early developments 1 | Spring 2002

FPG

Child

Development

Institute

The University of

North Carolina at

Chapel Hill

Spring 2002 | Volume 6, Number 2 Children with Special Needs
2 early developments | Spring 2002

Bailey Receives

AAMR Research award

Don Bailey, director of FPG,

received an award for his research

on mental retardation from the

American Association on Mental

Retardation (AAMR) at the

association’s 126TH annual

meeting in Orlando, FL.

AAMR presented its annual

Research Award to Bailey “for

formulations and investigations

that have contributed significantly

to the body of scientific knowledge in the field of mental

retardation.”

Bailey appointed

W.R. Kenan, Jr. Professor

The Board of Trustees of the

University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill approved the

appointment of Don Bailey as

W.R. Kenan, Jr. Professor

effective July 1, 2002. This honor

recognizes Don’s leadership as a

researcher and director of the

FPG Child Development Institute

during the past ten years.

Pat Wesley

Director of Partnerships for Inclusion

Don Bailey

Director of FPG

Unexpected Journey wins Silver Reels award

Unexpected Journey: The Earliest Days, a 24-minute documentary produced

by the Partnerships for Inclusion project at FPG, won a Silver Reels award

January 12. The Silver Reels regional competition honors video, film and

interactive communications from across North and South Carolina.

Produced by Pat Wesley in collaboration with Julie Dixon of Raleighbased Words and Pictures, the video follows several families through the

earliest days of parenting premature infants. Unexpected Journey also

addresses ways to promote smooth

transitions for the family and child

as they prepare to leave the

hospital and begin their lives

together in their communities.

To Learn More

Visit the PFI website at

www.fpg.unc.edu/~pfi

news

A New Name, a New Look

The Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center is now the FPG Child Development Institute. Our

mission is the same as it was 30 years ago when we were founded...

to cultivate and share the knowledge necessary to enhance

child development and family well-being.

Our modified name, new logo, and

tagline (advancing knowledge, enhancing lives)

are designed to help us communicate our mission more clearly with the

consumers of our research, teaching, and outreach efforts.

advancing knowledge, enhancing lives
Spring 2002 | early developments 3

For the Development and

Well Being of All Children 4

Focusing on Vision 6

Fragile X 9

FPG Recent Publications 12

A Model of Inclusion 14

Cost, Quality and Outcomes

of Preschool Inclusion 19

Connecting Research on Inclusion

to Classroom Practices 20

NCEDL NEWS

Committed to Sharing 22

Assessing Early Intervention Programs 25

NCEDL Recent Publications 26

early developments

contents

Spring 2002 | Volume 6 Number 2

ISSN 1536-4739

Supervising Editors

Pam Winton, Virginia Buysse

Writers

John Manuel

Loyd Little

Design/Layout

FPG Publications Office

Photography

Don Trull

Penny Rosenblum (p.13)

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.ncedl.org

Early Developments is published

three times a year by the FPG Child

Development Institute at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It is funded in part by UNC-Chapel Hill

and in part by PR/Award Number

R307A60004, administered by the

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, National Institute on

Early Childhood Development and

Education, US Department of Education. Contents of articles do not necessarily represent the positions of the

US Department of Education. Endorsement by the federal government

should not be assumed.

To change your address

 contact Jay Hargrove

CB #8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Periodicals postage paid

at Chapel Hill, NC

For a free subscription

send your name & address to

Jay Hargrove

(919) 966-0888

hargrove@mail.fpg.unc.edu

To order additional copies

contact FPG Publications Office

(919) 966-4221

pubs@mail.fpg.unc.edu
4 early developments | Spring 2002

For the development and well

NATIONAL REPORTS indicate that in a

given year as many as 5.5 million

children are identified as having a

disability that interferes with

school performance and requires special education services. Some disabilities are obvious at

birth, occurring as a result of genetic disorders

or birth trauma. Others can emerge later in life

as a result of injuries, illness or environmental

factors. Whatever the case, there is now widespread agreement that disabilities must be

identified as early as possible and the

appropriate services provided.

This issue of Early Developments highlights some of

our current work with children with disabilities. Since

our main focus is on the early childhood period, we are

especially concerned about promoting earlier identification and improving early intervention and preschool

services. Recent reports show that while 11-12% of schoolage children are eligible for special education services,

less than 2% of children receive early intervention

services during the first three years of life and less than

5% during the preschool years. The peak enrollment

of children in special education services occurs

at age 10. This means that many children’s disabilities

are not identified until after they enter school and

experience failure.

Our commitment to disability-related work

goes back to the earliest days of our institute and the

involvement of the Kennedy family in mental retardation programs and legislation. It is well known that

President John F. Kennedy had a sister with mental

retardation. One outgrowth of Kennedy’s work was the

establishment of a national network of mental retardation research centers. FPG was part of a consortium of

organizations at UNC that was funded as one of the

original 12 Mental Retardation Research Centers in

1966 and we continue this affiliation today.

Since the 1960s, we have been involved in a wide

range of disability-related activities. These include basic

research, the development of models for working with

children and families, studies of disability policies, and

training and technical assistance activities designed to help

policy makers and practitioners develop and implement

high-quality services. We have also focused much of our

efforts on understanding how children with disabilities can

be included in programs for children without disabilities.

As a part of this work, the child care program at FPG has

been a fully inclusive program and the staff have worked

hard to model effective inclusionary practices since 1984.

Examples of those practices at the FPG child care center

are presented in an article in this issue.
Spring 2002 | early developments 5

being of all children

By Don Bailey, Director of the FPG Child Development Institute

of national and state laws and regulations govern these

activities, but as expected, the challenges often come

in the appropriate implementation of policy.

We try to engage in work that helps us understand

how policy affects practice, and how practice can be

modified to be consistent with policy. In this issue, we

look at one FPG project—the Early Intervention Training

Center for Infants and Toddlers Who Have Visual Impairment—and how it is helping colleges and universities

prepare personnel to serve children with this disability.

