Promising Practice Profiles

STaR Inclusive Early Childhood Project

The full Promising Practice Profile is available for download in PDF format (658 KB)

Project practice

The STaR program aims to increase the inclusion of children with a disability in childcare settings by collaborating with families, early intervention professionals, local councils, not-for-profit organisations, and university academics to build capacity and skills of centre-based childcare staff.

Project undertaken by

Access Macquarie and STaR Inclusive Early Childhood Association

Start date

June 2005

Focal areas

Program

Invest to Grow (ItG)

Issue

The potential of childcare to provide a valuable context for intervention for young children with disabilities has been acknowledged in the early intervention literature (Wolery, Sigalove Brashers, & Neitzel, 2002). Childcare services in Australia are less likely to include children with disabilities than are other early childhood services, such as preschools (Llewellyn, Thompson, & Fante, 2002), and when infants and young children with disabilities do access childcare there is some doubt as to the capacity of these services to cater for the children's needs (Commonwealth Childcare Advisory Council, 2001). Some of the models for supporting children with additional needs in childcare can target accommodation rather than educational inclusion. Programming support may be available through comprehensive early intervention programs but it is sometimes difficult for external consultants to take into consideration the childcare context. Also, certain staff employed in early intervention programs may not have the necessary early childhood training. In this context, the following issues relating to service provision are addressed by the STaR staff training model:

Program context

This project represents a collaboration involving families, early intervention professionals, local councils, not-for-profit organisations, private childcare providers and university academics. The application for funding was submitted jointly by Access Macquarie Ltd and the STaR Inclusive Early Childhood Association, with Access Macquarie being the lead agency responsible for the financial management of the project. The STaR Association was responsible for the development of the model and the supervision of its implementation.

The STaR Association is a charity organisation. It aims to provide "research based education and support to children with disabilities and/or special needs, and those who support them". Those who support them would include their parents/primary carers and other family members and the teachers and carers who support them in early childhood settings.

The association provided an early childhood program model in a private childcare centre in 2002-05. This program catered for 10 children per year (6-7 each day) with significant disabilities, including children with severe and multiple disabilities, by providing a qualified early childhood special educator and a special aide in addition to the regular staff in a 55-place setting for 2-5 year-olds. The service enabled families of children with disabilities to return to work on a part-time or full-time basis or to access respite. For many families, this was the only early childhood centre that was prepared to enrol their child. The service also provided a practicum site for students enrolling in postgraduate special education courses, and undergraduates in psychology, early childhood education, physiotherapy, speech pathology and occupational therapy. In addition, it has provided a valuable site for research.

An evaluation of the above project resulted in the development of the model funded through the Invest to Grow (ITG) initiative. This evaluation found that while children with disabilities made very good progress in the program and the parents were well supported, the regular staff did not take ownership of the children's programs and this limited the development of staff skills. This model has been expanded under the ITG model program. The aim of the program is to support children with disabilities to achieve optimal development in inclusive childcare settings and to support the families of children with disabilities through the provision of education, respite and social support.

The program has relied on collaboration with centre staff to ensure that the children with disabilities have received appropriate activity-based assessments and programs and that centre staff have also worked collaboratively with families and other service providers to ensure that the goals of all parties were embedded into the centre-based program. Project staff have managed the recruitment of children and families in addition to coaching staff to assess, develop individual programs in collaboration with parents and other service providers, and to implement the program within the daily routines and activities of the centre. Staff have also assisted with the transition of children from the centres to school settings. Over the years 2005-08, 11 childcare centres have participated in the program.

Practice description

The critical component of the model used to achieve the program objectives is the indirect staff training approach.

In line with the research evidence, it was determined that if early intervention practice is to be effective, ownership of the practice must be given to those who spend the most time with the children and are, therefore, in the best position to influence the children's development. Early intervention has targeted the families of children with disabilities for many years, and parent education has been an important component of early intervention. Where children with disabilities are spending a substantial amount of time in care, it is important that the carers have the skills to promote the children's development. The carers in childcare centres have a range of skills and experience, and include university qualified early childhood teachers, TAFE trained childcare workers, and untrained staff. Project data has indicated that about one third of the staff in childcare centres in NSW are untrained. In recognition of the range of staff working in childcare and research approaches to staff training that ensure evidence-based interventions, the training provided has occurred on a number of levels:

Each of these key practice areas is described below along with the factors contributing to its success.

