Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary 475
Review Questions and Discussion Points 475
Recommended Resources 475
References 476
Chapter 11 Intervention 479
Tina M. Smith-Bonahue
Defining Intervention 481
Family-Centered Intervention 482
Multiculturalism and Early Intervention 483 ● Barriers to
Effective Family Involvement 485
Program Planning 486
Special Education Eligibility Determination 488 ● Multicultural
Considerations in Assessment 489 ● Developing a Strategy 502
Summary 516
Review Questions and Discussion Points 518
Recommended Resources 518
References 518
Name Index 523
Subject Index 529
Foreword
E arly childhood intervention no longer has to fight for its place in the sun. More
and more, the critical importance of early learning for children at risk and those
with special needs is understood and appreciated by parents, educators, and pol-
icy makers. In the past decade alone, evidence has accumulated that shows that
investments in young children can have a significant return on human capital
investment. Programs targeted toward the earliest years outstrip those focused on
older students many times over.
Educators have also acquired new evidence to support the position that
early interventions can make a difference that can last a lifetime. One of the best
examples of this is language learning; here the data show the dependence of lan-
guage learning on the age of the learner for first and second languages as well as
for spoken and sign languages. Those who seek to acquire language later in life
have more difficulty learning and usually demonstrate less mastery than those
who begin early. Studies also show that the older a child is, the more difficult it is
to alter that child’s behavior. Although it’s clear that development continues well
beyond the first decade of life, for those who have problems in learning, the lon-
ger we wait, the more complex and expensive will be remediation. A strong foun-
dation in the principles of child development and a keen awareness of these issues
are critical to implementing effective early intervention practices and programs.
Nevertheless, despite all we know about the importance of early interven-
tion, there is still much more to learn. As a nation, we must learn to confront
and contain the inequities that place some children at greater disadvantage than
others because of accidents of birth, socioeconomic status, or race/ethnicity. We
also need to convince policy makers and the general public that early interven-
tion does not constitute an inoculation against inadequate care, treatment, and
failing educational programs that follow in years to come. Continuity between
early and later intervention is critical. Finally, we must recognize that caring for
children with special needs involves the family, the school, and the community.
In particular, it entails changes in organizational structures that can help elimi-
nate the insularity that our various child-serving institutions operate within. This
organizational isolation and lack of communication frustrates those who work on
behalf of children with special needs and prevents children, families, and profes-
sionals from achieving their goals.
Young Children with Special Needs demonstrates that the future of early
intervention is founded on strong evidence obtained within the framework of
child development. The text has evolved over the past three decades. It not only
keeps pace with this evidence base but it also remains true to the critical impor-
tance of understanding the principles of child development for those working
with young children with special needs. In addition to providing current infor-
mation for early interventionists and other child development professionals, this
xii
FOREWORD xiii
Samuel J. Meisels
Founding Executive Director
Buffett Early Childhood Institute
University of Nebraska
Preface
W hen the first edition of Young Children with Special Needs was published,
Nancy Fallen, the first editor, had a vision for a nascent field that was laid out in
the text. However, there was little history to present about the field at that time.
In the four decades since, early childhood special education has grown in ways
few would have imagined. From the first few experimental personnel prepara-
tion programs, dozens more have developed, many aligned closely with regular
early education and child development training programs. From a few model
demonstration early intervention programs for preschoolers in each state, there
have grown thousands of programs, and early intervention is mandatory in every
state for eligible children beginning at birth. From a few experimental curricula
and homemade materials, an entire industry has advanced, geared to serving the
needs of young children with special needs and their families. And, from service
delivery models often based on geography (rural, urban, or suburban), Internet
connectivity has revolutionized access to information. Parents have access to a
wealth of information in seconds and programs can now offer real-time distance
early intervention. What a time we live in!
● All chapters have been extensively updated to reflect current theory and prac-
tice. A developmental perspective continues to be the prevailing philosophy,
and we believe that this separates this text from those with a “disorders” focus.
● All references are 2000 or later, except for classic studies. References appear
at the end of each chapter to make it easier for the readers to locate key
references and citations in an efficient fashion.