At FPG, we believe strongly in conveying the results

of our research not just to fellow academicians, but to

a larger audience of policy makers, service providers,

and parents, who can put the findings to use right away.

In this regard, we are particularly proud of the work of

the National Center for Early Development & Learning,

whose information dissemination program is featured

in this issue.

Our work on disability issues emphasizes our belief

that we need to be concerned about the development

and well being of all children. By focusing part of our

effort on disability, we can reinforce the notion that every

child needs to be viewed as an individual with his or her

unique styles of learning and developmental growth.

| ed |

Some of our work focuses on specific disabilities.

We have projects involving children with disorders such

as vision impairment, autism and spina bifida. This issue

features an article on our studies of one particular

disorder–fragile X syndrome–and the challenges

surrounding early identification and the provision of

services. From projects such as this one, we hope to

learn about the specific learning needs of children with

identifiable conditions, trying to determine the needs

that are unique to each disorder in comparison with the

needs that are common to almost all children. This work

draws heavily on the individual interests of investigators

working at the center. Other research, however, is not so

focused on a particular disorder, but on children with

special needs as a group. From this perspective, the

range of disabling conditions and needs is enormous.

Our challenge is to discover ways that service systems

can respond appropriately to this wide variation in

needs and abilities.

Serving young children with special needs is a

complicated endeavor. It requires coordinating the

medical, educational, public health and mental health

communities, and working in partnership with schools,

child care programs and families to provide appropriate

support for children and families. A comprehensive set
6 early developments | Spring 2002

Focusing on Vision

Developing Resources for Teachers of the Visually Impaired
Spring 2002 | early developments 7

A

S A PRESCHOOL DIRECTOR FOR A STATE SCHOOL

FOR THE BLIND, a graduate student focusing

 on visual disabilities, and a researcher at

 FPG specializing in early childhood visual

impairment, Deborah Hatton has seen the problem

first hand.

“Early intervention can help infants and toddlers

with visual impairments and their families face many of

the challenges of growing up without sight,” Hatton says.

“Yet there is a shortage of teachers and other personnel

who are prepared to provide this support.”

Preparing additional teachers of children with visual

impairments (TVIs) is the responsibility of colleges and

universities with programs in this specific field; however,

they can be aided in that mission by having access to

resources that help prepare personnel to serve infants

and toddlers with visual impairments. That is the primary

mission of The Early Intervention Training Center for

Infants and Toddlers with Visual Impairments, a project

directed by Hatton and funded through a five-year grant

from the US Office of Special Education.

 Researchers estimate there are approximately

20,000 children with visual impairments in the United

States in the birth to five age range. In 2000, US colleges

and universities turned out only 273 teachers of the

visually impaired, 77 instructors in orientation and

mobility, and 38 with dual certification (teachers of

children with visual impairments and orientation and

mobility), and these personnel typically were hired to

provide services to children between the ages of 5 and 21

years. That leaves a big gap in time during which children

with visual impairments and their families miss out on

valuable intervention services.

Visual impairment can affect childhood development

in numerous ways. Unable to make visual links with

caregivers and with their surroundings, children with little

or no sight may face particular challenges in preverbal

communication, motor development, and areas of cognitive development such as body, object, spatial, and other

basic concepts that are ordinarily acquired incidentally

through vision. Parents of infants and toddlers with visual

impairments may also become perplexed or depressed

when the child fails to respond to eye contact or smiling,

or acts in a way that may be interpreted as rejection

(examples of such behavior include stilling or freezing at

the sound of the parent’s voice, lack of facial affect).

At the same time, children with visual impairments

can function successfully if they and their families are

provided appropriate support. For example, caregivers

can vocalize more extensively to provide cues about their

whereabouts and the surrounding environment. They

can use touching games and sound cues to help infants

anticipate certain actions. Caregivers report that support

from early interventionists in specific strategies and

techniques for teaching their children with limited vision,

as well as information about the specific eye condition

and prognosis, are most helpful. Yet this kind of support

has not been widely available.

Dr. L. Penny Rosenblum, a faculty member from the

teacher preparation program in visual impairment at the

University of Arizona, is also an investigator on the FPG

early intervention project who serves as a liaison to the

universities that prepare TVIs.

During the first six months of the project, Hatton

focused on developing partnerships with university

faculty who prepare teachers of children with visual

impairments. Since then, she and her colleagues have

been developing a series of multimedia, interactive

content modules geared toward a university audience.

Video clips show parents of children with visual impairments talking about the supports they need for their

young children and give examples of exemplary early

intervention practices. Case stories have been developed

with activities based on them.
8 early developments | Spring 2002

To learn more

Developmental growth curves of

preschool children with vision impairments. Hatton, D.D., Bailey, D.B., Burchinal,

M.R., Ferrell, K.A. (1997). Child Development,

68, 788-806.

Model registry of early childhood visual

Impairment: First year results. Hatton, D.D.,

& Model Registry of Early Childhood Visual

Impairment Collaborative Group. (2001).

Journal of Visual Impaiment and Blindness,

95(7), 418-433.

Family centered support,

typically provided during home visits,

is the foundation for effective early intervention.

For many years, early intervention did not exist

in most areas of the United States for children

with visual impairments under the age of 5. We

now have approximately 20–30 university

programs in the United States that prepare

teachers of children who are visually impaired.

Because visual impairment is a low

incidence disability, however, these university

programs may have relatively small numbers

of students, and so the programs are difficult

to sustain. Often, faculty members must spend

considerable time in grant preparation to keep

their programs running, and they may not have

time to develop their own materials. We hope

to make their job easier by giving them materials

they can infuse into existing courses.

The modules will be available in multiple formats.

A printed copy with objectives, major points, instructional sequence, overhead transparencies, case stories

and activities, recommended readings, and study questions will be available. In addition, a audio-narrated CD

of a multimedia program will be available. The CD will

be configured so that it can be accessed by screen

readers for individuals without vision. “Our mission is

not just to get the information out, but to make it easy

and interesting to use,” Hatton says.

