Inclusion at Botany Downs Kindergarten Centre of Innovation 2006-2008

Chapter 6 Including Simon: Inclusion in action

Throughout the research project we captured many case stories to help us examine “how an inclusive environment enhances the learning of all children”. Of these, Simon’s story has been chosen to share in greater detail because of its complexity, its challenges and its celebrations. Not only does this story describe how Simon was included at BDK through the three phases of inclusion, it also weaves in stories of learning that occurred as children interacted with Simon.

The data in this chapter was collected through:

• Administration forms
• Teacher journal
• Research meeting notes
• Staff meeting notes
• Learning stories
• Anecdotal notes
• Case stories.

Pre-inclusion phase of Simon’s inclusion at BDK

We invited Simon’s parents to enrol Simon at our kindergarten after discovering that he was being cared for by the caregiver (home based educator) of another child at our kindergarten. Prior to Simon starting kindergarten we only had contact through his caregiver who, in turn, communicated with Simon’s parents. There was an initial parental reluctance to enrol Simon in an early childhood centre due to previous experiences of exclusion. We recognised Simon’s exuberance and energy and felt that he would enjoy being at our kindergarten. Usually we communicate directly with parents rather than through caregivers. In this instance it was not initially possible, so we entrusted his caregiver to communicate our philosophy and practices to Simon’s parents on our behalf.

Visual communication tools helped BDK engage with Simon and his family

Our enrolment pack includes handouts covering information that parents need to know about BDK, photographs of the teachers and options for communication (telephone, email and fax). Simon’s family was asked to provide a family photo to put in his portfolio so that we could build conversations about his family. We took a photograph of Simon to put on the welcome page in his portfolio, his name card and his communication pocket. We knew we would use these with Simon on his first day.

With the admission forms duly filled in, we learnt that Simon was an only child who loved superheroes and adventure. His mother’s aims for Simon at kindergarten were:

• development
• learning
• integration
• new playmates
• his individual interests extended.

(Simon’s ‘Getting to Know You’ form, January, 2007).

Preparation for Simon’s first day at morning kindergarten was undertaken as per Figure 6 and Figure 7 to build towards Simon’s successful transition into kindergarten.

Transition phase of Simon’s inclusion at BDK

Simon, being four years old, started in our morning session attending five mornings a week. It didn’t take long to get to know Simon. Each morning he would enthusiastically greet each teacher by name, seeking them out no matter where they were. Raelene noted that, “I really look forward to seeing Simon each day because he is so pleased to see you” (Teacher journal, March 2007).In our notes we described Simon as “gregarious”, a “leader”, a “competent climber”, “talks enthusiastically”, :”has some difficulty staying still for more than a moment”  and  “extremely challenged when things are not the way he likes them”. Soon there were a large number of entries in our incident book bearing his name. We explained, “Sometimes Simon digs a hole, but does not have the skills to dig himself out again” (Research meeting notes, March 07).

We met to develop strategies to promote the successful inclusion of Simon. We decided that:

• consistency was paramount
• we would seek advice and guidance from Simon’s family and caregiver regarding their management of Simon’s behaviour
• we would have a space where Simon could collect his thoughts (he chose a large cardboard box complete with cushions)
• we would talk to the children about keeping themselves safe
• we would revisit our OK/ NOT OK policy with all children and families.

Development of visual communication tools in Simon’s transition phase

Throughout the COI research project we continued to use children’s portfolios as tools of engagement. Simon’s portfolio was used extensively for this purpose. On Day One we added a page about his first day at BDK and sent the portfolio home so that his parents could feel included on his first day. It came back the very next day with an addition from home. This was the beginning of a strong communicative relationship with his family. Simon was so proud of his contributions from home. He always made sure that he showed the contribution to every teacher (and anyone else who would look and listen). He quickly learnt that these contributions could be shared at group time and used this time to eloquently share them with all the children. The sharing was also documented for Simon’s portfolio so that he could revisit the events. Here is one example:

Simon, you were so pleased and proud to share your photos from home. Without hesitation you whipped up onto the chair and eagerly showed the children the photographs. I like the way you held them so the children could see them easily, turning the photo around for the group. Simon, when you share photos from home we all get to know you better. We learn about your home and your interests. Perhaps we could put the photos in your portfolio?