● The Partnerships with Families chapter has been moved back to the first
part of the book. Pam Epley and Kathleen Kyzar, authoritative experts
in this area, are the new authors of this chapter. This is a move based on
reader and reviewer feedback, but it also reflects the pervasive importance
of family involvement to every aspect of early childhood—a message that is
reinforced throughout this text and an important subtle trend in the early
childhood field that indicates the ever growing significance of the family in
xiv
PREFA CE xv
serving young children with special needs. Indeed, in the fourth edition of
this text, this chapter was located in the foundation section, but for the fifth
edition, we were guided to place this chapter in the assessment and inter-
vention section—indicating the critical nature of family information and
participation in the assessment and intervention process. For this revision,
we have moved the family chapter back to the foundation section to reflect
the pervasive importance of family involvement to every aspect of early
childhood—a message that will be reinforced throughout this text.
● Fine and oral motor development were separated from self-care skills into
individual chapters. This is a more logical and manageable approach for
learning the complex material, and one that aligns with contemporary
perspectives on assessment and early intervention.
● Additional current information is included regarding other federal laws,
policies, and exciting new initiatives. One of these new initiatives, response
to intervention, may provide a strategic approach to early identification,
assessment, and early intervention, and will likely have significant applica-
bility to the field of early childhood education.
● Additional and improved graphics have been added to reinforce the written text
● An Instructor’s Resource Manual and Test Bank now accompanies the text.
The sixth edition of Young Children with Special Needs also maintains a
developmental theoretical perspective. Successful early intervention revolves
around competent professionals who are knowledgeable about children, families,
and the tools of intervention, and apply that knowledge in a sensitive and skillful
way. We believe this formula will yield the greatest benefits to the readers, and
it should facilitate the translation of this information to practice settings where
there always will be a demand for expertise in early development.
Further, the organization of this text was thoughtfully structured to support
a logical flow of information. The division into the three parts is consistent with a
knowledge-content-application approach that guides the structure of this book as
well as the curricula and associated courses for many early childhood and child devel-
opment training programs. We have continued to put emphasis on key content areas
in early childhood special education, such as historical foundations, basic growth
and development, families, assessment and intervention, technology, and cultural
competency, with many of these topics being woven into the fabric of each chapter.
We have also maintained the changes that were made in earlier editions and
that were well received. The text has a user-friendly appearance with a number of
helpful instructional aids. Specifically, each chapter begins with an outline of the
chapter-specific topic and ends with questions and discussion points. In addition,
each chapter provides a number of recommended resources for additional read-
ing, research, and projects. All chapters have additional instructional technolo-
gies, including introductory case vignettes, key points listed in a sidebar format,
text boxes highlighting a topic directly or indirectly related to the chapter, and
boldfaced key words. It is hoped that these instructional features will facilitate the
teaching and learning of this material.
The introductory chapter in this sixth edition traces the unprecedented
evolution of early childhood special education from the seedling stage that
xvi Preface
characterized the field when this book was first published to the current stage of
emerging maturity with great emphasis on evidence-based best practices. Read-
ers benefit from having a history of the field in order to appreciate the rich heri-
tage of early childhood special education. The challenges that marked the first
few decades in the field were imposing, and, not unexpectedly, new challenges
continue to surface. It is important never to lose sight of the battles that were
fought and won in Congress, in state legislatures, in universities, and in local
communities. The need for strong advocacy continues. The first chapter will pro-
vide the foundation and tools for readers to engage successfully in these activities.
The key to successful early intervention has not changed over the years. We
place great emphasis on the readers gaining a deep and broad perspective of how
children develop as they do and what can go wrong. The early interventionist
who knows child development can feel confident and be supportive of children’s
and parents’ needs. Chapter Two is the anchor for the first part, offering funda-
mental and essential information on prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal develop-
ment. We have made a great effort to present the very latest information and to
challenge the readers to think beyond the facts. This intellectual challenge will
serve the readers well as they move through the remainder of the text and beyond
to become leaders in the field of early childhood—and we believe that this is
based on students and professionals having a strong foundation in development.
Moving the Partnerships with Families chapter to the first part of the book high-
lights the fundamental importance for readers to understand family dynamics. We
are very pleased to welcome Pam Epley and Kathleen Kyzar as authors of this chapter
and appreciate the sensitivity and expertise they communicate to the reader. We know
that the limited time an early interventionist spends with a child magnifies the impor-
tance that the family plays in the life of a young child with special needs. This chapter
encourages the reader to engage with the family and offers the tools for doing so.
