transition to school of iverse...

TRANSITION TO SCHOOL OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

Elizabeth Anne Petriwskyj M.Ed., B.Sp.Ed., Dip KTC, CTTSNC.

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Health

Queensland University of Technology

2010

i

KEYWORDS

Context, diversity, exceptional, inclusion, pedagogies, readiness, transition.

ii

ii

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the approaches taken by early years teachers in

supporting the inclusive school transition of diverse learners. A Thesis by

Publication format has been employed, where instead of traditional thesis chapters,

scholarly journal articles are presented in an ordered sequence in two sections. The

first set of journal articles establishes a synthesis of approaches to diversity and

inclusion and to transition to school, in order to set a clear theoretical position arising

from the literature. The second set of journal articles reports empirical evidence from

three school sites on diversity, inclusion and transition to school, discussed in

relation to both the first set of papers and to additional literature. The relationship

between these articles, and the methodology used for the theoretical papers, is

outlined in linking summaries of the challenges the papers seek to address.

iii

iii

LIST OF PAPERS

Petriwskyj, A. Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early childhood programs. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood (accepted with revisions)

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. (2005). Trends in construction of transition to school in three Western regions 1990-2004. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(1), 55-69

Petriwskyj, A. (2009). Diversity and inclusion in the early years. International Journal of Inclusive Education (30 September e-journal).

Petriwskyj, A. Pedagogies of inclusive transition to school. Journal of Early Intervention (accepted with revisions).

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. Towards inclusive transition to school. Exceptional Children (submitted).

iv

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Keywords ...................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii

List of Papers ............................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iv

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. x

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xii

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xiii

Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................. xiv

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... xv

SECTION 1: CONTEXT OF DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION 1

Chapter 1: Context and Research Problem ....................................................... 2 Contexts of the Study ................................................................................................... 2

Changing context of inclusion and transition ................................................................................ 2

Philosophical and theoretical context ............................................................................................ 5

Research Problem, Study Questions and Methodology ............................................. 10 Research problem ........................................................................................................................ 10

Study questions ............................................................................................................................ 13

Study methodology ...................................................................................................................... 14

Thesis Structure .......................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 2: Literature Review: Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years . 21 Risk, Disadvantage and Diversity .............................................................................. 22

Diverse Learners and Inclusion .................................................................................. 23

Diverse Abilities ......................................................................................................... 27 Identification, early intervention and service access: salience .................................................... 27

Differentiation of curriculum and pedagogy ............................................................................... 28

Social skill and emotional self-regulation ................................................................................... 29

Communication and cognitive progress ...................................................................................... 30

Sensory and motor development and health ................................................................................ 31

Cultural Diversity ....................................................................................................... 32 Language and literacy .................................................................................................................. 33

Family and community expectation ............................................................................................ 35

Poverty, wellbeing and educational access .................................................................................. 37

Continuity and discontinuity ....................................................................................................... 38

Cultural diversity and the affective climate ................................................................................. 39

v

v

Cultural and individual relevance of curriculum and pedagogy ................................................. 40

Effective Early Education for Diverse Learners ........................................................ 41 Supportive learning environment ............................................................................................... 41

Family and community partnership ............................................................................................ 42

School and classroom organisation............................................................................................. 43

Teacher focus, expectations and disposition ............................................................................... 44

Effective school transition programs .......................................................................................... 45

Chapter 3: Literature Review: Pedagogies of Transition to School .............. 47 Readiness, Preparedness and Educational Success Factors ....................................... 47

Preschool success factors: Purpose, program quality, family engagement ................................. 48

School success factors: Continuity, responsiveness and differentiation ..................................... 50

Multiple Constructions of Transition ......................................................................... 52 Transition as a set of teacher and school practices ..................................................................... 53

Transition as a time-limited change event .................................................................................. 54

Transition as continuity of experience ........................................................................................ 56

Transition as multi-layer multi-year process .............................................................................. 59

Relationship and transition capital .............................................................................................. 61

Successful Transition to School for Diverse Learners ............................................... 63 Defining successful transition ..................................................................................................... 63

Enhancing the success of transitions for diverse learners ........................................................... 64

Implications for Research .......................................................................................... 66

SECTION 2: THEORETICAL POSITIONS ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION ................................................................................................. 69

Chapter 4: Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years .................................. 71

Challenges in Defining Diversity and Inclusion ........................................................ 71 Meanings of inclusion ................................................................................................................ 72

Separate literature on diversity sub-groups ................................................................................ 72

ECEC prior to school and the early years of school ................................................................... 73

Development of Paper 1 ............................................................................................. 74

Chapter 5: Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early childhood programs (Paper 1) .................................................................................................. 77 Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 77

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 78

Deficit assumptions: Specialised services and discrimination ................................... 79

Normative assumptions: Mainstreaming and cultural assimilation ........................... 81

Neediness assumptions: Integration and cultural tokenism ....................................... 83

Participation rights assumptions: Inclusion and cultural competence ....................... 85

Critical revaluation: Overarching reform in systems and pedagogies ....................... 87

vi

vi

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 88

Chapter 6: Transition to School ........................................................................ 91 Challenges in Defining Transition ............................................................................. 91

Multiple meanings ....................................................................................................................... 91

Readiness and transition .............................................................................................................. 92

School entry ................................................................................................................................. 93

Philosophical gaps in early childhood ......................................................................................... 93

Development of Paper 2 ............................................................................................. 94 Strategy for literature analysis ..................................................................................................... 94

Impact of the paper ...................................................................................................................... 96

Chapter 7: Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three Western Regions 1990-2004 (Paper 2) ................................................................................... 99 Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 99

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 100

Transition as Set of Teacher or School Practices ..................................................... 101

Transition as a Time Limited Change Event ............................................................ 102

Transition as Continuity of Experience .................................................................... 104

Transition as a Multi-Layer Multi-Year Process ...................................................... 106

Horizontal and Vertical Transitions ......................................................................... 107

Defining Successful Transition ................................................................................ 110

Enhancing Success of Transitions ............................................................................ 111

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 113

SECTION 3: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION ......................................................................................................... 115

Chapter 8: Inclusion in the Early Years of School ........................................ 117

Challenges Addressed by Paper 3 ............................................................................ 117 Enactments of inclusion ............................................................................................................ 117

Lack of evidence in the early years of school ............................................................................ 118

Evidence linking across early childhood settings ...................................................................... 118

Quality and feasibility in inclusive early years environments ................................................... 119

Development and Impact of Paper 3 ........................................................................ 120

Chapter 9: Diversity and inclusion in the early years (Paper 3) .................. 121 Abstract .................................................................................................................... 121

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 122

Method ..................................................................................................................... 125 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 125

Measures .................................................................................................................................... 126

vii

vii

Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 128

Results ...................................................................................................................... 129 Diversity in classrooms ............................................................................................................ 129

Question 1: Teacher Responses to Diversity ........................................................... 130 Structural responses .................................................................................................................. 130

Pedagogic responses ................................................................................................................. 132

Collaborative relationships ....................................................................................................... 135

Question 2: Impact of Diversity in Classes on Teaching ......................................... 136 Numbers of Diverse Learners ................................................................................................... 136

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 139

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 140

Chapter 10: Inclusion, Transition and Pedagogy ........................................... 141 Challenges Addressed by Paper 4 ............................................................................ 141

Transitions, diversity and inclusion in early childhood ............................................................ 142

Emerging attention to pedagogies in the early years ................................................................ 142

Changes in pedagogies across transition to school ................................................................... 143

Pedagogies of inclusion and transition ..................................................................................... 144

Development of Paper 4 ........................................................................................... 145

Development of an Initial Conceptualisation of Inclusive Transition ..................... 146

Chapter 11: Pedagogies of Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 4) ............ 149

Abstract .................................................................................................................... 149

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 150 Variation to teaching practices ................................................................................................. 151

Continuity of pedagogy ............................................................................................................ 151

Relationship-based pedagogies ................................................................................................. 152

Pedagogic reform ...................................................................................................................... 152

The Study ................................................................................................................. 153

Method ..................................................................................................................... 154 Study sites ................................................................................................................................. 154

Classroom learner diversity ...................................................................................................... 154

Pedagogic practices K-2 ........................................................................................................... 154

Teacher explanations of pedagogies ......................................................................................... 155

Results ...................................................................................................................... 156 Site 1 regional school ............................................................................................................... 156

Site 2 suburban school .............................................................................................................. 160

Site 3 multicultural school ........................................................................................................ 163

Discussion ................................................................................................................ 167 Learner diversity and classroom context factors ...................................................................... 167

viii

viii

Inclusion K-2 and whole-of-school contextual factors .............................................................. 168

Transition to school and teachers’ professional transition ......................................................... 168

Balancing competing demands .................................................................................................. 169

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 170

Chapter 12: Transition for Diverse Learners .................................................. 171 Challenges Addressed by Paper 5 ............................................................................ 171

Readiness, preparedness and inclusive transition ...................................................................... 171

School, family and community rights and concerns .................................................................. 171

Prior to school ECEC and early years of school ........................................................................ 172

Teacher capacity-building and limits of responsibility .............................................................. 172

Structural supports and pedagogic responsiveness .................................................................... 173

Development of Paper 5 ........................................................................................... 173

Chapter 13: Towards Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 5) .................... 177

Abstract .................................................................................................................... 177

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 178

Study 1: Population study of the progress of exceptional children across the K-2 transition ................................................................................................................... 181

Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 181

Measures .................................................................................................................................... 182

Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 183

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 184

Discussion of study 1................................................................................................................. 194

Study 2: Focused studies of school and teacher practices that aim to facilitate inclusion across the K-2 transition ........................................................................... 195

Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 195

Measures .................................................................................................................................... 196

Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 197

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 198

What is the relationship between recognised proportions of exceptional children in a class and school and classroom practice? ................................................................................................. 199

School-level provision for exceptional children K-2 ................................................................. 203

Discussion of study 2................................................................................................................. 206

General Discussion ................................................................................................... 207 Effective practice commences with recognition of exceptional need. ....................................... 207

Observed quality of pedagogic practices ................................................................................... 208

Gradual transition to school ....................................................................................................... 209

Classroom teachers’ professional knowledge ............................................................................ 209

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 210

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 210

ix

ix

Chapter 14: Summary and Implications ......................................................... 213 Multifaceted Approaches ......................................................................................... 214

Support and Learning Prior To School .................................................................... 216

Contextual Issues Influencing Feasibility ................................................................ 218 Structural supports .................................................................................................................... 218

Wider support relationships ...................................................................................................... 219

Policy context ........................................................................................................................... 219

Teacher capacity building ......................................................................................................... 221

Pedagogies and Relationships Impacting Children’s Progress ................................ 222 Pedagogies of continuity and graduated change ....................................................................... 222

Relationship and affective support ........................................................................................... 224

Differentiation in transition processes ...................................................................................... 225

Educational reform, transition capital, child and family agency .............................................. 226

Inclusive transition ................................................................................................................... 226

Limitations of the Research ..................................................................................... 227

Implications for Practice and Research .................................................................... 228

Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 233

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 267

x

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Paradigms of early education for diverse learners. ................................. 4

Figure 1.2. Paradigms of school transition ................................................................ 5

Figure 1.3. Structure of study method ..................................................................... 15

Figure 6.1. Example of transition tables by region and year ................................... 96

Figure 7.1. Number of papers defining transition as time-limited 1991-2004 ...... 104

Figure 7.2. Number of papers defining transition as continuity 1991-2004 .......... 106

Figure 7.3. Number of papers defining transition as multi-layered 1991-2004 ................................................................................................... 109

Figure 7.4. Number of papers published by country and focus of transition 1991-2004 .......................................................................................... 110

Figure 9.1. Subscale means by class type .............................................................. 133

Figure 10.1. Intersection of inclusion and transition of key ideas ......................... 142

Figure 10.2. Pedagogies of inclusion and transition .............................................. 146

Figure 10.3. Conceptualisation of relationship of inclusion and transition approaches ......................................................................................... 147

Figure 11.1. APEEC and ECERS Environments K-2 at Regional School ............ 158

Figure 11.2. Diversity environment item means K-2 at Regional School ............. 158

Figure 11.3. Transition approaches K-1 at Regional School ................................. 159

Figure 11.4. APEEC and ECERS environments K-2 at Suburban School ............ 161

Figure 11.5. Diversity environment item means K-2 at Suburban School ............ 161

Figure 11.6. Transition approaches K-1 at Suburban School ................................ 162

Figure 11.7. APEEC and ECERS environments K-2 at Multicultural School ...... 164

Figure 11.8. Diversity environment item means K-2 at Multicultural School ...... 165

Figure 11.9. Transition approaches K-1 at Multicultural School .......................... 166

Figure 13.1. Structure of linked studies ................................................................. 181

Figure 13.2. Group change scores for language outcomes by family income ....... 187

Figure 13.3. Groups change scores for number outcomes by family income ....... 188

Figure 13.4. Group change scores for adjustment outcomes by family income ............................................................................................... 188

Figure 13.5. Mean Scores at Term 1 and Term 4 for Early Number total teacher assessed measure by program and performance at baseline .............................................................................................. 192

Figure 13.6. Mean scores at Term 1 and Term 4 for Language Development total parent report measure by program and performance at baseline .............................................................................................. 192

xi

xi

Figure 13.7. Mean score for K-1 classes on four domains of the COSM.............. 200

Figure 13.8. APEEC and ECERS-E environment item means K-2 related to exceptional children .......................................................................... 200

Figure 13.9. APEEC and ECERS-E environment item means K-2 related to relationships ...................................................................................... 201

Figure 13.10. Comparison of transition approaches K-1 (coded from interview) .......................................................................................... 202

Figure 13.11. Proportion of each class identified as exceptional children and reported complexity/sophistication of approaches to inclusion and transition (coded interview scores) ............................................. 203

Figure 14.1. Conceptualisation of relationship of approaches to salience of diversity ............................................................................................. 214

Figure 14.2. Inclusive transition to school journey ............................................... 216

xii

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 9.1. Class diversity by official category and year level (n=22 classes) ....... 129

Table 9.2. Correlation of outcomes and learning environment scores .................. 134

Table 9.3. Diversity item mean scores by class type .............................................. 135

Table 9.4. Correlation of numbers in sub-groups and academic outcomes .......... 137

Table 11.1. Year level learner diversity at Regional School (R), Suburban School (S), and Multicultural School (M) ......................................... 157

Table 13.1. Significant predictors of attainment in the first school term ............... 185

Table 13.2. Significant predictors of adjustment in the first school term .............. 186

Table 13.3. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and family income on change in scores across the school year ......................................................................................... 187

Table 13.4. Mann-Whitney U tests for CALD group outcomes Term 4 ................. 189

Table 13.5. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and cultural background on change in scores across the school year ................................................................................... 190

Table 13.6. Mann-Whitney tests of difference for parent reported difficulties ...... 191

Table 13.7. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and parent reported difficulty on change scores from Term1 to Term 4 ................................................................................ 191

Table 13.8. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and poor outcomes at baseline on change scores from Term 1 to Term 4 ....................................................................... 193

Table 13.9. Predictors of scores at baseline and of poor progress following logistic regression ............................................................................. 194

Table 13.10. Class composition by official and teacher-identified categories ...... 199

Table 13.11. Correlation of child outcomes and learning environment quality ................................................................................................ 205

xiii

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADHD Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

ASD Autistic spectrum disorder

CALD Cultural and linguistic diversity

ECEC Early childhood education and care

ESL English as a second language

NESB Non-English speaking background

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

xiv

xiv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:_________________________

Date:_________________________

xv

SECTION 1: CONTEXT OF DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My particular thanks goes to my supervisors, Professor Karen Thorpe and

Professor Collette Tayler, for their continued support in the face of extraordinarily

busy professional schedules and geographic separation.

I would like to express my appreciation to the Queensland University of

Technology Office of Research and the Faculties of Education and Health,

Queensland University of Technology for access to a range of valuable professional

learning opportunities relevant to data analysis and thesis presentation.

Conference funding and supportive administrative arrangements in the School

of Early Childhood, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology and

Professional Development Leave granted by the Faculty of Education, facilitated

completion of the thesis and presentation of the work at national and international

conferences. I would like to thank the Heads of School, Professor Collette Tayler and

Professor Ann Farrell, and the Dean, Professor Wendy Patton, for this support.

Thank you to the journal reviewers who critiqued the individual papers who

offered valuable critical feedback, and to Professor Sue Grieshaber for her

contribution to theoretical debate.

Finally, special thanks to the teachers whose generosity in sharing information

during the busiest periods of the school year made the collection of data an exciting

process.

SECTION 1: CONTEXT OF DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION 1

SECTION 1: CONTEXT OF DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION

Chapter 1: Context and Research Problem

Chapter 2: Literature Review: Diversity and Inclusion n the Early Years

Chapter 3: Literature Review: Pedagogies of Transition to School

Context and Research Problem 2

CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT AND RESEARCH PROBLEM

Contexts of the Study

Children entering school come from a range of social, economic, cultural and

ability groups, and experience considerable variation in their adaptation to school

and their ongoing academic success. Past management of school entry incorporated

assimilation of children who were deemed ready for school and segregation or grade

retention for others (Elkins, 1990; Mellor, 1990). Recent constructions of inclusion

and school transition offer new opportunities to enhance children’s progress and

sense of confidence, regardless of their individual circumstances or progress.

Since the background to the current context in schools sets a frame for the

ways teachers and families understand their roles and responsibilities, and construct

the options available for responding to diversity during school transition, the

changing context is introduced in chapter 1, then explored in more depth in Section

2. The philosophical and theoretical frameworks for teachers’ thinking about

inclusion and transition are also outlined to contextualise the variations amongst

teachers as they support diverse learners during transition to school.

Changing context of inclusion and transition

The background of inclusive education and transition to school has been

marked by shifts in discourse, policy and structural provisions for groups outside the

mainstream to support more successful school entry. Attention to diversity groups at

school entry has tended to focus on service access for children with disabilities,

provision of support programs (e.g., Best Start) or school readiness of children

deemed to be at educational risk (Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development, 2007; Hanson, Beckman, Horn, Marquart et al., 2000; Neuman, 2001;

Smart, Sanson, Baxter, Edwards & Hayes, 2008). However, broader awareness of

diversity categories and the socially excluding effects of separate provision are re-

focusing attention on the effectiveness of schools and early childhood centres

(Graue, 2006). The earlier emphasis on risk and deficit located the problem with the

individual child (Terzi, 2005) but critical evaluation has prompted

reconceptualisation that takes account of the contexts of learning, a broader

understanding of diversity, and the strengths of children and families (Ashman &

3


Elkins, 2005; Howard, Williams & Lepper, 2005; Talay-Ongan, 2004). The key

features of this paradigm shift are outlined in Figure 1.1

An initial emphasis on disabilities is giving way to a broader awareness of

differences that could impact on learning and development, such as gender

(Boardman, 2006; Nyland 2003), geographic mobility (Henderson 2004), cultural

and linguistic diversity (Vuckovic 2008), Indigeneity (Frigo & Adams, 2002; Sarra,

2007), giftedness (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Porter 2005), economic and social

background (Raban, 2002; Smart et al., 2008) and non-traditional family type

(Ashman, 2009; Gunn, Child, Madden, Purdue, Surtees, Thurlow & Todd, 2004).

Overarching constructs such as diverse abilities (Ashman & Elkins, 2005) and

diverse learners (Coyne, Kame’enui, & Carnine 2007; Price, 2007) indicate

acceptance of difference while constructs such as learners in diverse classrooms

(Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007) reflect newer social models that recognise the role

of social institutions such as schools in creating enabling or disabling circumstances

(Gillies & Carrington, 2004). Ng (2003) and Hyun (2006) argued that broader

diversity constructs reflect the complex and multi-dimensional nature of difference

and more effectively addressed the power relations underlying inequality.

