Child Engagement

Given the value of child engagement, it would be helpful to include engagement as

one focus of the observations implemented
 

These data may also provide useful informationon how well the programme

was planned and implemented or whether an appropriate degree of support

was provided to promote the engagement of children with disabilities.

Quantitative data could also be supplemented by the traditional qualitative data in order to

provide a richer data-set. Both types of data would be particularly useful in settings where

children with disabilities are included because young children with disabilities are known

to have difficulties engaging with their environment (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995) and st

working in inclusive settings (i.e., settings designed for typically developing children

but where a small number of children with disabilities are also enrolled) are likely to have

little or no training and experience in catering for the needs of children with disabilities.

A limitation of the 2008 research into the use of the ICER-R was that practitioners were

not involved as users of the observational tool and, therefore, its practicality has not yet

been examined. The purpose of the study reported in this article was to investigate how well

early childhood practitioners working in inclusive childcare could use the ICER-R to

evaluate the engagement and interaction of children with disabilities in their centres.

Specifically the following questions were addressed in the research:

(a) Can practitioners in childcare centres be trained to collect accurate data on children

with disabilities using the momentary time sampling component of the ICER-R

(i.e., can they reach an acceptable level of inter-observer agreement) within a

limited allocated time?

(b) Can consistency in ratings of the children using the ICER-R rating scales be

achieved across observers?

(c) How do the data gathered using rating scales compare with the data gathered using

momentary time sampling measures of engagement and interaction?

(d) How long will it take for practitioners to achieve an acceptable level

 of interobserveragreement on the momentary time sampling component of the ICER-R?

(e) How will practitioners trained in the use of the ICER-R rate both the training and

the practical value of the measure?

All seven participants agreed or strongly agreed that Phase I training was useful for understanding

the purpose of measuring engagement and implementing the ICER-R and all five

participants agreed or strongly agreed that time taken for both phases of training was

reasonable and worthwhile.


This Study shows that the time taken to impement the ICER-R was worth while and showed the
childrens engagement levels. Knowing the engagement levels would help child care to promote engagement
of children.

International Journal of Disability, Development and EducationVol. 57, No. 1, March 2010, 21–41in early childhood settings.

Population Growth Vs. Government Funding

The special needs population is growing. Government funding is shrinking. The coming crises for millions of parents.


A story of a family was recently included in Newsweek. The story surrounded a boy naked eli and his family of four including his brother, sister, and mom. Eli has a whole slue of medical problems including cerebral palsy, celiac disease, epilepsy, asthma, and what his mom calls "pretty severe" autism.


"Having one of the state's personal-care attendants (PCAs) come in for 30 hours a week would make a world of difference: the attendant could take him to therapy, help him practice life skills like brushing his teeth and showering, watch him while Toucey studied. Maybe then she could give more attention to her other kids"


The mother has said herself that Eli's seizures and social issues make it all but impossible to leave him with a random babysitter. "There's only a handful of people he can be with." 


Although it would be beneficial for this family to receive government assistance by providing a PCA, the government cannot due so because government funding is shrinking even though the special needs population is increasing.


Quotes from: WHEN LOVE IS NOT ENOUGH. By: Cottle, Michelle, Newsweek, 00289604, 5/7/2012, Vol. 159, Issue 19

ADA in Action

"Federal and some state laws protect children with diabetes and their families against discrimination and set out the legal responsibilities of “public accommodations,” such as daycare, camps, and recreational programs.Children with diabetes have the right to the same opportunities to attenddaycare, go to camp, and participate in community activities as any other child"


In 1990 many day cares, camps, and recreational centers refused to admit children with diabetes. they saw the testing caused an "undue burden." 