Philosophically, we see development as the basis for assessment and diag-
nosis; it is the foundation on which interventions are built. To this end, Part Two
comprises the central chapters of this text. In short, these chapters provide the
information necessary to make the readers comfortable and confident in their
knowledge of how children develop. Any redundancy in information among
chapters is intentional, because it reflects the natural overlap in material from
one developmental area to another, and such repetition will facilitate learning.
The chapters in Part Two are written by specialists in the area. They intro-
duce the readers to new ways of thinking about children and about terminology
that is often unique to that area. These are necessary tools for the competent
early interventionist in order to be able to communicate with other professionals
and to interpret specialized information for parents. This is most notable in the
chapters on motor development. Because of the nature of the population, young
children with special needs often are challenged in their ability to move around
and to maintain a posture that supports learning and development. It is only by
immersing oneself in the material in each chapter and then applying the informa-
tion to real children and families that the readers will realize the true benefits of
this text. The division of self-care development and adaptive behavior into their
own chapter also aims toward a more logical approach that not only will facilitate
learning this key information but will also highlight the critical importance of
these skills for the child, family, and early interventionist.
PREFA CE xvii
Warren Umansky is a Pas-President of the Division for Early Childhood of the Coun-
cil for Exceptional Children. He received his Ph.D. at Indiana University and completed a
postdoctoral fellowship in Pediatric Neuropsychology at Tufts–New England Medical Center.
He established one of the earliest graduate training programs in the country in Early Child-
hood Special Education at the University of Georgia and directed a federal project on teen-
age parents. Following his faculty position, he was Director of Maternal and Child Health
for the Northeast Health District in Georgia, before entering private practice. Dr. Umansky
has been a consultant to preschool programs, universities, school systems, and hospitals and
was a speaker for pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly and McNeil. He has led international
study tours and has made presentations throughout the United States and in other countries.
His many published books, chapters, articles, continuing education courses, and multimedia
materials encompass a range of child development issues. He currently is working on a revi-
sion of his book on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and on a continuing education
course on ethics and the law in working with children.
xviii
Contributors
Carole W. Dennis, Sc.D., OTR/L, BCP Dailyn Martinez, M.A.
Assistant Professor Psychology Intern
Occupational Therapy Department University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Ithaca College Dallas, Texas
Ithaca, New York
Jean A. Patz, MS, OTR/L
Debra Drang, Ph.D. Instructor, Instructional Specialist, and Research Assistant
Faculty Research Assistant Occupational Therapy Program
Special Education Program The Waisman Center
University of Maryland University of Wisconsin–Madison
College Park, Maryland Madison, Wisconsin
Introduction to Young
Children with Special Needs
Warren Umansky
CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Young Children with Special Needs 3
C hapter Outline
● A Rationale for Early Childhood Special Education
● The Early Interventionist
● Young Children with Special Needs and Their Families
● The Family and the Community
T here is mounting evidence that early intervention can have a markedly posi-
tive effect on the development of infants and preschoolers with some types of One goal of early intervention
disabilities. Partly because of the influence of professional and advocacy orga- is to prevent or reduce
nizations, such as the Council for Exceptional Children, Children and Adults negative environmental and
with Attention Deficit Disorders, United Cerebral Palsy, the Autism Society of biological influences on the
child.
America, the National Brain Injury Association, and the Epilepsy Foundation
of America, decision makers have become more responsive to the needs of chil-
dren with disabilities and children who are at risk for disabilities. In addition, the
experiences of agencies that offer early intervention programs, such as the com-
munity resources referred to in the vignette, have contributed to an atmosphere
of urgency. These experiences have revealed such benefits of early intervention as
long-term savings in program costs as children’s needs for complex and expensive
services decrease with time.
4 part I Foundations
Legislation
Most early intervention efforts began under the umbrella of Maternal and Child
Health (MCH). The Title V Maternal and Child Health program was enacted
in 1935 under the Social Security Act. It is the country’s oldest federal–state
partnership, wherein each state had to provide local funds to match federal funds
given it for programs to help mothers, women, infants, and children, includ-
ing young children with special needs. In 1981, Title V became a Block Grant
Program. States have been given money annually to support and expand pro-
grams for identified high-risk populations. (The current funding levels for each
state can be found at the link at the end of the chapter under “Recommended
Resources,” Maternal and Child Health Bureau.) Maternal and Child Health pro-
grams have supported an expansive array of services at the state and local levels.