(Learning story, February 2007).

Supporting Simon on a journey towards social competence

It was becoming apparent that Simon’s inclusion would be more successful if we focused on supporting his development of social competence. His challenging behaviour was impacting on other children and these children and parents were not happy about that.

Monitoring phase of Simon’s inclusion at BDK

In the transition phase we began to observe, monitor and document Simon’s behaviour. We came to know Simon as a vibrant, imaginative, humorous child who showed natural leadership skills. He had the ability to think of a superhero game, assign roles to other children, create costumes for those roles and direct the play. Simon could articulate his thoughts, think in the abstract and could climb anything we had at kindergarten with ease. Part of a learning story at the time noted:

Simon, what physical prowess you have! You have treated us to so many of your climbing skills! On the monkey bars you are able to swing across, hang upside down and I have even noticed that you can climb across the top of the monkey bars. You seem to have no fear and lots of climbing ability. We like it when you choose to climb on the monkey bars. Perhaps you could show some of the other children how to climb and swing. It would be great to share your skills (Learning story, March, 2007).

In this learning story Bronwyn was trying to reinforce his socially acceptable climbing and not mention his climbing expedition onto the roof of the playhouse. It was hoped that each time his read this story the positive behaviour would be reinforced (Staff meeting minutes, March 2007).

Four months into Simon’s time at BDK Bronwyn met with Simon’s parents. As a result a joint referral from the kindergarten and Simon’s parents was made to a paediatrician (Staff meeting notes, April 2007). Simon received a double diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Did the diagnosis change anything for us? Only slightly. The diagnosis directed us towards suitable books to read and gave us a foundation for communication with Simon’s family.

At this time we applied to Group Special Education for additional support hours for Simon. While hours were allocated, there was a shortage of ESWs at the time, and it was two months before Simon received his support. We had read Kerry Purdue’s doctoral thesis (2004) relating to the exclusionary actions of a group of parents within an early childhood centre. She identified lack of resourced support as a factor influencing the views of parents.

We were not altogether surprised when negative murmurings began to fester in our community with regards to Simon’s impetuous behaviour. A list of concerns was raised by concerned parents. These were:

• Simon’s aggressive behaviour
• Our response to Simon’s behaviour
• The teacher time taken with Simon’s behaviour
• The safety of the other children
• Children copying Simon’s behaviours at home.

Although we addressed individual concerns as they arose, some parents were not appeased. Criticisms of our practices and tensions rose to the point where we decided (with the approval of Simon’s family) to hold a public meeting to allow the community to have channel for discussion relating to disability and behaviour.

It is unrealistic to expect parents to agree with us all the time. Indeed, in an inclusive environment we need to accept the views of others. We became aware that we were viewing inclusion on a macro level, while a number of parents were looking at a micro level, their child. However, we were deeply challenged when some views ran counter to some of our fundamental values. For the small number who expressed their concerns, their position seemed non negotiable. However, by expressing their views publicly, doors opened for us to engage in further conversations together rather than outside.

The morning after the community meeting we were overwhelmed by hugs, flowers and baking from a community embracing their support role. It was the first time we cried publicly. Support was also forthcoming for Simon’s mother and his caregiver. We had record attendance and support at our next committee meeting. This period of time was a learning situation for us all. Inclusion is not always easy. We are grateful for the ongoing support of Katie Marshall (our professional support manager), Vanesse Geel (our local psychologist), Helen Bernstone and Bill Hagan (our research associates) and Anne Meade (COI Research Leader), among others, during that period. Raelene had earlier worked in childcare settings, and she noted, “The response to this situation could have been much different in childcare. It is a business and parents’ fees sustain the business. These services cannot afford to have dissension and, therefore, they might choose to ask the child concerned to leave” (Research meeting notes, June, 2007). This reflection helped us understand challenges inclusion can present in different settings.