"The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires public accommodations,including camps and daycare centers, to avoid discriminating against peoplewith disabilities. This includes small day care centers operated out of a person’shome. The ADA does not cover programs operated by religious organizations,for example a daycare operated by a church. Section 504 of the RehabilitationAct of 1973 (Section 504) requires any entity receiving federal funds- includingreligious organizations- to provide equal access to people with disabilities."- American Diabetes Association


In the 1990s, the Association brought litigation against two major daycareproviders, KinderCare and La Petite Academy. As a result, KinderCare and LaPetite Academy entered into agreements with the U.S. Department of Justicethat require them to enroll children with diabetes. The agreements alsorequired KinderCare and La Petite to train staff to administer blood glucosetests, recognize hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and respond toemergencies. 

Revisiting Title III

When I first posted the ways that ADA helped children with disabilities I left some words that seemed very vague highlighted. I have now been able to see a little bit more about what these words are really meaning.

Child care homes and centers must make reasonable modifications to their policies and 

practices to integrate children with disabilities into their program unless doing so would 

constitute a fundamental alteration of the program. 

Centers must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services needed for effective 

communication with children with disabilities, when doing so would not constitute an undue 

burden. 

Centers cannot exclude children with disabilities from their programs unless their presence 

would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or require a fundamental 

alteration of the program 

Reasonable modifications mean changes that can be carried out without much difficulty or 

expense.  This is individual to each program depending upon nature of the modification, cost and 

resources of the program. Examples include a change in policy or procedures, removing physical 

barriers, staff training, providing adaptive equipment. 

Auxiliary aids and services include a range of devices or services that help people 

communicate.  Examples are using sign language, interpreters, large print books, or other 

communication equipment.  Hearing aids are excluded. 

Undue burden means changes that would result in significant difficulty or expense to the 

program. 

Direct threat means the child’s condition poses a significant threat to the health or safety of 

other children or staff.  Providers must evaluate children on an individual basis and cannot 

determine risk based upon their own personal assumptions. 

After seeing these explained I would really like to know who makes the decision of whether or not the modification it "too much of a burden" or "too expensive" There seem to be many ways that centers could easily get out of making modifications in order to admit a child with a disability into child care. 

Quality Care

The National Academy of Sciences’ landmark report, From Neurons to Neighborhoods made a statement regarding the difficulty involved with finding a quality day care to care for a child with a disability. 

Like all families with young children, those whose children have a
disability or special health care need are faced with the challenges of
finding good quality affordable child care. But the inability or
unwillingness of many child care providers to accept children with
disabilities, transportation and other logistical problems, difficulties with
coordinating early intervention and child care services, and the scarcity of
appropriately trained caregivers made the effort to find any child care
a tremendous challenge for these families.

Although Title III stands to help the families of a child with a disability, it is also placing a day care employee who is untrained to take care of a child with many needs. A parent of a child with a disability made this comment:

Day care after day care was filled with people who had no experience
with disabled children, no fault of theirs. The last day care, our third or
fourth program, I remember I would pick up my son and listen about what
art projects and things the other children did all day. The only report I
would hear about my son was whether he did or didn’t cry all day.

This report shows that the caregivers were not particularly qualified to take care of the child with the disability. Although Title III stands to make sure children with disabilities can attend these centers, do the centers participate in trainings to learn how to help the child? Are classroom ratios lowered to accommodate the needs in the center? How often is more staffing hired? It seems as if Title III is trying to help, but what are the centers doing?

Title III

The main goal of Title III is to ensure that all children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in the child care centers services and programs.

Centers can not deny a child because of their disability unless the child is 

"a direct threat to the health or safety of others or require a fundamental

alteration of the program"

Centers have to make reasonable modifications to their policies and

practices to integrate children, parents, and guardians with disabilities into

their programs.

Centers must generally make their facilities accessible to persons with

disabilities. Existing facilities are subject to the readily achievable standard

for barrier removal, while newly constructed facilities and any altered

portions of existing facilities must be fully accessible.

Centers must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services needed for

effective communication with children or adults with disabilities, when

doing so would not constitute an undue burden.