In 2012, for example, two new programs were initiated with the support of the
Affordable Care Act that continue the federal priority of focusing on prevention
of disabilities and caring for children with disabilities. The first program sup-
ports Family-to-Family Health Information Centers in each state. As the Secre-
tary of Health and Human Services said, these programs “are a good investment
and have a measurable and positive impact on families and communities” (press
release, May 23, 2012). The second program is called the Maternal, Infant and
Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. Among families that are highest prior-
ity to receive services under this program are those with children with develop-
mental delays or disabilities, those with a history of substance abuse and tobacco
use, and families who have children with low achievement. Additional MCH pro-
grams about which early intervention professionals should be aware and which
focus on health and safety of young children are presented in Box 1.1.
Compared to health-related programs, education for children with disabili-
ties was primarily a local and state concern well into the twentieth century. The
federal government made few specific commitments to children with special
needs. Its first commitment to special education was the establishment in 1864
of Gallaudet College for the Deaf in Washington, DC. It was not until 1930, how-
ever, that the federal government directly addressed the issue of special educa-
tion and established a section on Exceptional Children and Youth in the Office
of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The needs of
young children were also addressed through the Children’s Bureau of the same
department.
The federal government’s role in special education remained limited, how-
ever, until the 1960s. It did support programs for children with special needs by
(1) supplying matching funds to state and local agencies, (2) granting funds for
research in all areas of exceptionality, (3) disseminating information, (4) provid-
ing consultative services to state and local groups, and (5) distributing fellow-
ships for the training of professionals in all areas related to special education. A
major turning point for federal support of education came in 1965, when Con-
gress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act and
its subsequent amendments made available to schools large amounts of money
with which to serve children from 3 to 21 years of age who were educationally
disadvantaged and who were disabled, created the Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped, and provided funds for research and demonstration projects to
6 part I Foundations
Healthy Child Care America Program This program Carolina, this program has developed quality training for
works toward goals of quality assurance, child care health professionals on the specifics of child care health
health consultant infrastructure building, and access to consultation. Over 400 consultants have been trained
medical homes/insurance for children in early care and and provide direct consultative services that improve
education programs. In partnership with national experts health practices and policies in early childhood programs
(in particular the American Academy of Pediatrics and the throughout the nation.
American Public Health Association), voluntary national
health and safety standards for child care programs— Child Care and Health Partnership This program
commonly referred to as Caring for Our Children is located at the American Academy of Pediatrics. In
(CFOC)—have been developed and continuously collaboration with health professionals, it has sought
improved with new scientific evidence and best practice. to improve children’s health and safety in child care
States use these standards as guidelines to improve their settings in such ways as better and earlier developmental
child care state regulations. Caregivers and families use screenings, increased awareness and access to a medical
them to evaluate their programs and make improvements home, and access to health insurance.
to protect children from harm and improve their healthy
development and be ready to enter school. Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems Program
(ECCS) This program has successfully built an
National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child infrastructure within states that supports families
Care and Early Education This program, housed at the and communities in their development of children
University of Colorado, Denver, coordinates the continual who are healthy and ready to learn at school entry.
improvement of CFOC and has developed consumer- The program has a broader scope than most other
friendly resources such as specific nutrition, physical activity, systems’ development efforts in that it focuses on
and screen time standards to help set the path for the five different areas of early childhood needs: (1) early
prevention of childhood obesity in the youngest children. care and education, (2) access to health insurance
and medical homes, (3) social-emotional health and
National Training Institute for Child Care Health mental-development health, (4) family support, and
Consultants Housed at the University of North (5) parenting education.
improve special education services. Many parallel legislative efforts began during
these times, as well.
In 1974, amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act required
The federal government states without conflicting laws to establish a plan to identify and serve all children
has played a growing role in with disabilities from birth to 21 years of age. The same philosophy and a simi-
supporting and encouraging lar age range were included in Public Law (P.L.) 94–142, the Education for All
the growth of early Handicapped Children Act of 1975. (Unfortunately, few states fell within this
intervention programs.
act’s mandate because of state laws that defined an older mandatory school age.)
