Inclusion at Botany Downs Kindergarten Centre of Innovation 2006-2008

Chapter Seven Discussion of phases of inclusion

The inclusion phases

The BDK Centres of Innovation research team identified several phases of inclusion early in the research project in the process of examining our inclusive actions as children entered and attended kindergarten. That is when we became conscious that inclusion did not begin when a child started attending kindergarten. However, it was not until we were entering the third year of our research that we discovered the phases of inclusion model described by Lyons and Kelly (2008). Lyons and Kelly naming the three phases in such a clear and concise manner provided a shape for the research project.

Pre-inclusion–preparation phase of inclusion

Pre-inclusion has two facets:

1. creating our vision and developing our philosophy of inclusion as a team
2. building a relationship and discussing possibilities with parents before a child starts kindergarten, and preparing for the child’s first day.

Building upon a vision

The teacher researchers at BDK have a vision of the environment we work to create, and inclusion is a valued component that we want to underpin the programme at BDK. Our philosophy is built upon past personal and professional experiences (documented and shared at a research meeting, March 2008), and is informed by relevant current research and theory.

Building an inclusive environment is not value free; and teachers and the families and community contribute to the values relating to inclusion. Raelene and the existing teachers were very aware of the need for their values to be compatible when Raelene applied to join the teaching team in 2006. And, families choosing to come to BDK are exposed to those values. At all times, our goal has been to create an inclusive environment to enhance the learning of all children. Families of children with additional needs appeared to know about our values and welcomed our vision. But did all the families understand and share this vision from the outset?

Developing an inclusive environment requires not only vision but time as those studying our lists of inclusive actions will appreciate. However, in our view, by being designated a professional, and through job descriptions, time for inclusive actions has to be seen as within the role of teachers. The challenge was to share our vision and then to keep building our practices in response to feedback from families.

Preparation for new children and their families

The teacher researchers came to view the pre-inclusion phase as a time of foundation building. We used a metaphor: “strong foundations lead to stable buildings” (Research meeting notes, November 2008).

Focusing on and documenting the extent of the details of a child and his or her family’s entry into BDK drew our attention to the smalls details in the process of preparing for a child to start. We concluded that it was not one action that built an inclusive environment, but rather the combination of many small actions. The combination also made a positive difference for relationships.

Comments from parents in the parent survey, and on the exit forms, affirm the importance of our giving time, building relationships and initiating genuinely reciprocal conversations. These parents said that they appreciated these actions, which contributed to a feeling of belonging for them even in the pre-inclusion phase.

However, in our reflections using the principles of Te Whāriki, we asked: If teachers are the key decision makers can we realistically talk about partnerships with parents? In reality, parents have few choices in their relationships with teachers. We concluded that rather than building partnerships with parents we were engaged in building collaborative relationships (Research meeting notes, July 2008). In a collaborative relationship the emphasis moves from the teacher as the expert to the mutual exchange of support and knowledge (Fraser, 2005). We wondered if developing a collaborative relationship with adult family members influenced the child. This was not a question we could answer through our data. We hoped that by welcoming all the family members a positive path forward might be found by all (Research meeting notes, July 2008).

Were we giving parents choices in their relationships with us? Looking over our records, it appears that the choices offered were more pragmatic. Louise, Kevin’s mother talked about the choices we offered her with regards to Kevin’s attendance at kindergarten – session, days and attendance not conditional on ESW presence. Children who did not have additional needs were not offered the option of choosing sessions. Was this inclusion? Yes it was, according to the “If” poem (see Chapter One) that guides us. Some children need unequal share of the resources in order to begin to have equal opportunities. Offering Kevin a morning space maximised his opportunity for learning from his more experienced peers.

Crowe and Connell (2003) talk about ‘automaticity’. Automaticity is the ability to complete actions without a conscious awareness of having completed them. Many of our pre-inclusive actions fell into this category. Each of us found the conscious focus on detail to be a personally empowering exercise. Discussions of details with each other were some of the most professionally rewarding times of the research project. Raelene commented,

[Data collection] makes you aware of all the things that you do. They are so ingrained in your practice that you don’t think about them. I wasn’t at Botany Downs Kindergarten when the documenting of inclusive actions took place but as a new-comer I could see and understand the actions that were important to this team, and the research records aided my inclusion into BDK(Research meeting notes, April 2008)

Documenting our inclusive actions was so valuable that we started other teachers on this process when we were running workshops for interested groups as part of COI dissemination. In that way those teachers were able to begin to examine the inclusive processes and actions in their own centres.

During the pre-inclusion phase it was difficult to identify the learning that children gained from the BDK inclusive environment. Did a child who acted in a confident manner feel more included than a child who clung to a family member? Observations indicated that the initial contact was not a reliable indicator of how a child might settle at kindergarten. We did discover that Franklin, our turtle was a focal point for enrolling children and their families. By positioning Franklin’s tank in a quiet area close to the door children were drawn to him. Observing this ‘settling tool’ in action we used our possibility thinking to extend the interest by providing a mushroom seat so children had the opportunity to spend more time with Franklin.

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Education (2008) states that preparation of the environment not only supports children’s learning but is an indicator of how teachers value children.

Early inclusion – transition phase

This phase, we believe, is strongly dependent upon a carefully considered and implemented preparation phase of inclusion. Transition, according to Dockett and Perry (2007) is about building relationships. Moreover, they assert that the connections that a family has with the school is a predictor of how well the child will do at school. One of our main aims during this research project was to build a feeling of belonging and inclusion through strengthening relationships in the transition phase.