Formal university course

This level of training was offered to qualified early childhood teachers in participating centres. In order to participate in the trial, each centre manager had to agree to one of the centre's qualified early childhood teachers enrolling in a postgraduate certificate in early intervention at Macquarie University Special Education Centre. In some cases, the centre manager agreed to employ someone who already had this qualification or a comparable qualification. These educators were nominated to be the Special Needs Managers, which meant that they coordinated the project at the centre level. In total, seven early childhood teachers in five childcare centres (including the directors from two of the five centres) enrolled in the course. By the end of 2007, five of these teachers had successfully completed the course with another two teachers completing the course mid 2008. Another three qualified special education teachers were recruited with the assistance of project staff.

At this formal university level, two key requirements were that:

Factors contributing to the success of this training component were that:

Onsite coaching

The Special Needs Managers and, where children with disabilities were in more than one room in a centre, other university or TAFE qualified teachers were coached in their worksites by project staff in the following skills:

Factors contributing to the success of this training component were:

Professional development/in-service

At the third level, all centre staff members were provided with information and training with regard to the implementation of programming strategies. This occurred through:

For this component of training to be successful it was important to engage as many of the staff as possible. The following factors contributed to the success of this component:

In the STaR staff training model the assessment and programming system used is systematic, functional and embedded in the daily routines and activities of the participating centres. Parent priorities are solicited and these are incorporated into the programs developed for the children. The interventions used are evidence based and staff members are encouraged to use a systematic approach to their implementation wherever possible. The goals and objectives targeted for intervention are not discipline specific but focus on functional, generalisable skills. Other service providers working with families are encouraged to assist centre staff to include their goals in centre routines and activities.

Research base

The evidence base for this practice relates to four areas:

  1. Internationally recognised recommended practices in early intervention.
  2. The potential for childcare to provide a valuable context for early intervention for children with disabilities and other special needs.
  3. Australian research into:
    • Support for children with additional needs in childcare; and
    • Qualifications of early intervention staff and staff supporting children with disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings.
  4. Effective training models.

Internationally recognised recommended practices

The STaR staff training model incorporates the most recent recommended practices in the areas of assessment, intervention, family-based practice, interdisciplinary models, and personnel preparation. These practices, which have been endorsed by the Council for Exceptional Children's Division of Early Childhood in the United States, are based on research evidence and have been validated by early intervention professionals and families (Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & Smith, 2005; Smith et al., 2002). They are internationally accepted and have been validated in Australian research (Beamish & Bryer, 1999).

According to these practice guidelines, assessments should be individualised, functional and include family input. Interventions should be based on data from initial and ongoing assessment and should be designed to promote child engagement and participation. This is best done within typical daily routines and activities. Strategies used to support these interventions should be systematically applied within and across environments. Parent involvement in the selection of goals and activities used to promote these goals should be encouraged and the relationship between parents and program staff should be a collaborative one. Interdisciplinary models discourage a focus on discipline-specific goals but, instead, encourage the embedding of these goals into daily routines and activities.

Childcare as a context for early intervention

There is a range of childcare services for infants and young children including both formal and informal systems. In Australia, these include centre care, family day care and informal care. Quality care is more often associated with formal care arrangements as these have strict regulations relating to child-staff ratios and staff qualifications (Love et al., 2003). Quality of care has been found to have a significant influence on child development (Love et al., 2003), with studies from Australia and overseas indicating that quality will vary across childcare services. Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in the United States who were enrolled in early Head Start programs generally accessed high quality childcare, which has been reported to have contributed to the impressive developmental gains that have been attributed to Head Start (Love et al., 2003).

In Australia, as in most other developed countries, a large percentage of women of childbearing age are in the workforce (Love et al., 2003). For example, Love et al. have quoted the 1998 data reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that 46% of women with children under the age of 5 years are in the workforce. The US data reported for a similar year (1999) have indicated that 64% of mothers with children under 6 years of age were in the workforce (Mulvihill, Shearer, & Van Horn, 2002). Love et al. (2003) quoted ABS statistics that indicate that 4% of children 4 years and under in Australia have a disability of some kind. Although there appears to be no information on the number of children with disabilities accessing childcare in Australia, there are some data to suggest that these numbers may be lower than expected (see Llewellyn, Thompson, & Fante, 2002, for figures relating to the inclusion of children with disabilities in childcare in New South Wales). Knoche, Peterson, Edwards, and Jeon (2006) have reported that the percentage of children with disabilities accessing childcare settings is also unknown in the United States. Other US researchers have suggested, however, that families who have a child with a disability are relying on non- parental childcare to an increasing extent, but that this is more likely to be informal care in providers' own homes rather than in formal centre-based programs (Buell, Gamel-McCormick, & Hallam, 1999; Mulvihill et al., 2002).