In addition, priorities for serving children were established such that states first
had to serve school-aged children who were receiving no education, then chil-
dren with severe disabilities who were in inappropriate placement, and, finally,
preschool children. Nevertheless, several states passed local legislation to serve
young children with special needs. Texas, for example, made programs avail-
able from birth to children who needed special services. California offered state
CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Young Children with Special Needs 7
funds to any school system that served preschool-aged children with disabilities.
Virginia maintained a statewide technical assistance system for preschool teach-
ers of children with disabilities and reimbursed the school system for a large por-
tion of the teachers’ salaries. Public Law 94–142 is viewed by some as one of the
major pieces of legislation ever passed that has motivated states to provide high-
quality education to children with special needs. Amendments to the original law
have further expanded and refined services.
Public Law 94–142 contained numerous provisions that apply to children with
disabilities of all ages and some that apply to preschool-aged children specifically.
Some of the requirements of the original law follow:
1. Public education agencies must ensure that all children who need special
education and related services are identified and evaluated.
2. Parents have numerous procedural safeguards that protect the rights of
each child with a disability to receive a free and appropriate education.
These safeguards include the rights of parents to do the following:
a. Review the child’s educational records.
b. Obtain an independent evaluation of the child.
c. Receive written notice before the school begins the special education
placement process.
d. Request a hearing before an impartial hearing officer to challenge place-
ment or program decisions.
3. The child must receive a comprehensive multidisciplinary educational
assessment. Various types of intellectual, social, and cultural information
must be considered in the assessment. The process must be repeated at
least every three years.
4. An individualized education plan (IEP) must be written for every child in
special education. Development of the document is a joint effort of school
personnel and the parent. The IEP must be reviewed at least annually.
5. To the maximum extent possible, children with disabilities must be edu-
cated with their nondisabled peers. Special classes and separate schools can
be used only when the nature or severity of the child’s disability prohibits
education in a more typical setting.
to preschool children with disabilities from age 3 under Section 619 of Title B of
the law (the Preschool Grants Program), Title H of the law provided incentives to
states to serve children from birth who had special needs or were at risk for later
problems. The law specified an increased role for families in services to children
from birth through 2 years of age and introduced the individualized family ser-
vice plan (IFSP), which is the equivalent of the IEP but must consider the needs
of the whole family relative to the child. States had five years to implement a com-
prehensive, coordinated interagency system of services and resources, including
an emphasis on serving infants and toddlers. States that adopted this initiative
were required to have 14 components in place based on a timeline specified by
the law wherein states had to be prepared to provide full services to infants and
toddlers by the fifth year of funding. By the 1993–1994 school year, all states were
required to ensure full implementation.
In 1991, Congress reauthorized funds for special education programs as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This revision of the origi-
nal law made services for the 3- to 5-year-old population mandatory for states
rather than optional. A subsequent authorization changed the funding formula
to increase the amount of money that states received for each identified child.
The 1997 Amendments to IDEA (P.L. 105–17) and IDEA 2004 (P.L. 108–446)
further solidified the funding of services. Figure 1.1 presents funding levels from
1977 through 2012 and the number of children served under Part B of IDEA
through 2010. The law also moved provisions for services to infants and toddlers
from Part H to Part C and increased to 16 the number of components states were
required to have in place for early intervention services for infants and toddlers.
These components are presented in Box 1.2. In the latter part of 2011, new regu-
lations went into effect that complemented the 2004 reauthorization and made
several technical changes.
The specific wording of IDEA formalized a philosophy of inclusiveness
Inclusiveness is the promoted by early intervention professionals for many years. The purpose of
participation of children with inclusion is to expose children with disabilities to typical settings, activities, and
disabilities in settings with peers, allowing typically developing children to interact with their peers with dis-
typically developing children. abilities. Also, IDEA promoted the principle of natural environments, which
means that the child should receive early intervention services where the child
naturally would be—in the home or at a child care center, for example. With
increasing numbers of children receiving early intervention, today’s programs are
being challenged to develop new service delivery models. A significant change in
procedures for reassessment of children was made in the reauthorized IDEA of
2004. The original law required that a comprehensive multidisciplinary educa-
tional assessment be performed at least every three years. This was changed such
that assessments can be performed no more frequently than annually if the needs
of the child warrant and at least every three years unless the parent and local edu-
cation agency agree that reassessment is not necessary.