This apparent trend away from normative ideas that underpin categorisation of

children (Graham, 2007) is by no means uncontested. Debate continues over whether

social constructions of diversity ignore real impairment (Abberley, 1992) and

whether there is adequate evidence that the shift towards broader diversity responses

adequately supports children with disabilities (Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996). The

extension of diversity constructs to gifted children is particularly contentious.

Giftedness is omitted from some literature on inclusion on the grounds that children

with gifts have not been excluded from school access (Foreman, 2007) while

Australian early childhood research evidence indicates that some teachers maintain

that gifted children have the capacity to be successful without intervention (Porter,

2005; Whitton, 2005). References to diversity apply more narrowly to cultural and

linguistic diversity in some early childhood literature (Vuckovic, 2006) leading to

confusion over the focus of empirical evidence.

4

4 Context and Research Problem

Early childhood special education Inclusion in early childhood Behaviourist & developmental theory Critical, social & ecological theory Impact of child impairment as focus Impact of context as focus Disability & risk Diverse learner & resilience Deficit and concerns emphasis Strength & priorities emphasis Child as key concern Child, family and community concern Diagnosis, remediation and therapy Differentiated curriculum/pedagogy Figure 1.1. Paradigms of early education for diverse learners.

Inclusive policies have challenged the normative expectations of children

implied by school readiness notions (Corbett & Slee, 2000; Graue, 2006) so school

entry has been reframed as a process of transition involving a range of young

children and families (Patterson & Fleet, 1999). International scholarly attention has

shifted away from an emphasis on children’s readiness for school and reliance on

structural changes, such as later school entry or provision of targeted readiness

programs, because of the lack of empirical evidence supporting single structural

solutions or strategies that stigmatise diversity groups (Carlton & Winsler, 1999).

Emphasis has shifted to transition to school, based on more coordinated approaches

focussing on continuity of children’s experience, school-family-community linkages

and system-level integration of child and family services (Kagan, 2009; Kagan &

Neuman, 1999). Successful transition has also been defined by increasingly longer

time frames based on evidence of the difference between initial adjustment and

longer-term achievement (Peisner-Feinberg, Burchinal, Clifford, et al., 1999;

Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, et al., 2004, 2008). Key features of this paradigm shift

are outlined in Figure 1.2. While transition initially focused on the move from homes

or early childhood education and care centres (ECEC) to preparatory, kindergarten or

reception classes in primary school, recent attention has been given to transition into

first grade and its associated change in expectations (Sink, Edwards, & Weir, 2007;

Thorpe, et al., 2004; La Paro, Pianta & Cox, 2000).

However, despite changes in theoretical understandings, empirical evidence

suggests that the enactment of transition ideals in ECEC and the early years of school

in Australia is characterised by a persistence of readiness constructs and reliance on

structural provisions (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Petriwskyj, Thorpe & Tayler, 2005;

Smart, et al., 2008). It is unclear how teachers in the early years understand diversity,

inclusion and transition or act on emerging ideas, as the literature separates

5


discussion on ECEC prior to school (North & Carruthers, 2005) and in schools

(Ashman & Elkins, 2009; Foreman, 2008). Empirical evidence linking inclusion and

transition in the early years of school is limited, and sometimes continues to focus on

disability (Jones, 2004; Nutbrown & Clough, 2006; Reitveld, 2008).

Readiness for school Transition to school child maturity & pre-academic skill process of border crossing family & preschool responsibility shared role of family, school, community retention offering gift of time continuity of experience introduction & orientation multiple facets of change short time frame, single event long time frame, multiple events focus on the child characteristics focus on teaching & schools assimilation and remediation resilience and diversity Figure 1.2. Paradigms of school transition

Philosophical and theoretical context

One of the challenges of inclusion in early childhood has been the

philosophical gap between early education and special education. Although they

share a focus on individual learning, early education has historically been framed by

developmental and social theory while special education, with its focus on clinical

diagnosis and remediation, has been strongly influenced by behaviourist theory

(Allen & Cowdery, 2005; Connell & Harrod, 2003). Individualised play-based

pedagogies have been advocated for young children with disabilities in Australia

(Jobling & Gavidia-Payne, 2002; North & Carruthers, 2008) on the grounds that

behaviourist practices are incompatible with inclusion in ECEC programs and with

the social-constructivist pedagogies of early education. The use of play-based

pedagogies, incidental naturalistic teaching and consideration for the ecological

system, support the goals of social inclusion (Allen & Cowdery, 2005; Foreman,

2008). Such approaches differ markedly from the highly structured teaching practices

and task achievement goals of traditional early special education (Hooper &

Umansky, 2009). There is concern that play-based pedagogies may not be

sufficiently goal-oriented, and that inadequate explicit teaching may occur,

disadvantaging children whose slow progress warrants more structured approaches

(Talay-Ongan, 2004) or whose cultural background emphasises didactic modes of

instruction (Brooker, 2002). While naturalistic approaches may enhance social

inclusion in regular early education, the quality of inclusive programs has continued

to depend on teacher capacity and access to support services (Copland, 1995;

6


Boardman, 2008). Reconsideration of effective ways to blend approaches is

emerging, for example in Inclusion Support programs for ECEC services in Australia

(Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DEEWR, 2007)

and exploration of the British Index of Inclusion for early years and childcare

settings (Booth, Ainscow, & Kingston, 2006).

While the philosophical gap between regular early years and special education

approaches may not have been as stark in schools initially, because traditional school

transmission pedagogies were based in behaviourist theory, there were differences in

individualisation (Allen & Cowdery, 2005). The introduction into schools of

constructivist pedagogies emphasising child-directed learning may have widened the

philosophical gap but offered a shared focus on individual learners and learner

diversity (Briggs & Potter, 1999; Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007). School

curriculum documents in Australia incorporate information to assist teachers in

accommodating disability (Queensland Studies Authority, 2003). However, such

adjustments have failed to adequately address cultural variations, differing learning

styles or the extension requirements of gifted children (Braggett & Bailey, 2005;

Brooker, 2002; Cronin, 2001; Freebody, Watters & Lummis, 2003; Merry, 2008;

Stewart, 2002). Therefore, attention has shifted to school reform using reflective

tools such as the British Index of Inclusion for schools (Booth, Ainscow, Black-

Hawkin, Vaughan & Shaw, 2004) and Productive Pedagogies (Luke, Ladwig,

Lingard, Hayes & Mills, 1999) to support effective learning for all children. The shift

in emphasis from learner access to teacher accountability for learning outcomes of an

increasingly diverse group of students, has prompted increased interest in teacher

capacity-building (Andrews & Crowther, 2002; Brady & Kennedy, 2003; Gartner &

Lipsky, 2005).

A similar philosophical gap between early childhood education and care ECEC

prior to school and school education has created tension around appropriate

curriculum and pedagogy in both the early years of school and the years immediately

prior to school commencement (Gipps & MacGilchrist, 1999; Graue, 2008). The

traditional emphasis on children‘s readiness for school was framed by developmental

theories and those emphasising individual child maturation, which Graue, Kroger

and Brown (2002) have criticised on the grounds that time alone does not address the

learning challenges some children face. The traditional school focus on behaviourist

7


approaches and content delivery (Brady & Kennedy, 2003; Briggs & Poter, 1999;

Freiberg, 1999) and the traditional early childhood focus on developmental play have

both been challenged by child-responsive but educationally focused pedagogies

located in socio-cultural understandings about learners and learning (Brady &

Kennedy, 2003; Gipps & MacGilchrist, 1999). Socio-cultural perspectives take into

account both the influence of the cultural context on children and the impact of

children’s participation in events as a means of negotiating events such as transitions

(Corsaro & Molinari, 2000; Gregory, Long, & Volk, 2004; Rogoff, 2003). Rogoff

(2003) indicated the value of considering children’s experience from different

perspectives or through different lenses – personal, interpersonal and cultural -- in

order to understand participation in cultural and social practices such as transitions.

Reduction in the philosophical contrasts between settings could enable a smoother

transition to school for diverse learners (Pianta, 2007).

Recent models of transition to school and of inclusion in early education have

adopted ecological perspectives (Dunlop & Fabian, 2002; Rimm-Kaufmann &

Pianta, 2004). Ecological systems theory considers the child within the context of

their family and community, and takes into account the multiple interactions between

stakeholders in the child’s development and learning (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). It

frames children’s progress within nested systems of influence (e.g., school, early

childhood centre, home, extended family, local community) and the formation of

relationships between systems (e.g.. home-school- community). Bronfenbrenner

(1979) took the position that human development does not occur in isolation but as a

process of mutual accommodation between a child and their immediate settings (e.g.,

classroom), which is affected in turn by relations between those settings (e.g., home-

school) and by the larger context within which settings exist (e.g. local community).

This theory asserts that attention to the contexts in which children learn, and to

relationships between those contexts, is necessary for understanding and explaining

children’s social and academic progress.

However, transition models based on ecological theory offer limited

consideration of children’s progress over time, which is highlighted in transition

literature that considers trajectories over extended periods (Burchinal, Peisner-

Feinburg, Pianta & Howes, 2002; Keinig, 2002; La Paro, Pianta & Cox, 2000;

Ramey & Ramey, 1999; Entwisle & Alexander, 1998). Ecological models have not

8


incorporated the chronosystem: the impact of children’s histories and of change over

time. Further, reliance on ecological theory has also been criticised on the grounds

that it can over-simplify systems, glossing over the complexities in the lives of

children and families to mask real differences in individual experience (Vogler,

Crivello & Woodhead, 2008). The assumption that the central place of the child in

ecological theory is universally appropriate is also questionable, as it overlooks the

multiple priorities in families and communities, and diverts attention from the key

role of culture in mediating children’s experiences (Vogler, et al., 2008).

Attention to culture as well as ability is a feature of recent inclusion literature

framed by critical theory. Critical theory identifies inequalities in power relationships

as a central social problem (Kincheloe, 2004; Bartholome, 2003) and defines

difference as socially constructed (Hehir, 2005; Terzi, 2005; Benjamin, Nind, Hall,

Collins & Sheehy, 2003). These reconceptualisations of diversity move away from

the normative ideas that underpin categorisation of children to recognise the right to

participation of all children (Woodhead, 2006) and the role of social institutions such

as schools in creating circumstances that enable or disable children (Gillies &

Carrington, 2004). Critical theories, from which critical pedagogy (Giroux, 2006;

Kilderry, 2004; McLaren, 2003) has developed, understand social behaviour as being

organised around the group, rather than the individual, and as an ongoing conflict for

power and resources (Sleeter & Grant, 2007). Attention in these theories is given to

an unequal distribution of power according to social class, gender, race, disability,

culture and language, and to the ways structural factors (e.g., low funding) and low

expectations can impede the achievement of minority groups.

Acknowledgement of pluralism in school education, however, goes beyond

surface responses such as generic curriculum packages and tokenistic cultural events

(Hyun, 2007; Edwards, 2006) to incorporate multiple responses to diversity framed

by deeper reflection on power dynamics (Giroux, 2003a). Giroux advocated moving

beyond consideration of teaching as a technical practice of knowledge transmission

to a deeper role involving critical reflection on the role of education in social

domination or of social reconstruction. He argued that critical pedagogy broke away

from the past domination of minority groups and blaming of students for educational

failure. It re-focused on teachers’ self-conscious critique of normative assumptions,

unequal relationships, and the hidden messages of curriculum and pedagogy (Giroux,

9


2006). Further, Giroux (1988) asserted that an understanding of educational histories

in relation to their economic, social and political events provided a basis for critical

thought and envisioning of a different approach to education.

Critical pedagogy has drawn attention to the agency of children, through which

children feel empowered to value themselves and others (MacNaughton, Hughes &

Smith, 2007) while raising awareness that traditional European child-centred play

pedagogies in early education may not necessarily advantage all children (Brooker,

2005; Kilderry, 2004). Using critical theory and critical pedagogy as a frame, Ng

(2003) and Hyun (2007) contend that separate labelling of children and sub-groups in

schools for service access or accountability purposes serves to reinforce traditional

group stereotypes and power differences to the detriment of diverse learners. Thus,

educational reforms need to incorporate reconsideration of the array of power

differences underpinning human grouping, so that pedagogies reflect equitable and

respectful relationships (Giroux, 2003b).

Consideration of inclusion through a critical lens has, therefore, extended its

scope from disability and risk to an expanded array of diversity categories such as

giftedness (Braggett, 2002; Porter, 2005), multiple learning styles or intelligences

(Gardner, 1999), gender (Nyland, 2000) and varied cultural, linguistic, social and

economic backgrounds of children and families (Espinosa, 2005). It has also framed

the construction of diversity as a resource, rather than a risk or a deficit (Hyun, 2007;

Skinner, Bryant, Coffman, & Campbell, 1998). This represents a fundamental shift in

philosophy. The introduction of overarching terms such as diverse learners (Coyne,

Kame’enui, & Carnine, 2007; Price, 2007) or learners in diverse classrooms

(Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2006), represents efforts to consider diversity issues as a

whole or to shift the gaze from characteristics of children to equity in schools

(Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 2005).

The change in discourse surrounding inclusion reflects this shift in thinking about

risk or difference in children and about the power relationships associated with

traditional discursive practices (Graham, 2007).

Giroux (1992) has identified borderlands or invisible zones of culture where

the dominant culture ignores differences of others. This concept of borderlands has

also been applied to the interface between the pedagogical culture of early childhood

education and care and that in primary schools (Sawyer, 2000). Undervaluing of

10


early childhood pedagogies and insufficient critical examination of the dominant

pedagogies of formal schooling may occur, impacting on teacher disposition and

pedagogic richness in the early years of school (Sawyer, 2000; Yeom, 1998). While

there is less overt attention to critical perspectives in transition literature, the

emerging exploration of transition capital, children’s resilience and empowerment of

family stakeholders indicates some incorporation of critical perspectives (Corsaro &

Molinari, 2000; Dunlop, 2007). Thus, factors that are taken into consideration

include the readiness of schools for heterogeneous children, the engagement of

teachers’ in critical reflection, the agency of children and the empowerment of

families and communities (MacNaughton, et al., 2007). This recent refocusing of

transition literature may indicate a change in the theoretical base and direction of

transition research, and a greater focus on the rights of children and on child agency.

Research Problem, Study Questions and Methodology

Research problem

In 2007, following a research trial (Thorpe, et al., 2004) and two waves of

implementation trials, the Australian state of Queensland, introduced a universally

available early education program prior to the first year of formal schooling, which it

termed preparatory. This is equivalent to kindergarten programs in the USA and

reception programs in the UK. The preparatory year included a specialised early

years curriculum delivered by qualified teachers and was full time. One of the stated

aims of this preparatory program was to address shortcomings in school adjustment

and educational achievement for children considered at risk (Queensland Studies

Authority, 2003). However, concern remains about reliance on the effectiveness for

diverse populations of structural solutions, such as targeted programs, standardised

curricula or changes to the school entry age (Cummins, 2000; Feinstein, 2004;

Powell, 1995). Structural solutions can raise expectations of achieving greater

homogeneity among school entrants rather than catering for the realities of diverse

children, families and communities. Attention has shifted toward more complex

solutions incorporating the provision of schools and teachers for the heterogeneity of

school entrants. Australian evidence in this area is limited, as studies in this region

have concentrated on transition as a set of preparatory practices around a single

change event (Petriwskyj, et al., 2005). These prior studies have tended to

11


concentrate on specific sub-groups yet diverse learners transitioning to school face a

range of shared issues such as educational access, social acceptance and individually

appropriate pedagogy. Their inclusion also highlights tensions between the

expectations of schooling and the need to cater for the individual ways in which

children develop and learn (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007).

Structural factors such as children’s age of school entry or the location of

preparatory or kindergarten facilities in schools have, in the past, formed the core of

transition programs for children considered at risk of school failure (Pianta & Cox,

1999). For children with gifts, delays or disabilities, transition may also involve a

process of diagnosis to access structural supports such as accelerated school entry

(Braggett & Bailey, 2005), delayed school entry, teaching assistant time allocation or

ongoing early intervention services (Foreman, 2008). However, reliance on structural

provisions for the diversity in school entrants has been criticised for lack of

effectiveness. Carlton and Winsler (1999) criticised grade retention as potentially

harmful to children with delays, while Braggett and Bailey (2005) argued for

enrichment opportunities for gifted children instead of grade acceleration. These

structural strategies attend to characteristics of the child or to physical links between

settings but do not adequately address two issues. Firstly, they do not adequately

address the children’s need for social inclusion. Fabian (2002) identified pedagogic

approaches as central to achievement of deep level inclusion (Corbett & Slee, 2000),

which implies that children have a sense of belonging. Secondly, they do not

recognise the need to optimise learning, and thereby afford children access to

inclusion in the culture of education (Siraj-Blatchford, 2006)

Recent emphasis on the role of inclusive early years education in improving

outcomes for a wide range of children has focused attention on both the transition

process and broader questions of educational quality (OECD, 2006). For example,

teacher responses to diverse learners and the connection of programs to family

cultural backgrounds have been identified as significant in children’s achievements

(Jones, 2004; Siraj-Blatchford, 2006; Thorpe, Tayler, Bridgstock, Grieshaber,

Skoien, Danby, & Petriwskyj, 2004). High quality goal oriented ECEC programs

make a significant impact on children’s subsequent school progress (Peisner-

Feinberg, Burchinal, Clifford, Yazejian, Culkin, Zelazo, Howes, Byler, Kagan, &

Rustici, 1999; Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, Elliot, &

12


Marsh, 2004), but recent research also underlined the value of high program quality

in primary schools (Sammons et al, 2008). This indicates that what happens within

ECEC and school programs, as well as in the transition process, requires deeper

consideration. Shifting the gaze from children to school pedagogies may highlight

key issues impacting on diverse learners in the early years. This recent construction

of diversity encompassing a wide range of abilities and cultural experience is not yet

supported by Australian evidence of its impact on inclusion in the early years of

schools and the implications for transition to school.

This study in Queensland (Australia) was prompted by gaps in transition

processes identified during the introduction of a kindergarten or preparatory year into

schools. An evaluation of the trial program indicated a short time-focus around

transition, persistence of notions of readiness and retention, concern about the

progress of children with diverse abilities, and a limited awareness of school entrant

heterogeneity (Thorpe et al., 2004). The educational responses to diverse school

entrants and the longer-term impact of these responses on children’s progress require

further investigation to identify effective approaches and clarify areas of tension.

While the initial study by Thorpe and colleagues (2004) identified pedagogical

practices as one key candidate in explaining differential effects of programs on

children’s adjustment to school and their early learning in the school context, the

detail of pedagogic effectiveness was not explored. The need for further exploration

of pedagogic practice was identified, particularly in explaining how successfully

children with diverse abilities and backgrounds transition into school and through the

early years. Some key findings that required further exploration were:

• Children with parent-identified difficulties made less progress than other

children yet those with poor baseline scores made more academic

progress than other children. The ways in which teachers worked with a

diversity of children in their class to promote children’s progress was not

identified clearly.

• Principals reported a range of mechanisms for supporting children and

families, including subsidised costs, specialist teaching, teaching

assistant allocation, cultural events and maintenance of contact with prior

schools of itinerant or geographically mobile children. The ways in

13


which teachers utilised supports to facilitate inclusion and transition were

not identified.

• Local school variation in the conceptualisation of ‘preparatory class’ was

identified. The preparatory class was construed as a retention program,

an acceleration program or as a means of meeting individual needs, but

the understandings of diversity, inclusion and transition underpinning this

variation were unclear.

• Parents from culturally diverse backgrounds reported emotional and peer

difficulties in their children after a year in school. Investigation of

pedagogies indicated that teachers demonstrated low cultural knowledge.