The low level of inclusion of children with disabilities in childcare centres in Australia may relate to reluctance on the part of centres to enrol children with disabilities because of lack of appropriate support. Again, from the data presented by Llewellyn et al. (2002), this is likely to contribute to lower than expected numbers of children with disabilities in childcare. The low level of inclusion in childcare centres might also be influenced by a parental preference for family childcare rather than centre-based programs, as is reported to be the case in the United States. If so, this is likely to be of concern given the information on quality of programs in informal compared to formal childcare arrangements reported earlier.

It can be argued that inclusive childcare can meet the needs of families of children with disabilities for non-parental childcare and respite. The majority of children with disabilities are included in preschools rather than childcare centres but preschools generally cater for children from 3-5 years and are not an option for infants and younger children. Therefore, the value of childcare settings to families of children with disabilities wanting to access respite or return to the workforce is clear; however, the potential value of these settings for promoting the development of children with disabilities needs further investigation. It seems that there has been relatively little research into childcare provision for children with disabilities (Buell et al., 1999), and the available research seems to relate most to the willingness of childcare providers to include children with disabilities and the relationship between their attitudes and perceptions and their prior experience caring for children with disabilities and participation in disability-related training.

Literature from the United States has identified inclusive centre-based programs such as preschool and childcare as providing a desirable alternative to segregated programs (Bruder & Brand, 1995; Odom, 2000; Wolery et al., 2002). However, data supporting claims for the contribution of childcare environments to the development of children with disabilities have been limited. Bruder and Brand (1995) compared the effect of segregated programs and inclusive childcare classrooms on toddlers with disabilities and their families. They found environmental advantages, such as more opportunities to engage in certain personal care and communication routines, for inclusive childcare and suggested that the activities in these environments also focused more on independence, individual expression and age-appropriate behaviours. They also found that children's social interaction was encouraged more in the inclusive environments - and that in these environments staff/parent relationships were better and there was a greater focus on the individual needs of children.

It seems, therefore, that inclusive childcare has potential to provide a positive environment for promoting the development of infants and young children with disabilities. The evidence also suggests that many parents need to, or choose to, return to work and that for parents of children with disabilities finding appropriate childcare is not easy.

Research evidence from the United States suggests that childcare staff are more likely to have a positive attitude towards inclusion if they have training and experience in working with children with disabilities (Mulvihill et al., 2002) and there is a suggestion that the quality of care is likely to be better in formal rather than informal care arrangements. The STaR staff training model targets childcare for children with disabilities and supports childcare workers to program for the development of these children. The evaluation data that has been collected will be published and will, therefore, contribute to the evidence base relating to the support of inclusive practice.

Australian research

Australian research has identified that early intervention service providers and service recipients in Australia support the recommended practices that have been identified by the Division of Early Childhood within the Council for Exceptional Children in the United States (see Beamish & Bryer, 1999; Dempsey & Dunst, 2004; Kemp & Hayes, 2005).

(a) Support for children with additional needs in childcare

Childcare in Australia does not provide adequately for children with additional needs and their families (Commonwealth Childcare Advisory Council, 2001; Llewellyn et al., 2002). Llewellyn et al. surveyed 1,195 early childhood services (including preschools, long day care, family day care, occasional care, mobile services and early childhood projects) in three metropolitan and three regional settings in New South Wales. Responses from 353 services found that 946 children with disabilities were enrolled in 229 services with most of these services being preschools. In fact, fewer than 15% of the children with disabilities enrolled in early childhood services were enrolled in a service other than a preschool.

Llewellyn et al. (2002) also used small group interviews and focus groups with childcare services and government departments and peak organisations. Difficulties identified with including children with disabilities in childcare were:

Although the Llewellyn et al. (2002) research targeted only services in New South Wales, there is no reason to suspect that the access to childcare in other states is any better. Indeed, in some states there is no requirement for the employment of qualified early childhood teachers where a centre enrols above a certain number of children, as is the case in New South Wales.