Natural environments enable The number of children served by early intervention programs and the
delivery of services to young amount of money spent for services are significant. Table 1.1 shows the number
children with special needs of infants and toddlers through age 2 served from 1991 to 2011 under Part C of
in settings that are typical for IDEA and the amount of money appropriated through 2012. In 2011, 343,000
other children of that age. infants and toddlers and their families received early intervention services. This
represents an increase of almost 50,000 children served since the last edition
CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Young Children with Special Needs 9
F i gu r e 1 . 1 Number of children served, total appropriations, and allocation per child from 1977 to
2012, Section 619 (Preschool Programs)
Key:
Children (Thousands) receiving FAPE in the Fall of each federal fiscal year, U.S. & Outlying Areas.
FFY (Federal Fiscal Year): For example, in FFY 1986, 261,000 children were reported to be receiving
services as of December 1, 1985.
FFY ’77 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
Dollars
(Millions) 12 28 180 201 247 251 292 320 326 339 360 360 360 374 374 390 390 390 387 388 385 381 381 374 374 374 373 374
Children
(Thousands) 197 261 265 288 323 352 369 398 430 479 528 549 562 572 574 589 601 620 648 681 703 706 712 710 709 732 N/A N/A
Dollar
Per Child 63 110 679 697 769 713 797 803 750 707 683 656 641 654 653 664 650 630 599 570 548 540 535 527 528 511 N/A N/A
900
Dollars (Millions) Children (Thousands) Dollars per Child
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
’77 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
Note: The number of children represents the United States and outlying areas.
Sources: http:/www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/12stbyprogrm.pdf (downloaded September 1, 2012) and https://www
.ideadata.org/PartBChildCount.asp (downloaded September 1, 2011). Compiled by Lazara, A., Danaher, J., & Goode, S. (2012). Chapel
Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. The
document is maintained online at http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/growthcomp.pdf.
of this book was published in 2009. These children are served in many differ-
ent settings. The trend over the years has been for more infants and toddlers to
receive services in the home rather than in other settings (see Table 1.2) and is
consistent with the principle of natural environments. About 735,000 children
with disabilities aged 3 through 5 were served by preschool programs supported
10 part I Foundations
1. A rigorous definition of the term developmental 10. Single line of authority in a lead agency designated
delay or established by the governor for carrying out:
2. Available and appropriate early intervention a. General administration and supervision
services based on scientific research, to the extent b. Identification and coordination of all available
practicable, for all infants and toddlers with resources
disabilities and their families, including American c. Assignment of financial responsibility to the
Indian and homeless infants and toddlers appropriate agencies
3. Timely and comprehensive multidisciplinary d. Development of procedures to ensure that
evaluation of needs of children and family-directed services are provided in a timely manner
identification of the needs of each family pending resolution of any disputes
4. Individualized family service plan and service e. Resolution of intra- and interagency disputes
coordination f. Development of formal interagency agreements
5. Comprehensive child find and referral system 11. Policy pertaining to contracting or otherwise
6. Public awareness program including the prepara- arranging for services
tion and dissemination of information to be given 12. Procedure for securing timely reimbursement of
to parents, and disseminating such information to funds
parents 13. Procedural safeguards
7. Central directory of services, resources, and research 14. System for compiling data on the early intervention
and demonstration projects system
8. Comprehensive system of personnel development, 15. State interagency coordinating council
including the training of paraprofessionals and the 16. Policies and procedures ensure that, to the maxi-
training of primary referral sources mum extent appropriate, early intervention services
9. Policies and procedures to ensure that personnel are provided in natural environments except when
are appropriately and adequately prepared and early intervention cannot be achieved satisfactorily
trained in a natural environment
by IDEA (Part B, Section 619) during the 2009–2010 school year. About 30 per-
cent of them were served exclusively in regular early childhood settings, whereas
about 23 percent were served exclusively in early childhood special education
settings. The remainder of the children were served in home, clinical, or a com-
bination of early childhood settings.