While these resources and materials are primarily

for use by faculty, Hatton believes the materials are flexible

enough to be used by families, as well as agencies and

individuals that work with the visually impaired. The

materials should be useful in preparing personnel in the

fields of child development, speech/language pathology,

occupational science, physical therapy, and medicine.

 The project has created an electronic mailing list and

a web site (www.fpg.unc.edu/~edin.). These will be used

to share information about resources and to secure

feedback from practicing professionals and future

consumers as materials are developed.

| ed |

For more information about this project,

please call Project Director Deborah Hatton

at 919-966-7186 or email deborah_hatton@unc.edu.

Project web site: www.fpg.unc.edu/~edin.
Spring 2002 | early developments 9

It is the most common inherited form of mental retardation, yet it often remains

undiagnosed for the first three years of a child’s life. It is not curable at the present time,

but early identification can lead to educational and therapeutic treatments that can help

affected families and children cope with the condition. Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is

gradually coming into the limelight and the FPG Child Development Institute is

pioneering research defining early development and intervention strategies.

First named in 1969, it was not until 1991 that several international teams of researchers discovered the gene that causes

fragile X syndrome and an understanding of the way it

is inherited. Fragile X is a single-gene disorder carried on

the X chromosome. The disorder can be passed through several

generations in a carrier state, with each generation having a

higher risk of the gene causing the syndrome itself. An expansion of this gene (FMR1) leads to a lack of production of a

protein believed to be essential for normal brain functioning.

Both males and females can have the disorder, however, males

are usually more severely affected than females. Most will have

mental retardation, ranging from mild to severe. Many will

experience delays in development, most notably in cognitive

and communication skills. Males may develop distinguishing

physical features, including large ears, loose joints and muscles,

and an elongated face. However, children born with fragile X

look and behave normally at birth with the result that few are

immediately identified as having the condition.

With the understanding of fragile X as a genetic disorder,

the scientific community has pursued two main lines of inquiry.

One seeks to understand the molecular consequences of the

condition with the hope of some day developing targeted

pharmacological treatments and gene therapy. The second line,

pioneered by FPG, seeks to understand the developmental,

behavioral, and functional aspects of fragile X.
10 early developments | Spring 2002

Since this first grant was awarded, an interdisciplinary team of researchers at FPG and other UNC schools

have conducted a series of studies on early development.

Principal researchers include Don Bailey, Deborah

Hatton, Jane Roberts, Joanne Roberts, Penny Mirrett, and

Jennifer Schaaf. These studies have led to more than 20

publications and wide recognition of FPG as the primary

research center studying FXS during the early childhood

years. Currently, FPG is conducting seven studies on

fragile X. These include a study on the neuropsychological functioning of fragile X children in late elementary

and middle school; a study of the life functions of the

same group, including where these children go to school,

what their interactions are with other children, and what

opportunities they have to participate with other children; completion of a pilot project looking at early

identification issues for children at 9, 12, and 18 months

of age; two studies on language development and

hearing for children with fragile X; a study observing

parent/child interactions of families with children with

fragile X; and a grant from the Ronald McDonald House

Charities to set up a web site for parents and practitioners distilling crucial information about fragile X and

addressing issues in the field. The latter grant is consistent with FPG’s mission of linking research with outreach.

What is the significance of fragile X research at

Frank Porter Graham? “FPG Child Development Institute

In 1993, FPG received the first grant to describe the

early development of children with fragile X. Prior to this,

research had been done only on older children and adults

with the syndrome. Interviewing 41 mothers of young

boys with fragile X, FPG researchers learned that fragile X

was typically not diagnosed until children had reached a

mean age of 35 months. For the most children, a parent,

usually the mother, first became concerned about the

child. The parent most often noticed a delay in meeting

expected developmental milestones. They may have

noticed other problems, including speech delays, health

problems, and lack of eye contact or attentiveness.

Pediatricians or other physicians whom the parents

consulted often downplayed their concerns, especially

if the child was under 18 months, suggesting that the

child was simply late in developing.

The study clearly showed that society is slow to

identify children with fragile X. As a result, parents of

these children become unnecessarily frustrated with

their own parenting skills and with their children,

whose delayed development they do not understand.

Parents may also become disenchanted with medical

professionals who fail to recognize the condition.

Children and families miss two-to-three years of support

from an early intervention system that is in place and

available for services; families fail to get important

information on genetic risk which might have affected

their decisions about bearing subsequent children.

FPG is the first and only group defining the early development of fragile X,
Spring 2002 | early developments 11

children to determine the incidence rate and what the

behavior and development of affected children looks

like in the first year, and to test different models for

early intervention.

“FPG provides a great context for studying this and

other disabilities,” Bailey says. “We have an interest in

covering the waterfront from understanding the basic

phenomenon to understanding the ramifications for

society.” | ed |

To learn more

FMRP and early development in fragile X syndrome.

Bailey, D.B., Hatton, D.D., Tassone, F., Skinner, M., &

Taylor, A.K (2001). American Journal on Mental

Retardation, 106, 16-27.

Overview: Fragile X syndrome. Bailey, D.B., & Nelson, D.

(1995). Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities

Research Reviews: Fragile X Syndrome, 1(4), 237.

Family experiences and factors associated with

diagnosis of fragile X syndrome. Bailey, D.B., Skinner,

D., Hatton, D., & Roberts, J. (2000). Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 21(5), 315-321.

is the first and only group defining the early development

of fragile X, and developing an understanding of its

consequences for families,” says Don Bailey, director of

FPG and principal investigator of the initial study. “Our

immediate goal is to learn enough about fragile X syndrome so that we can help improve early identification

and design appropriate early intervention strategies.

“Our studies of fragile X could also provide a

prototype for how society will deal with other genetic

disorders,” Bailey continues. “With the advances in the

Human Genome Project, we will soon be able to identify

a whole host of disorders whose origin can be traced to

the mutation of specific genes, some of which are inherited and passed down from generation to generation.