(b) Lack of qualified early intervention staff and staff supporting children with disabilities in childcare

In general, practitioners involved in the provision of early intervention services in Australia are not adequately trained (Kemp & Hayes, 2005). Named qualifications in Early Intervention are not readily available in Australia. The criterion for employment in most early intervention programs is a therapy qualification or a qualification in early childhood education. While these qualifications are important prerequisites, they are not sufficient to provide high quality programs for children with significant levels of disability and their families. These generic qualifications do not equip staff to implement the recommended practices proposed and validated by the Council for Exceptional children's Division of Early Childhood (Sandall et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2002), practices that have been adopted internationally. A 2003 analysis of the Department of Education and Training (DET) database of funded early intervention programs in NSW revealed that only 7.7% of staff working in comprehensive early intervention programs had qualifications in early childhood special education. The percentage of similarly qualified personnel working in preschool and other early childhood settings claiming funding to assist with a program for children with disabilities was marginally lower at 7% (Kemp & Hayes, 2005).

It is generally staff from comprehensive early intervention programs who provide consultancy support to teachers and caregivers in childcare centres. These staff will be educators or therapists, or less frequently, someone with a generalist qualification in early childhood education or a therapy and special education. Even those who do have the important dual qualifications may not have had training in collaborative consultation, which is essential when providing indirect services to children and families. For the childcare workers who are working with children with disabilities in care for a substantial proportion of these children's waking day, an "expert" consultant who has neither the technical expertise in special education nor the ability to work collaboratively with the primary service providers (i.e., the caregivers) is of limited use.

Australian research, therefore, identifies that there is a problem with the enrolment of children with disabilities in childcare in this country and that, where children with disabilities are enrolled, their developmental needs may not be met in care because of the lack of well qualified staff at both a centre and a consultancy support level. This research supports the need for the staff training practice as provided by the StaR Project. Research into the use of the identified staff training practice also has the potential to contribute to the evidence base.

Effective training models

An indirect strand of the DEC Recommended Practices relates to personnel preparation (Sandall et al., 2005). Miller and Stayton (2002) have overviewed some guidelines relating to the content and focus of pre-service and in-service early intervention and early childhood special education personnel preparation. In relation to content, these authors have suggested that this should include the specialised skills and knowledge that relate to both early childhood and early childhood special education practice. This is in recognition of the preference for early intervention and early childhood education to be incorporated into inclusive services. In addition to content, the recommended practices related to this strand include offering opportunities for trainees to practise performance competencies in community-based settings that include children with and without disabilities and that include natural environments and inclusive settings (Sandall et al., 2005). As part of this training, recommended practice also dictates the close association between what is taught in formal pre-service and in-service programs and what is practised in the field setting. This practice should also include practitioner action-research and onsite support for the implementation of new practices.

In relation to effective training strategies, the assumption has been that a "one off" workshop approach will lead to positive outcomes for children and families despite the fact that there is no evidence to support this assumption (Malone, Straka, & Logan, 2000). Malone et al. have identified lack of an appropriate early intervention curriculum in higher education programs, a variety of staffing arrangements, and staff turnover as being among the many impediments to effective staff training. They have suggested that in order for training to be effective it should be based on an assessment of the participants' needs. They have also suggested that training goals and objectives need to be identified and that the training should target these objectives. Further, they have suggested that model sites should be identified for the purpose of training early interventionists to ensure the provision of:

(a) an exemplary program for observation and practice;

(b) practicum-based learning experiences to ensure that planned competencies are met; and

(c) opportunities for the development of instructional modules and supportive audiovisual materials.

A recent meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies was conducted by Fukkink and Lont (2007). They cited evidence to suggest that education and training were better predictors of quality of care than the age of the caregiver. They also found that education and training were positively related to developmental outcomes for children. Training in the studies included in the meta-analysis focused on teacher-child interactions. Positive effects were found for training using a fixed and structured curriculum. These authors have suggested that training and practice should be combined, with a close alignment between the two. This approach has been suggested by many researchers interested in effective approaches to training. While formal training is important in providing student teachers with information about effective practice, these teachers need to implement this practice to prove that it works (Gersten & Dimino, 2001). This will serve to cement the formal training provided. Researchers have found that this combination of formal training and workplace coaching is an effective way of getting research-based practice into educational services. (Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Mendez, 2003).

The staff training model used by STaR includes the important elements suggested in the literature.

Outcomes

The following outcomes were achieved using the staff training model:

The first two outcomes are probably the most important of all in that they have benefits not only for the children with disabilities currently accessing STaR centres but also have potential benefits for children with and without disabilities who will access centres in which staff who have gained qualifications and/or skills through the STaR staff training model are employed in the future.

Evidence of outcomes

Much of the data reported in this section were collected by research staff for the final evaluation report prepared by Associate Professor Mark Carter for submission to FaHCSIA. Other data were collected by project staff. Data are reported for each of the anticipated outcomes listed in the previous section.