Year 1 teachers scored more highly than preparatory teachers on

inclusivity, while preparatory teachers scored more highly on

connectedness to the world. These gaps and differences could be

expected to impact on inclusion and transition, but reasons for the scores

were not identified.

Study questions

This study, therefore, focused on two questions:

1. What pedagogic factors impact on the outcomes of diverse learners

during transition to school?

2. How do teachers respond to classroom diversity?

a. What are preparatory and early primary teachers’ explanations of

successful transition to school of diverse learners?

b. What educational environment is created for diverse learners during

transition to school?

c. What are teachers’ explanations of their responses to diverse learners

during transition to school?

The following definitions have been used for key constructs in this study:

• Diverse learners are children from culturally and linguistically diverse or

socially and economically marginalised backgrounds, children with

diagnosed disabilities and/or gifts, and children identified as having

behavioural or developmental concerns.

14


• Inclusion incorporates both social inclusion (belonging and being valued

as a person) and academic inclusion (being supported to succeed in

learning).

• Transition to school is an ongoing process of mutual adaptations by

children, families and schools to facilitate children moving successfully

from home and early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings into

the early years of school. The transition period of study extends from

preparatory class entry into Year 2 of primary school (3 years).

The original intention of this study was follow up research at three focused

study sites within the Queensland Preparing for School evaluation (Thorpe, et al,

2004) to establish the developmental trajectories of children entering school and

compare the trajectories with teacher responses in the early primary programs. This

study, therefore, repeated a number of the measures from the earlier large-scale

evaluation, particularly those related to children’s development, adjustment and

achievement. However, permission to link the data sets was withdrawn, for reasons

unrelated to this study, during the data analysis phase, removing the capacity for

trajectory comparison. Thus direct linking data sets cannot be included in the thesis

although Paper 5 identifies links in the outcomes of the two studies.

Study methodology

This study investigated both children’s social and attainment outcomes and the

circumstances surrounding their inclusion and achievements. The tensions between

the requirements to both measure outcomes and understand the influences on

outcomes indicated that mixed method was required. The study adopted a concurrent

mixed method design that has been recommended as the optimal approach suggested

for investigating pragmatic questions such as those addressed by this thesis

(Creswell, 2003). The purpose of this study is to better understand the problem of

effective school transitions for heterogeneous populations by converging both

quantitative and qualitative data. Figure 1.3 illustrates the structure of the study.

Standard measure assessment by the usual classroom teachers was used to investigate

children’s achievement and adjustment outcomes across school transition. The

responsiveness of schools to the transition requirements of diverse school entrants

was explored using standardised observation schedules to examine school practices,

15


and semi-structured interview to investigate teachers’ understandings of inclusion

and transition and their rationale for classroom practices towards these ends.

Analysis of the data focused on the relationship between children’s progress and

factors influencing their progress in the transition from preparatory to Year 2.

Further, it considered the interaction between teachers’ understandings and

pedagogies as children move from preparatory to Years 1 and 2 (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3. Structure of study method

Standard measures. The original intention of this study was trajectory charting

to link two child assessment data points with three data points from the Preparing for

School study (Thorpe et al, 2004). Longitudinal designs are useful for charting

children’s development over time and separating real trends from chance occurrences

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). Although the original raw data set links were

eventually not permitted for reasons outside this study, discussion of the shared child

assessment outcomes has been incorporated in Paper 5.

Because longitudinal designs call for repeated data collections, standard

measures have been chosen for assessment of children’s academic achievement and

social adjustment (McMillan, 2004). The need for repeated measurement of standard

measures requires that the construct and a proportion of the items remain relevant

across time (e.g., an assessment which is appropriate for a child in preparatory class

will contain equivalent items which are relevant for a child in Year 1). This poses a

challenge in areas such as assessment of emergent mathematics and literacy, since

Children’s outcomes

Inclusion rights

Classroom pedagogy

Standard measures

Interview and observation

Study of inclusive transition

16


measures intended for children in school settings focus to a greater degree on use of

print and numerals. The standard measures selected for assessment of children’s

academic achievement and social adjustment also needed to be relatively simple and

time-effective for a teacher to administer because they work within a limited time

frame without additional training in data collection. This restricts the standard

measures to those that are brief, inexpensive and easy to administer, with clear,

unambiguous directions for administration and prepared assessment forms. The

teachers were familiar with the measures as they had already been used in the earlier

Preparing for School study. The results from the original Preparing for School study

had indicated that child outcome measures were reliable and had good face and

predictive validity. School program and aspects of teacher behaviour were

significantly associated with the outcome measures, but mechanisms underlying this

association were not well explored. This was the focus of the current study.

Observation of classrooms. Illumination of transition issues through

comparison of sequential educational environments has been used for students

moving from primary to secondary school (Ferguson & Fraser, 2004). Environmental

evaluation in the literature has largely focused on middle and secondary school

contexts (Towns & Sorpell., 2004; Allodi, 2001; Johnson & Stevens, 2001; Waxman

& Huang, 1998), although some primary school classes have been considered

(Hemmeter, Maxwell, Jones, Ault & Schuster, 2001; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000;

Fish & Dane, 2000; Overton, 2004) and a few instruments focus on early childhood

contexts (Abbott-Shim, Sibley & Neel, 1992; Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 1998;

McLean, Wolery & Bailey, 2004; Pianta, 2003; Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart,

2003). At the commencement of this study there was a lack of measures appropriate

to evaluation of both early childhood prior-to-school classes and primary classes.

This was an important consideration for this study, as the Queensland preparatory

class curriculum (Early Years Curriculum Guidelines) indicates a less formal

learning environment than many equivalent overseas or interstate kindergarten

classes (Queensland Studies Authority, 2003).

The degree of inference required in observational measures distinguishes easily

scored and more complex measures, but there is a tension between the quality of

psychosocial environment information and lower inference measures (McMillan,

2004). This may explain the emphasis in widely used measures such as the Early

17


Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised ECERS-R (Harms, Clifford & Cryer,

1998), the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Extended ECERS-E (Sylva, et

al., 2003), and the Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms APEEC

(Hemmeter, et al., 2001) on lower inference data and on detailed descriptors of

scoring criteria. La Paro, Pianta and Stuhlman (2004) suggested that observer bias

can be reduced through low inference observations, structured observation tools such

as rating scales, and separation of the observer from the context through non-

participant observation. However, McMillan noted the richness of data in

observations recorded as descriptive field notes. The need to replicate the data

gathering in three school sites indicated the use of two approaches: standardised

observation schedules along with semi-structured field notes. In this way, the degree

of inference was reduced but opportunities to record descriptive data were also taken

(Cohen, et al, 2000).

Interview. Teacher perspectives on children, learning and teaching underpin

their individual pedagogy (Timperley, et al, 2003) so exploration of teacher

explanations of their pedagogy is crucial. Interview offers opportunities for

construction of deeper understanding of an issue from the participants’ perspectives

and for verification of the results of data analysis from the observational facets of the

study. Semi-structured interviews that use the same set of questions for each

participant, but frame the questions in an open-ended way, provide flexibility in

answers within a structure that can be used with multiple participants (McMillan,

2004). Interview questions required field trialling for use across multiple respondents

to enhance the comparability of data (Burns, 2000).

Audiotape recording of the interviews offers the opportunity to transcribe

verbatim for analysis, but the taping process could be a negative influence on teacher

openness and may inhibit individuals who are concerned about their responses

(McMillan, 2004). Analysis of verbal transcripts alone may also fail to include non-

verbal and context clues which may have formed an important part of the

communication process, but audio-taping and analysis of transcripts reduces the

potential effects of interviewer bias and simplifies analysis through ease of data

reduction (Cohen, et al., 2000). Maintenance of written records in the form of field

notes during an interview is an effective recording process which also runs some risk

of participant inhibition, but recording field notes after an interview increases the

18


risks of recording error (Krathwohl, 1998). A combination of recording approaches

(audiotape and field notes) in this study offered an appropriate and ethically

responsive balance.

Thesis Structure

A Thesis by Publication has a different structure from a traditional thesis as it

is based around a series of scholarly journal articles that are connected by short

linking summaries. The thesis, therefore, draws together two emerging paradigms of

inclusion and transition to school, and applies this information to the empirical

evidence collected to address the identified research problem. Since the information

in the literature on diversity and inclusion, is extensive but un-coordinated, synthesis

of the key ideas was required prior to analysing the empirical evidence.

The structure of the Thesis by Publication links the research problem, the

current literature, the set of journal papers and the conclusion in a coherent sequence.

This document is organised in three sections, each addressing a separate aspect of the

topic development. Five refereed journal papers (1 published, 1 in press, I accepted

with major changes and 2 under review) are grouped in sections 2 and 3 on the basis

of their contribution to either clarifying theoretical positions or presenting empirical

evidence.

SECTION 1 Context of diversity, inclusion and transition

Following the introductory chapter, this section explores the literature on

inclusion of diverse learners and transition to school in separate chapters. The review

of diversity literature (Chapter 2) incorporates ability and culture, and

conceptualisations of inclusion. The methodology chapter of a traditional thesis is

replaced by brief discussion of reasons for the choice of method. In addition,

methods for literature synthesis and collection of empirical evidence are presented in

later sections.

SECTION 2 Theoretical positions on diversity, inclusion and transition

The two chapters in Section 2 synthesise the key ideas on inclusion and

transition to establish the origins and current approaches to these issues in early

education. Paper 1 -- Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early

childhood programs, considers the genealogy of various responses to diversity in

19


Australian early childhood settings. The paper identifies characteristic features,

influences and contexts for such responses. It synthesises historical literature on

inclusion in early childhood, places it in a wider international context and reflects

critically on underlying assumptions. Paper 2 -- Trends in construction of transition

to school in three Western regions 1990-2004, draws on material in Chapter 3 to

report a systematic review of the conceptualisations of transition in peer-reviewed

literature in Australia/New Zealand, Europe and North America during the key

period of emergence of this construct.

SECTION 3 Empirical evidence on diversity, inclusion and transition

Section 3 comprises empirical evidence from a mixed method study at three

school sites. This evidence is reported in two journal articles and in a final summary

of outcomes. In Chapter 9, the third paper, Diversity and inclusion in the early years,

reports on teachers’ approaches to inclusion of diverse learners, and the ways in

which structural and relationships issues impinge on their responses. In Chapter 11,

the fourth paper, Pedagogies of inclusive transition to school, links evidence on

inclusion pedagogies with evidence on transition pedagogies to highlight the ways

experienced teachers engage with these linked challenges. It considers the question

of balancing competing demands on teachers as children enter school. Chapter 13,

and the final paper -- Towards inclusive transition to school, summarise the key

findings and make links to the Preparing for School evaluation research (Thorpe, et

al., 2004) from which this study arose. Chapter 14 draws implications for policy,

professional education, pedagogy and structural supports. A conceptualisation of

inclusive transition is proposed.

A summary of the papers, and their purpose, is presented in Figure 1.4.

20


Figure 1.4. Summary of papers

Section 2: Theoretical positions on diversity, inclusion and transition Aims: Synthesis of early childhood literature on diversity and school transition Identifies approaches, their origins and their diversity target groups

Paper 1 Examines descent and emergence of current approaches to diversity in early childhood in Australia Identifies emerging approaches that consider participation rights

Paper 2 Reviews recent international constructions of transition to school Locates Australian approaches to school transition in a wider context

Paper 3 Investigates teachers’ approaches to the inclusion of diverse learners Examines the impact of learner diversity and structural support

Paper 4 Links inclusion and transition pedagogies in the early years Explores the ways teachers balance competing demands during transition

Section 3: Empirical evidence on diversity, inclusion and transition Aim: Examine approaches to diversity and school transition within schools Identify current practices and challenges of early years class teachers

Paper 5 Links the findings of this study and the Preparing for School study Identifies key influences on child outcomes during transition to school Examines pressures that impact on practice for early years teachers

Literature Review: Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years 21

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE EARLY YEARS

This chapter will review literature from five key areas that are commonly

treated as separate foci of study:

1. Risk, disadvantage and diversity

2. Diverse learners and inclusion

3. Diverse abilities

4. Cultural diversity

5. Responsive early education.

The integration and synthesis of these diverse literatures form the background

conceptualisation of the current thesis. The focus of the thesis is on effective

classroom practice for the inclusion of the range of children as they transition into

and through the early years of school. The historic emphasis on disabilities and risk,

and a persistence of teaching directed towards an average student has, Ashman

(2005) argued, limited teachers’ responses to the realities of diversity in

contemporary classrooms. Although diversity is sometimes defined narrowly as

disability or cultural and linguistic diversity (Vuckovic, 2008), it encompasses a

range of dissimilarities in characteristics, backgrounds, abilities and behaviours

(Allen & Cowdery, 2005; Ashman, 2009; Gunn, Child, Madden, Purdue, Surtees,

Thurlow & Todd, 2004; Sheets, 2005; Sleeter & Grant, 2007). Policies of inclusion

have prompted schools to provide for a range of differences, including biological

factors such as disability, and environmentally determined factors such as socio-

economic status or language (Sheets, 2005). However, the research literature in early

education has continued to focus on separate categories of diversity, such as

disability or cultural and linguistic background (Flewitt & Nind, 2007; Frigo &

Adams, 2002; Reitveld, 2008; Schroeder, 2007), placing emphasis on separate child

characteristics rather than the diversity of characteristics encountered by a teacher in

a contemporary classroom. The reality in early childhood classrooms is that many

variations in the class group are present simultaneously, and multiple forms of

diversity may be evident in any particular child. Evidence of the enactment of

inclusive educational provision for these broader notions of diversity is required in

early education to provide a realistic perspective of the teacher’s task as well as to

guide effective practice. This thesis addresses this gap in the context of transition.

22

22 Literature Review: Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years

Risk, Disadvantage and Diversity

The terms culturally deprived, socially disadvantaged and at risk, that were

applied in the past to minority group or low achieving children, embodied a

normative view and created a binary categorisation of children that Skinner, Bryant,

Coffman and Campbell (1998) referred to as prototypical versus non-prototypical.

According to Skinner and colleagues (1998) these discourses of disadvantage and

risk located non-prototypical children and families as separate from the general

educational community. They argued that not only were these pejorative terms that

stigmatised children, but also that development of separate compensatory programs

stemming from this construction added to social and educational marginalisation.

This deficit view of children, often connected with ethnic origins or family socio-

economic status, has been criticised for its negative effect on children’s self esteem

(Brooker, 2002), the tendency to lower teacher expectations of children’s

achievement (Natriello, et al., 1990; Rosenshine, 1995) and its potential to become a

self-fulfilling prophecy (Carlton & Winsler, 1999; Wortham, 1997). Swadener and

Lubeck (1995) and Skinner et al., (1998) argued that focussing attention on promise

or human resources that children bring to the educational setting rather than

presumed limitations offered a more respectful, positive basis for effective early

education.

Early constructions of risk and disadvantage located limited educational

achievement with the individual child or their family circumstances (Smart, et al.,

2008; Terzi, 2005). Recognition of the limitations and inequity of such approaches

has prompted the reconceptualisation of educational progress to take account of the

contexts of learning such as the school, encompass a broader understanding of

diversity, and place emphasis on inclusion (Ashman & Elkins, 2005). A focus on

diversity is seen to locate children within a continuum of abilities and experience,

recognise multiple layers of diversity that may exist within a particular child (culture,

experience, giftedness, disability) and position children with various forms of

diversity within the heterogeneous social mainstream (Norlund, 2003). Approaches

to educating non-prototypical children have refocused from segregation and

mainstreaming, to integration and inclusion (Ashman, 2009). Mainstreaming, or

general class placement in which children with diverse abilities and culture were

placed in the same classroom with the majority group, implied that children should

23


be ready to assimilate, whereas integration and inclusion are seen to accommodate or

adapt facilities and support services (Allen & Cowdery, 2005). Corbett and Slee

(2000) however, have distinguished between surface inclusion led by policy, second-

level inclusion focused on changes to environments and curricula, and deep-level

inclusion, which focuses on revision of values and enhanced acceptance. Recent

definitions of inclusion go beyond general classroom access, accommodations and

support services, to incorporate curricular and pedagogic differentiation in order to

support children’s sense of belonging within a community of learners (Carrington

2007). Inclusion incorporates not only social inclusion, involving peer acceptance,

friendships, group participation and teacher-child interactions (Conway, 2008), but

also academic inclusion, or the non-stigmatising provision of individually relevant

learning opportunities (Reitveld, 2005).

Diverse Learners and Inclusion

The evolution of inclusive education has produced changes in the terminology

considered appropriate for referring to children who do not fit easily within the

majority school culture. However, there is debate over whether new terminology

referring to differences genuinely advantages those who are non-prototypical or

whether inclusive education should simply refer to the inclusion of all children in

general education programs (Booth, 2003; Ng, 2000). Recent terms that focus on the

inclusion of the individual but cater for an overarching group of non-prototypical

children include exceptional children (Allen & Cowdery, 2005), inclusion groups

(UK Office for Standards in Education OFSTED, 2000), and diverse learners

(Coyne, Kame’enui, & Carnine, 2007; Price, 2007; Benjamin, Nind, Hall & Sheehy,

2003). Alternate overarching terms such as learner diversity (Corbett & Norwich,

2005), diverse learning rights (OECD, 2006) and learners in diverse classrooms

(Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007) focus on the reality of variation amongst children,

the educational rights of children, and the role of schools in teaching all children

(Gillies & Carrington, 2004). These recent terms reflect an understanding of diversity

that incorporates giftedness, socio-cultural diversity, behavioural concerns and

learning difficulties, as well as cultural and linguistic difference and disability

(Ashman & Elkins, 2005). Booth (2003), Henderson (2004), Ashman (2009) and

Nyland (2002) also drew attention to gender, religious background, geographic

24


mobility and non-traditional family constellation as influences shaping children’s

disposition and achievement.

Such a broad construction of diversity is supported by several arguments

considering the perspectives of children, families and teachers. These arguments are

grounded in critical re-evaluation of approaches that are deemed inequitable.

1. Children’s rights. The International Convention on the Rights of the

Child, article 29 (UNICEF, 1989), states that the education of children

should be directed to the development of their abilities to their fullest

potential. This supports attention to all children as a matter of social

justice, having regard to the rights of children with disabilities, and other

non-prototypical children: gifted children and culturally diverse children

(Merry, 2008; Woodhead, 2006). Contemporary inclusion texts (Allen &

Cowdery, 2009; Ashman & Elkins, 2009; Cook, Klein & Tessier, 2008;

Deiner, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007) incorporate a wide range of

differences amongst children, including giftedness.

2. Multiple exceptionalities. Children are multi-dimensional, and multiple

exceptionalities or categories of diversity may be represented within an

individual (Ashman & Elkins, 2009; Porter, 2005). Ng (2003) and Hyun

(2007) have argued that broader diversity constructs, and accompanying

broader terminology, reflect the multi-dimensional nature of difference,

and more effectively address the power relations underlying inequality.

3. Identification dilemmas. Difficulties in identification of disabilities in

early childhood, and potential mislabelling of children also need to be

taken into account (Prendergast, Chadbourne & Danby, 2009). Some

children do not fit typical diagnostic classifications because of their mild

delays or a complex array of behaviours and learning variations (Nind &

Cochrane, 2002). Valid assessment for identification of specific

conditions is difficult in instances where children are very young, speak a

language other than English, have a social-emotional challenge that

impacts on their cooperation with staff, or misunderstand the assessment

situation or tasks (Meisels, 1994). The value of diagnostic labels in early

education has been questioned, and broader terms such as developmental

delay advocated (Gargulio & Kilgo, 2000; Wilson, 1998)

25


4. Complexity of teaching. As teachers attempt to expand their repertoire to

address ever-increasing categories of difference (e.g., learning difficulty,

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD, autistic spectrum disorder

ASD, English as a second language ESL), they become overwhelmed, so

a more overarching pedagogy of difference is required (Bartolome, 2003;

Kincheloe, 2004; Trifonas, 2003).

