
and Collaboration
As team members, ECPs can be a significant resource in
supporting families of children with disabilities or delays
(Ceglowski et al., 2009). In this study, communication with
families was a key responsibility of participants, as was
trying to collaborate with service delivery providers. It is
well established that communication is central to effective
teaming and can positively impact outcomes for children and
families (Jackson et al., 2000; Dinnebeil et al., 2001; Pugach
& Johnson, 2002; Odom & Wolery, 2003; Hunt et al., 2004;
Sheppard, 2017). In terms of collaboration, it is also critical
that the ECPs develop strong relationships with special edu-
cation personnel and to be a part of the collaborative team
that supports the child with disabilities (Freeman & Valkil,
2004). We found, however, that it was not the case for the
ECPs we spoke to, and as such is an area for opportunity
and growth.
In EI/ECSE, collaboration typically falls into one of
three models, either multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or
transdisciplinary (Horn & Jones, 2004; Kilgo, 2006; Bruder,
2010) with the transdisciplinary model being the recom-
mended practice (Horn & Jones, 2004, Sandall et al., 2000).
In a transdisciplinary approach, the hierarchies of power
and isolated processes typical of the multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary models become negated (Horn & Jones,
2004; Kilgo, 2006; Bruder, 2010). Our findings showed that
practices could rarely be considered transdisciplinary. How-
ever, participants also frequently offered ideas or proposed
solutions in response to the challenges they faced around
collaborative teaming. We see a willingness, at least on the
individual level, to engage in moving toward a more effec-
tive model, which is an important initial step.
Impeding collaborative efforts were a series of tensions
highlighted by participants. The first tension that arose
between ECPs, special education teachers, and therapists
was around being left out of the development of IFSPs and
IEPs. Among participants, teachers and providers employed
by Head Start and the city’s school district reported some-
times participating in these meetings. Home care and other
center-based care providers were left out of the process
entirely and even more problematically, they rarely had
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901
access to these documents once finalized, indicating a sig-
nificant gap in the system. Although the early care workforce
has its well-documented challenges (e.g., low wages, high
turnover), the input of teachers and providers is crucial to
the success of EI/ECSE for young children with disabilities
and delays (Freeman & Valkil, 2004).
Additional tensions rose around coaching to embed
instruction, which all ECPs experienced, regardless of
employer. Participants indicated that they did not having
enough time to talk with special education teachers and
therapists and these personnel were opting to pull children
out of the classroom/group activity more than necessary.
Both issues were seen as limiting teachers’ and providers’
understanding of the interventions and supports that would
best serve the children in their daily care. These practices
are counter to IDEA (2004), which requires that specialized
instruction and therapy be delivered in the least restrictive
environment to the maximum extent appropriate, best prac-
tice research (Odom & Wolery, 2003), and recommendations
from the field (DEC/NAEYC, 2009). Children ultimately are
unlikely to benefit from therapies that are not delivered in
natural environments where those caring for them are able
to embed those practices into everyday activities.
The Need to Value ECPs as Team Members
As much as participants in this study viewed themselves
as communicators and collaborators, they also saw them-
selves as advocates for young children and families in need.
Despite facing workforce barriers, including a lack of spe-
cialized training (Smith, 2015), our findings suggest that
ECPs are making significant contributions to the develop-
ment of young children with disabilities and delays. How-
ever, several reported that their contributions were underval-
ued. This is consistent with the national conversation about
early education in the US and the need to elevate the role of
ECPs and invest in this workforce. Examples of this are the
National Association for the Education of Young Children’s
“Power to the Profession” movement. Our findings amplify
the need for this conversation to extend to the integral work
that ECPs do for children in the EI/ECSE system.
The lack of a governing body and single set of stand-
ards that applies to all providers had led to many inconsist-
encies across the US early care system (Cryer & Clifford,
2003). Providers and teachers range from those with little
or no formal training to those with specialized postgraduate
degrees (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council,
2015), which we saw in this study. And while professionals
working in Early Head Start/Head Start, school districts,
and as administrators tend to command higher wages due
to standardized degree and certification requirements, the
reality is that most of the workforce is paid hourly and earns
so little that they qualify for public benefits (US Department
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901 899
of Labor, 2015). Our participants represented both groups.
Those representing the latter sector of the workforce were
particularly attune to the lack of support they received in
relation to the work they were doing for children and fami-
lies navigating the EI/ECSE system.
When the contributions of the ECPs we interviewed are
examined in the context of their exclusion from decision-
making processes (IFSP and IEP meetings), the reality of
how undervalued this profession is becomes clear. Decisions
are being made for and about children who spend signifi-
cant amounts of time in their care without their input and
absent their voice. Additionally, when time is not taken to
appropriately train and model interventions, techniques,
and strategies with ECPs, the failure to appreciate those we
expect to guide and educate our most at-risk children speaks
volumes. Although we recognize that there are numerous
factors in play preventing ECPs from more full participation
in EI/ECSE, stakeholders must advocate for the inclusion of
ECPs in this system like ECPs advocate for the inclusion of
children with disabilities in their classrooms.