Increase in number of childcare workers with formal qualifications in early childhood special education.

None of the early childhood centres had qualified early childhood special educators when the project began in 2005. In that year, four centres were recruited to the project. An appropriately qualified staff member was recruited for one of the centres with the assistance of the STaR Project Director. This teacher was a qualified early childhood teacher who had just completed a master's degree in special education at Macquarie University. In each of the other three centres, at least one of the early childhood teachers elected to enrol in the postgraduate certificate in early intervention in 2006 (two of the teachers in two centres, the centre director and the other qualified early childhood teacher). In 2006, another seven centres elected to participate in the program. Qualified staff were found for two of these centres (one with a master's degree in special education and the other with a postgraduate certificate in early intervention, both recently qualified from Macquarie University). One teacher from each of the remaining five centres elected to enrol in the postgraduate certificate, four beginning in 2006 and one beginning in 2007. Two of the teachers withdrew from the course before it had begun and were not willing to re-enrol. As this was a requirement of participation in the project, two centres reluctantly withdrew from the project at the end of 2006. A third centre also withdrew at that time because the qualified member of staff moved to another participating STaR Centre and no other member of the staff was willing to enrol in the course. This left eight participating centres in 2007.

Of the eight remaining centres three had qualified special educators at the beginning of 2007 with six more teachers enrolled in the postgraduate certificate in early intervention. By mid 2007, there were six qualified early childhood special education trained teachers across the eight centres. These six qualified staff members represented 12.5% of the full-time floor staff in the eight centres. This percentage was substantially greater than the 7.7% of early childhood special education teachers identified as being employed in comprehensive early intervention programs in NSW in 2003. By the end of 2007, another two teachers had completed their early intervention certificate, with two more completing by mid-2008.

Enhanced skills of workers in the childcare sector

By the end of February 2008, 26 centre staff had been trained in the assessment and program development components of the program. From June 2005, when training of the first program staff commenced, until the end of February 2008, 191 assessments were implemented by centre staff, 191 Individual Educational Programs (IEPs) were developed and 177 IEP meetings were held with parents. Centre staff organised and/or participated in 38 IFSP meetings between October 2005 and November 2007.

In early 2007, Centre staff coached in the use of the Assessment Evaluation and Program System (AEPS) were surveyed in relation to their use of this instrument. On the whole, staff members completing the survey were very positive about the AEPS, with over 70% reporting that they would continue to use it when they were no longer a part of the STaR project.

Hodge (2006a) documented an interview of two STaR-affiliated teachers who elected to enrol in the Postgraduate Certificate in Early Intervention. This article provides some insight into the knowledge and understanding of staff involved in the STaR training model. Interviewees recount examples of learning and applying new ways of thinking, analysing needs, and implementing learning strategies for children with a disability.

Increase in number of children with disabilities accessing childcare

Because there are no reliable data in Australia to indicate the number of children accessing childcare or the percentage of children with disabilities in childcare, there is no valid baseline information. Anecdotal data, including reports from the childcare centres and parents, have indicated that for many of the children with disabilities accessing the centres the participating STaR centre was the only centre willing to enrol them. The following graph illustrates the number of children attending STaR affiliated centres from June 2005 to December 2007.

Children receiving services in participating STaR centres 2005-2007

Note: The length of time spent in centres and the number of days attended varied according to need (1-5 days). While some children spent only a few months in the program others have attended the participating centres for two years or more. There were 4 participating centres in 2005, 11 in 2006 and 8 in 2007.

An additional eight children have enrolled in STaR centres from the beginning of 2008, bringing the total number of children and families that have been supported by STaR affiliated childcare centres to 84 (June 2005-February 2008). This number has increased over 2008.

The level of disability of the children attending STaR affiliated centres was higher than anticipated when the project was established, which supports the proposition that places in preschools and childcare centres have not been readily available to children with higher support needs. Table 1 summarises the level of disability of the 84 children accessing STaR project centres from June 2005 to February 2008. This information was taken from diagnostic and assessment reports.

Table 1: Reported Levels of Disability in Diagnostic and Assessment Reports

Reported Level of Disability

Number of Children

Borderline

1

Borderline to mild

1

Mild

17

Mild to moderate

5

Mild to severe

2

Moderate

8

Moderate to severe

1

Moderate to profound

1

Severe

19

Severe to profound

1

No specific information

28

Increase in confidence of childcare staff catering for children with disabilities in their centres

Reported knowledge and skills were assessed through the Staff Survey, which was conducted with each staff member when a centre joined the project, a new staff member joined a STaR centre, and each subsequent year of a staff member's involvement in the project. Each staff member was asked to rate their response to the following statements using a 5-point Likert type scale:

Data reported are for changes in knowledge and skills as reported by staff after one year in the program. These data were considered to be more reliable as there were much fewer data for staff in the program longer than one year.