Analysis of the community responses captured through conversations, written complaints and the minutes of the community meeting indicated that Simon’s aggressive behaviour and our response to that behaviour constituted the bulk of concerns. Three themes emerged:

• Simon’s aggressive behaviour as it related to the safety of their child
•  Simon’s behaviour as a poor role model to other children
• Simon’s behaviour often requiring the attention of two teachers, therefore their child was missing out.

There is no doubt in our minds that additional resourcing in the form of ESW support would have help diffuse some of the issues that arose at BDK, although we will never know for sure. Other issues arose for us as well. One of those was children using exclusionary language. It is not always easy to identify moments of exclusion as not all exclusionary behaviours are overt. From time to time we heard,“I don’t want to play with you.” For the teachers at BDK this created another conundrum. We believe that when teachers insist children play together this action has a negative impact upon the “good choices” we encourage children to make in the programme. It flies in the face of developing life skills. We say, “You don’t have to be friends, but you do have to be friendly”. This principle is embedded in the BDK programme.

When we heard a group of children saying, “Let’s chase Simon,” knowing that he would react adversely, we responded in several ways. We:

• increased our supervision of the group
• held a meeting with the group to discuss their behaviour towards Simon
• talked to all the children at group time about BDK’s OK/ Not Ok behaviour
• consulted the psychologist
• visited Simon’s home
• talked to parents in the BDK community about our behaviour management strategies and our aim of building socially competent, resilient children.

These strategies appeared to be successful as the chasing stopped (Research meeting notes, April, 2007).

Extending the use of visual communication tools to facilitate Simon’s inclusion

It was at this time that we used our possibility thinking again. We wanted to further include Simon in the BDK programme in a positive manner. We:

• developed visual books for Simon depicting positive behaviour he engaged in at kindergarten. We called these ‘Smile’ books. They fed in the language of developing friendships
• developed a book for him relating to routines so that transitions between activities became more predictable and less stressful for him
• developed an ‘All about me’ book for him
• added visuals to the Ok/ Not Ok behaviour contract
• focused even harder on reinforcing Simon’s positive behaviour
• made the float teacher (the teacher who can be both inside and outside) the key worker for Simon on any particular day.

In our research meeting notes two weeks later we noted, “Having the float teacher responsible each day is working well … She can go through our book about the day [at kindergarten] with Simon at the start of each day”. We had previously noted that he liked to make the teachers happy, so we started each page of one of the books with: “Bronwyn, Kerry and Raelene like it when you …” Another kindergarten-made book gave Simon strategies to build his social competence. It contained statements with photos of Simon modelling his own actions, such as:

• When Simon wants a toy he can ask, “Can I have the truck when you are finished?”
• When Simon wants to play he can ask, “Can I play with you?”
• When Simon is feeling frustrated he can:

  Ask an adult for help
  Walk away
  Take some quiet time in his chosen space.

The success of these books was immediate. Simon liked reading about himself and he could articulate the expected behaviours. One moment that we recorded illustrated the success of the books.

Today Simon hit … over a toy. When he noticed my presence he rushed off and got his visuals book and turned to the page that outlined the procedures and showed me what should happen: “Simon should stop,” “Simon should say ‘sorry’ to the child,” ‘Simon should get a teacher if the child is hurt,” “Simon should not hit,” “Friends don’t like it when you hit them”. This is the first time we have seen Simon use his visual book with this understanding. I think this has to be progress” (Research meeting notes, May 2007).

Building Simon’s social competence

From the start Simon had a high level of self confidence and self efficacy. He believed he could do anything, often to the exclusion of all else. “I can do that, guys,” and “Come on guys, follow me” were frequent statements Simon made. As early as March 2007 we were giving guidance to Simon through photographs and stories in his portfolio. One example was:

Simon, I love the way you are playing in such a friendly manner with T. Together you were filling the jug full of sand, then you would zap over and get some water from C. What a gooey mixture you made! The more water you added the gooier it became. It’s such fun to work together with a friend, isn’t it? Friends like it when you play gently and help by getting the water. Kei te pai (Bronwyn, March 2007).