This capability will raise a number of challenging

questions, including whom we should screen, what

disorders we should screen for, and what to do when

disorders are discovered. By focusing on fragile X, we

can answer questions broadly related to other disorders.”

Several critical questions remain unanswered with

respect to fragile X itself. Though estimates of 1:4000

males have been made, the true incidence of the syndrome is unknown. Likewise, factors such as ethnicity

have not been studied, and more needs to be learned

about infant development to help pediatricians do a better

job of identifying the disorder. Toward this end, FPG has

applied for a grant to plan a very large study in which

researchers would screen approximately one million

and developing an understanding of its consequences for families.
12 early developments | Spring 2002

FPG

Child

Development

Institute recentpublications

Child care quality and children’s

engagement. Raspa, M.J.,

McWilliam, R.A., & Ridley, S.M.

(2001). Early Education and

Development, 12, 209-224.

Discerning the dialogical self:

A theoretical and methodological

examination of a Nepali adolescent’s narrative. Skinner, D., &

Valsiner, J. (2001). Forum: Qualitative

Social Research, 2(3). Available at:

<http://www.qualitative-research.

net/fqs-texte/3-01/3-01skinneretale.htm>.

Early interventionists’ perspectives

on professional comfort as

consultants. Wesley, P.W., Buysse, V.,

& Skinner, D. (2001). Journal of Early

Intervention, 24(2), 112-128.

Evaluating parent involvement

and family support in early

intervention and preschool

programs: Three levels of

accountability. Bailey, D.B., (2001).

Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 1-14.

FMRP and early development in

fragile X syndrome. Bailey, D.B.,

Hatton, D.D., Tassone, F., Skinner, M.,

& Taylor, A.K. (2001). American

Journal on Mental Retardation, 106,

16-27.

Fragile X syndrome and autism.

Hatton, D.D., & Bailey, D.B. (2001). In

L. Marcus, E. Schopler, C. Shulman, &

N. Yirmiya (Eds.), The research basis of

autism intervention outcome, (pp. 75-

89). New York: Kluwer Academic/

Plenum Publishers.

Identifying infants and toddlers

with fragile X syndrome: Issues and

recommendations. Bailey, D.B.,

Roberts, J.E., Mirrett, P., & Hatton, D.D.

(2001). Infants and Young Children,

14(1), 24-33.

Implementing early intervention

policy: Are we making the grade?

Harbin, G.L. (2001). Journal of Early

Intervention, 24(2), 103-105.

Model registry of early childhood

visual impairment: First year results.

Hatton, D.D., & Model Registry of Early

Childhood Visual Impairment Collaborative Group. (2001). Journal of Visual

Impairment and Blindness, 95(7), 418-

433.

Models of acculturation and health

behavior among Latino immigrants

to the U.S. Arcia, E., Skinner, M.,

Bailey, D., & Correa, V. (2001).

Social Science and Medicine, 53, 41-53.

North Carolina Preschool Services

for Children with Disabilities: A

Profile of Local Education Agency

Programs and Practices. Mengel, P.,

Payne, B., Trohanis, P., & Baars, K.

(2001). Chapel Hill: The University of

North Carolina, FPG Child Development

Institute, National Early Childhood

Technical Assistance System.

Parent Leadership Development:

Building Strong Voices for Children

(Facilitator Guide). Parent Leadership

Development Project. (2002). Chapel

Hill: The University of North Carolina,

FPG Child Development Institute.

12 early developments | Spring 2002
Spring 2002 | early developments 13

Spring 2002

Seizures in infants and young

children: An exploratory study of

family experiences and needs for

information and support. Aytch, L.S.,

Hammond, R., & White, C. (2001).

Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 33(5),

278-285.

Smooth Moves to Kindergarten.

Wesley, P.W. (2001). Chapel Hill, NC:

Chapel Hill Training Outreach Press.

The evolution of transition policy

for young children with special

needs and their families: Past,

present, and future. Rosenkoetter,

S.E., Whaley, K.T., Hains, A.H., & Pierce,

L. (2001). Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 21(1), 3-15.

The role of religion in the lives of

Latino families of young children

with developmental delays.

Skinner, D., Correa, V., Skinner, M., &

Bailey, D. (2001). American Journal on

Mental Retardation, 106, 297-313.

Toward a definition of quality

inclusion: Perspectives of parents

and practitioners. Buysse, V., Skinner,

D., & Grant, S. (2001). Journal of Early

Intervention, 24(2), 146-161.

Walking the Walk: A Guide to

Diversity Resources for Trainers.

Catlett, C., Winton, P.J., Parrish, R.N.,

& White, C. (2001). Chapel Hill:

The University of North Carolina,

FPG Child Development Center.

Parent Leadership Development:

Building Strong Voices for Children

(Participant Notebook). Parent

Leadership Development Project.

(2002). Chapel Hill: The University of

North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

Putting the child back into child

care quality assessment. Ridley,

S.M., & McWilliam, R.A. (2001).

Young Children, 56(4), 92-93.

Removing Barriers to Health Clubs

and Fitness Facilities. North Carolina

Office on Disability and Health.

(2001). Chapel Hill: The University of

North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

Resource Guide: Selected Early

Childhood/Early Intervention

Training Materials (10th ed.).

Catlett, C., & Winton, P.J. (2001).

Chapel Hill: The University of North

Carolina, FPG Child Development

Center.

Resources within reason: Supporting inclusive programs and

practices within communities.

Catlett, C., Winton, P., & Dennis, B.

(2001). Young Exceptional Children,

4(4), 27.

Resources within reason: Resources that increase awareness

about inclusion in diverse

environments. Catlett, C., & Winton,

P.J. (2001). Young Exceptional

Children, 4(2), 29.

Section 619 Profile (10TH ed.).

deFosset, S. (Ed.). (2001). Chapel Hill:

The University of North Carolina, FPG

Child Development Institute, National

Early Childhood Technical Assistance

System.