5. Avoidance of stigmatisation. Targeting of specific risk or disability

groups for services while continuing to teach all other children within

traditional paradigms has been criticised as stigmatising difference,

without addressing the need for fundamental educational change

(Cummins, 2003; Hehir, 2005; Hyun, 2004; Kincheloe, 2004). Critical

reflection on power dynamics and unexamined assumptions about

neediness are indicated to frame more equitable approaches (Kincheloe,

2004; Nind, 2005).

However, an overarching construction of diversity, the use of broader terms for

non-prototypical development and learning, and the extension of inclusion efforts to

groups beyond children with disability are not universally accepted in scholarly

literature, and evidence of their enactment in practice is limited. The arguments for

retaining a narrower focus for inclusion policy and practice (e.g, to disabilities or

educational risks) include the possibility of teacher stress and resource competition.

They are framed by concern for classroom pragmatics (Guralnick, 2001).

6. Excessive classroom demands. Teachers face challenges in meeting the

needs of an increasingly diverse student population in the context of two

competing demands: international social trends that focus on equity and

inclusion, and national policy trends that demand standardised testing

and accountability (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007). Thus, teachers face

competing requirements that might become overwhelming (Ashman,

2009; Ferguson, 2008).

7. Lack of teacher preparation and support. Negative teacher attitudes

towards inclusion, insofar as it broadens the range of any class group is

linked to lack of professional education (Kilgallon & Maloney, 2003;

Mohay & Reid, 2006) and lack of adequate classroom support services

(Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996). Thus teachers may struggle with

26


expectations to attend to an increasing array of differences in children

without the knowledge or support to address such differences effectively.

8. Resource competition. In reality, the demands on teachers to manage

inclusion processes such as collaboration with specialist staff, classroom

adaptations and equitable sharing of educational resources are substantial

(Kavale & Forness, 2000). Thus the incorporation of categories beyond

disability, such as giftedness, into consideration of diversity and

inclusion is challenging. Foreman (2008) omitted children with gifts

from discussions on inclusion, on the grounds that they have never been

excluded from education, while Sapon-Shevin (1995) expressed concern

that diversion of scarce resources to children with gifts may disadvantage

more needy children. While Foreman (2008) asserts that the principles of

inclusion, such as individualisation of instruction are relevant for gifted

children, quite different teaching strategies from those intended for

children with disabilities are recommended to challenge gifted children’s

thinking (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Porter, 2005). Therefore, allocation of

teacher time and school resources might be stretched too thinly.

The rhetoric about inclusion and catering for diversity, therefore, is often not

matched by the reality (Ferguson, 2008). Further evidence is required on effective

ways to advance inclusion, while attending to the pragmatic feasibility problems

teachers encounter (Guralnick, 2001). Feasibility, including maintaining the integrity

of the general classroom programme, having appropriate equipment and personnel,

accessing specialist services, and minimising the stigma associated with difference,

has been identified as a major concern in early childhood settings (Guralnick, 2001).

The overarching term, diverse learners, is adopted for this thesis to refer

broadly to non-prototypical children in line with recent constructions. However, two

major sub-categories are identified in the research literature and commonly treated in

isolation. Evidence related to diverse abilities and cultural diversity will be reviewed

separately in the first instance. The empirical evidence in each is preceded by key

recommendations in the scholarly literature. Some shared evidence on effective

inclusive provisions for children with diverse abilities and culture is also addressed.

27


Diverse Abilities

The evidence on inclusive strategies supporting the educational progress of

children with diverse abilities separates specific sub-groups (e.g., cognitive

impairment, ADHD, ASD, learning difficulty). Hence, a synthesis of the evidence

assists the identification of successful shared pedagogies. The role of identification

for support access and for differentiation of curriculum and pedagogy is a key area of

shared educational focus in early education. Children’s social behaviour, self-

regulation, motivation, problem-solving skills, and communication are further areas

of shared educational focus that have a significant impact on children’s social and

academic outcomes (Brandes, Ormsbee, & Haring, 2007; McIntyre, 2003; North &

Carruthers, 2008; Sheets, 2005).

Identification, early intervention and service access: salience

The identification of children’s educational challenges and the necessary

support for each is an educator’s responsibility in both ECEC prior-to-school

services and the early years of school (North & Carruthers, 2008; Pendergast,

Chadbourne & Danby, 2009). Early childhood teachers’ observation of children

enables them to screen for difficulties, identify support or access requirements,

modify the program and report to families and the school (Briggs & Potter, 1999).

The research evidence on identification, however, focuses on diagnosis and labelling

for targeted intervention programs or to address inequities (Bracken & Brown, 2008;

Fuchs, Fuchs, Compton, Bouton, Caffrey, & Hill, 2007; Johnson, Mellard & Byrd,

2005; Zambo, 2008). In these studies, the development of structured processes of

identification included formal testing protocols and curriculum-linked assessment

procedures. Yet for teachers, the salience of children’s characteristics or capabilities

influences their responses. For example, in an Australian interview-based study of

early childhood teachers, the “noticeability” of giftedness (p. 388) was reduced if

children were female, compliant and adapted to the classroom culture (Lee, 2002)

supporting Freebody, Watters and Lummis (2003) contention that the visibility of

giftedness was low. Cronin and Diezmann (2002) found that gender and racial

stereotypes reduced the likelihood that female Indigenous children would be

identified as gifted, and that this placed them at risk of under-achievement. Because

identification is a necessary precursor to appropriate pedagogic response, these

28


studies suggest the need to examine further teachers’ awareness of the variations

amongst children and contextual variables that have an influence on identification.

Differentiation of curriculum and pedagogy

Although the historical positioning of schools as providers of instruction for

average students and for ranking student performance persists, the contemporary

emphasis on inclusion demands that schools change to cater effectively for all

children through changes to school and classroom organisation, curriculum and

pedagogy (Ashman & Elkins, 2005). Criticism of a lock-step curriculum, targeted at

a pre-determined level and pace of instruction for each grade, has been based on its

lack of responsiveness to the context and to children’s actual learning (Anning,

1997). Critical evaluation of practices such as Individual Educational Plans for

children with disabilities (Mahoney & Wheatley 1994) and a new understanding of

children as active negotiators of learning (Benjamin et al 2003) have drawn attention

to alternate conceptualisations of curriculum and pedagogy. Although individualised

teaching is recommended in ECEC and early primary school (Briggs & Potter, 1999;

Dockett & Fleer, 1999), flexible small group work and peer tutoring (Carrington,

2007), and a combination of universal program design with differentiation for

individuals may be appropriate in school settings (Van Kraayenoord & Elkins, 2009).

Differentiation of curriculum and pedagogy has been advocated as an effective

approach to address ability variation within classes without a second, parallel

curriculum such as Individual Educational Plans (Gregory & Chapman, 2002;

Heacox, 2002; Norlund, 2003; Smutny & Von Fremd, 2004; Tomlinson, 2005). The

emphasis is typically on low achievers, yet differentiation also caters for children

with gifts (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Porter 2005). Personalised pedagogies have

been advocated, based on flexible grouping, an emotionally supportive classroom

atmosphere, varied learning styles, cooperative learning and challenging learning

tasks designed to stimulate higher order thinking (Gregory & Chapman, 2002;

Heacox, 2002). Evidence from a study of children with pervasive developmental

disorder (Pierce-Jordan & Lifter, 2005) supported Wolery’s (1999) advocacy for

differentiating instruction based on both the child’s current ability and the demands

of the particular classroom. However, a study of special school placement for

children with mild delays found that special educators experienced discomfort in

29


differentiating their teaching for these children, as they constructed the problem as a

need to add-on curriculum rather than modify their pedagogy (Nind & Cochrane,

2002). Nind and Cochrane suggest that such approaches imply categorisation of

children, with the attendant danger of a two-tiered curriculum. What is required is

revised pedagogical approaches that allow the inclusion of non-prototypical learners

in a curriculum unified by common goals.

Social skill and emotional self-regulation

Children’s capacity to establish peer relationships, to use socially acceptable

behaviours, to use appropriate self-care skills and to self-regulate behaviour

facilitates inclusion in early childhood settings (Allen & Cowdery, 2005; Cook,

Klein, & Tessier, 2008; Winter, 2005). Young children from challenging

backgrounds often require support to learn acceptable behaviours for group settings,

such as following directions, attending to routines, taking turns, sharing and self-

monitoring of behaviours (Burford & Stegelin, 2003). An Australian case study of

refugee children with war-related trauma found that adult-facilitated playgroup

interactions improved children’s social skills, reduced their anxiety and improved

transition to school (Jackson, 2006). In interview and questionnaire-base studies in

Australia, teachers and parents identified personal independence, positive attitudes

towards learning and social communication as important for children commencing

kindergarten (Dockett & Perry, 2003; King & Boardman, 2006). Expectations of

such independence, however, represent a challenge for children from cultures that

value interdependence (Whitington, 2004).

The focus in programs for children with behavioural and emotional concerns

has been on discipline policies, support services and models for behaviour

management (Conway, 1998) but recent attention to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorder ASD has prompted the

development of strategies such as social stories and behavioural therapies (Attwood,

2006; Graham, 2006). Structured behaviour management processes, based on applied

behaviour analysis and functional behaviour assessment, have been found to be

effective for children with ASD (Conway, 2006). Reviews of studies of young

children with ADHD found that, alongside psychotropic interventions, family-based

behavioural programs combined with a calm atmosphere and contingent

30


reinforcement assist children to self-regulate (Fewell & Deutscher, 2002; Hudson,

1997). In an early elementary school study in the USA of children with diverse

abilities, guidance in goal setting and self-evaluation supported children’s

engagement in directing their own learning (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

Communication and cognitive progress

Effective communication is vital for children’s social relationships and literacy

progress (Allen & Cowdery, 2005). While naturalistic language teaching strategies

are usually advocated, some specialised strategies are required for children with

hearing impairment, autistic spectrum disorder and cognitive impairment (Cook,

Klein & Tessier, 2004; Hooper & Umansky, 2009). Programs for children with

hearing loss have centred on communication choices (e.g., oral, manual, total

communication, cued), strategies for utilising residual hearing (e.g., amplification,

cochlear implants) and children’s behavioural responses to hearing loss (Paatsch,

2000; Talay-Ongan, 2004). Children with cognitive impairment may require teachers

to use repetitive language (Cook, Klein & Tessier, 2008) and they may need

additional support to develop functional and alternative communication (Balandin,

Sweep & Hand, 2008). Literacy difficulties have been linked to language delays,

difficulties in decoding print, a mismatch between children’s interests or learning

needs and school provision, an over-emphasis on verbal-linguistic intelligence, or a

lack of recognition of cultural and linguistic diversity (Luke & Freebody, 1999;

McDermott, Goldman & Varenne, 2006; Reid & Knight, 2006; Van Kraayenord,

2002; Wilson, 1998).

Educational interventions framed by behaviourist philosophies, focusing on

explicit sequential instruction, motivation, contingent reinforcement and repetitive

language (Cook, Klein & Tessier, 2008; Hooper & Umansky, 2009) are particularly

relevant to cognitive disability but are applied more widely. In early childhood

settings, naturalistic teaching embedded in a play program is promoted (Allen &

Cowdery, 2005; Cook, Klein, & Tessier, 2008), although more explicit instruction

may be required during some portion of a day (North & Carruthers, 2008). For

children in the early years of school, open-ended programs have been criticised as

being insufficiently structured to cater for children with disabilities, so a blend of

embedded active learning and more explicit teaching has been advocated (Winter,

31


2007). Cognitive development through the enhancement of thinking skills and

problem-solving, has been advocated as an alternative to traditional teaching (Briggs

& Potter, 1999; Brady & Kennedy, 2003). For children with gifts, higher-order

thinking and creativity in learning have been recommended (Braggett 2002; Porter,

2005). Using tools such as Bloom’s taxonomy and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

as frames for differentiating curriculum have been found to assist primary school

teachers to cater effectively for cognitive development in mixed ability classrooms

(Noble, 2004). In an action research study in early primary school classrooms,

children were more engaged in learning through the project approach, yet the

teachers felt challenged in differentiating for varied abilities (Hetzog, 2007).

Sensory and motor development and health

The motor and sensory development of children with vision impairment,

hearing loss, physical impairment, or chronic health conditions focuses on

therapeutic interventions (Hinchcliffe, 2007), social inclusion (French & Cain, 2006)

or management of specific conditions such as epilepsy (Johnson & Parkinson, 2002).

Programs for children with vision impairment have emphasised amelioration of

sensory loss through low vision strategies (e.g., orientation and mobility support),

multi-sensory learning and assistive technologies (Davis, 2003).

The number of children with chronic health conditions is increasing as

advances in medical technology improve survival rates of children with

compromised health, yet early intervention funding and policies do not seem to cater

for many of these children (Ashton & Bailey, 2004). Shiu (2004) estimated that 15%

of children under 14 years of age in Australia had a long term health problem and

drew attention to the need for schools to make more thoughtful provisions for

children with chronic conditions such as severe asthma, childhood diabetes, cystic

fibrosis, epilepsy, kidney or heart disease, cancer or paediatric AIDS. In a survey of

children with chronic health conditions who have regular hospitalisation, physical

access to facilities, catching up on missed work, peer relationship problems, and lack

of teacher knowledge have been identified as additional barriers to classroom

participation and sustained achievement (Ashton & Bailey, 2004).

Otitis media and resultant hearing loss is common in Australian Indigenous

children but tends to be misinterpreted by teachers as behaviour or learning problems

32


(Stewart, 2002). Poor nutritional status, parasite infestation, chronic respiratory

infections and middle ear infections have been identified as significant health

concerns with implications for Indigenous children’s ability to sustain academic

engagement (Dockett, Mason & Perry, 2006; Stewart, 2002) and to work within the

behavioural expectations of the school (MCEETYA, 2001).

Cultural Diversity

There are shared concerns regarding English language learning, family stress,

and maintenance of cultural heritage amongst minority ethnic groups, yet sub-

cultures within a society may also experience disadvantage in the education system

(Gun et al., 2004; Sleeter & Grant, 2007). Diversity in lifestyle, prior experience in

the home and community, language use and behaviour expectations arising out of

geographic location (Crothers, 2004), family transience (Frigo & Adams, 2002),

gender (Nyland, 2002), non-traditional family constellation (Ashman, 2009) and

socio-economic status (Espinosa, 2005) impact on children’s school adjustment and

achievement. Family capacity to ameliorate the potential disadvantage of social-

cultural circumstances is varied, thus the role of the school can be significant,

particularly at crucial transition points such as school entry (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).

The extant literature on cultural groups considers specific sub-groups and their

educational needs separately (e.g., Indigenous, low income, rural, geographically

mobile), rather than considering overall issues impacting on children and families

from non-mainstream cultural backgrounds.

The focus on specific child and family deficits (e.g., lack of English

knowledge) diverts attention from the complex issues involved in cultural and

linguistic diversity (Cummins, 2000; Hill, Comber, Louden, Rivalland & Reid,

1998). Hill and colleagues (1998) found that the huge diversity of children entering

school combined with the gap between preschool and school pedagogies created

literacy difficulties for some children. They argued that professional development of

preschool teachers was crucial to the re-focusing of the curriculum and enhancement

of young children’s literacy progress. Cummins (2000) argued that where

underachievement is framed as a deficit in children or teachers, the solution has been

increased pressure to teacher-proof the curriculum (e.g., standard phonics kits for

remediation of English deficits) rather than to implement more inclusive educational

33


approaches. He criticised both the implied distrust of teachers and the narrow

interpretation of the teaching-learning process. Cummins supported educational

approaches that celebrate diversity and acknowledge the resources children bring to

school. Evidence of respectful ways to enhance the progress of culturally diverse

children, drawing on their personal resources, would enable teachers to plan more

effective strategies.

Language and literacy

The choice of instructional language and teaching approach for children who

are non-English speaking is a key educational decision (Sleeter & Grant, 2007).

Young children may be immersed in English, instructed in English as a Second

Language ESL within in an English-based program, educated wholly in their first

language or educated in dual languages with a goal of transitioning to English

(Espinosa, 2005; Lindholm, 1990; McLaughlin, 1990; Sheets, 2005). Bilingual

immersion approaches need to be sustained over a period of at least 4 to 6 years to

continue progress in English proficiency at the same time as maintaining the home

language (Lindholm, 1990). Teaching entirely in the child’s home or first language

supports emerging literacies, prevents first language loss and maintains self-esteem

particularly if bilingualism is viewed as a cultural asset (Gregory. 1997; Sheets,

2005). However, in the USA the lack of native or proficient speakers of languages

other than English amongst staff in many early childhood services and schools has

been identified as a serious challenge to this approach (Espinosa, 2005). Young

children learning in two or more languages simultaneously have sometimes been

found to develop an unintelligible mixing of vocabulary and language constructions,

yet this became a problem only when the children’s backgrounds were characterised

by parental illiteracy or extreme deprivation (McLaughlin, 1990). Pacific Island

families were found by Podmore (2003) to be fearful of the impact of school on first

language and culture. However, Sauvao (2002) found that first languages and

cultures for Pacific Island children were supported through assistance from cultural

peers or from bilingual non-teaching staff and parents, as well as through bilingual

early years programs.

Children who speak non-standard English, such as Australian Indigenous

children, also require consideration because of the impact on their social

34


relationships and academic achievement (Cronin, 2001). Limited English proficiency

and dependence on a language other than English are concerns in that they are

related to reduced achievement not only in literacy but also in mathematics (Elkins,

2002). Young children in New Zealand who attended culture-based early childhood

services have been found to experience severe discontinuity in primary schools

where the language of instruction was English (Podmore, Sauvao & Mapa, 2003).

However, English language instruction with culturally diverse groups has been found

to be successful if teachers concentrate on co-construction of understandings about

language and literacy with individual children, rather than focusing on technical print

decoding aspects of literacy (Gerstein, Baker, Haager, & Graves, 2005; Hamston &

Scull, 2007; Phillips, McNaughton & MacDonald, 2004). In a study in New Zealand

by Podmore et al (2003), the dependence of Pacific Island children on individual

interactions with teachers to support literacy learning in an unfamiliar language

highlighted the limited cultural awareness of teaching staff and the lack of Pacific

Islander teachers or aides within schools.

Links between gender and literacy achievement have been related to interaction

effects. Concern about the literacy achievements of boys has focused on ways of

ameliorating their apparent disadvantage through targeted literacy repertoires

(Alloway, Freebody, Gilbert & Muspratt, 2002). Nyland (2002) found that boys

were four times as likely to be identified by teachers as having reading problems as

girls, but that this identification was sometimes related to behavioural criteria rather

than literacy ability. Thus, more nuanced reading of performance data was advocated

to identify sub-group concerns and target strategies more effectively (Ailwood, 2003;

Lingard, 2003). Supporting evidence for this alternate position is offered by the

findings that late-birthdate preparatory class boys attained significantly lower literacy

results than girls and older peers, indicating the need for attention to the interactions

of age and gender rather than gender alone (Boardman, 2006). Concern over patterns

of disadvantage revolving around interactions between boys’ academic achievement

and social-emotional circumstances have been supported by Potter and Briggs’

(2003) finding that boys’ disliked school, and that their dislike was related both to

schoolwork and to punitive discipline by teachers.