As well, we revisited our most recent Ok/ Not Ok behaviour chart.

Throughout Simon’s time at BDK we recorded the impact his attendance had on other children in our incident book. For example, Kyle had recognised Simon’s potential for impetuous behaviour and in a particular incident over a truck Kyle was seen to move a distance from Simon and say under his breath, “Stop it, I don’t like it when you take my truck”,practising the language that we promoted at BDK.Simon had not heard, but Kyle was using the skills he had learnt to develop his confidence in challenging situations. When we shared this story with Kyle’s Mum she said that Kyle was using these strategies on her and his little brother at home. A couple of weeks later Kyle was heard to say to Simon loud and clear: “Stop it! I don’t like it when you hit me.” Kyle was further developing his social competence and confidence.

Other relevant teaching strategies we used in this research cycle to build social competence in all the children were:

• Role playing puppet shows at group time exploring actions and feelings
• Documenting and sharing random acts of kindness
• Reinforcing good choices
• Making ‘visuals’ to support positive behaviour.

At this time we recorded that Simon “seemed really comfortable in his own skin” at times, and at other times he recognised that some “children avoided him”. One comment he made was, “I’m a really funny guy, why won’t they play with me?” (Research meeting notes, April 2007). Simon would often reach out for friendship. As he was being the king on the throne at the Queen’s birthday he was heard to call out, “Hey lady, will you be my Queen?” adding, “Who would like to be my helper and bring me things?” (Learning story, May 2007). Our reading of the literature related to social competence informed us that children who are likeable and friendly tend to elicit positive responses in others … and because they receive more positive responses they become more likeable and friendly (Katz, 2008). Simon was trying to build relationships and social competence.

How does an inclusive environment enhance the learning of children individually and collectively?

Simon’s behaviour sparked a number of questions amongst the children. One question was: “Why does Simon hit the teachers?” Micah’s story captured his concern as he asked his mother this question. Micah decided that he would pray for Simon, praying that Simon could be helped to make good choices. Micah and his twin sister Milla often role-played being Simon at home, only ever played him making good choices. It became evident that they were following the modelling of the teachers at BDK when they made positive responses to Simon at kindergarten. Bandura (1977) suggested that children learn through observing role models and imitating the behaviours they are exposed to. Micah and Milla’s mother later reported that this play went on long after Simon and the twins went to different schools. Micah and his sister were now in after-school care with a family of a child on the autistic spectrum and dealt competently with that child’s impetuous behaviour. Their mother said that she believed they had learnt skills for life through having been to kindergarten with Simon (Anecdotal notes, September 2008).

Another story illustrating how an inclusive environment and inclusive processes enhance others’ learning and build social competence is Mackenzie’s story.

As MacKenzie and Simon were tidying up one day MacKenzie leant across Simon to pick up a puzzle piece. Simon’s response was a right hook to MacKenzie’s face. Through our reading we understood that children on the autistic spectrum do not like others to invade their personal space (Clark, Feehan, Tinline & Vostanis, 1999). Both children’s parents were informed of the incident. Simon’s parents were mortified. MacKenzie’s mother was very concerned. She wanted to know more. A meeting was arranged. She didn’t want MacKenzie to get hurt at kindergarten; neither did we. Bronwyn explained the challenges of ASD, and in particular, the aversion to personal space being invaded. MacKenzie’s mother listened, and then noted that MacKenzie was an ‘in your face’ sort of child. At home and with visitors, her mother said, MacKenzie was often ‘in your face’. She called MacKenzie in to the meeting and explained the concept to her. MacKenzie listened and nodded, and was never seen to invade the personal space of others again. MacKenzie’s mother took a book on ASD to read (Meeting notes, June 2007).