Limitations
Participants were each interviewed only once about a sys-
tem with many complexities. One interview may have not
provided significant time for reflection and may have limited
the depth of the responses. Although data saturation was
reached, these finding cannot be generalized to a large urban
environment that provides services for thousands of young
children and their families. Finally, ECP is a generalized
term used to include professionals in varying roles (admin-
istrators, home care providers, teachers, etc.). The perspec-
tives put forth by each of the participants is not necessarily
reflective of all ECPs, nor does it reflect the experiences of
all other professionals who serve in similar roles.
Recommendations and Conclusions
We would like to see the system move towards a collabora-
tive teaming model that is more effective and that recognizes
and values the contributions of ECPs. Our recommendations
for EI/ECSE service providers include, insisting that ECPs’
input is sought out and valued during the IFSP/IEP devel-
opment process, encouraging families to share the IFSP/
IEP document with ECPs to facilitate continuity across
settings, and establishing formalized and systematic com-
munication practices with families and with ECPs to ensure
the transfer of skills and knowledge. In addition to valuing
and investing in ECPs, we believe that individuals across
the early care profession would benefit from professional
development focused on EI/ECSE to formalize their already
extensive, but largely intuitive, knowledge of policies and
best practices. To maximize effectiveness and work toward
a trans-disciplinary collaboration model, EI/ECSE profes-
sionals and ECPs should participate in professional develop-
ment activities together.
Our findings are consistent with extant research. How-
ever, they are also unique given the distinctive positioning
of ECPs in collaborative EI and ECSE teams. We found a
coalition of ECPs whose roles and responsibilities contrib-
ute greatly to the outcomes of children with disabilities and
delays in their care, yet whose knowledge base is not always
leveraged when it comes to teaming practices. As EI/ECSE
groups, advocates, policymakers, and stakeholders continue
to engage in the work of supporting young children and their
families, we believe it is important to address the issues and
challenges identified by ECPs in the study.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  This research was not funded and there are no con-
flicts of interest to report.
Ethical Approval  This study was approved by Saint Joseph’s Univer-
sity’s IRB.
References
Barton, E. E., & Smith, B. J. (2015). Advancing high-quality preschool
inclusion: A discussion and recommendations for the field. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(2), 69–78.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., &
Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional part-
nerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional
Children, 70(2), 167–184. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00144​02904​
07000​203
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1191/​14780​88706​qp063​oa
Bricker, D. D., Felimban, H. S., Lin, F. Y., Stegenga, S. M., & Storie,
S. O. (2020). A proposed framework for enhancing collaboration
in early intervention/early childhood special education, 1. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
02711​21419​890683
Bronfebrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard
University Press.
Bruder, M. B. (2010). Early childhood intervention: A promise to chil-
dren and families for their future. Exceptional Children, 76(3),
339–355. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00144​02910​07600​306
Ceglowski, D. A., Logue, M. E., Ullrich, A., & Gillbert, . (2009). Par-
ents’ perceptions of child care for children with disabilities. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 36, 497–504. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10643-​009-​0309-0
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A.
(2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementa-
tion. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1177/​00110​00006​287390
Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. (2003). Early childhood education and care
in the USA. Paul Brooks.
13

900
Dinnebeil, L., McInerney, W., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001).
Itinerant early childhood special education services: Service
delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(1),
35–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10538​15101​02400​106
Division for Early Childhood Education (DEC) & National Associa-
tion for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2009).
Early Childhood Inclusion: A Summary. Retrieved from, http://​
www.​naeyc.​org/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​globa​lly-​shared/​downl​oads/​
PDFs/​r esou​r ces/​p osit​i on-​state​m ents/​D EC_​NAEYC_​E CSum​
mary_A.​pdf
Erwin, E., Soodak, L., Winton, P., & Turnbull, A. (2001). “I wish
it wouldn’t all depend on me”: Research on families and early
childhood inclusion. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood
inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Fleming, J. L., Sawyer, L. B., & Campbell, P. H. (2011). Early
Intervention providers’ perspectives about implementing par-
ticipation-based practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 30(4), 233–244. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02711​21410​
371986
Freeman, R., & Valkil, S. (2004). The role of family childcare pro-
viders in early intervention. Early Childhood Education Jour-
nal, 32, 121–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10643-​004-​1078-4
Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., et al. (2000).
Using an embedding strategy to teach preschoolers with signifi-
cant disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 139–162.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10166​88130​297
Horn, E., & Jones, H. (2004). Collaboration and teaming in early
intervention and early childhood special education. In E. M.