35


Family and community expectation

The successful educational progress of children from culturally and

linguistically diverse backgrounds is influenced by family expectations (Brooker,

2002). Some children may require explicit instruction, as family assumptions about

learning events and classroom requirements may not match those of the teacher

(Sheets, 2005). Teachers also need to take into account the impact on children’s

behaviour of differences: in power-distance, role differentiation, views about

uncertainty and orientation to collectivism over individualism in many traditional

cultures (Pirola-Merlo, 2003). In studies of Pacific Island communities, parents saw

the maintenance of heritage languages as not only retaining culture but also engaging

children in a culturally grounded way of thinking (Singh, 2000). Singh’s

investigation of the role of Pacific Islander para-education personnel (e.g., school-

community officers, teacher aides) highlighted the value of cultural and language

linking, and the importance of understanding the social structures, role of religion,

and power relations within cultural groups. An Australian study of school transition

for Bangladeshi children identified challenges arising not only from second language

difficulties but also from differences in child rearing styles such as cultural

encouragement of children’s dependence on adults, and parental concern about loss

of religious and cultural values (Sangavarapu & Perry, 2005). In New Zealand, Singh

(2000) and Podmore et al., (2003) indicated that management of children’s conduct

required attention, as the strict religious and behavioural expectations of traditional

Pacific Islander families contrasted with the conduct of children encountered within

schools (e.g., swearing, disrespect for authority).

The gap between the educational and socialisation practices of some homes

and communities and that of the school that Singh (2000) identified in Australia was

also revealed in a study of Southern Asian families from Bangladesh in the UK

(Brooker, 2002). This study established that the differences between the visible and

invisible curriculum and pedagogy of the home and early years of school created

significant discontinuity for children. In essence, the transmission modes of home

instruction contrasted with the play pedagogies of preparatory classes in the UK. The

observed pedagogy of the home focused on explicit modelling, copying and

memorising, in contrast with the observed pedagogy of the reception or preparatory

class. The pedagogy of the home that emphasised apprenticeship in adult home

36


responsibilities and open spatial and temporal boundaries was also at odds with the

school’s protection of children from dangerous tasks (e.g., cutting with knives) and

the more rigid routines of the classroom (Brooker, 2000).

Cultural sensitivity in regard to pedagogy and curricula has also been identified

as a key factor in the academic achievement and school adjustment of Australian

Indigenous children (Frigo & Adams, 2002). Cronin (2002) advocated connection

between children’s prior experience and ways of knowing, and those of the school

through providing points of reference from which they may gain shared meanings,

for example in the modification of resources for mathematics (Fleer, 1994). Fleer and

Williams-Kennedy (2001) argued for building on Indigenous children’s culturally

approved behaviour patterns such as: sharing, rather than competing; focussing on

here-and-now interests rather than past or future events; and avoiding inauthentic

questioning (e.g., asking children questions to which adults know the answer) which

may appear discourteous. However, Raban (2002) and Stewart (2002) warn that

reliance on over-simplified notions of Indigenous learning styles may lower

expectations, limit teacher engagement with individual or local ways of knowing and

reduce Indigenous children’s opportunities for expansion of their cultural repertoire.

In case studies of early childhood teaching approaches, Fasoli and Ford (2001) found

that Indigenous staff focused on relationships rather than learning activities or

resources, and that inter-subjectivity and non-verbal interactions formed a significant

part of the communication process. Butterworth and Candy (1998) found that multi-

age group learning was more culturally relevant than more individual approaches.

Adler’s (2001) investigation of Asian-American families from a variety of

cultures (e.g., Koran, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong, Tamil) identified extreme

parental concern regarding children’s academic achievement. The concern resulted in

family pressure and extra tutoring for some children even if they were progressing at

school. Child unhappiness in some cases was related to mishandling of issues of peer

prejudice in school. Many parents expected their children to be stoic in the face of

bias. Families in Adler’s study identified themselves by their specific ethnicity (e.g.,

Korean) rather than as Asian and expressed negative views about being confused

with people from other Asian ethnic groups. There were also within-group variations

that needed recognition, particularly in mixed-heritage households, affirming

arguments that over-generalisation could be detrimental.

37


The contrast between the obedience to authority expected in the home and the

active, independent assertiveness expected in schools, raised by both Brooker (2000)

and Adler (2001), appears to underpin teachers’ construction of some children as

passive or less effective learners. Such cultural misunderstanding about learning

approaches and behavioural expectations appears relevant to various non-Western

cultures, as found also by Singh (2000) in relation to Pacific Islander children and

Stewart (2002) regarding Australian Indigenous children.

Poverty, wellbeing and educational access

The well-being and educational participation of children in poverty and

Australian Indigenous children has been the subject of attention, relating principally

to poverty, family violence and breakdown, or to health conditions discussed

previously (Stewart, 2002). Low rates of participation in preschool education and

irregular school attendance have also been identified as contributors to the limited

school success of Australian Indigenous children and other children in poverty

(Cronin, 2001; MCEETYA, 2001; Powell, 1995). The proportion of five year old

Indigenous children enrolled in early childhood education prior to school has been

found to be less than half that of other Australian children, although this may be

partly related to limited program access in some isolated areas of Australia (McCrea,

Ainsworth, Cummings, Hughes, Mackay, & Price, 2000). While the importance of

home experience is not de-valued, low participation in preschool education limits

Indigenous children’s access to the types of learning opportunities that could support

transition to school (Raban, Griffiths, Coates & Fleer, 2002). McCrea and colleagues

(2000) found that low Indigenous preschool participation was linked to parental

concerns about de-culturation, limited awareness of early childhood services, high

cost and incompatibility of preschool session times with parental employment.

Once children are in school, Conway (2005) argued that aspects of personal

and family experience that can contribute to high rates of non-attendance include

transience or geographic mobility, lack of parental support, low socio-economic

status, cultural expectations, family dysfunction, learning difficulties and boredom.

Fleer and Williams-Kennedy (2001) found that on average, Indigenous students miss

one day of schooling each week, reducing their total primary school participation by

more than a year. Unexplained school absences by Indigenous children are linked

38


with poor health, family cultural obligation and parents’ negative attitudes towards

school (Cronin, 2001; MCEETYA, 2001). Sarra (2007) found that the development

of a new school culture in an Indigenous community including awareness of local

Indigenous role models, professional education of Indigenous staff, and a whole-

school local Aboriginal studies program, improved participation rates.

Children who live in geographically isolated locations and travel long distances

to small regional schools or undertake distance education under parental supervision

also experience educational access challenges (Crothers, 2004; McNicholl, 2002).

Whilst poverty appeared to be a significant concern for children moving from

isolated rural contexts to urban areas in USA, Pianta and Walsh (1996) found that

sub-cultural differences (e.g., language or accent, interests, social style) created

barriers in the classroom and playground. Case studies in Australia indicate that rural

location is not necessarily associated with educational disadvantage, yet interactions

between regional location and factors such as poverty, social class and ethnicity

produced disadvantage (Hatton, 1994).

Continuity and discontinuity

Transience, itineracy or geographic mobility has been identified as an

important influence on children’s educational success because of its impact on

continuity of learning (Frigo & Adams, 2002). Initiatives in Australia to address such

continuity include a travelling school for children who travel with shows and

circuses (Danaher, 2000). In a study in Western Australia of isolated itinerant

children from mining, railway and Indigenous families, Fleer (1990) found a

cumulative effect of educational disruption and discontinuity in the early years of

school, and the potential value of computer technology for improving literacy and

numeracy outcomes in these children. In a study of the children of itinerant seasonal

farm workers in Australia, Henderson (2004) found that that serious academic

difficulties could go unnoticed if teachers focused on children fitting in or adjusting

to institutional practices in each new school.

Geographically mobile families may have internal resources to ameliorate the

educational discontinuity or sense of disconnectedness which impacts negatively on

their children. Yet one of the key problems in family transience is lack of social

support networks for parents and children (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Not only are

39


parents facing pressures such as change of employment and income without extended

family or other social supports, children are establishing new peer relationships,

learning new school cultures and curricular approaches and re-defining personal

identities within the school during a period of heightened family tension (Pianta &

Walsh, 1996). Some family transience in Australia was found to exist for Indigenous

cultural reasons and through Defence Force relocation. Transience may also be

attributed to unemployment, housing needs and fleeing domestic violence (Frigo &

Adams, 2002; Henderson, 2004). Henderson identified the limitation imposed by

teachers’ adoption of a permanent resident/itinerant binary rather than probing more

deeply into the complex difficulties facing these children and families.

Cultural diversity and the affective climate

Affective issues both inside and outside the school influence educational

adjustment and achievement. The complex problem of school refusal arises from

anxiety about school performance, fear of bullying, separation anxiety or generalised

anxiety about change compounded by breaks in attendance (Cahill & Freeman, 2007;

King, Tonge, Hayne & Tinney, 1994; Thamirajah, Grandison & De-Hayes, 2008),

Cognitive behavioural therapies and parent and teacher sensitivity and firmness have

been found to assist children with school refusal in adapting to school (King et al.,

1994).

The influence of teacher expectations on affective climate has been identified

as a factor in the education of Indigenous children. Effective teachers of Indigenous

children have been identified as those who combine personal warmth with high

demands or expectations (Cronin, 2002). While the impact of excessively high

expectations on children’s self esteem was identified, Raban and colleagues(2002)

also found that teacher under-expectation of Indigenous children reduced the

intellectual quality of educational programs. Low expectations also arose in the early

years of school from an over-emphasis on the literacy delays and language

differences of Indigenous children, and from their adjustment difficulties, rather than

their resources (Dockett, Mason & Perry, 2006).

Negative disposition arising from background factors also mitigates against full

involvement of children in classroom learning and reduces motivation to succeed

(Pianta & Walsh, 1996). Young children with experience in war zones or as refugees

40


may also be too traumatised to participate effectively in educational experiences

(Sims, Hayden, Palmer & Hutchins, 2000). Pianta and Walsh (1996) suggested that

the concerns of some children from socially marginalised backgrounds may be

similar because their neighbourhoods resemble a war zone (e.g., prevalence of

gunshot death or physical violence). Modification of educational physical and

psychosocial environments to provide a sense of safety and security for these

children while facilitating development of resilience requires further investigation

(e.g., for children from refugee families) (Sims, et al., 2000). Families in which

adults have depressive illness, relational strife, inadequate support or other stressors

that may impact negatively on parenting, need to be considered because of their

potential impact on children’s well-being (Talay-Ongan, 2004). In the USA, Powell

(1995) found that, while less than 10% of children beginning kindergarten in the

USA have difficulty in adjusting, those schools serving large numbers of children

who live in challenging circumstances report up to 19% of incoming students have

adjustment difficulty. In an Australian longitudinal study of the life chances of

children from low-income families, Taylor (2006) found that multiple stressors,

including family separations, geographic mobility, parental unemployment and long-

term income restriction, impacted on the children’s attitudes and resilience. Further,

parents from minority cultures have been found to unwittingly support development

of learning dispositions that are not appropriate to the culture of the school, or to

impart fear of schools to children (Brooker, 2002; Cronin & Diezmann, 2002).

Cultural and individual relevance of curriculum and pedagogy

Curricular and pedagogic differentiation is recommended as a means of making

teaching and learning more culturally and individually relevant and accessible

(Norlund, 2003), although it may occasionally be constructed as a form of cultural

discrimination (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000). Research with low income students

supported the argument that traditional didactic modes of teaching aimed at the

middle of the student group disadvantaged substantial portions of a class, encouraged

passivity, and were thus ineffective in producing successful learners for a post-

industrial world (Huffman & Speer, 2000). In case studies of children from

economically and socially diverse families, connection of learning to children’s life

41


experiences and individual interests, based on home-school information sharing, was

found to be effective in promoting learning (Comber & Kamler, 2004

Diversity of experiential backgrounds should prompt teachers to incorporate

individual understandings and experiences into their pedagogy (Raban, 2001).

Personalised pedagogies should take into account the within-group differences in

culture, as an investigation of Asian-American families from a variety of cultures

revealed that families identified themselves by their specific ethnicity (e.g., Korean)

rather than as Asian and expressed strongly negative views about being confused

with other ethnic groups (Adler, 2001). There were also within-group variations that

needed recognition in mixed-heritage families reinforcing the point that over-

generalisation could be detrimental. This evidence supported research showing

greater within-group differences than between-group differences (Hill, et al., 1998)

Effective Early Education for Diverse Learners

Some elements of effective early education are relevant to both diverse ability

and cultural diversity. School reform and engagement, with change aimed at being

more effective when catering for a range of children, has gone beyond curriculum

models and specialised service provision to consider wider questions of pedagogic

quality (Peisner-Feinburg, et al., 1999; Sammons, et al., 2004, 2008), partnerships

(Hughes & McNaughton, 2001), educational climate and organisation (Freiberg,

1999; Pollard-Durodola, 2003) and effective transitions (Emig, 2001; Fabian, 2002).

Supportive learning environment

Two aspects of the learning environment have been found to be influential in

children’s outcomes: specific classroom environment, and school and classroom

psychosocial climate. For children facing challenges, the quality of the learning

environment has been shown to be crucial to effective progress regardless of

program type (Freiberg, 1999; Pollard-Durodola, 2003; Timperley et al., 2003).

Pollard-Durodola (2003) and Manning and Baruth (1995) identified characteristics

of a high quality educational environment as orderly processes, high teacher

expectations, regular evaluation, flexible time organisation and time on task. Aspects

of the physical environment such as teaching resource availability and standard of

42


maintenance, and the adequacy of classroom and playground space and facilities

affect both the motivation of teachers and children’s adjustment (Freiberg (1999).

Regardless of the facilities provided, school and classroom psychosocial

climate has been identified as a key component of an effective school response to

diverse learners (Creemers & Reegizt, 1999; Williams, de Kruif & Zulli, 2002). The

establishment of a positive school climate was found to result in major social and

academic achievement gains in children from low-income and cultural minority

backgrounds, but sustaining a positive climate required substantial effort (Stringfield,

1999). Grade failure and retention practices influence psychosocial climate. They

have been found to be counter productive in early education as they are demoralising

rather than motivating, indicating that more effective teaching may be required to

ensure children retain self-esteem and motivation (Holloway, 2003; Swanson, 1991).

Reciprocal interactions between proximal (e.g., classroom) and distal (e.g., school

organisation, partnerships) levels further affect the quality of child experience and

the success of inclusion (Williams, de Kruif & Zulli, 2002).

Family and community partnership

The role of school partnership with families recurs, highlighting sensitivity as

central to successful partnerships with culturally diverse or socially marginalised

families, families where parents have disabilities or mental health pressures or

substance abuse difficulties, and families who have a strong fear of teachers

(Manning & Baruth, 1995). Careful negotiation is prompted through substantial

differences in parents’ expectations about the purpose of early years programs. For

example, Page, Neinhuys, Kapsalakis and Morda (2001) found that parents valued

the social-emotional gains that could be derived from early education programs, but

that there was a discrepancy between those who saw the purpose of such programs as

school readiness and those who felt strongly about the provision for play and

freedom for young children.

School expectations of parental involvement have been found to be associated

with improvements in children’s educational outcomes, yet parent involvement

readily became parent obligation, resulting in criticism of families for under- or over-

involvement and a demand for parental contributions to prop up schools (Nakagawa,

2000; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Schrecter, 2002). These studies found that teacher-

43


defined parent-assistant tasks were disrespectful and lacking in recognition of the

rich contributions which culturally diverse families could make. Hughes and

McNaughton (2001) have argued that genuinely collaborative partnerships between

families and teachers rely on listening to a range of stakeholders and building a

democratic relationship with families. To date, there is limited literature of this type.

There is a need for further investigation into the expectations of families from a

variety of cultural and social backgrounds.

School and classroom organisation

Re-structuring of schools through un-grading or multi-age classes and the use

of flexible in-class grouping has been advocated to reduce the stigmatisation of

ability grouping or streaming for less advanced children while retaining the

advantages of some level of homogeneous group learning (Anning, 1997;

Carrington, 2007; Powell, 1995). Withdrawal resource rooms offered highly

individualised programs yet risked stigmatisation of children, confusion of learning

as children encountered two different curricula, loss of learning time as children

transition between classes, and a reduced sense of responsibility by the general class

teacher (Swanson, 1991). Natriello and colleagues (1990) found that withdrawal or

pull-out classes were of limited effectiveness in improving outcomes and that gains

faded rapidly if the costly specialised support was discontinued in subsequent grades

Universal provision of kindergarten classes in schools has been a major

structural provision for children from backgrounds deemed to be disadvantaged

(Natriello et al., 1990; OECD, 2006). Full-time rather than part-time kindergarten

classes have been found to offer improved continuity of learning (Boardman, 2002;

Thorpe, et al., 2004) although Jones’ (2003) meta-analysis of studies on full-time

versus part-time provision found the gains to be moderate. The gains from extra-year

classes (e.g., an extra kindergarten/first transition grade) were also found to be short-

lived, and progress was less than for children promoted to the subsequent grade

(Powell, 1995) unless early interventions were sustained (Feinstein, 2004).

Classroom organisation goes beyond child grouping and location of support

services, and considers allocation of time and of human and material resource. The

use of learning centres through which children could alternate flexible time blocks,

avoid the problem of children waiting for others to complete tasks (Carrington, 2007;

44


Spodek & Saracho, 1994). In the large-scale longitudinal EPPE study in the UK,

classroom disorganisation was associated with lower academic achievement and

increased hyperactivity (Sammons, et al., 2008). The quality of teacher-child

interactions has been identified as a key influence on children’s progress, yet

qualitative shifts in teacher-child interactions have been found to arise from

increased class sizes and poor child-staff ratios (Oliveira-Formosinto, 2001; Rimm-

Kaufmann & Pianta, 2000; Sammons et al., 2008).

Teacher focus, expectations and disposition

Schools with a whole-school purposeful curriculum focus have been found to

raise the achievement levels of children from diverse backgrounds, even if quite a

traditional pedagogic approach is used (Pollard-Durodola, 2003). Maintenance of

academic rigour and challenge has also been identified as a key element of effective

education for low-achieving children (Manning & Baruth, 1995; Pollard-Durodola,

2003; Swanson, 1991). These features of quality provision are dependent on teacher

focus, expectations, knowledge and disposition towards diversity (Cronin, 2001;

Hattie, 2003; Mohay & Reid, 2006; Raban & Ure, 2000). The positive effect of high

but realistic teacher expectations combined with personal warmth has been found to

be effective in promoting progress in children from economically diverse families,

Indigenous children and children with delays (Cronin, 2001; Manning & Baruth,

1995; Rabin & Ure, 2000). While this research evidence focused on separate

categories of diversity, a synthesis of studies in New Zealand on the effectiveness of

schools in improving the trajectories of a range of lower achieving students found

that teacher input is crucial (Hattie, 2003). This evidence focused on middle school

teachers, yet its finding that most of the variation in student achievement related to

teachers’ ability to offer appropriate challenge, their deep understanding of content,

and use of monitoring and feedback, has implications for the early years of school.

Jordan, Kircaali-Iftar and Diamond (1993) argued that teachers would be more

accepting of diversity in the classroom if they held preventative understandings that

assumed that different environments could affect achievement, rather than restorative

understandings of diversity that assumed that problems were located within the child.

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of children with disabilities have been found to

depend on not only the severity of the child’s disability but also teachers’

45


professional education and their underlying beliefs (Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996).

Surveys in child care, early education and schools have found that lack of

appropriate professional education impacted negatively on experienced teachers and

increased their reliance on support agencies and the work of teaching assistants

(Forlin et al., 1996; Kilgallon &Maloney, 2003; Mohay & Reid, 2006; Odom, 2000).

Effective school transition programs

Young children’s transition into school has been identified as a key experience

that sets the tone for their schooling, and its successful negotiation has been noted as

a crucial issue for children facing life challenges (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Margetts,

2003). Contemporary concepts of transition to school incorporate notions of

preparation of the school for children or modification of school practices to cater for

diverse learners, processes to smooth school entry and pedagogic continuity between

early childhood programs prior to school and in the early years of school (Briggs &

Potter, 1999; Emig, 2001; Fabian, 2002). This is particularly relevant to this thesis, in

which the lens shifts from the characteristics of the child, to the role of the school

and classroom in providing for the realities of diversity. Transition approaches are

discussed in Chapter 3.

