Assuring Inclusion Works!
Theoretical and Conceptual Background
Three important features of successful early childhood inclusion are reflected in the Joint Position Statement on Inclusion (US DHHS & DOE, 2015): infrastructure supports, access, and participation.
- Several initiatives in California and in many other states are focused on ensuring sufficient infrastructure supports are in place to support children’s access to quality inclusive learning settings. Although infrastructure and access are critical for the success of inclusion, they are not sufficient without a focused emphasis on participation. Participation refers to children’s engagement with, and learning in, the general preschool curriculum in an inclusive classroom.
- Decades of research has shown that teachers (both general and special education) and other related support personnel have expressed that while they support inclusion (access), they need job-embedded professional learning (professional development) to support all children’s participation (engagement) and learning in the general curriculum in classrooms (Snyder et al., 2018).
- For children who need more targeted or individualized learning supports in inclusive classrooms, a growing body of research has shown that job-embedded professional learning provided to teachers and other related support personnel that includes practice-based coaching improves their implementation of effective practices (Snyder, Hemmeter, and Fox, 2022).
Research Findings
As part of the Joint Position Statement on Early Childhood Inclusion (US DHHS & DOE, 2015), embedded instruction was identified as an effective approach to increase the participation of young children with or at risk for disabilities in the general preschool curriculum.
Despite the position statement endorsement, embedded instruction often is not implemented as intended in routine practice (Snyder, Rakap et al., 2015).
To advance the routine use of embedded instruction and identify efficacious professional learning approaches to support fidelity of its implementation, Snyder and colleagues have been conducting rigorous research on embedded instruction for early learning (EIEL) and practice-based coaching over the past 15 years with funding support from the US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (Snyder, Hemmeter et al., 2018; Snyder, Hemmeter, & Fox, 2015, 2022).
Randomized controlled efficacy trials of EIEL have shown that teachers who received professional learning that included practice-based coaching focused on EIEL practices implemented these practices with greater fidelity than teachers who received business-as-usual (BAU) professional learning.
Children in the classrooms of teachers who received practice-based coaching showed better outcomes relative to children in BAU teachers’ classrooms.
- Findings from these studies support the need to use both an evidence-based framework of effective embedded instruction practices and evidence-based professional learning practices, such as practice-based coaching (Snyder et al., 2015; 2022) to accomplish use of EIEL with fidelity in routine practice.
Overview: EIEL-CA Implementation in California Implementation
Setting the Inclusion Stage for Success!
For the past eight years, California has adopted and adapted the EIEL framework of practices and the accompanying professional learning framework, including practice-based coaching, to ensure its contextual fit in California.
- Using principles and practices from implementation science, particularly the adaptive implementation frameworks (Fixsen, Blase, et al., 2019), EIEL-CA has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and utility.
- Results from yearly pre-post evaluations of EIEL-CA involving more than 500 California preschool teachers have shown practice implementation findings similar to those in the IES-sponsored research.
- The EIEL-CA is ready to take to scale in LEAs by providing ongoing professional development in EIEL-TfT, Practice-Based Coaching, and inclusion of related embedded Pyramid Model practices.
Selected References
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., & Van Dyke, M. K. (2019). Implementation practice and science. Chapel Hill, NC: Active Implementation Research Network.
Hollands, F. M., Hanisch-Cerda, B., Levin, H. M., Belfield, C. R., Menron, A., Shand, R., Pan, Y., Bakir, I., & Cheng, H. (2015). CostOut – The CBCSE cost tool kit. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education. https://www.costtoolkit.org
Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. (2018). Economic evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis (3rd ed.). Sage.
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting implementation of evidence-based practices through practice-based coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(3), 133-143. doi: 10.1177/0271121415594925
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M.L., & Fox, L. (2022). Practice-based coaching: Supporting effective practices in early childhood. Brookes.
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M., Sandall, S., McLaughlin, T., & Algina, J. (2018). Effects of professional development on preschool teachers’ use of embedded instruction practices. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917735512
Snyder, P. A., Rakap, S., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T. W., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. E. (2015). Naturalistic instructional approaches in early learning: A systematic review. Journal of Early Intervention, 37(1), 69-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115595461
Wayne, A.J. Yoon, K.S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M.S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08327154
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Policy statement on inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood programs. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/earlylearning/joint-statement-full-text.pdf