A worldwide increase in visual communication tools has been noted by British researchers (Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford, 2007). We noticed the power of visual communication tools increased in the early inclusion–transition phase. This was probably because of combined way we used the tools. Visual communication tools enable connections to be made. Renee’s feeling of importance when sharing photographs of her new sister on the projector overcame her previous reticence. Liam made a daily connection with his family photo in his portfolio and this advanced his feeling of inclusion at BDK. Jack and Liam’s story told of how Liam’s portfolio provided a transitional bridge for Jack as he started kindergarten. Time and again portfolios were mentioned as tools of inclusion at BDK.

Through the use of visual communication tools we are introducing additional possibilities for children to notice and respond to information in new ways. This was our expectation when we introduced visuals tools to communicate about routines at kindergarten. Having knowledge of the ‘givens’ of routines freed the children to think more deeply about who they might negotiate with or what might happen. Most importantly, such visuals allowed the teacher and child to focus on deeper learning opportunities (Odam, 2000).

We decided to extend the transition phase to include transition between activities and transition to school. The visual communication tools developed to assist transitions (eg, going on an excursion) have been a successful addition to the programme at BDK. When a transition takes place we ask ourselves how we can represent that visually to cue children in to the new action. Sometimes it is a question from the children that leads to the introduction of new visual resources, as was the case when a child asked, ‘Who is the mat time teacher?’

Transition to school prompted much reflection after Simon’s experience. We now wonder if our enthusiasm for inclusion sets some children and their families up for disappointment when our practices of inclusion may not be embraced in the compulsory sector. All the time we invested in making his transition smooth felt wasted when Simon was stood down in his first week of school. It broke our hearts. At the time of writing, nine months after he started school, he attends for two hours ten minutes a day. This is a child who designed a camera! Did our inclusion of Simon increase his parents’ expectation that his inclusion would continue at school? “Yes” his mother said. We asked ourselves: Do we have the right to set such children and their families up for the likelihood of backwards steps? After much soul searching we decided that we still have to do what we believe is right for the families of BDK.

Smooth transitions matter for all children. Such disruptions and disappointments have systemic roots, not of our making. At present, it feels as though  government policies throw such children, their family and the classroom teacher off a cliff; the system sets them up to fail. Only a few hours of funding for support are available when a child with additional needs transitions to school. Given that a child on the autistic spectrum is most likely to have difficulty when encountering a new environment and routines, it is imperative that this time is well supported.

We would like to make some suggestions for policy changes. For a child on the autistic spectrum who receives significant GSE funding for support in early childhood settings, but who does not qualify for funding for support at school there is a gross anomaly. What this policy seems to say is there is a magic cure when a child turns five! What this policy says to us as early childhood teachers who have invested so much in the inclusion of children with additional needs is that that investment is just sunk. We suggest that early childhood funding should continue through transition and that applications for Ongoing Resource funding (ORS) should be applied for after the child is at school and their needs have been evaluated in that setting rather than their requirements bring guessed.

Ongoing inclusion–monitoring phase

Ongoing monitoring or reflection is very much part of our daily teaching practice at BDK even when children are settled. The monitoring processes take many forms: incidental teacher discussions, incidental discussions with parents, formal meetings with parents and formal meetings with teachers. The move towards recording staff meeting minutes in Google Docs enabled the extended teaching team to access and contribute to the reflective process of monitoring inclusion. Central to the monitoring of inclusive practice are the children’s individual portfolios – our tools of engagement.

We noted that there was a strong correlation between what the parents saw as the role of the portfolios and what the teachers thought the portfolio role should be. First and foremost the parents wanted to know about their child’s day at kindergarten while the teachers talked about the portfolios strengthening their connections with families. As the number of mothers working increases, ways to do this via different methods of communication becomes more relevant as we seek to create a feeling of belonging and connection for those who can spend less time in the kindergarten.

Collaborative relationships with families were identified as important through each of the three inclusive phases. In the pre-inclusion phase the foundations were laid, during the transition phase the relationships were built upon and during the monitoring phase the relationships strengthened and became more reciprocal. The creation of an environment that respected adults and children was important to our inclusive practice. Parents talked about being accepted at BDK, that the teachers took time to talk with them. Kevin’s mother Louise also talked about being accepted, not only by the teachers but by the children and their families. From a socio-cultural perspective, children learn best in an environment where there is evidence of reciprocal and interdependent relationships between adults and between adults and children (MacArthur, Purdue & Ballard, 2003).

Parents can also present challenge. We were challenged to identify our limit of inclusion in this phase by some in the community. Did we have a limit? At what point do the rights of the group outweigh those of an individual? We cannot answer that with absolutes. What we believe is that every child’s rights are worth fighting for and the work that we do sets the child on a positive path for the future.

Making visual resources is an important feature of our inclusive practice, especially for children on the autistic spectrum. In addition, we have found the benefits of having space for them to keep their visuals of activities and sequencing boards to cue them in to the routines of the day, and of creating a quiet space for them to complete activities without distraction.

Conclusion

Inclusion is for all, but not the same for all - different children take different paths to inclusion. Inclusion is not about getting an equal share but rather getting equitable resources to have equal opportunities (Sapon-Shevin, 2007). Creating an inclusive environment through adults adapting the environment and modifying their actions to be more inclusive is preferable to trying to change the child.