46


Literature Review: Pedagogies of Transition to School 47

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW: PEDAGOGIES OF TRANSITION TO SCHOOL

This chapter will review three key areas of literature pertaining to transition to

school:

1. Readiness, preparedness and educational success factors.

2. Multiple constructions of transition.

3. Successful transition to school for diverse learners.

The chapter then synthesises these literatures in a forth section

4. Implications for research.

The scholarly literature reports on the re-evaluation of the construct of

children’s readiness for school and subsequent incorporation of the readiness of

schools (Graue, 2006) or the shared preparedness of schools, families and children

(Dockett & Perry, 2007). Yet there is evidence that, among teachers and parents,

notions of children’s readiness that place emphasis on children’s attainment of

minimum normative attainments prevail (Dockett & Perry, 2003). The normative

assumptions underpinning readiness, however, are inconsistent with current

educational policies of inclusion (Corbett & Slee, 2000). The focus has shifted in

European literature to a process of transition to school, conceptualised as a change

process, a set of introductory practices, continuity, relationship, or transition capital

(Dunlop, 2007; Petriwskyj, Thorpe & Tayler, 2005). Identifying school entry success

factors and explicitly engaging in questioning the meanings of ‘readiness’,

‘preparedness’ and ‘transition’ in practice may enable schools and families to offer

more effective early education of children with diverse abilities and cultures.

Readiness, Preparedness and Educational Success Factors

Readiness for school is a construct that embodies a focus on maturational

development in young children, and particularly social-emotional development, and

the learning of pre-academic skills such as print awareness (Dockett & Perry, 2002;

2007). Personal factors such as children’s gender, the age of school entry and family

economic and social background have been found to influence school adjustment and

achievement (Boardman, 2006; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinburg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002;

Burford & Stegelin, 2003; Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Smart et al., 2008; Zill, 1999). The

48

48 Literature Review: Pedagogies of Transition to School

limited academic progress and poor school adjustment of children from culturally

and linguistically diverse backgrounds and children from families who live in

poverty prompted policy attention to readiness, particularly in the USA. (Rimm-

Kaufmann, Pianta & Cox, 2000; Wesley & Buysse, 2003). The development of

compensatory programs such as Head Start in the USA (Allen & Cowdery, 2005),

Indigenous programs and Best Start in Australia (Department of Education and Early

Childhood Development, 2007; Glover, 1994) and Sure Start in the UK (Weiberger,

Pickstone & Hannon, 2005) represented efforts to ameliorate perceived educational

disadvantage in minority groups by providing school readiness programs.

However, readiness programs have been criticised for stigmatisation of

children in poverty and children from non-European ethnic backgrounds (Pianta &

Walsh 1996), for blaming children for non-normative progress or conduct (Gill,

Winters & Friedman, 2006; Wesley & Buysse, 2003) and for lack of impact on

sustained child achievement in the early years of school (Peisner-Feinburg, et al,

1999). If grade retention based on children’s lack of readiness involves a reliance on

additional maturation across time rather than more effective educational programs,

there is limited evidence on impact (Graue, Kroger & Brown, 2002) and it can be

harmful to children’s self-esteem (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). On the basis of

evidence from large-scale longitudinal research, follow-through school programs

have been developed in addition to the universal provision of kindergarten or

reception programs in some countries (Peisner-Feinburg, Burchinal, Clifford,

Yazejian, Culkin, Zelazo, Howes, Byler, Kagan, & Rustici, 1999; OECD, 2006). In a

large-scale Australian study adopting focus group interviews and questionnaires,

Dockett and Perry (2003), found that while teachers and parents continued to attend

to children’s readiness, children’s transition was also influenced by the preparedness

of schools and families. The reframing of readiness as shared preparedness shifts the

gaze from children to the quality of educational provision in both preschools and

schools, and to the responsiveness of educational programs to diverse abilities and

culture. This represents a key shift in focus.

Preschool success factors: Purpose, program quality, family engagement

The identified preschool success factors include a high quality ECEC program

(Burchinal, Peisner-Feinburg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish,

49


Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, Elliott & Marsh, 2004), an effective school transition

program (Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003) and family involvement (Neisel & Griebel,

2007). The definition of quality in a preschool program is, however, contested, as

traditional preschool play pedagogy has many forms including discovery play–based

learning, which has been found to be less well accepted as a teaching approach in

some cultural settings (Brooker, 2002; Sangavarapu, & Perry, 2005). In a

longitudinal study in the USA Schweinhart and Weikart (1998) found that the long

term outcomes for children from direct instruction preschool models were

considerably less favourable than those from discovery play-based models such as

traditional nursery school programs, while constructivist High Scope preschools in

which the locus of responsibility for learning was shared between children and

teachers were most favourable. In a set of case studies in kindergarten and Year 1 in

New Zealand, Peters (2000) found that teachers and parents saw higher levels of

structure in preschool pedagogy as supporting transition and subsequent school

success. However, in a survey of teachers and parents in an ECEC centre in

Australia, Lockwood and Fleet (1999) found that parents and teachers continued to

value ECEC programs that were less formal and academically oriented and more

holistic. Thus context is an important factor in defining quality.

In a large-scale study of kindergarten classrooms in the USA using time-

sampled observations of teacher-child interaction and observations of global

pedagogic dimensions, quality was found to involve positive affective climate, child-

centred learning, teacher-child instructional conversations and an emphasis of

language and literacy (Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox & Bradley, 2002). This study

found that, even controlling for family background, higher quality ratings and

improved child outcomes were associated with high staff numbers relative to child

enrolments, as this permitted more effective interactions. Similar findings were

reported by the large-scale Effective Pre-school and Primary Education EPPE study

in the UK that identified key quality elements as positive interactions, a balance of

adult-led and child-led activities, and sustained shared thinking (Sammons, et al.,

2004). This study of preschool provision, using standardised rating scales, showed

significant associations between higher quality programs and improved child

intellectual and behavioural outcomes. It identified a program impact in ameliorating

disadvantage in young children arising from gender, family background, and

50


linguistic background (Sammons, Smees, Taggart, Sylva, Melhuish, Siraj-Blatchford,

& Elliot, 2002). Teachers in an Australian survey-based study also reported that the

continuity offered by a full-day rather than a half-day kindergarten were

advantageous to children’s smooth school transition (Boardman, 2002). This finding

is supported by the outcome of a large-scale longitudinal study in the USA, in which

full-time kindergarten programs were associated with a reduction in the academic

achievement gap between children from families in poverty and other children

(Schroeder, 2007).

Family involvement has been identified as particularly important for children

experiencing difficulties during transition to school (Dockett & Perry, 2002).

Transition approaches that centre on a school entry as a single change event

emphasise orientation practices to introduce children and families to the new setting

(Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003), particularly for children with disabilities or those from

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Bruder & Chandler, 1995;

Podmore, Sauvao, & Mapa, 2003). Priming events such as classroom visits and

introductions to teachers have been found to support children’s sense of competence

(Corsaro & Molinari, 2000) and parent awareness of school expectations. Transition

for gifted children or children with limited English or disabilities may also involve a

process of diagnosis and categorisation to allow access to programs or provision of

additional resource (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Foreman, 2008). These assessment

processes may exacerbate child and family stress during transition (Hanson,

Beckman, Horn, Marquart et al., 2000).

School success factors: Continuity, responsiveness and differentiation

The readiness of schools for school entrant heterogeneity takes into account

extended transition programs, ongoing program quality and differentiation of

programs to provide for diversity (Graue, 2006). Effective transition programs go

beyond introductory practices in preschools to incorporate changes in the early years

of school that assist children to adjust (Brostrom, 2002; La Paro, Pianta & Cox,

2000; Peters, 2002; Ramey & Ramey, 1999). In an observational study in a single

European classroom, Brostrom (2005) found that extending the use of play-based

pedagogies such as guided drama play in the early school program was an effective

transitory activity bridging the two systems of preschool and school. However,

51


alternate evidence from studies of children with diverse abilities and culture in early

primary school education includes explicit teaching of social skills, thinking skills,

literacy and numeracy (Baumfield & Devlin, 2005; Elkins, 2005; Gerstein, Baker,

Haager & Graves, 2003; Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

Although Brostrom (2002) identified teachers’ attitudes towards school

transition activities as positive, he found that teachers did not necessarily see

curricular and pedagogic coordination between preschool and school as practical.

Some of the challenges posed for children during transition arise from differences

between settings, such as physical environments, academic tasks, and mixing with a

more diverse group of people (Richardson, 1997). Tayler (1999) argued that some of

the factors making children’s transition from preschool to school more difficult were

differences in affective environments, varying teacher expectation and discontinuities

in teaching style. Sawyer (2000) attributed these discontinuities in practice to

differences between academic transmission-based traditional school pedagogies and

transaction-based pedagogies central to early childhood approaches. This

pedagogical gap between early childhood and school education has its roots in the

divergence between infant school method and kindergarten approaches a century ago

(Mellor, 1990). The gap reflects a difference in understandings about the purpose of

early education, the image of the learner, locus of control or agency, and the role of

the teacher (Hopps, 2004). Differences in approach to transition also reflect

variations in the meaning attributed to school transition by stakeholders, including

the teachers in prior-to-school and school settings (Timperley, McNaughton, Howie,

& Robinson, 2003).

The on-going quality of educational provision in the early years of school

contributes to children’s sustained progress (Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, Siraj-

Blatchford, Taggart, Barreau, & Grabbe, 2008). In the EPPE 3-11 longitudinal study

in the UK involving structured classroom observation, effective primary school

experience, involving both quality classroom practice and school-level factors such

as leadership, made a significant difference to children’s academic and behavioural

progress after controlling for family background factors. In addition, attendance at an

academically effective primary school was found to be particularly important for

children who had attended either no, or a lower quality preschool. This study found

that better child outcomes were associated with primary school teaching quality

52


involving greater teacher sensitivity and involvement, rich teaching strategies, a

positive and orderly classroom climate, student agency and clear evaluative

feedback.

Differentiation of programs to accommodate diversity in school classes has

also been found to enhance the learning of children with disabilities or delays and

gifted children (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Carrington, 2007). In case studies of

children with cognitive disability conducted in New Zealand, the inclusive responses

of teachers following entry to school were found to have a significant impact on

adjustment and continued learning (Reitveld, 2008; 2005). Further, the connection of

classroom learning to children’s background of experiences has been found to

address discontinuities hampering the learning of children from economically,

socially and culturally diverse backgrounds (Brooker, 2002; Comber & Kamler,

2005).

Multiple Constructions of Transition

The construct of children’s readiness for school has been increasingly

challenged as a viable approach to the successful educational transition of young

children, particularly those with diverse abilities and culture (Ramey & Ramey,

1999). Clarification of the various constructions of transition to school becomes

essential. Kagan and Neuman (1998) pointed out that after decades of research into

school transition, there has been limited progress made in children’s achievement.

This failure to see improvement in transition processes challenges teachers to

consider the multiple perspectives involved and to consider the process as more

complex than that indicated by a focus on school readiness. Analysis of the

conceptualisations of transition by Petriwskyj, Thorpe and Tayler (2005) indicated an

emphasis on either expectations of homogeneity in school entrants (e.g., children’s

readiness for school, structural factors such as children’s age of entry) or recognition

of heterogeneity (e.g., readiness of the school for children, match between family and

school). It also indicated a focus on child, family and community responsibility for

children’s successful transition to school (e.g., child development and multi-

dimensional ecological approaches), on school responsibility (structural factors and

teaching approaches) or shared responsibility.

53


Ramey and Ramey (1999) defined transition to school as an on-going process

of mutual adaptation by children, families and schools to facilitate children moving

successfully from home and early childhood education and care settings into the

early years of school. There are varied constructions of what this means in practice

and, consequently, a range of investigation strategies have been employed in research

examining transition. The key differences in construction appear to be in the time-

frame for transition, the level of shared responsibility and the focus on vertical (i.e.,

year to year) or both vertical and horizontal (i.e., within a day or week) transitions.

However, over time there is an evident trend over time towards more complex

understandings of the transition process (Petriwskyj, et al., 2005). Across

international studies, regional differences in conceptualisation of transition have been

identified, with some inter-connection between the separate constructs readiness for

school and transition to school in literature from Australia and the USA, as indicated

in the following sections. The investigation strategies range from large–scale

longitudinal studies to small-scale case studies, depending on the question, the scope

of the investigation, and the researcher theory frame.

Transition as a set of teacher and school practices

Initial interest in school readiness and initial adjustment supported a focus on

practices teachers undertook within a limited time frame at the end of a preschool

year or around the beginning of a school year. These identified strategies that

assisted children and families in developing familiarity with the new school context

(Clyde, 1991; Margetts, 2000; O’Brien, 1991). While those involved were special

education teachers, early childhood education and care ECEC staff in prior-to-school

settings and junior primary or early elementary teachers, the major responsibility

appeared to be taken by the “sending” setting (e.g., preschool) and less by the

“receiving” setting (e.g., school) (Hanson, et al., 2000). The emphasis was on

introducing families to the school, transferring information about children and

orienting children to the physical facilities (Brewer, 1995; Bruder & Chandler, 1995;

Patterson & Fleet, 1999)

Adaptations of a survey in the USA by Pianta, Cox, Taylor and Early (1999)

have been used in other countries to examine teachers’ use of transition practices

introducing children to school (Brostrom, 2002; Einarsdottir, 2003; Perry, 2000). The

54


key components of school introductory practices identified across jurisdictions were

family-school interviews to share information, family induction meetings, and

orientation visits to school by preschool children. Yet there was considerable

variability in the application of these practices (Brostrom, 2002; Einaisdottir, 2003;

Kagan & Neuman, 1998; Perry, 2000). La Paro and colleagues (2000) found in the

USA that sharing of information between ECEC and kindergarten teachers through

meetings, transfer of children’s assessment records and other forms of

communication about individuals and curriculum, was used less frequently than

parent-child orientation programs, perhaps because the teachers work in different

systems. They also found that connectedness and communication were still limited

between kindergarten and first grade teachers within a system, but that such links

were more frequent than transition practices involving parents at entry to first grade.

In a Scottish study that used interview methodology, primary teachers were found to

make limited use of written information from the preschool teachers about children,

and reported that they felt pressured to move children into the pre-set curriculum

rapidly (Cassidy, 2005). Timperley, et al., (2003) found that differences in the beliefs

of preschool and primary teachers in Australia regarding school transition practices

impacted on consistency of expectations of children. They called for improved

negotiation of effective transition arrangements to create continuity.

The use of transition practices for children continues to be advocated because

they have been found to be valuable for adjustment between home-school or ECEC

and school (Dockett & Perry, 2003; Fabian, 2002; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003).

However, more recent considerations of teacher practices have incorporated wider

communication linkages between families, schools and ECEC services to share

information on children’s characteristics and learning experiences. However, unequal

family-school power relationships may require re-consideration if such

communication is to be effective in supporting children (Talay-Ongan, 2004).

Transition as a time-limited change event

The construction of transition to school as a single time-change event is most

evident in literature that focuses on initial adjustment to the school context, and on

practices that could improve preparedness or adjustment (Sims & Hutchins, 1999).

The transition literature in this category focuses on entry to preparatory classes with

55


less emphasis on entry into the first primary class, based on an assumption that the

most significant changes occurred between home/preschool/child care and school

entry (Love, 1992; Richardson, 1997; Van den Oord & Rossem, 2002; Westcott,

Perry, Jones & Dockett, 2003).

The concept of preparedness for school transition has arisen out of earlier ideas

regarding readiness of children, where school-like preparatory programs are

implemented as a response to concern about equality of opportunity for immigrants

and the socially disadvantaged (Bowman, 1999; Neuman, 2001; Zill, 1999). Dockett

and Perry (2003) provide an alternate definition of preparedness as an interactional

construct in nature that is specific to context. They indicate that preparedness refers

to the preparation of schools for the families and children in their communities as

well as of families and children for school. However, it is not clear whether

preparedness is, in fact, a new construct or merely a more palatable form of

traditional school readiness with its implied expectations of homogeneity among

school entrants. This is worthy of investigation. Dockett and Perry (2003) and

Hopps (2004) found evidence of such constructions in the minds of teachers and

parents. Cuskelly and Detering (2003) found that preschool teachers and pre-service

student teachers continued to support readiness constructs and delayed school entry,

but it is unclear whether the apparent persistence of readiness was connected to

perceptions of school systems as inflexible or to deeply held beliefs about child

development and the nature of schooling.

Studies on adjustment to school in Australia, New Zealand and Europe have

focused on social and emotional aspects of children’s development (Keinig, 2002;

Margetts, 2000; Patterson & Fleet, 1999; Peters, 2000). Skinner et al., (1998)

indicated that teachers tended to construct the behaviour of non-prototypical children

(e.g., lower socio-economic status, minority cultures, delayed development) as

challenging and respond with frequent and firm discipline strategies. As a

consequence, these children were found to experience unhappiness and lowered self-

esteem. This is supported by evidence from an Australian strudy that parent-reported

unhappiness in children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

increased during the first year of school (Thorpe, et al., 2004). The contribution of

social relations in the classroom and the playground, including teacher-child

relationships, peer relations and the development of friendships, appears to be vital

56


not only to social-emotional adjustment but also to academic achievement (Belsky &

McKinnon, 1994; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Cronin & Diezmann, 2002; Smith, 2002; Van

den Oord, 2002). Corsaro and Molinari (2003) identified priming events or school

orientation practices and children’s friendships as important to adjustment, yet

Ledger, Smith and Rich (2000) found that friendships did not necessarily make

school transition easier.

To assess the period of time constructed as a transition adjustment period, the

literature was analysed using the duration of transition studied as the measure.

Transition for children entering school across the 75 papers from 1990 to 2004 was

found to range from just the first days of school attendance (Clyde, 1991; Ramey &

Ramey, 1998) to a period of two to three years (Keinig, 2002; Peisner-Feinburg,

Burchinal, Clifford, Yazejian, Culkin, Zelazo, Howes, Byler, Kagan, & Rustici,

1999; Raban & Ure, 2000). A short time frame of days or months was common in

Australian literature and suggests a heavy investment in definitions of transition as a

single change event with a focus on preparatory practices and child adjustment

indicators (Margetts, 2000; Perry & Dockett, 1999; Richardson, 1997; Sims &

Hutchins, 1999). In literature where a longer adjustment period appears, the change

of frame from transition as a single change event to transition as a longer process of

continuity was signified (Fabian, 2002; Peters, 2002; Peisner-Feinburg, et al., 1999;

Pianta & Cox, 1999; Raban & Ure, 2000). Broader constructions of transition to

school involving extended time frames, social as well as academic indicators of

success, and interactions between children, families and schools have shifted the

focus from children’s maturation and skills at school entry to more complex

interweaving of facets of transition and to the role of the school. However, the role of

schools in offering continuity across school transition is not well explored.

Transition as continuity of experience

Transition to school as a continuity issue has been framed in three different

ways – communication linkages, coherence of experience and system coherence -

and the effect of each of these on child progress considered (Tayler, 1999; Newman,

1996). Some level of discontinuity between prior-to-school and primary school

contexts offers children excitement and challenge, particularly if children are gifted

(Brostrom, 2002; Porter, 2005). However, extremes of discontinuity in children’s

57


learning experience may reduce their self-esteem and motivation (Tayler, 1999). The

negative impact of excessive discontinuity on young children in the early years of

school has been the subject of attention for children from non-mainstream socio-

economic and cultural groups (Brooker, 2002; Glover, 1994; Raban & Ure, 2000)

and children with disabilities (Newman, 1996), but has wider relevance.