A year after MacKenzie had started school her mother returned to tell us that MacKenzie was doing well at school. Mackenzie had a child with ASD in her class; and her mother felt that she was unfazed by his impetuous behaviour due to her previous experience with Simon She had learned strategies at kindergarten and at home that built her resilience. (Anecdotal notes, July 2008).

Gabarino (1999) believes that community has a role to play in building resilient children, encouraging the building of connections and the transmission of values.

Around the same time we documented another story that had a different outcome. This is the story of a child we will call Mary.

Simon accidentally stood on Mary’s hand on his way to sit on the mat. (Spatial awareness is a challenge for children with ASD.) This was the only time Mary was hurt by Simon. Her parents expressed their concern to the teachers. We went through the same explanatory procedures that we had used in our communication with MacKenzie’s mother. However, the family’s response was very different to MacKenzie’s family; they wanted Simon to change his behaviour … right now. Each day they asked Mary if Simon had hit her and Mary was reminded to report any incident to us. One day Mary reported, “Simon almost hit me”. That statement concerned us. We talked to Mary’s mother about creating a victim mentality in Mary. We discussed our commitment to building resilience in children. However, that was not a viewpoint they wanted to adopt.

As we monitored Simon’s inclusion at BDK, our possibility thinking led us to trial a strategy that felt like a challenge to our philosophy of inclusion because it could be interpreted as (partial) exclusion. We had noticed that Simon’s impetuous behaviour increased at the end of the session when we have group time and parents arrived to collect their children. We recommended Simon be collected fifteen minutes before the end of session for the following reasons:

• He would leave kindergarten on a positive note
• He would not provide a ‘floor show’ for the parents, the only snapshot some had of Simon, not his accomplishments.
• All teachers would not be tied up with his behaviour and possibly the recipients of ‘impetuous’ behaviours, leaving time to interact with parents.

We had to compromise on attendance procedures to gain the outcomes we were seeking. Notwithstanding, we hoped this would be a win/ win situation for all. A positive outcome was immediate. Warm goodbyes were said to Simon as he left early, and we hoped positive thoughts of kindergarten remained with him until the next day. Parents could focus on their own child and the teachers were no longer being watched for their responses to his behaviours. In time, Simon began to extend his group time with more positive results.

Throughout the transition and monitoring phases of inclusion of Simon we were in email contact with his mother, with a reciprocal sharing of information, photos, photo stories and video of Simon’s challenges and celebrations at kindergarten. At the time Simon transitioned to school we had just begun to blog.

Simon’s transition to school

Simon’s story requires an additional section. At the end of 2007, as Simon prepared to transition to school, we:

• met with all involved - class teacher, school principal, ESW, psychologist
• developed a timeline for Simon’s transition to school
• arranged visits to the school for Simon and his family
• arranged for visits to kindergarten by the new entrant teacher
• took photos of the school environment and routines to develop ‘visuals’ books for Simon to have at home and at kindergarten.

Unfortunately, not all transitions go according to plan and within the first week at school Simon was stood down. As our research reached its conclusion Simon was still only attending school part time. It was noted:

We invested so much energy into making Simon’s inclusion at BDK work. We put so much energy into his transition work. It is devastating to see the momentum of inclusion interrupted. Has all our work been in vain?” (Research meeting notes, 2008)

Discussion

Simon was an affable character in our kindergarten whose impetuous behaviour tested us and our community. Many questions arose and challenged us during his year of attendance. Sometimes there are no answers to the questions, just more questions.

One question was about rights. Whose rights are paramount? We all have the right to be safe, teachers included. What happens when safety cannot be guaranteed despite our best endeavours? We knew we were committed to inclusion, whether or not there was an ESW. We just had to explore the possibilities to make the times when she wasn’t there work. We asked ourselves: If we had a bottom line for inclusion, what would that bottom line look like? After long discussions we confirmed that we were committed to inclusion. We argued we would know if we had reached our bottom line through continual self review of our programme and inclusive environment – checking out the teacher, child, family and community effects on BDK’s inclusive environment, and evaluating our curriculum and physical environment (Conway, 2008). We remained totally committed to including Simon.