Aytch Bailey

Buysse Catlett

 deFosset Dennis

 Gallagher Hatton

Harbin McWilliam

Mirrett Parrish

Raspa Ridley

Roberts Skinner

Trohanis Wesley

Whaley Winton
14 early developments | Spring 2002
Spring 2002 | early developments 15

A Model of Inclusion

With the 1975 passage of the Education of Handicapped Children Act, and its reauthorization in 1990 and

1997 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA), Congress called on states to embark on a bold

effort to incorporate children with disabilities into the

mainstream of education. That effort has met with mixed

results nationwide, but at the FPG child care center,

inclusion of children with disabilities has been the norm

since 1984. Results of that effort suggest that inclusion

can be beneficial for both children with disabilities and

those who are typically developing.

Housed in the first two floors of FPG, the child care

program serves 80 children ranging in age from 6 weeks

to 5 years old. It is a full day program, operating from

7:30 AM to 5:30 PM and open year round. Approximately

30% of the children within each age group have an

identified disability, with slightly more children with

disabilities enrolled in preschool classrooms than in the

infant-toddler groups. A diverse range of types and

severity of disabilities are represented, including Down

syndrome, cerebral palsy, other specific syndromes,

children who are medically fragile, and autism.

The program is accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and has a fivestar North Carolina license—the highest quality rating in

the state. Teachers at FPG tend to be more educated than

is typical of child care providers in the community, with

most having a four-year degree, and many having a

North Carolina Birth-to-Kindergarten teaching license,

according to P.J. McWilliam, who directs the center.

 “A more educated staff and lower child-to-adult

ratios leads to more engaging and developmentallyappropriate activities going on in the classrooms,”

McWilliam says. “Teachers’ interactions with children

tend to be more positive, aimed at facilitating socialemotional development rather than merely controlling

undesirable behavior.”
16 early developments | Spring 2002

Additional time, however, is required for more

in-depth communications about children’s progress

and needs. The special services staff tries to meet more

formally with each teacher at least every other week

for an hour or so to discuss the children. In addition,

formal individualized education plan (IEP) meetings

and individualized family service plan (IFSP) meetings

are scheduled for each child, along with meetings to

review and update these plans.

Partnership with parents

Child care center staff emphasize that effective parentteacher partnerships are a key factor in meeting the

needs of children with special needs, as well as those of

children who are typically developing. The cornerstone of

these partnerships is honest and ongoing communication. This can take many forms, from informal chatter at

the beginning or end of the day to more formal parentteacher conferences. Short notes about the child’s day

that are stuck in a diaper bag or cubby, as well as e-mail

messages or evening phone calls are other good communication techniques. “The more open, honest, and

frequent the communication, the more effective the

partnership will be between parent and teacher,”

McWilliam says. “The same holds true for relationships

between specialists and parents.

In fact, parents of children at FPG actually lead the

team in identifying appropriate goals and priorities for

intervention with their child. Over the past year, the

program has adopted a routines-based approach to

intervention planning whereby the skills and behaviors

that children need to be successful in their daily routines

are the focus of the intervention plan. This has helped

to insure that parents’ values and priorities are clearly

communicated to the team and that parents actually

direct the design of interventions for both home

and classroom.”

While they may hold degrees and licenses, few

teachers enter the program with extensive experience in

working with children with disabilities. “A lot is learned

on the job,” McWilliam adds.

Although a team of specialists supports each child’s

developmental progress and inclusion, children at FPG are

not pulled out of their classrooms for therapy.

Instead, specialists share their expertise through consultation with teachers and, less frequently, through direct

intervention within the context of classroom routines.

These routines include morning circle, meal times, outdoor

play, pretend play, storybook reading, and field trips.

The role of specialists and the purpose of therapy are

to enable each child to participate in the regular early

childhood curriculum and to support his or her membership in the group. “The fact that children stay with the

same group of buddies for at least their first three years

of enrollment at FPG helps,” McWilliam says.

Team approach

FPG’s approach to special services relies heavily on

teaming. The program is fortunate to have an on-site

special services staff, which consists of a service coordinator (special educator), a speech-language pathologist,

an occupational therapist, a physical therapist, and a

behavior analyst.

“Although some of our specialists only work parttime for the program, the consistency in who works with

the children and teachers makes a big difference,”

McWilliam says. “Regular and effective communication

among members of the special services staff and,

perhaps more importantly, between the special services

staff and the classroom teachers is critical. Stolen moments during a specialist’s visit to the classroom, a

chance encounter in the teacher’s lounge, or a few words

shared out on the play yard allow for informal communication and intervention updates with teachers.”

Children with disabilities participate in all

classroom activities, at whatever level of ability

they are capable, and provided with whatever

level of assistance they may need. “Sometimes

a child’s participation requires an extra hand,

special materials, a piece of adapted equipment,

or just plain old creative thinking on the part of a

teacher or specialist,” McWilliam says.
Spring 2002 | early developments 17

Parents of children with special needs are also

encouraged to be involved in classroom activities in the

same ways as parents of typically developing children.

This may mean joining the class during morning circle

time, going on a field trip, volunteering in the classroom,

attending classroom potluck dinners, or attending FPG’s

parent advisory board. These parents, like all other

parents in the program, are free to choose the type and

level of involvement that they find meaningful and that

fits into their busy schedules.

A touch of magic

Research suggests that parents of children with special

needs and those who are typically developing have

concerns as to whether the benefits of an inclusive

classroom setting outweigh the drawbacks. The experience at the FPG child care center, as well as wider

research in the field, suggests that benefits do outweigh

the drawbacks.
18 early developments | Spring 2002

“There have been times,” admits McWilliam, “when I’ve wondered what the children with more

severe disabilities get out of being in our program...whether it really matters to them that they are in

a setting with typically developing peers. Again, there are a few moments here and there that make

me realize that the answer is yes.”

“Research has shown that in high-quality child care

settings, there are clear benefits from inclusion,” says

Don Bailey, director of the FPG Child Development

Institute. “First, children with disabilities and those

without do play together. Second, children with special

needs engage in more social behavior in inclusive settings

than they do in segregated settings. Third, there are no

negative consequences for typically developing children

placed in inclusive settings. To the contrary, these children

develop an appreciation for the differences.”