Communication links between the home and school and between the child’s

previous ECEC service and the school offer opportunities to share professional

information between teachers, share understandings between all adults close to the

individual child, develop increasing trust and cooperation, and negotiate differences

of perspective (Kakvoulis, 1994; Lombardi, 1992). Mangione and Speth (1998)

suggested that children require support through both vertical and horizontal

continuity: that is, service linkages across time such as preschool into school, and

connections between homes, school and community services at any given time.

Tayler (1999) and Hopps (2004) proposed development of these links, particularly

between home and school, in order to provide a more supportive environment for

children, and improved coherence of children’s experience in curriculum, pedagogy

and culture.

Pedagogical and curricular discontinuity for children moving from ECEC

services to school, and/or significant discontinuity between home and school

experience has been foregrounded in recent Australasian and European studies

(Chun, 2003; Fabian, 2002; Margetts, 2002; Neuman, 2001). Initially this interest

concentrated on alignment of curriculum between services (Allingham, 2002;

Barbour & Seefeldt, 1993), and resulted in some top-down changes in the preschool

sector that have been the subject of criticism on the grounds of developmental

inappropriateness and limited evidence of success (Neuman, 2001). An emerging

focus on pedagogy has resulted in more concern for coherence between school

approaches and family interaction patterns, and between the play pedagogies of

ECEC and more didactic, outcomes-based pedagogies of the school (Skinner et al,

1998; Tayler, 1999; Yeom, 1998). Incorporation of play pedagogies and negotiated

curriculum in the early years of school has been found to support children’s

engagement in learning (Brostrom, 2005). However, in a study in USA public

schools, evidence of early years teacher resistance to pressure for more didactic

pedagogies was offset by lack of wider support for play pedagogies within the

58


schools (Erwin & Delair, 2004). This indicates the need to clarify effective

enactment of play pedagogies in a kindergarten and school context, since early years

curricula such as the Queensland Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland

Studies Authority, 2006), the British Foundation Stage curriculum (OECD, 2006)

the Norwegian Framework Plan (OECD, 2006) and the New Zealand Te Whariki

curriculum (Ritchie, 1996) incorporate play pedagogies.

Continuity includes both vertical continuity (e.g., from preschool to school)

and horizontal continuity or links between home and community and the school

(Doucet & Trudge, 2007). Cultural coherence and continuity of experience for

families and children are features of recent studies on early childhood transitions for

cultural minorities, with a particular focus on partnership with families and language

continuity (McCrae et al., 2000; Podmore, et al., 2002; Sauvao et al., 2000; Sy,

2003). Fasoli (2001) found that continuity for Indigenous children involved

movement between communities of practice, and that effective transition required

both the valuing of what children bring with them and the efforts by teachers to

induct children into the community of practice of the school. Continuity of

experience for children and families who have been utilising early special education

services has also gained increasing attention as inclusive policies have been

implemented (Brewer, 1995; Newman, 1996). The change in culture and

expectations between specialist and mainstream services, and between services and

the home have been aspects of discontinuity which have increased the challenge of

children with disabilities entering general education services (Bruder & Chandler,

1995). Fowler and Ostrosky (1994) criticised the fragmentation of services for these

children and families on the basis of their finding that it exacerbates discontinuity for

children and families facing a confusing variety of processes and uncoordinated

services and approaches.

The need for increased structural or system coherence for all children and

families, not just those with cultural or developmental concerns, has been raised in

response to the lack of continuity of processes, policies, expectations and quality

between the varieties of systems (Kagan & Neuman, 1998). Early childhood

programs focussing on transition and continuity have emerged in USA from diverse

agencies under varying jurisdictions and with different mandates. The situation in

some OECD countries, however, is more coordinated and systematically planned to

59


ensure higher levels of system coherence for families and children (Neuman, 2001).

School re-structuring was suggested by Bauch (1993) as an avenue for improving

continuity or coherence of experience for children and families, and he

recommended consideration of the concept of a school with a central community

role.

Some approaches to developing system integration within a limited geographic

area as a means of smoothing transition appear to contain an underlying assumption

about family stability which may not be warranted in times of increasing family

geographic mobility (Henderson, 2004; Peters, 2002). This concern has been

mirrored in political comments in relation to Australia-wide education system and

national curriculum and assessment procedures, rather than the current state level

processes. Whether or not national system coordination becomes a reality,

enhancement of continuity within schools or within local communities warrants

further investigation as a factor affecting the transition of children into school.

Transition as multi-layer multi-year process

Recent literature from Europe frames transition into school as a period

extending beyond a single change event from six months to two years (Brooker,

2002; Fabian, 2002; Griebel & Niesel, 2002; Keinig, 2002) while some USA

literature has considered the first two to three years of school and the preceding

preschool years (Kagan & Neuman, 1998; Mangione & Speth, 1998; Pianta & Cox,

1999; Peisner-Feinburg et al., 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1999).This longer frame of

reference may have its foundation in the American experience of differences between

short term effects on school adjustment and achievement and longer term life

outcomes in programs such as Headstart : that is, the difference between initial

adjustment and developmental trajectory (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Kagan &

Neuman, 1998; La Paro et al, 2000).

The reframing of school transition as a multi year experience appears to have

emerged alongside conceptualisation of transition as a more complex and multi-

faceted process engaging a range of stakeholders (Burchinal et al, 2002; Pianta &

Kraft-Sayre, 2003; Neuman, 2001; Rimm-Kaufmann, 2000; Yeboah, 2002). Recent

models of transition share an ecological frame of reference that considers the

relationships of factors in the child and family, the community, the school and ECEC

60


services (Fabian, 2002; Ladd, 1996; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003; Ramey & Ramey,

1999; Rimm-Kaufmann & Pianta, 2000). This reconceptualisation of transition as

both multi-year and multi-faceted is evident in broader investigations of the

developmental trajectories of groups defined as high-risk in the USA. The

investigations have focused well beyond the earlier readiness issue into a variety of

ameliorating effects on potential educational disadvantage including quality ECEC

programs for young children prior to school entry (Burchinal et al., 2002).

A typical construction of transition in the literature relates to vertical

transitions: that is, transitions across time and between education levels (e.g.,

preschool, preparatory and the first grade of school). The core focus, particularly for

children with perceived environmental or developmental disadvantage, has been on

moving into preparatory classes from home or ECEC services such as preschools

(Dockett & Perry, 2001; Pianta & Cox, 1999). Although the majority of countries in

the review of 75 papers (Petriwskyj et al., 2005), appear to have some form of

preparatory class, the ages at which this major change in context occurs is extremely

varied, ranging from four years of age in the UK to six or seven years of age in parts

of Scandinavia, making comparisons difficult (Fabian, 2002). The transition into first

grade of school from the preparatory class has been given relatively little attention,

despite the major shift in expectations that also accompanies this change in context

(Entwisle & Alexander,1998; La Paro, et al. 2000). Fabian (2002) identified the

increasing prominence of another form of transition: transfers between schools for

children of transient or geographically mobile families (e.g., refugees, immigrants,

families in breakdown, employment transferees) that sometimes involves a major

change in school system and curriculum. Children from transient or geographically

mobile families have been found to face extra transitions across a school year as they

adjust to changed family accommodation, peer relationships, classrooms and often

different curricula (Henderson 2004; Pianta & Walsh, 1996).

In addition to vertical transitions, young children undertake horizontal

transitions: that is, across one point in time such as within one day or week

(Johansson, 2007; Kagan & Neuman, 1998). Horizontal transitions within the school

pose significant challenges for many children as they are superimposed on other

transitions in children’s family lives and on vertical transitions (e.g., preparatory into

first grade, or school to outside-school-hours care) occurring simultaneously

61


(Johansson, 2007; Neuman, 2001). Abrupt changes of task within the classroom,

without consideration for individual task completion times or interests, pose a

challenge for children’s self-regulation and sense of empowerment (Briggs & Potter,

1999). Additional transition challenges for children with disabilities or learning

difficulties – between mainstream and specialist services, and in-class transitions

between therapy and classroom activity, have been found to compound stress, yet

parents valued access to specialist services (Bruder & Chandler, 1995; Flewitt &

Nind, 2007; Wolery, 1999).

High levels of horizontal transition or excessive division of learning areas or of

time blocks in the school day created particular challenges for children with non-

prototypical development, social disadvantage or non-mainstream cultural

experience (Skinner, et al., 1998). Service over-differentiation and lack of

coordination of services have been found to exacerbate difficulties for these children

and their families because of uncertainty about processes and the effort required for

accessing appropriate supports (Fowler & Ostrosky, 1994). Bauch (1993)

recommended consideration of more integrated services centred around schools,

which may be particularly relevant for geographically mobile families or families

with limited social support networks, but more integrated services within schools

also appear to warrant consideration. There is limited evidence of how horizontal

transitions are used within schools or the impact of horizontal and vertical transitions

on children in the early years of school. This thesis specifically examines this form of

pedagogical practice across the transition from preparatory to Year 2.

Relationship and transition capital

Recent changes in the construction of transition have occurred in Europe,

focused on relationships (Neisel & Griebel, 2007) and on transition capital and

resilience (Dunlop, 2007). The increasing heterogeneity of school entrants and

changing family expectations requires a different approach to transition to school that

involves co-construction of transition through respectful negotiation amongst

stakeholders (Neisel & Griebel, 2007). Partnership approaches that incorporate

awareness of diversity and mutual clarification of understandings maintain children’s

sense of security and enhance continuity of learning (McNaughton, 2001). The

relationships theme is reflected in a large-scale Australian study in which teacher

62


interactions with children, with families and with communities, and between settings

are highlighted (Dockett & Perry, 2007). Transition to school may be smoothed

through support for children who confront unfamiliar teacher demands or

authoritarian interaction styles, and through consideration of their friendships

(Dockett & Perry, 2007). Bi-directional family-teacher communication has been

found to sustain continuity and act as a buffer as children commence school (Pianta

& Kraft-Sayre, 2003). However, across the school transition there is evident decline

in home-school contact, particularly for children from low socio-economic

circumstances (Fantuzzo, Tighe & Childs, 2000; Rimm-Kaufmann & Pianta, 1999).

Although continuity has sometimes been linked to the frequency of contact between

teachers in preschool and school settings (Peters, 2002), Timperley and colleagues

(2003) found that it was the nature of the interactions, rather than the frequency of

contact, that was the crucial element. This is important, given the logistical

difficulties involved in bringing staff from various settings together (Peters, 2002).

Attention also needs to be given to the broad relationships context, including

community involvement in transition processes, parents’ social networking (e.g., at

the school gate) and interactions with other stakeholders such as the staff in outside-

school-hours-care programs, preschools, childcare or community agencies (Dockett

& Perry, 2007; Pianta, Kraft-Sayre, Rimm-Kaufmann, Gercke & Higgins, 2001).

The recent argument for enhancement of transition capital (Dunlop, 2007)

builds on contemporary notions of respect for the resources children and families

bring to school, and the need for children to develop resilience in facing life

challenges. In Scottish case studies of children moving between nursery and Primary

1, some children were found to “dip” (p. 10) or have lower achievement scores in the

first six months of primary school education if there was marked discontinuity

between the pedagogies and teacher expectations in nursery and primary (Dunlop.

2004). There were, however, individual differences with the more resilient children

making more sustained progress. This approach to transition is not yet well

developed in the literature, and research on its enactment in education settings is

needed. The focus on relationships and transition capital is particularly relevant to

the school transition of Indigenous children, whose wider family relationships and

life skills need to be celebrated and valued by the school (Dockett, Mason & Perry,

2006). Dockett and colleagues (2006) found that establishment of respectful,

63


reciprocal community-family-school connections should be given priority, and noted

that grandparents and other extended family members may be involved, rather than

just parents of Indigenous children. They noted that standard readiness assessments

and a focus on language and literacy differences as deficits reinforced low

expectations, instead of recognising the strengths and capacities of Indigenous

children and families.

Successful Transition to School for Diverse Learners

Defining successful transition

The redefinition of school transition has given rise to changes in the way

successful transition is determined, particularly in relation to children with diverse

abilities and cultural experience. Success at school entry was initially deemed to be

dependent on school readiness, which was a maturational characteristic of the

individual child (Dockett & Perry, 2002). As the construct of transition to school

evolved, success centred on social and emotional adjustment and acquisition of skills

directed at normative academic achievement. This approach retained notions of

school readiness and assumptions about the homogeneity of school classes. Adaptive

transition has been defined as positive relationships with teachers and peers, teacher

reports of social skills at school, and few reported problem behaviours (McIntyre,

2003). Fields (1997) and Margetts (2000) found that success might simply have

meant abiding by classroom rules or behaving in ways that were valued by teachers.

Although Skinner and colleagues (1998) criticised this viewpoint, adjustment to rules

and the classroom culture remains an enduring theme in Australia and USA (Burford

& Stegelin, 2003; Perry et al., 2000; Weihen, 2002). However, in the context of

inclusion, Reitveld (2008) defined successful inclusion as “being treated as an equal,

valued and contributing member of the centre, class and school, and participation in

the full range of culturally-valued roles in that setting” (p. 2). Hence, academic and

developmental, as well as social and emotional, outcomes are identified as important

aspects of successful transition (Reitveld, 2005).

Increased recognition of the complexity of transition may be an underlying

factor in the consideration of combined child, family and school attributes and

interactions, and more varied child qualities such as disposition towards learning and

64


resilience in the face of challenge (Fabian, 2002; Perry et al., 2000). Such change

may have occurred through recognition of the differences between initial adjustment

success at school entry, medium-term fading of advantage and longer term

improvement in broader life outcomes such as increased employment and avoidance

of incarceration (Kagan & Neuman, 1998). Recognition of the impact of early

childhood experiences in later life is reflected also in pursuits to define positive

developmental trajectories for non-prototypical children (Burchinal et al., 2002;

Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; La Paro et al., 2000; Peisner-Feinburg at al., 1999;

Skinner et al., 1998).

Enhancing the success of transitions for diverse learners

Pressure for readiness, or homogeneity in school entry behaviours and skills, is

linked with two transition conceptualisations – transition as prior-to-school practices

and as a single time change event with a short transition time-frame. Readiness

embodies a definition of success that emphasises rapid adjustment and normative

achievement, and the introduction of measures such as raising the school entry age or

establishing preparatory grades (O.E.C.D., 2006), improving home-school or ECEC-

school linkages (Tayler, 1999) or establishing sets of transition procedures (Pianta &

Kraft-Sayre, 2003). Where transition has been constructed as child readiness there

has been an increase in pressure for preschools and other prior-to-school ECEC

services to adopt more structured academically-focused approaches that prepare

children for the classroom (Richardson, 1997). Yet Patterson and Fleet (1999) found

parent resistance to narrowing of the curriculum. The academic effectiveness and

impact on child self-esteem of structural changes such as grade retention or the

provision of additional transition grades have been questioned (Carlton &Winsler,

1999; O’Brien, 1991). The lack of empirical support for these practices is noted

(Carlton & Winsler, 1999). The school entry assessment used in the UK may be a

screening process related to readiness constructs or a broader effort to cater

effectively for diverse social and cultural groups.

In several countries in Europe, Neuman (2001) argues that transition is

constructed as an avenue for equality of opportunity through universal access to

ECEC programs that can familiarise children of new immigrants with local language,

culture and school structures. However, in Scandinavian countries and parts of Italy

65


where early childhood is a life phase with its own value and purpose, rather than a

period of school preparation, ECEC programs have a high level of resource and

access and a broad social orientation. Formal schooling begins later, mutually

respectful collaboration between sectors is emphasised and continuity is a central

concept (Neuman, 2001). Whether this simply reflects differing images of childhood,

or is one of differential responses to equity for economically or culturally

marginalised groups, is unclear. Effective support during transition is grounded in

longer-term constructions of the transition period: a multi-year process impacting on

developmental trajectory and acceptance of the school’s role in accommodating

entrant heterogeneity and working in partnership with the community (Entwisle &

Alexander, 1998; Fabian, 2002; Peisner-Feinburg et al., 1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999;

Raban & Ure, 2000).

The complexities of achieving continuity where there are significant cultural

differences are noted for New Zealand and Pacific Island families (Podmore, et al.,

2003; Sauvao et al., 2000) but these may relate to broader issues of home-school and

ECEC-school power relations. While there is potential for increased system

coherence to assist partnership and continuity between educational sectors, mutual

respect and a focus on equity may be key factors. Neuman (2001) asserts that in

areas where curricular integration and joint ECEC-school staff professional

preparation exist (e.g., UK, Netherlands) specific aspects of early childhood

educational philosophy and approach have been lost. However, efforts towards

curricular integration continue to be made in some areas of Europe and Australia

(Neuman, 2001) as a means of bridging ECEC and school.

In addition to the transition experiences shared by all children, some children

and families have additional circumstances that need to be considered by teachers.

Families of gifted children (Braggett & Bailey, 2005) and of children with

disabilities (Bruder & Chandler, 1995) may require support through the stressful

process of diagnosis and negotiation regarding responsive programs (Porter, 2005) or

on-going access to therapeutic services or family support programs (North &

Carruthers, 2008). Children who have not attended programs prior to school, or

whose attendance has been interrupted (e.g., Indigenous children) may experience

separation anxiety and other signs of stress unless there is ongoing close contact

between staff and families (Allen & Cowdery, 2009; Dockett, Mason & Perry, 2006).

66


Itinerant or geographically mobile children, and children whose early childhood

program differs in style from that of the school may experience significant

discontinuity unless the receiving school attends to their prior program experience

and progress (Brooker, 2002; Henderson, 2004).

In this study, which is set in Queensland (Australia), extant policies on

transition relate to acceleration of school entry for gifted children or delayed entry

for children with disabilities (Education Queensland, 2007b; 2008). School transition

is defined only within the guidelines for children with high support needs:

Transition from one program to another is a process, not a single event. The

speed and ease of adjustment for all concerned is facilitated through careful

planning and preparation. The establishment of a coordinated, systematic

and timely process to guide transition to school is a key priority. Successful

transitions are the key to supporting continuity of learning. As with children

entering the early years of school, explicit links are made to the teaching and

learning practices employed in settings prior to Prep to ensure smooth

transitions. Successful transition processes are flexible and responsive to the

changing needs and interests of participants. It is important for parents and

caregivers to know that their ideas, views and needs are valued, respected

and taken into account when planning transition processes. (Education

Queensland, 2007b, pp. 7-8)

The location and wording indicate a continuing focus on risk and deficit,

combined with a multi-faceted view of transition. Evidence of how this policy is

enacted in the practice is required and is the focus of this thesis.

Implications for Research

As expectations of homogeneity among school entrants have begun to give

way to the reality of heterogeneity in young children commencing formal education,

the focus of school transition has shifted. The literature evidences a movement from

a focus on single issues such as child readiness or transition practices at single-time

change events, towards more complex, multifaceted constructions of transition. The

time frames for school transition have extended from commencing weeks to several

years including preschool or childcare, preparatory (kindergarten, reception) classes

and junior primary grades. Definitions of successful transitions currently favour

67


study of longer-term trajectories over initial orientation and school adjustment. The

current emphasis on continuity of experience for children and families raises broader

questions related to the coherence of curriculum, pedagogy and service systems, and

of authentic partnerships between families and educational institutions, and within

systems. However, evidence of successful approaches in an Australian context is

limited. International evidence cannot be applied without questioning context. Recent

approaches to school transition that have highlighted relationships, including family

and community relationships and transition capital, have the potential for achieving

effective transitions for children with diverse abilities and culture. Yet evidence of

their application is required.