A second question that arose related to privacy. What should/ could we have said about Simon to other parents? Something was obviously amiss, yet we were saying nothing. Initially there was no diagnosis so there was no information to explain his impetuous behaviour. A number of parents pointed the finger and said that his behaviour was just the result of poor parenting. As teachers, we were being closely watched and, at times, criticised over our behaviour management strategies. For some, “parent help” became “teacher watch”. It was not a comfortable situation to be in.

Later, we noted in our reflections that the lack of information about Simon given to parents had indeed exacerbated the criticisms in background conversations. At the time when tensions were high, we believed that Simon and his family had the same rights to privacy as all the children and their families at the kindergarten. However, this view changed. In the later stages of the research project, we revised our stance. When children with additional needs [and specifically those with challenging behaviours] enrolled, we negotiated with their parents to share their child’s strengths as well as their medical diagnosis to other families. We found that openness and knowledge built support and understanding.

At the start of the COI research project we had a child attending BDK with severe multiple impairments. Even though she frequently attended kindergarten without a caregiver, and at times required the attention of two teachers, never once did we receive a complaint from parents. In fact, they frequently offered support. We believe that the different reaction was due to the fact that she had a visible impairment and Simon’s condition could only be viewed through his behaviour (Research meeting notes, August 2008).

A third question was how to write honestly, recording the learning of a child with challenging behaviours in a positive manner. If we were to document all that we were noticing, recognizing and responding to in Simon’s learning journey would maintaining a “credit” viewpoint be possible? We experimented with wording that encouraged a change in behaviour knowing that Simon liked to read these stories with an adult and appeared to respond to suggestions with enthusiasm. This is a point for discussion that we have raised on many occasions with visitors and seminar audiences. Is it a deficit model if descriptions of challenges are included? If we describe and celebrate a child’s progress toward swinging across the monkey bars, should we not also describe and celebrate growing social competence and self efficacy? Such documentation is an aspect of our practice that we want to continue to explore and monitor, and share with others for critical feedback.

We asked Simon’s mother’s whether her aims for his attendance at kindergarten had been met. She said, “I am grateful for the work you did with Simon. You made him what he is today. He still talks about you all the time”(Anecdotal notes, March 2008).

Conclusion

Conway’s model of the dynamics of an inclusive environment (Figure 1) provides a helpful framework for reflecting on this case story. The first factor in it is the teachers. We were continually thinking about and trialling different possibilities to build Simon’s social competence in ways that would benefit everyone. Our commitment to Simon’s inclusion remained staunch in the face of opposition.

The second factor is the children and the families. Simon’s family worked hard to communicate and contribute to his inclusion. Amongst the families in the BDK community, there was a split, with a small group wanting his exclusion. For a tense period, some families sought Simon’s exclusion. However, the public meeting when information about his disability was shared was a turning point with increased appreciation being shown for the teachers’ work to include Simon and support offered to his family.

Whilst the curriculum factor has not been discussed explicitly, it is continually there as an underpinning to this chapter; for example in Kyle, MacKenzie’s, Mary’s and the twin’s stories, and in the account of group chasing Simon and subsequent discussions. Their stories give us examples of “how an inclusive environment enhances the learning of some children”. We argue that Simon’s inclusion in our kindergarten resulted in a positive learning experiences for many children. They watched the commitment of their teachers working consistently, persisting with difficulty, giving positive guidance and role-modelling unconditional acceptance. Research supports our view that these are positive life skills (Kaiser & Sklar Rasminsky, 2007).

Additional visual resources for Simon (and others) are examples of how the physical environment was adapted to enhance the inclusive environment.

Our vision is to create an inclusive environment in which the learning of all children is enhanced. Is it achievable? Is a vision just something to be worked towards with commitment and intent? With Simon, we did what we thought was best at the time. We learnt from our experiences and have a more inclusive environment as a result.