As anticipated, after one year in the program the mean ratings of staff participants for the first statement decreased, reflecting the non-categorical nature of the program. As anticipated, there were also small-to-moderate increases in most other items. In particular, staff felt more confident they had an understanding of child communication, and confidence in addressing physical and self-help skills. There were small-to-moderate decreases in confidence in ability to deal with social interactions and problem solving skills. There is no obvious specific explanation for these decreases but both areas can be difficult to address with children who have significant disabilities and staff may have become more aware of these challenges.

Decrease in barriers to including children with disabilities in childcare

Staff perceptions of concerns and barriers were assessed through the Staff Survey (administered as described above). Staff were asked to rate their responses to items using a 5-point Likert scale.

The following items included in the Staff Survey were based on the study by Mulvihill et al. (2002). This study examined childcare staff concerns that were associated with needs related to inclusion as well as attitudinal and structural barriers. Staff were presented with a series of concerns or barriers and asked to indicate their degree of concern on a 5-point scale with 1 indicating "little concern" and 5 indicating "great concern". Instructions to participants were:

Listed below are some concerns or barriers that you might have about the inclusion of children with disabilities in the childcare centre where you work. Please indicate how much of a concern or barrier each of the following statements is by circling the number 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 that best describes your level of concern:

  • Afraid of children with disabilities and what they could do to the centre program
  • Other staff in the centre would not like the inclusion of children with disabilities
  • Parents of other children at the centre might not like the inclusion of children with disabilities
  • If we have a reputation for taking children with disabilities we might end up with too many
  • The inclusion of children with disabilities would be viewed negatively by the community
  • Liability (legal responsibility) issues are of great concern
  • More staff would be needed
  • Changes would need to be made to the building, playground and/or parking lot
  • I would have to change my schedule/curriculum.

Data reported are for changes in concerns and barriers as reported by staff after one year in the program. These data were considered to be more reliable as there were much fewer data for staff in the program longer than one year. After a year in the program, there was evidence to suggest that there was a moderate decrease in concern on the part of staff participants regarding the attitude of parents and the community as barriers to accommodating children with disabilities, with a small decrease in reported fear and concern about liability. A small increase in the average level of concern about other staff was registered as well as small increases in the average level of concern that the reputation of the centre might result in too many referrals, that additional staff might be needed to accommodate children with disabilities, and that building modifications would be necessary. Each of these concerns can be considered reasonable and realistic. There was a small decrease in concern that the curriculum would need to be modified.

Implementation of individual programs within the activities and routines of the childcare centres

In order to estimate how often centre staff members were implementing the children's individual programs as dictated by the priority objectives, data from four months were sampled (August 2006 and March, May and September 2007). Frequency of implementation was calculated by dividing the number of times each of the target skills was practised by the children by the number of days the children attended the centres. Although the recorded implementation was somewhat disappointing in some cases (August 2006, 70.3%; March 2007, 61.5%; May 2007, 70.9%; September 2007, 69.5%) this could be explained in part by staff reporting that they often neglected to record the times that they implemented programs once they were confident with the program implementation.

Developmental progress of children with disabilities enrolled in STaR centres

The Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System for Infants and Young Children (AEPS) (Bricker et al., 2002) was used to both provide programming guidance and monitor developmental progress in the following developmental domains: adaptive, cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, social communication, and social.

Two versions of the AEPS were used: 0-3 years and 3-6 years, depending on the age and stage of the child. If children had achieved all skills on some subscales of the 0-3 instrument, they were assessed on the relevant subscales of the 3-6 version. These measures were administered at the commencement of the program (assessment 1) and then 4 monthly (up to 5 assessments). However, due to operational constraints, there was considerable variation in the administration periods in some instances. Because project staff considered that some of the objectives on the AEPS 3-6 were not appropriate for a childcare centre, modifications were made to two scales of the AEPS 3-6 with a reduction of the number of tested items from 108 to 78 on the cognitive scale and 98 to 46 on the social-communication scale.