McWilliam admits that even in programs like FPG’s,

where resources are more plentiful than others, inclusion

isn’t always easy, nor is it inexpensive. But witnessing

the benefits makes the effort worthwhile.

“There’s a little boy named Jake in one of our twoyear-old rooms who has severe and multiple disabilities,”

McWilliam says. “He has been in our program, and with

the same group of children, since he was an infant.

Despite the fact that Jake can’t do many of the things

that the other children in the classroom can, it is clear

from watching and listening to the other children that

they consider him a true member of their group. They

always notice when he’s out sick and they insist upon his

name being included in any conversations about the

group. They have always approached him readily to play

with the adaptive toys on the tray of his wheelchair or

special seat and they encourage Jake to activate them,

too—after they’ve had their turn first, of course!”

“One day last week,” continues McWilliam, “I was

in this same classroom and noticed Jake lying on the

floor under a cross bar with toys suspended from it.

Another 2-year-old, Demarcus, had joined him under

the crossbar and was lying cheek to cheek with Jake,

trying to tuck a doll blanket under both of their chins.

Demarcus wasn’t doing this for adult attention,” explains

McWilliam, “His affection for Jake seems quite sincere.

It’s heartwarming to witness.”

“There have been times,” admits McWilliam,

“when I’ve wondered what the children with more

severe disabilities get out of being in our program ...

whether it really matters to them that they are in a

setting with typically developing peers. Again, there are

a few moments here and there that make me realize that

the answer is yes.”

“One day Jake wasn’t feeling well,” says McWilliam,

“so I offered to take him for a walk around the halls in

his stroller. As I rounded a corner, his buddy Demarcus

burst through the front door, saw Jake in his stroller, and

immediately started talking to him. Jake’s crying stopped

almost immediately and he started to coo. It seemed

clear to me that Jake recognized the sound of his friend’s

voice, that it comforted him in some way, and that he

appreciated and benefited from their relationship—albeit

in his own manner.”

“We all benefit from inclusion,” McWilliam adds.

“But some of the most important benefits have nothing

to do with IQ scores or later school achievement.

Perhaps some day, these less clearly measurable

outcomes will be understood to be of greater value.”

| ed |
Spring 2002 | early developments 19

Virginia Buysse, Project Director

Buysse said the costs per child will be assessed

through methods developed by the Center for Special

Education Finance in Palo Alto, CA, and statistical tests

will examine the relationship between program quality

and outcomes as well as differential costs between

higher- and lower-quality programs.

“We expect to offer information that can be used to

guide families, teachers and local program administrators

in selecting appropriate placements and designing

quality improvements of inclusion preschool programs,”

she said. Findings will be available in 2004. | ed |

For two decades FPG has been conducting research on

inclusion. One of our newest research projects on

inclusion at FPG, funded by the US Department of

Education, is examining widely used ways to implement

preschool inclusion: community-based itinerant services,

Head Start centers and public school classrooms.

Project Director Virginia Buysse, a scientist at FPG,

explained, “Across these three organization models, we’ll

be looking at the relationships among program costs,

program quality and outcomes for preschool-age children

with disabilities and their families.”

Buysse and her team will collect information from

nine North Carolina programs, involving 90 children and

families. Sam Odom, principal investigator at Indiana

University, will gather the same information on preschool

programs in Indiana.

The outcomes will be documented through developmental measures and assessments of friendship formation and peer relations. The programs’ quality will be

measured through an environmental rating scale, an

ecobehaviorial observation tool, and an assessment of

the quality of inclusion.

Cost, Quality

and

Outcomes

of Preschool Inclusion
20 early developments | Spring 2002

The key dimensions of

inclusion, based on

research, demonstrated

at the FPG Child Care

Program are—how to

use routines-based

assessment—how to

integrate therapy and

special education, and—

how to use embedded

interventions. McWilliam

says, “All three of these dimensions are

designed to maximize the amount and

effectiveness of intervention for

children with disabilities.”

Children with special needs

in child care, including those

enrolled in the FPG Child Care

Program, receive specialized

services such as physical

therapy, special education,

occupational therapy, and

speech-language pathology.

FPG has a history of conducting

research on specialized services

and has a current project

demonstrating recommended

practices in this area.

For 10 years, Robin McWilliam

has been examining and demonstrating the efficacy of different methods

of providing specialized services.

This work has included a national

survey of disability specialists and

therapists; studies with individual

children and groups of children; and

focus groups with parents, service

providers, and administrators.

McWilliam summarized the most

important findings from these studies

in this way: “Specialized services need

to be provided in classrooms, in collaboration with the classroom staff, so

the staff can carry out the interventions throughout the day. All the

worthwhile intervention occurs

between specialists’ visits. Integrated

therapy and integrated special education are more effective than pulling

children out for these services.”

Robin McWilliam,

Project Director
Spring 2002 | early developments 21

The FPG Child Care Program employs

integrated therapy with the assistance of

another FPG project, Individualizing

Inclusion in Child Care. This federally

funded model demonstration project has

helped the staff organize the demonstration

aspect of their inclusionary practices.

Integrated therapy is achieved through

collaboration, especially between teachers

and specialists. Specialists provide therapies in the classroom, weaving interventions into classroom activities and consulting with teachers. “Because the specialists

are in the classroom and see what the child

is able to do, they develop feasible strategies with the teachers so that intervention

occurs even when the specialists are not

present,” says Stacy Scott, coordinator of

the Individualizing Inclusion in Child Care

Project. “If you go into one of the classrooms to observe, you’ll see that in just

about every classroom routine, at least one,

and often several, of a child’s intervention

goals is being addressed by a teacher.” | ed |

To learn more

Rethinking Pull-Out Services in Early Intervention: A Professional Resource.