The quality of early intervention programs has evolved over the years through a
well-orchestrated plan. The Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act
of 1968 represented the first major federal recognition of the specific importance of
early education for young children with special needs. (Earlier laws focused primar-
ily on school-aged children.) The purpose of this legislation was to support model
programs for young children with special needs throughout the nation that would
demonstrate exemplary practices and share information with others. The act estab-
lished the Handicapped Children’s Early Education Program (HCEEP) to administer
CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Young Children with Special Needs 11
1987 50 N/A
1988 67 N/A
1989 69 N/A
1990 79 N/A
1991 117 194
1992 175 167
1993 213 143
1994 253 154
1995 316 165
1996 316 178
1997 316 187
1998 350 197
1999 370 189
2000 375 206
2001 384 233
2002 417 246
2003 434 269
2004 444 275
2005 441 285
2006 436 299
2007 436 305
2008 436 322
2009 439 343
2010 439 349
2011 439 343
2012 489 N/A
Source: Reproduced with permission of the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance
Center. Adapted from Danaher, J., Good, S., & Lazara, A. (Eds.) (2012). Part C updates
(12th edition). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development
Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
and provide technical support for three-year demonstration programs called First
Chance projects. Initially, 24 demonstration projects were funded. The program
continued to evolve over the next several decades. In 1972, the program began sup-
porting outreach projects, whose job it was to share and disseminate proven models.
In 1977, research institutes were funded to explore new approaches and new meth-
ods for early intervention. Other components were added during the 1980s, which
included information management projects, in-service training projects, experi-
mental projects, and research projects on specific features of early intervention.
12 part I Foundations
Ta bl e 1 . 2 Number of infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 years served under Part C of IDEA
by early intervention setting U.S. and outlying areas 2004–2011
Primary Early Intervention
Setting 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1
Community-based Setting. Unduplicated count of children whose early intervention services are provided primarily in a setting where
children whithout disabilities typically are found. These settings include but are not limited to child care centers (including family day
care), preschools, regular nursery schools, early childhood centers, libraries, grocery stores, parks, restaurants, and community centers
(e.g., YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs).
2
Other Setting. Unduplicated count of children whose early intervention services are provided primarily in a setting that is not home
or community-based. These settings include, but are not limited to, services provided in a hospital, residential facility, clinic, and EI
center/class for children with disabilities.
Source for 2004–2009: Analytic Tool at https://www.ideadata.org/DACAnalyticTool/Intro_2.asp (retrieved August 15, 2011).
Source for 2011: https://www.ideadata.org/PartCSettings.asp (retrieved July 2, 2013).
of the programs continued to serve children when eligibility for federal funding
expired. The outcomes for the children who had been served in the programs
also appeared to be favorable. The legislative incentive offered in 1968, then,
recognized the importance of the early years; it appears that mandate has been
exercised prudently and effectively.
Early intervention programs have evolved dramatically in the decades since
the Littlejohn report. This evolution was reflected in the renaming of HCEEP to
the Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD) in 1990 and
more substantial changes brought about in the Amendments to IDEA in 1997.
The EEPCD is no longer a separate program; rather, early childhood initiatives
are now included in many parts of IDEA. The emphasis of the early childhood
initiatives of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) has increasingly focused on providing support to states to help
them develop and refine the full array of services to young children with s pecial
needs and their families. For example, the law provides continued funding for
demonstration service projects (formerly First Chance projects), for replica-
tion of successful demonstration projects (called outreach), for research projects
and demonstration personnel training projects, for research institutes and other
research activities, and for technical assistance.
In FY2010 (2009–2010), OSEP funded 14 Technical Assistance and
Dissemination Projects, 6 Regional Resource Centers, 16 Technology and
Media Projects, 4 Model Demonstration Projects, and 7 Parent Center T echnical
Assistance Projects. In addition, IDEA provided funds to states for personnel
training programs and specified that each state must have a Comprehensive
System of Personnel Development (CSPD) plan to prepare its personnel.
The Office of Special Education Programs funded 104 personnel preparation
projects in FY2010. Recipients of funds for these various projects, including
demonstration and outreach grants, are encouraged to coordinate activities with
the state agency responsible for administering early intervention programs. The
IDEA gave the governor of each state authority to appoint the state agency to
oversee the infant and toddler (Part C) program in the state. The responsible
agencies in each state are listed in Table 1.3. Each state’s department of edu-
cation has responsibility for services to children with special needs once they
reach 3 years of age.