It should be noted that the children attending the programs had disabilities, in some cases quite high support needs, and would be expected to progress at less than a typical rate of development. Despite this, mean gains for children aged 0-3 years between assessments 1 and 2 were slightly above the expected typical gain in adaptive, cognitive and social development. These gains were not replicated between assessments 2 and 3, where all gains were less than expected of a typically developing child. This pattern continued for the two remaining assessment rounds but extreme caution should be exercised in interpreting these data as the number of assessments was very low in the last two rounds of assessments.

A possible explanation for the initial burst of development is that the STaR Program offered opportunities for learning in the childcare centres that were not available in the home environment. Given the particular focus of programs in the centres on self-help (adaptive), social and cognitive development, it seems entirely plausible that children were able to capitalise on opportunities offered by the childcare placement during the initial period of their enrolment. More generally, children continued to make steady progress across all developmental areas, albeit, at a lower than typical rate (as would be expected).

Additionally, there was evidence of progress above expected typical levels on the AEPS assessments for children aged 3-6 in the initial program period. Specifically, marked progress was made in the areas of fine motor and social communication development, and to a lesser degree, cognitive development. However, the results in the social communication and cognitive areas must be viewed with the utmost caution, as the scale was modified (as identified above). Interestingly, gains in fine motor development continued to be above expected typical levels for the assessment 2 and 3 period, as was the case in cognitive skills to a lesser extent. Again, this may well relate to the focus on these developmental areas in programs for children over 3 years of age in the centres. Although generally less than expected of a typically developing child, on average, children continued to make steady developmental gains across most skill areas. Results for remaining assessment periods (i.e., changes between assessments 3-4 and 4-5) are not interpretable as only a small number of children were involved. Children made gains in some areas that were in fact beyond the expected gains for a typically developing child in the 1-2 assessments. This was surprising and possibly reflected the provision of opportunities in the childcare setting that were not available at home. This suggestion is supported by the fact that areas of progress were consistent with focus programming areas in the centres and the very high rate of development did not generally persist beyond assessment 2. Overall, children continued to make steady developmental gains.

Family satisfaction

Families were asked to indicate their goals for themselves and their child with a disability on entering a STaR affiliated centre. In each subsequent 12-month period and on exiting the program, families were asked to rate their satisfaction with how well the program addressed these goals, the goals subsequently identified, and to rate their overall satisfaction with the program and its impact on their child's development.

In relation to the families' identified goals, the overall mean level of satisfaction across all families and goals was 0.98 (SD = 0.95) which indicates that families were generally satisfied with the extent to which their needs and their child's needs were met by the STaR program.

There was a moderately high degree of satisfaction with the overall program and a very high level of satisfaction with the effects of the program on child development. Parental satisfaction with the STaR project is also reported in Hodge, (2006b).

Family empowerment

Family empowerment was assessed using the Enabling Practice Scale (EPS) (Dempsey, 1995). This is widely acknowledged as a desirable outcome of service provision to the families of children with disabilities (Bailey et al., 1998; Dempsey, 1995). The EPS is a 24-item parent-completed questionnaire that was used to determine the extent to which the service associated with the current project empowered families. Since the EPS addresses parental empowerment in relation to a specific program, it cannot be used as a pre-test. Consequently, the EPS was administered at program exit or at the end of each year in the program.

Families had a very high level of comfort and satisfaction with the parent-staff relationship and there was a moderately high mean rating for collaboration, reflecting working with others. The autonomy factor reflects parental perception of locus of decision-making and responsibility for change. This factor also received a relatively high overall rating. Parent response in relation to collaboration was viewed positively as it was a difficult issue to address in childcare centres. It would appear, therefore, that families had a high degree of comfort with parent-staff relationships, fairly high levels of autonomy and moderately high and variable views on collaboration. Generally speaking, these outcomes are consistent with the goals of the STaR Project in relation to enabling and empowering parents.

Reduction in family stress and increased coping skills

When completing the annual surveys, families were asked how involvement in the STaR program over the past 12 months had affected the level of stress on their families using a 5-point Likert scale. Similarly, families were asked to respond regarding the effect of the program on family coping.

Overall, the data suggested moderate positive effects on both family stress and coping, although there was a lot of variation among families, indicated by the high standard deviations. Comments were offered in 26 surveys regarding effects of the program on family stress. Three respondents offered negative comments, two related to specific issues and one noted that having a child with special needs is always stressful. Mixed or neutral comments were offered in seven surveys, with most respondents indicating stress had been reduced, but varied from time to time. The remaining 16 comments were entirely positive and gave some interesting insights into the experiences of families.