McWilliam, R.A. (Ed.). (1996). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Integration of therapy and consultative special education: A continuum in

early intervention. McWilliam, R.A. (1995). Infants and Young Children 7(4), 29-38.

Integrating therapies into the classroom. Scott, S.M., McWilliam, R.A., &

Mayhew, L. (1999). Young Exceptional Children, 2(3), 15-24.

For more information about the Individualizing Inclusion project, please contact

Project Coordinator Stacy Scott at 919-966-5943 or email Stacy_Scott@unc.edu.

Project web site: www.fpg.unc.edu/~inclusion.

For more information about the FPG Child Care Program, contact Dr. P.J. McWilliam

at (919) 966-5098 or email mcwillpj@mail.fpg.unc.edu.
22 early developments | Spring 2002

NCEDL

1997 5 YEARS 2002

Comprised of a consortium of researchers at the University of

California at Los Angeles, the University of Virginia, and the

University of North Carolina, NCEDL is one of 12 centers funded

under the US Department of Education’s Office of Educational

Research and Development. It is the only center devoted to

research in early childhood development. Since its inception in

1996, NCEDL has sponsored dozens of studies whose findings

expand the understanding of early childhood education and

development. However, getting those findings out to the broad

and amorphous target audience that works with or formulates

policies for young children has been a major challenge.

NCEDL has approached this task by developing a comprehensive dissemination infrastructure for a diverse array of publications.

The bedrock of NCEDL’s publications are peer-reviewed articles

on research conducted by the center, articles that are ultimately

published in scholarly journals. These form a solid scientific base

for other materials—press releases, technical briefs, brochures—

that put key information into more readable and timely formats

usable to a wider audience.

“In our original grant, the US Department of Education made

a point of stressing that the results of our research need to reach

a wide audience,” says Pam Winton, who directs center dissemination. “We were not satisfied to communicate only with fellow

researchers and academics. We sought to find ways to reach the

teachers, administrators, parents, and policymakers who are the

beneficiaries of our research.”

A constituent advisory board, comprised of parents, teachers,

state-level administrators, and childhood resource and referral

agencies, played a key role in helping NCEDL shape the publications to suit the various audiences.

“At one point, we planned to release a technical

report on child care quality with the intention of

reaching an audience of administrators and policy

makers,” Winton says. “Our advisory board told us

that the legislators needed something they could

‘hold in one hand and read while they were talking

on the phone and eating lunch at the same time.’

So, we ended up preparing a four-page brief for the

legislative staff and a one-page fact sheet for legislators.”

Academic institutions are

not generally noted either

for the widespread use of

their scholarly articles or

their ability to disseminate

findings quickly. The National

Center for Early Development

& Learning (NCEDL) has

broken that mold by sharing

findings of their research on

early childhood development

through a diverse array of

media. This practice has

put key findings into the

hands of practitioners and

policymakers who can put

 them to work on

 a timely

 basis.

Committed to Sharing
Spring 2002 | early developments 23

To gain the widest audience for their research findings,

NCEDL focuses on disseminating the information in ways that

are easy for other organizations to customize and redistribute.

Press releases are written following a “Swiss cheese” approach,

whereby “holes” are left in the stories in which local publications

can insert their own information. Spotlights, the center’s onepage summaries of research findings and events, is disseminated

to publishers of statewide, regional, and national newsletters,

who are then encouraged to reproduce it in their own publications. NCEDL publishes an electronic newsletter (Enews) that is

sent to various listservs, through which it is redistributed it to

other audiences. NCEDL also hosts a web site, www.ncedl.org,

on which summaries of all NCEDL activities and projects are

posted and available for download.

The versatility of NCEDL’s information dissemination capabilities was demonstrated in the activities around the center’s 1999

Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes study. This study provided

solid evidence that such factors as child-staff ratios, teacher

qualifications, and staff training at child care centers affect

children’s sociability, language and cognitive development, and

self-control. While the researchers prepared and submitted

scholarly articles, they also developed a media plan to roll out key

findings in advance. They wrote press releases and held a press

conference in Washington, DC. A technical report, reviewed and

approved by outside experts, was posted on the web site and

made available in print. A Spotlight was prepared and sent out

to interested organizations, as well as being posted on the web.

An Enews report went out through Enews list and listervs.

NCEDL’s web site has been particularly effective as an

information dissemination tool. Along with summaries of NCEDL

studies and activities, the web site also contains lists of related

publications, issues of Early Developments (available for download), lists of experts and funding sources, and links to related

sites. The web site averages over 1,000 hits per month, with

users including students, parents, program administrators,

teachers and policymakers. Usage has grown over time and

peaks around key events, such as press conferences.

A large number of NCEDL’s products are directly disseminated by center researchers and staff through presentations,

meetings, electronic distribution, and mailings to individuals.

NCEDL has also published a number of books summarizing

NCEDL has disseminated more

than 425,000 copies of major

products during its first five years.
24 early developments | Spring 2002

www.ncedl.org

presentations in major conferences synthesizing research on

early childhood issues. Collectively, this information is making

a difference according to policymakers.

“We have made progress toward full-day kindergarten in

Indiana because we’ve been able to hold up the research that says

children need stimulating early childhood environments to do well

in school,” says Jayma Ferguson, Early Childhood Specialist for the

Indiana Department of Education. “We don’t have the time or the

money to do the research ourselves. That is why what NCEDL is

doing is so important. They have responded by putting together

the products we need.”

Altogether, NCEDL has disseminated more than 425,000

copies of major products during its first five years. Winton

credits this success to the center’s partnerships with other groups

and its development of the web site. “Approximately 32% of our

products were disseminated as a result of collaboration with other

centers, agencies, or groups,” she says. “Another 33% were

downloaded from the web site. Thus, 65% of our product

dissemination was quite cost effective and reached audiences

that we would not have been able to had we relied solely on

traditional methods.”