While research on individual early intervention programs has been sub-
stantial during the 1990s and will be discussed later in this chapter, the 1997
Amendments to IDEA also authorized funding for two national early interven-
tion studies. The National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS) was a
descriptive study that examined a nationally representative sample of more than
3,300 infants and toddlers with disabilities, or who were at risk for d
isabilities,
and their families. The study period lasted from 1997 to 2001. The study was
not intended to assess the effectiveness of early intervention and did not uti-
lize a control or comparison group. Five questions were examined: (1) Who are
the children and families receiving EI (early intervention) services? (2) What
EI services do participating children and families receive? (3) What are the
costs of EI services? (4) What outcomes do participating children and families
experience? (5) How do outcomes relate to variations in children’s and f amilies’
characteristics and services received? The results provided some illuminating
and intuitive results—such as children with the greatest disabilities face the
14 part I Foundations
TABLE 1 . 3 continued
State/Jurisdiction [1,2] Lead Agency
greatest challenges and are likely to show the least developmental progress. In
addition, these children require the highest program expenses. N evertheless,
parents who were most involved in their children’s program learned valuable
advocacy and improved parenting skills regarding their own children. See
“Recommended Resources” at the end of this chapter for access to additional
information regarding NEILS.
The second early intervention study authorized by the 1997 Amend-
ments to IDEA was the six-year Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal
Study (PEELS). This descriptive study followed a nationally representative
sample of more than 3,000 children aged 3 to 5 who received special educa-
tion services through the year 2009. The questions that were posed for exami-
nation were (1) What are the characteristics of children receiving preschool
16 part I Foundations
special education? (2) What preschool program and services do they receive?
(3) What are their transitions like—between early intervention and preschool
and between preschool and elementary school? (4) How do these children
function and perform in preschool, kindergarten, and early elementary school?
(5) Which child, service, and program characteristics are associated with
children’s performance over time on assessments of academic and adaptive
skills? See “Recommended Resources” at the end of this chapter for access to
additional information regarding PEELS.
Both NEILS and PEELS had substantial limitations in that they were descrip-
tive and did not reflect the great variations in characteristics or quality of services
at the local level. It is likely that the results of these studies, however, will provide
a model for state and local programs to evaluate the effectiveness of their early
intervention efforts.
Emphasis on what was happening at the state level generated changes
in ESEA, as well. In 1994, ESEA was significantly revised by the Improving
America’s School Act. The most significant impact of this act was to better
coordinate federal resources and programs with those provided at the state
and local levels for the benefit of all students. It also gave states more control
over their programs and had provisions for states to request waivers of federal
requirements that interfered with local school improvement. The reauthoriza-
tion of the Act in 2001 changed the name again to the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB). This act increased accountability by schools to meet certain
achievement levels. However, the levels states had to meet were considered
unrealistic such that the U.S. Secretary of Education in 2011, in the absence
of congressional action to revise the law, allowed states to ask for waivers for
meeting the prescribed achievement levels. The reauthorization of IDEA in
2004 called for states to establish goals for students with disabilities that were
aligned with NCLB. The No Child Left Behind Act had as its primary goal that
every child would be reading at grade level by third grade. The law also focused
on the application of evidence-based strategies (i.e., using approaches that have
research support). The movement toward using documented approaches has
been at the foundation of early childhood programs and has been addressed
with respect to special needs populations. Whereas IDEA emphasizes indi-
vidual student progress and NCLB emphasizes school accountability through
measurement of a school’s adequate yearly progress (AYP), both laws focus
on improving academic achievement through high-quality programs and high
expectations.
In order for young children to meet the goals of NCLB, especially those
children with special needs, it was understood that high-quality programs
must begin before kindergarten. Consequently, the Good Start, Grow Smart
initiative was enacted in 2002 as an offshoot of NCLB. This program had three
components: strengthening Head Start, promoting a federal–state partnership to
improve early childhood programs, and improving dissemination of information
on current practices and research to early childhood personnel. The Elementary
and Secondary Education Act contained authorization for some programs that
targeted subgroups of young children, as well. For example, the Even Start
Family Literacy Program offers services to low-income families with children
birth through age 7 by integrating early childhood education, adult education,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.