Policy analysis

The STaR Inclusive Early Childhood Project is a positive example of a project that is aimed at improving outcomes for young children through prevention and early intervention. The project evidences mechanisms to increase the skills and qualification of childcare centre staff to actively include children with disabilities.

Resources that have come out of the project include the development of a project manual documenting procedures relating to the training of staff, students and volunteers, for use by centres currently involved in the project and also for centres that might be involved in the future. This manual has been submitted to FaHCSIA.

Evaluation

The project was assessed across a range of criteria relating to how the service results in positive outcomes for children, families and communities. The submission was peer reviewed and validated as evidencing promising practice. More information on the Promising Practice Profile selection process may be found at:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/cafca/ppp/ppp.html

The STaR Inclusive Early Childhood Project has undergone internal and external evaluation, with the latter conducted by Associate Professor Mark Carter, Macquarie University Special Education Centre, in 2008.

Project-related publications

N/A

References

Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Aytch Darkes, L., Hebbler, K., Simeonson, R. J., Spiker, D., et al. (1998). Family outcomes in early intervention: A framework for program evaluation and efficacy research. Exceptional Children, 64, 313-328.

Beamish, W., & Bryer, F. (1999). Practitioners and parents have their say about best practice. Early intervention in Queensland. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 261-278.

Bricker, D. D., Pretti-Frontczac, K., Johnson, J., Straka, E., Kapt, B., Slentz, K., et al., (2002). AEPS: Assessment, evaluation and programming system for infants and children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Bruder, M. B., & Brand, M. (1995). A comparison of two types of early intervention environments serving toddler-age children with disabilities. Infant-Toddler Intervention. The Transdisciplinary Journal, 5, 207-218.

Buell, M. J., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Hallam, R. A. (1999). Inclusion in a childcare context: Experiences and attitudes of family childcare providers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 217-224.

Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council. (2001). Child care beyond 2001. A report to the Minister for Family and Community Services September 2001. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Australia.

Dempsey, I. (1995). The Enabling Practices Scale: The development of an assessment instrument for disability services. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 67-73.

Dempsey, I., & Dunst, C. J. (2004). Help giving styles and parent empowerment in families with a young child with a disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental disability, 29, 40-51.

Fukkink, R. G., & Lont, A. (2007). A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 294-311.

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2001). The realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 120-130.

Hodge, K. (2006a). Increasing knowledge and skills through the StaR Project: Sue and Rosie tell their story. Early Links, 11(2), 22-27.

Hodge, K. (2006b). A journey of surprises. Early Links, 11(2), 28-31.

Kemp, C., & Hayes, A. (2005). Early intervention in Australia: The challenge of systems implementation. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), A systems approach to early intervention: National and international perspectives (pp. 401-423). Baltimore: Brookes.

Klinger, J. K., Awee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429.

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, 93-100.

Llewellyn, G., Thompson, K., & Fante, M. (2002). Inclusion in early childhood services: Ongoing challenges. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 18-23.

Love, J. M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van Ijzendoorn, Ross, C., Ungerer, J. A., Raikes, H., Brady-Smith, C., Boller, K., Brookes-Gunn, J., Constantine, J., Kisker, E. E., Pausell, D., &, Chazan-Cohen, R. (2003). How conclusions may vary with context. Child Development, 74, 1021-1033.

Malone, D. M., Straka, E. & Logan, K. R. (2000). Professional development in early intervention: Creating effective inservice training opportunities. Infants and Young Children, 12 (4) 53-62.

Miller, P. S., & Stayton, V. D. (2002). Recommended practices in personnel preparation. In S. Sandal, M. E. McLean, & B. J. Smith (Eds.) (pp. 77-81). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/ early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West

Mulvihill, B. A., Shearer, D., & Van Horn, M. L. (2002). Training, experience, and childcare providers' perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 197-215.

Odom, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 20-27.

Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E. (2005). DEC recommended practice: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood.

Smith, B. J., et al. (2002). DEC Recommended practices: A Review of 9 years of EI/ECSE Research Literature. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 108-119.

Wolery, M., Sigalove Brashers, M., & Neitzel, J. C. (2002). Ecological congruence assessment for classroom activities and routines: Identifying goals and intervention practices in childcare. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 131-142.

Contact

Coral Kemp
Project Director

Macquarie University
North Ryde NSW 2109

Phone (02) 98508712
Fax (02) 98508254
Email Coral.kemp@mq.edu.au

Website

www.access.mq.edu.au and www.star.org.au

More information

More information on the Promising Practice Profiles can be found on the Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia website.