Horn & H. Jones (Eds.), Interdisciplinary teams Young. `Excep-
tional children monograph series No.6 (pp. 11–20). Sopris
West.
Hundert, J. P. (2007). Training classroom and resource preschool
teachers to develop inclusive class interventions for children
with disabilities: Generalization to new intervention targets.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(3), 159–173.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10983​00707​00900​30401
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae, S. (2004). Collabo-
rative teaming to support preschoolers with severe disabilities
who are placed in general education early childhood programs.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(3), 123–142.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02711​21404​02400​30101
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Trans-
forming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unify-
ing foundation. The National Academies Press.
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices
in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in
moderate to severe disabilities are saying. The Journal of the
Associations for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 129–
141. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2511/​r psd.​25.3.​129
Kilgo, J. L. (2006). Transdisciplinary teaming in early intervention/
early childhood special education: Navigating together with
families and children. Association for Childhood Education
International.
King, G., Law, M., King, S., & Rosenbaum, P. (2009). Parents’ and
service providers’ perceptions of the family-centredness of
children’s rehabilitation services. Physical and Occupational
Therapy in Pediatrics, 18(1), 21–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
J006v​18n01_​02
Knoche, L., Peterson, C. A., Edwards, C. P., & Jeon, H. J. (2006).
Child care for children with and without disabilities: The
provider, observer, and parent perspectives. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21(1), 93–109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ecresq.​2006.​01.​001
Moes, D., & Frea, W. (2002). Contextualized behavior support in
early intervention for children with autism and their families.
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(6), 519–
533. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10212​98729​297
Moran, K. K. (2019). Perspectives on the child care search process in
low-income, urban neighbourhoods in the United States. Early
Child Development and Care. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03004​
430.​2019.​16417​03
Moran, K. K., & Sheppard, M. E. (Unpublished manuscript). Entering,
navigating, and exiting Early Intervention and Early Childhood
Special Education: An urban case study.
Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of practice in early
intervention/early childhood special education: Evidence based
practices. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 164–173.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00224​66903​03700​30601
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan,
N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative
data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation
research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Men-
tal Health Services Research, 42, 533–544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10488-​013-​0528-y
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Sage.
Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (2002). Collaborative practices collabo-
rative schools. Love Publishing Company.
Roberts, K., Dowell, A., & Nie, J. B. (2019). Attempting rigour
and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research
data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 19(1), 1–8. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 186/​
s12874-​019-​0707-y
Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (2000). DEC recom-
mended practices for early intervention/early childhood special
education. Sopris West.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in
qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2),
63–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3233/​EFI-​2004-​22201
Sheppard, M. E. (2012). A study of preschool special education teams
in New York City as reported by the parents and legal guardians
of preschoolers with special needs (Order No. 3532975). Avail-
able from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved
from, https://​ezpro​xy.​sju.​edu/​login?​url=​https://​www.​proqu​est.​
com/​d isse​r tati​o ns-​t heses/​study-​p resc​h ool-​s peci​a l-​e duca​t ion-​
teams-​new-​york/​docvi​ew/​11819​45897/​se-2?​accou​ntid=​14071
Sheppard, M. E. (2017). Team communication examined in the
context of parent race and income: Are we including all par-
ents in the discussion? Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Exceptional Learners, 17(1), 39–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5555/​
1547-​1888.​17.1.​39
Tang, S., Coley, R. L., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2012). Low-income
families’ selection of child care for their young children. Chil-
dren and Youth Services Review, 34(10), 2002–2011. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​child​youth.​2012.​06.​012
U.S. Department of Labor (2015). Occupational Employment and
Wages. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from, http://​www.​
bls.​gov/​oes/#​tables
Viasmoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2015).
Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic
analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100–
110. Retrieved from, https://​nordo​pen.​nord.​no/​nord-​xmlui/​bitst​
ream/​handle/​11250/​23864​08/​Vaism​oradi.​pdf?​seque​nce=3
Wall, S., Kisker, E. E., Peterson, C. A., Carta, J. J., & Jeon, H.-J.
(2006). Child care for low- income children with disabilities:
Access, quality, and parental satisfaction. Journal of Early
Intervention, 28(4), 283–298. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 177/​1 0538​
15106​02800​404
Weglarz-Ward, J. M., Santos, R. M., & Hayslip, L. A. (2020). What
early intervention looks like in child care settings: Stories
Early Childhood Education Journal (2022) 50:891–901 901

from providers. Journal of Early Intervention, 42(3), 244–258. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10538​15119​886110 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Wolery, M., & McWilliam, R. A. (1998). Classroom-based practices for
preschoolers with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic,
34(2), 95–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10534​51298​03400​205

13
Early Childhood Education Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved.