Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, AARE, Fremantle, Australia, 2-6 December, 2001

Early childhood in New Zealand is characterised by diversity of provisions within an inclusive early intervention philosophy (Cullen, 2001a). Hanson-White (2000) explains the early childhood sector’s proud history of welcoming and accepting children with special needs, by describing the national early childhood curriculum, Te Whaariki, and philosophy as “inherently inclusive - individual differences in learning and development are expected, and children are supported in exploring and interacting with their environment at the appropriate level” (p. 6).

The Special Education policy is based on an ecological and inclusionary model for specialist provisions (Cullen, 2000) and recognises that early intervention is essential to positive outcomes for young children with special education needs (MoE, 1996). The early intervention strand of the special education policy offers family-focused support to young children with developmental needs from birth until they are settled at school (Mitchell, 2000). Thus early intervention constitutes a community based combined health and education service, which assists young children with disabilities or developmental delays, and their families (Cullen, 2001a).

The policy allows for parents to choose the early intervention setting, ranging from regular early childhood centres, Maori or Pacific Island language immersion centres, early intervention centres, the child’s home, and sometimes a combination of these settings. The majority of young children with special needs are educated in regular early childhood centres. A small minority attend specialised early intervention centres (run by Accredited Service Providers), which as a result of special education policy changes are now government funded and accredited. Currently Specialist Education Services (SES) is the lead service provider for the early childhood sector and provides transdisciplinary early intervention.

As part of the Special Education policy, new funding (19 million) was provided to increase special education services in the early childhood sector by extending the provision of coordinated specialist advice and support, (for example, speech-language therapy), teaching and paraprofessional support. Physiotherapy and occupational therapy is provided through health or disability support services funding (MoE, 1998). The funding was intended to increase the average level of current services as well as increasing the total number of young children able to receive services each year. Children’s needs are prioritised according to a national moderation system for the allocation of funds. In addition new early childhood resource materials (Including Everyone: Te Reo Tataki ) and professional development to "unpack" the resource aimed to increase teacher competencies and awareness of the policy (Cullen, 2001b).

Within the wider Monitoring and Evaluation project, the implementation of the Special Education policy in the early childhood sector has been monitored through surveys and interviews with educators, parents and early intervention professionals. A national survey of early childhood centres and interviews with early childhood educators were conducted in Phase One. Phase Two procedures were guided by the findings from Phase One and also by the need to understand more about how the policy interfaced with specific early childhood contexts, so questionnaire and interview data were obtained from representatives of Kindergarten and Playcentre Associations. A wider group of participants were accessed in Phase Three to provide a balanced perspective on the impact of the policy in the early childhood sector. Data were gathered from the following sources: (1) telephone or email interviews with SES Early Intervention Service Leaders and representatives from Accredited Service Providers; (2) national surveys of early childhood centres and schools; (3) interviews with early childhood educators in four regions; and, (4) interviews with parents of children with special needs who were attending early childhood centres in the same four regions.

By investigating perceptions of the key participants, the Monitoring and Evaluation project aimed to increase understanding of how the policy has impacted on the different stakeholders, and to identify the policies and contextual constraints affecting the implementation of the policy in early childhood education.

In the early childhood sector, special education policy changes have occurred at the level of resource allocation, through the allocation of funding to SES early intervention services and to accredited service providers. As services are not funded through direct grants to centres, it is probable that many educators are unaware of resourcing changes. On the basis of educators perceptions, however, Phases 1 and 2 concluded that significant changes had not occurred in the early childhood sector. While some improvements in specialist and paraprofessional support were noted in some areas, in others gaps in provisions remained. Although Phase Three results have identified some positive outcomes of Special Education policy, and effective practices that have been implemented to address gaps in provisions, nevertheless some continuing gaps remain.

The three years of the Monitoring and Evaluation project have highlighted both strengths and limitations of the present provisions for early intervention. SES Early Intervention Service leaders reported that the Early Intervention (EI) strand was a positive outcome that aligned practice with policy, strengthened EI teams and facilitated transdisciplinary teamwork. Examples of innovative and effective early intervention practices have been described by SES early intervention staff, suggesting they have responded constructively to reported gaps in services, and to evolving needs in the community.

Accredited Service Providers reported that SE2000 funding policies positively influenced security and future planning. Most providers reported that needs were being met in early childhood but qualified this by stating that children with moderate needs were missing out.

The majority of parents interviewed reported that their children’s educational progress had benefited from early intervention, although issues were raised regarding gaps and delays in some provisions, from health and education services. Educators and parents both reported continuing gaps in provisions, across different regions and services. Although improvements in specialist and paraprofessional support have been noted by educators, gaps still exist, particularly in speech-language provisions and health services. Structural dislocations between health and education funding policies impact negatively on meeting the needs of children and families in some areas. The impact of the policy changes, therefore, underscores the need (for equity reasons) that systematic monitoring of provisions for young children should continue as services are restructured.

Issues raised during the three years of the project involved several key aspects of EI provisions. These included insufficient resourcing of children with moderate needs, continuing gaps in speech-language provisions, the negative effect of SE2000 policy on the transition to school, co-ordination of health and education services, inequities in provisions for rural children, and differing interpretations of special education philosophy.

There are groups of children with varying needs who do not qualify for assistance from early intervention programmes. One such group is children with behavioural difficulties. Children whose behaviour results from another disability, such as autism, may be eligible under the moderation process. But educators and early childhood association representatives reported not coping with the greater incidence of young children with moderate behaviour difficulties attending their centres. Some playcentre associations noted that they were paying for paraprofessional support for these children out of their own funds.

There is no equivalent of the policy initiative, called the Special Education Grant (SEG), in the early childhood sector and teachers and accredited providers reported they do not have the flexibility to meet the needs of children who fail to be prioritised for service. One EI Service Leader explained that “although SES receives some funding for children with moderate needs, “increased identification and higher levels of identification mean that increasingly children with more moderate needs who would benefit greatly from extra assistance either have needs met in a very limited way or not at all”. Although they are the most likely group to miss out on early intervention, one educator summarised this contradiction in early intervention philosophy by saying: “giving a small amount of input at preschool level would eliminate major problems arising later at school for these children”.

Availability of speech-language services continues to be a major source of concern for parents and educators, as well as providers. Long waiting lists appear to be the norm in some areas. The frequent turnover of speech language therapists has also been raised as an issue that impacts on the effectiveness of speech language therapy. In one area where speech language therapy hours are “grossly inadequate” one educator acknowledged that “SES staff, speech therapists and education support workers do a magnificent job, considering the constraints. We appreciate the hard work and commitment of the staff.” However, despite SES’s recruitment of Speech Language Therapists from overseas, supply has not kept up with demand.

In particular transition to school warrants further discussion because this issue was identified in all three phases of the Monitoring and Evaluation project. The issue is not new. Concerns about transition to school were also reported by parents and educators prior to implementation of SE2000 (Cullen & Bevan-Brown, 1999; ACNielson, 1998).

In terms of provision, the main concern as children move from early childhood into school is availability of support, and in particular, teacher aide support. The interview data from Phase Two indicate that there is poor liaison between the early childhood and primary sector. In Phase Three there was agreement across the four groups of participants that there were major concerns about transition that can be attributed to Special Education policy initiatives. Considerable stress for families can arise from these policy initiatives, for example, the way that the Ongoing Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (ORRS) and the Special Education Grant (SEG), have been interpreted by schools. The respondents considered that funding policies and school practices follow a deficit model compared to the inclusive ecological philosophy and practice of early intervention and centres. This deficit orientation of the ORRS process not only is inconsistent with early intervention and early childhood philosophies and encourages negative attitudes towards inclusion, but has also been associated with a return to “labelling” of disabilities in an attempt to access funding. However, it was also noted that 85% of ORRS applications made from the Early Intervention strand are successful which does indicate that high needs are being verified for the majority. Children with moderate difficulties are most at risk in terms of further resourcing in the school sector.

The project has reported gaps in health provisions in some health funding areas. Shortages of professionals and long waiting lists were referred to by parents, and both parents and educators referred to the dominance of medical perspectives over educational needs in individual planning (IP) meetings. These issues can only be intensified by coordination problems between health and education and in this regard SES early intervention teams appear to be disadvantaged compared with those accredited service providers who are funded for health services. The extra time required for liaison and administration across health and education has a negative impact on time available for other roles. Further the health-education disjunction places a transdisciplinary philosophy at risk. It appears that special education policy changes have created a competitive climate between health and education providers. Not withstanding these difficulties, early intervention personnel are committed to working with health professionals and many of our SES respondents referred to their relationships with health as a partnership, while one stated, “[we] seem very much part of the same team - we believe in a one-stop shop”.

Inequities in provisions for young children with special needs in rural areas were raised by the four participant groups. Participants referred to the cost to families who have to travel distances to attend early childhood centres. Early childhood funding formulae is based on full-time attendance even though a child with special needs, for example, medical fragility, may only be able to attend for some sessions. Such children do not have the option of enrolling in the Correspondence School early childhood programme, because since SE2000, only those children who do not attend any early childhood centre can enrol. In addition accredited service providers are located in cities and main centres, further limiting the services available to rural children and their families.

The travel factor also reduced the amount of visiting time that members of the early intervention team could spend in rural centres. Besides having to travel long distances to specialist appointments, parents also raised concerns about their limited choice of specialists and paraprofessional support, due to the lack of availability of professionals and specialists in rural areas.

Early intervention professionals from both health and education support an inclusive philosophy, however, differences are apparent in the particular interpretations of inclusion adopted by early intervention professionals and early childhood educators. Early intervention teachers work within the framework of Te Whaariki (early childhood curriculum document) but not all health professionals do. More fundamental differences in special education are also evident between some accredited providers (and possibly some health professionals) and that of the education sector. These philosophical differences have been well documented in the past and are unlikely to disappear in a system in which educators consider they have insufficient contact and communication with professionals. High caseloads of early intervention professionals further reduce opportunities for liaison and support in early childhood centres that could help to construct shared meanings about inclusion between professionals, paraprofessionals, parents and educators. The use of untrained education support workers who are unfamiliar with early childhood curriculum, philosophy and practice also seems likely to work against an inclusive approach to early intervention.

If a new policy is to be successfully implemented with shared philosophies, the key to its success may be professional development for all of the stakeholders. An important component of the early childhood initiative was to provide materials to support and upskill early childhood educators as well as to provide professional development for educators, management and parents about educating young children with special needs. Yet for this project, the educators’ data indicate that at least some educators have still to use the curriculum materials Including Everyone: Te Reo Tataki, or were unaware of it. While it is noted that currently not all early childhood centres have had the opportunity to participate in professional development, at this stage it seems likely that upskilling the early childhood sector in this way is insufficient to support policy change.

As raised in the issues above, it is clear that tensions still exist between philosophy and practice within the early childhood sector. First, there is a tension between the philosophies of early childhood and early intervention. Both advocate an inclusive approach to learning, however the setting determines the interpretation of that philosophy, for example, there are philosophical differences between early childhood centres and early intervention centres run by health funded accredited providers. The philosophy of early intervention is based on the premise of intervening early to avoid further delays, however, this is not happening for children identified with moderate needs.

Second, while it is apparent that all the stakeholders (parents, educators, early childhood association representatives, early intervention professionals, and the Ministry of Education) are committed to working within an inclusive, ecological, family centred, transdisciplinary partnership, the implementation of the SE2000 policy has created a competitive climate between providers and placed this philosophy at risk. In particular the Monitoring and Evaluation project identified differences between the health and education philosophies. Transdisciplinary collaboration involves an equal partnership with team members working together to achieve a common goal. This can only occur within a trusting environment where all participants feel valued for their contribution.

Despite the comprehensive initiatives of the Special Education policy to support inclusive programmes, our data indicate that tensions relating to the views of inclusion, held by educators, parents, accredited providers, early intervention professionals, have still to be addressed. As argued by Marfo (1996) and Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse, and Wesley (1998), effective early intervention involves a partnership of all participants that needs to build on shared philosophies.

The Monitoring and Evaluation project in the early childhood sector has relied on the perceptions of the key participants, except for the children themselves. Parents, educators, early childhood association representatives and early intervention professionals have shared their perspectives and concerns. Their perspectives indicate that the Early Intervention strand is considered to be a positive outcome of New Zealand’s Special Education policy. However a continuing gap between special education and early childhood education philosophies is apparent in differing interpretations of inclusion adopted by early childhood educators and professionals. While the Early Intervention strand is a positive step forward, there is some way to go before the policy truly has a positive impact on practice. Whatever the future of early intervention services, the strong family focus and transdisciplinary approaches of all providers suggests that this philosophy should continue to underpin provisions for young children with special needs.

Ministry of Education. (1996, July). Update: What is ‘special’ about special education? Wellington: Author.