Winton credits Loyd Little, NCEDL’s communication specialist

who has decades of experience as a working journalist. “Loyd

understands the media and how to work with them,” Winton

says. “His contributions to the effort have been critical. At FPG we

pride ourselves on our interdisciplinary work. Adding journalism

to our mix of staff has yielded great benefits.” | NCEDL |

The web site averages

over 1,000 hits/month,

with users including

students, parents,

program administrators,

teachers and

policymakers.
Spring 2002 | early developments 25

NCEDL Assessing Early Intervention

Early intervention, the system of services

providing support to infants and toddlers with

disabilities and their families, has long been a

focus of research at FPG. Much of this work

has centered on enhancing the quality of

intervention policy and practice. In the most

recent (1997) reauthorization of the Individuals

with Disabilities Act, the federal government

directed states to implement strategies to

assess quality of services, in addition to

monitoring for compliance with regulations.

To address this need, researchers at FPG are

working to develop and refine an instrument

which they hope will become a widelyaccepted measure for assessing early

intervention programs nationwide.

Drawing upon well-established rating

scales of child care environmental quality

(e.g., ECERS-R, ITERS) developed by FPG

researchers, the Early Intervention Services

Assessment Scale (EISAS) defines high-quality

practices across the broad spectrum of early

intervention services. Principal investigator

Lynette Aytch says a major challenge has been

developing a tool that can effectively evaluate

a complex system of services, people,

and settings.

 “We spent a lot of time looking at what

the literature says about quality early intervention practice and combined this with a lot of

dialogue with parents, service providers,

program administrators, and other researchers,” Aytch says. “This led to the design of

an instrument that we believe reflects early

intervention program quality.”

To test the actual utility of EISAS in the

“real world” of early intervention programs,

researchers conducted a field study involving

29 early intervention programs across 8 states.

“In this study, we were able to collect EISAS

data from 155 early intervention staff and 450

parents of children served by these programs,”

Aytch says. “We are now in the process on

analyzing and reporting our findings.”

Preliminary findings from the field suggest

that overall, the EISAS has good content

validity. That is, the content of the instrument

adequately represents the range of intervention services and quality practices. However,

the field study also indicates that program

self-assessment has significant limitations.

“Our findings suggest that programs

tended to rate themselves as high, despite

data which suggest that the programs varied

widely in quality,” Aytch says.

Researchers are currently refining the

instrument and will conduct more studies with

early intervention programs across the country.

| NCEDL |

To learn more

Defining and assessing quality in early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with

disabilities and their families: Challenges and

unresolved issues. Aytch, L.S., Cryer, D., Bailey, D.B.,

& Selz, L. (1999). Early Education and Development,

10 (1), 7-23.

Lynette Aytch

Principal Investigator
26 early developments | Spring 2002

NCEDLrecentpublications

Teachers’ perceptions of their

relationships with students:

Effects of child age, gender, and

ethnicity of teachers and children.

Saft, E., & Pianta, R. (2001). School

Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125-141.

Teacher ratings of behavior among

African American and Caucasian

children during the first two years

of school. Sbarra, D., & Pianta, R.

(2001). Psychology in the Schools,

38(3), 229-238.

The home environments of

children in the United States. Part

1: Variations by age, ethnicity, and

poverty status. Bradley, R.H.,

Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., & Garcia

Coll, C. (2001). Child Development,

72, 1844-1867.

The home environments of

children in the United States.

Part 2: Relations with behavioral

development through age 13.

Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal,

M., McAdoo, H.P., & Garcia Coll, C.

(2001). Child Development, 72,

1868-1886.

Transition to Kindergarten. Early

Childhood Research–Policy Briefs

& Fact Sheet. Pianta, R., & Cox, M.

(2002). Chapel Hill: The University of

North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center, NCEDL.

Overt and covert dimensions of

antisocial behavior in early

childhood. Willoughby, M.,

Kupersmidt, J., & Bryant, D. (2001).

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

29, 177-187.

Predicting children’s competence in

the early school years: A metaanalytic review. La Paro, K., &

Pianta, R. (2001). Review of

Educational Research, 70(4), 443-484.

Preparing the workforce: Early

childhood teacher preparation at

2- and 4- year institutions of

higher education. Early, D.M., &

Winton, P.J. (2001.). Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 16, 285-306

Regulation of Child Care. Early

Childhood Research–Policy Briefs

& Fact Sheet. Azer, S., Morgan, G.,

Clifford, R.M., & Crawford, G.M.

(2002). Chapel Hill: The University of

North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center, NCEDL.

Caregiver training and classroom

quality in child care centers.

Burchinal, M.R., Cryer, D., Clifford,

R.M., & Howes, C. (2002). Journal

of Applied Developmental Sciences,

6, 2-11.

Early teacher-child relationships

and the trajectory of children’s

school outcomes through eighth

grade. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2001).

Child Development, 71(2), 625-638.

Education for Four-year-olds:

State Initiatives. Supplement to

Technical Report #2 (California &

Ohio). Gallagher, J.J., Clayton, J.R., &

Heinemeier, S.E. (2002). Chapel Hill:

The University of North Carolina, FPG

Child Development Institute, NCEDL.

Implications of a developmental

systems model for preventing and

treating behavioral disturbances in

children and adolescents. Pianta, R.

(2001). In J. Hughes, A. La ,Greca,

& J. Conoley (Eds.), Handbook of

psychological services to children

and adolescents, (pp. 23-41). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Bryant Burchinal Clifford Cryer Early Gallagher Pianta Winton

26 early developments | Spring 2002
Spring 2002 | early developments 27

Colophon |ed|

Typefaces

Frutiger, Garamond, Impact, Optima

Akzidenz Grotesk Condensed

Paper stock

Potlatch, Somerset Matte, 80lb.Text

10,000 copies printed - 71¢ copy
ed28 | Spring 2002

ed

ISSN 1536-4739

early developments

FPG Child Development Institute

Campus Box 8185, UNC-CH

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8185

Address Service Requested

Non-Profit Org

U.S. Postage

Paid

Permit 177

Chapel Hill, NC

U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a a t C h a p e l H i l l

Visit us online

www.fpg.unc.edu

www.NCEDL.org