Entwisle and Alexander (1998) called for further descriptive research on

transitions, into preparatory classes but also first grade, on the grounds that small

differences in children’s adjustment and achievement make a difference: that is, they

impact significantly on trajectory. Hattie’s (2003) research with expert teachers

suggests that the quality of teacher interactions and understanding is worthy of

further investigation. The finding by Timperley and colleagues (2003) of

discontinuities between early childhood and primary teacher perceptions and

approaches, based on differing beliefs, raises questions about what quality teaching

across transition to school means in an Australian context. Beliefs linked to

categories of diversity may be particularly relevant, yet research in this area appears

to be confined to inclusion of children with specific disabilities, rather than a broader

diversity of learners that is represented in current definitions of diverse learners

(Nind & Cochrane, 2002).

The impact of school contexts (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998), particularly

school and classroom environment, climate and organisation on effective transition is

unclear because learning environment research has concentrated on older children.

The place of learning environments and psychosocial climate in successful

transitions appear to merit further investigation (Freiberg & Stein, 1999; Holloway,

2003; Pollard-Durodola, 2003). The impact of changes in program environment as

children move through the early years requires clarification, particularly in relation to

children’s resilience. Policies on inclusion challenge teachers who may have negative

attitudes towards inclusion, limited professional preparation on diversity and

restricted access to support services (Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996; Kilgallon &

68


Maloney, 2003; Mohay & Reid, 2006). The ways in which historical emphases such

as using categorical divisions as a basis for the provision of support services, and

withdrawal or pull-out services, affect the enactment of contemporary inclusive

policies is unclear, and merits further study. This study aims to address some of the

identified gaps in the literature through a focus on school and pedagogical practice

across the transition from preparatory to Year 2.

SECTION 2: THEORETICAL POSITIONS ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION 69

SECTION 2: THEORETICAL POSITIONS ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION

Chapter 4: Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years

Chapter 5: Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early childhood programs

(Paper 1)

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood (accepted with revision)

Chapter 6: Transition to School

Chapter 7: Trends in construction of transition to school in three Western regions

1990-2004 (Paper 2)

International Journal of Early Years Education, 15 (1), 55-69. (2005).

70

70 SECTION 2: THEORETICAL POSITIONS ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION

Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years 71

CHAPTER 4: DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE EARLY YEARS

The multiple meanings that exist for inclusion create a challenging context for

the investigation of teachers’ understandings and for the effective communication of

evidence. One apparent challenge is the absence of a body of literature specific to the

early childhood period that takes into account both early childhood education and

care (ECEC) prior-to-school and early childhood education in the first years of

school. A second challenge lies in the separation of literature on inclusion such that it

considers only diversity sub-sets such as disability, giftedness, cultural and linguistic

diversity and Indigeneity, and not the range of diversity encountered together in a

classroom. The third challenge lies in the absence of Australian early childhood

literature that addresses the construct of diversity of learners. Although literature on

inclusion in school education incorporates discussion of diverse learners, it is not

specific to the contexts of early years education in Australia.

Paper 1 – Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early childhood

programs, addresses these issues by drawing together the literature, taking an

expanded focus on diverse learners to include disability, giftedness, cultural and

linguistic diversity and Indigeneity, in the context of early childhood in Australia.

The paper addresses, both prior-to-school settings and the early years of school. It

sets a frame within which shared meanings of diversity and inclusion can be

negotiated, and their implications across Australian early childhood contexts can be

discussed.

Challenges in Defining Diversity and Inclusion

This paper synthesises and organises disparate bodies of literature to establish

some shared language and concepts about diversity and inclusion across the early

childhood sector. It reports on the Australian historical literature on diversity and

inclusion in early childhood for children birth to eight years, across diversity groups

in order to provide a frame for the empirical study of inclusive transition between

ECEC and school settings (Section 3).

72

72 Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years

Meanings of inclusion

The three levels of inclusion identified by Corbett and Slee (2001) share some

features with the historical phases of progression from segregation or assimilation of

children with disabilities and cultural minority groups towards contemporary

understandings and practices of inclusion. Surface-level inclusion led by policy

appears similar to mainstreaming, based in notions of assimilation and requirements

for children to be ready to fit into general early years classrooms (Allen & Cowdery,

2005). Second level inclusion focused on changes to environments and curricula

refers to integration practices, with the associated accommodations for disability

(Allen & Cowdery, 2005) and tokenistic cultural modifications (Robles de Melendes

& Beck, 2007).

Deep level inclusion emphasises acceptance and valuing of diversity, a recent

position that incorporates curricular and pedagogic differentiation to support all

children’s sense of belonging within a community of learners (Carrington, 2007).

This type of inclusion goes well beyond the earlier emphasis on disability to consider

a range of diverse learners. It has been argued that a narrower focus on single

diversity categories, such as disability, represented a barrier to deep level inclusion

(Ng, 2005). This position is not universally accepted. It has been the subject of

dispute from disability advocates on the grounds of its potential to reduce attention

and funding to specialised services (Kavale & Forness, 2000). A recent text on

inclusion in the early years addresses segregated special education as well as general

education indicating a composite view of inclusion that seeks to retain emphasis on

disability (Jones, 2005).

Separate literature on diversity sub-groups

Australian inclusion literature considers a range of diversity categories such as

cultural and linguistic diversity (Vuckovic 2008), gender, (Nyland, 2003),

Indigeneity (Frigo & Adams, 2002), giftedness (Porter, 1999), economic and social

diversity (Raban 2002), disability and learning difficulty (Carrington, 2007), rural

isolation (Hatton, 1994), geographic mobility (Henderson, 2004), chronic illness

(Ashton & Bailey, 2004), child abuse and neglect (Briggs & Potter, 1999) and

refugee status (Sims, Hayden, Palmer & Hutchins 2000). However, the early

73


childhood literature does not attend to the provisions for the diversity of the

population that these groups comprise. Further, all categories are not necessarily

incorporated in definitions of diversity and inclusion. Indeed, in their discussions of

diversity, Brooker (2002) focuses on cultural diversity alone, while Foreman (2008)

specifically excludes giftedness on the grounds that children with gifts have not been

denied school access.

Although inclusion literature has until recently focused almost entirely on

disability, contemporary notions of inclusion necessitate a broader discussion taking

into account a wider range of diversity sub-groups. Evidence of this broader

consideration is demonstrated in recent inclusion literature for schools in Australia

(e.g. Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007; Ashman & Elkins, 2008) and international

literature in early childhood (OECD, 2006). Generally, this literature purports

democratic values that affirm the worth of all individuals and focuses on the

individual experience of diversity by using terms such as exceptional children (Allen

& Cowdery, 2005), diverse ability (Ashman & Elkins, 2005) or diverse learners

(Price, 2007). Literature emphasising the educational responsibility of schools to

cater to diversity uses alternate terms such as learners in diverse classrooms

(Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007) or diverse learning rights (OECD, 2006).

However, early childhood literature in Australia primarily focuses on specific sub-

groups (Ashton & Bailey, 2004; Porter, 2005; Sims et al., 2000; Vuckovic, 2008) and

has not yet adopted the broader constructs of diversity in the classroom and diverse

learners.

ECEC prior to school and the early years of school

Literature on inclusion typically separates the discussion of ECEC prior to

school and school education, with little explicit reference to the early years of school

and little evidence of a shared coverage of an early childhood phase spanning

conception to age eight years. A small number of texts and journal articles on

inclusion have referred specifically to inclusion in the early years of school (Briggs

& Potter, 1999; Jones, 2004; Nutbrown & Clough, 2006). Further, the application of

international literature in varied Australian contexts is made more complex by

structural differences in the education system that include differences in age groups

and classroom settings.

74


In Australia, early childhood refers to the age range birth to eight years, and

incorporates child care, early education prior to school, early schooling, and outside

school hours care (Press & Hayes, 1999). The absence of Australian inclusion

literature that links ECEC prior to school settings and the early school years presents

a challenge in clarifying shared concerns about inclusive practices and preparing

teachers to work across settings, particularly in the context of school transition

research. This problem is clearly manifest in the commissioning by the Australian

Government of a coherent framework for learning in Early Childhood Education

programs, which has been restricted to the ‘prior-to-school’ settings alone (DEEWR

2008).

Paper 1 -- Inclusion of young children: Diversity responses across early

childhood, seeks to address the shortcomings in the existing literature by

documenting the genealogy of early childhood inclusion in Australia, incorporating

historical literature on both ECEC prior-to-school settings and the early years school

settings. Further, this work is designed to identify international influences on ECEC

inclusion practices in Australia. It draws together the body of literature relevant to

inclusion of diversity sub-sectors, addressing both the separate treatment of diversity

groups and the over-emphasis on disability. A brief version of this paper was

published earlier as a chapter for undergraduate early childhood students in Australia

(Petriwskyj, 2007) to meet a gap in the literature accessed by student teachers. It

emphasised Australian historical sources and attended to disability more than to

cultural and social issues. There was limited discussion of critical perspectives that

have since been considered in greater depth. Paper 1 addresses the content

shortcomings of the earlier chapter.

Development of Paper 1

The value of a genealogical study lies in its capacity to highlight the emergence

of events, even though causation and precedence of cause may be difficult to prove

(Krathwohl, 1998). Genealogies are not intended to be a linear sequence, but to

highlight historical contributions to facilitate consideration of new possibilities. It is

defined as a history of the present to indicate its value in opening up to questioning

and change the various historically-constituted approaches, discourses and beliefs

about a topic or problem (Meadmore, Hatcher & McWilliam, 2000). It considers the

75


processes through which beliefs and practices are produced, to permit a deeper

understanding of how an event was possible at a particular point in time, and how

this informs the present (MacFarlane & Lewis, 2004). Primary sources were used

where these were available, but secondary sources (e.g., Mellor, 1990) have been

used for some information because of the very limited availability of older data

sources. While University libraries were a key source of literature, many of the

primary historical documents are from the personal collection of the candidate. The

selected documents, included official government reports (e.g., MCEETYA, 1996),

peer reviewed academic papers or texts (e.g., Luke et al., 1999) or authoritative

teaching literature (e.g., NSW. Department of Education, 1989).

Although review of recent inclusion approaches may have provided sufficient

background information for an empirical study in a contemporary educational setting

(papers 3 and 4), a pilot study clearly indicated the co-existence of responses to

diversity that reflected all phases of the unfolding story of inclusion in early

childhood. Discussion of historically early phases such as segregation or

mainstreaming could not be omitted or reduced in scope since they were apparent in

current teachers’ practices. The discussion is not intended to be linear, but is

overlapping, interweaving modified forms of historically early responses to diversity.

While the approaches are discussed in order of emergence, recent versions of early

approaches (e.g., partial segregation) are discussed in conjunction with their

antecedent.

The major influences on events and approaches in Australia were identified

where the information was available. However, the likelihood of multiple influences

is acknowledged. Some trends arose in concurrence with changes in the USA or the

UK (e.g., prescriptive teaching [Ashman & Elkins, 2005]). Some were driven more

by local political or educational pressures or events. Where a shift was attributed by

one source to an international trend (e.g., the civil rights movement [Cook, Klein &

Tessier, 2004]), and alternative explanations including local pressure were plausible,

both have been identified as underlying reasons.

The journal selected for publication of this paper is an international peer-

reviewed journal on education (ERA category A+) with a specific remit for papers in

Early Childhood. It provides a forum to debate current problems and to share

approaches to the re-conceptualisation of early childhood education. The papers

76


published in this journal incorporate innovative methodologies such as genealogies,

and have strong Australian professional readership. Since the purpose of Paper 1 was

to raise questions about current practice and perspectives in early childhood in

Australia, this journal provides an appropriate forum for this discussion. This paper

has been accepted with major revisions. The revised version is included in this thesis

document.

Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early childhood programs (Paper 1) 77

CHAPTER 5: WHO HAS RIGHTS TO WHAT? INCLUSION IN AUSTRALIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS (PAPER 1)

Petriwskyj, A.

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood (accepted with revision)

Abstract

In early childhood settings prior to school and in the early years of primary

school, debate continues over the meaning of inclusion and its scope in terms of the

groups under consideration. The genealogies of early childhood education and care,

early primary school, special education and cultural education, were examined to

identify recurring and emerging approaches to inclusion within Australian programs

for children aged birth to eight years.

Approaches to inclusion encompassing multiple forms of diversity co-exist in

the Australian educational literature with targeted responses focused on disabilities

or risk. These differing approaches reflect underlying ideological divisions and

varying assumptions about diversity. Multiple approaches, including the expansion

of early childhood services, reflect tensions over children’s rights, conceptualisations

of inclusion, expectations of teachers, system coordination, economic constraints and

political pressure to cater for a complex range of young children in varied settings.

The paper incorporates discussion on underlying philosophical tensions within the

early childhood field.

Keywords: Diversity, early childhood, genealogy, inclusion, mainstreaming.

78

78 Who has rights to what? Inclusion in Australian early childhood programs (Paper 1)

Introduction

Early education for diverse groups in Australia focused historically on two

distinct types of provisions: special education services for children with disabilities

and early childhood programs for children deemed to be at risk (Mellor, 1990). More

recently definitions of diversity have broadened to encompass inclusion of children

with multiple differences in culture and ability, that impact on learning and

development. Further, policies of inclusion have challenged the normative

assumptions that underpin earlier models of provision in which socioeconomic risk

and disability were seen as deficits to be dealt with by specific interventions (Corbett

& Slee, 2000; Ng, 2003). Currently, several approaches to inclusion in early

education exist in Australia, each framed by differing assumptions about diversity.

Debate continues over the relative merits of these approaches, the rights of specific

diversity groups, the capacity of early childhood teachers to enact inclusion, and the

possibility that attention to broader diversity categories increases labelling at the

expense of educational reform (Cole, 1999; Forlin, Hattie & Douglas, 1996; Graham,

2006; Kilgallon & Maloney, 2003; Mohay & Reid, 2006).

Hehir (2005) has argued that resolution of dispute concerning inclusion

requires reflection on unexamined assumptions about ability. Genealogies of early

childhood and of inclusion offer further opportunities to understand conflicts in

response to diversity in early education settings (Canella, 1997; Gabel, 2005). A

genealogy is not intended to be a linear historical sequence, but to interpret the

descent of historically-constituted ideas and the emergence of new ideas in order to

facilitate consideration of new possibilities. It is defined as a history of the present to

indicate its value in questioning the various approaches, power-relationships,

discourses and beliefs about a current problem (Meadmore, Hatcher & McWilliam,

2000). It considers processes through which beliefs and practices are produced, to

permit a deeper understanding of how these emerged in a specific context and how

this informs the present (Tamboukou & Ball, 2003). The literature selected for

genealogical interpretation for this paper included government reports, journal

articles, texts and teaching literature that may have influenced or reflected

understandings and practice. While approaches to diversity in early childhood are

discussed in order of their emergence, recent versions (e.g., partial segregation) are

79


discussed with their historical antecedent to illustrate the continuing co-existence of

philosophically opposed approaches in early education.

Development of a genealogy of inclusion in early childhood in Australia is

hampered by fragmentation of the literature. Although early childhood programs in

Australia have encompassed the age range birth to eight years for an extended period

(Press & Hayes, 2000), there is a lack of Australian inclusion literature spanning this

age range. Existing literature reports on either early childhood programs prior to

school or on schooling generally, with little attention to the early years of school

(Briggs & Potter, 1999). This presents challenges in the preparation of early

childhood teachers to work across both early childhood education and care and early

school education. Further, Australian early childhood literature reports separately on

categories of diverse ability and culture. This presents a challenge for teachers in

enacting inclusion effectively, since conditions requiring support may be

undiagnosed, unclear or represent multiple categories (Porter, 2005; Ng, 2003).

This paper seeks to identify both recurring and emerging approaches to

inclusion in Australian programs for children from birth to eight years, by examining

policy and teaching literature on early childhood education and care, early primary

schooling, compensatory and special education through the lens of assumptions

about diversity. This paper identifies four approaches framed by varied underlying

assumptions - child deficit, normative development, neediness and participation

rights – and considers the role that critical evaluation of current approaches plays in

challenging accepted practice in early childhood programs.

Deficit assumptions: Specialised services and discrimination

The social attitudes that supported special education and early childhood

programs in nineteenth and early twentieth century Australia were framed by

economic restrictions on public provision and by deficit assumptions (Ashman,

2005). Since it was initially thought that some children were incapable of learning,

children with disabilities were hidden, and schooling was not available to children in

poverty and Indigenous children (Ashman & Elkins, 1998; Mellor, 1990). In the

early twentieth century, international trends in specialised program development

prompted the establishment of institutions in Australian capital cities addressing

sensory, intellectual and mental health impairments (Andrews, Elkins, Berry &

80


Burge, 1979). Public pressure to ameliorate the anti-social behaviours of children in

poverty influenced philanthropic groups to establish city kindergartens, nurseries and

infant classes in primary schools as a social service (Briggs & Potter, 1999; Mellor,

1990).

Discrimination on the basis of ability and ethnicity framed some specialised

provision. Indigenous children did not have the right to public education, yet dual

heritage children were deemed European and placed in non-Indigenous foster care to

attend school (Mellor, 1990). The introduction of compulsory universal primary

school education for children from six years of age following the federation of

Australian states in the early 20th century drew attention to those whose abilities were

outside narrow academic achievement expectations. However, government schools

remained restricted to those considered able to benefit from academic instruction

until opportunity schools were established from the 1920s for children who were

considered backward (Ashman, 2005). Wider public awareness of impairments

arising out of disease epidemics in the 1920s and 1940s encouraged further

development of programs for children with disabilities, yet most remained reliant on

voluntary agencies because of lack of entitlement to public funding (Spearitt, 1979).

Fluctuating government funding (Mellor, 1990) indicated that the expansion of

services to preschool children and isolated school children arose from their

construction as philanthropy rather than as universal entitlement. Emerging

recognition of people with disabilities following the return from World War II of

service personnel with war-related impairments, led to the expansion of government

funded disability services and special schools for children over the age of six

(Ashman, 2005). Limited services for preschool children with disabilities emerged as

extensions of school services or as university-based early intervention programs until

parental pressure attracted public funding for therapeutic programs in the 1970s and

1980s (Pieterse, Bochner & Bettison, 1988). Educational access was expanded

through targeted provision of mobile preschools, itinerant teacher programs, and

Distance Education Centres for some isolated rural children, children in caravan

parks or low-income housing estates and children with health or development

concerns (Mellor, 1990). However, the uncoordinated and unsustained nature of such

provision indicated not only that economic pressure limited public funding but also

that education was not considered a right of all young children

81


Although the continuation of specialised programs in contemporary Australia

may reflect practical challenges, an alternate interpretation is that deficit assumptions

remain. The continued provision of specialised programs for children with disability

and for cultural and linguistic diversity groups has been attributed to their pragmatic

value (Elkins, 1990; Sarra, 2007). Some specialised provision is based on lack of

general educational access: for example, hospital preschools, School of Distance

Education, or circus schools (Ashton & Bailey, 2004; Danaher, 2000). However

educational support for children with disabilities, English as a second language or

learning difficulties in general schools is still addressed through partial segregation in

the form of dual program enrolment, class withdrawal, or ability grouping (Foreman,

2008). Underlying these pragmatic solutions may remain assumptions of equity

provisions as philanthropy, understandings of difference as deficit or narrow

constructions of the role of class teachers in providing for diversity.

Normative assumptions: Mainstreaming and cultural assimilation

Provision for a range of children within mainstream early education arose as a

functional necessity in a country with vast space and sparse population and a lack of

specialised services outside major cities (Ashman & Elkins, 1998). It also addressed

increased demand for preschool education to enhance school readiness for children

deemed to be socially disadvantaged (Fry, 1971; Watts, Elkins, Conrad, Andrews,

Apelt, Hayes, et al., 1981). Further, Ashman and Elkins (1998) contended that the

movement from special schools to general schools was based on the assumption that

educating children with disabilities in general schools would reduce costs. Although

mainstreaming indicated awareness of the educational needs of children with

disabilities and children deemed at risk, it was influenced by normative assumptions,

economic barriers and an understanding of placement as adequate provision.

Mainstreaming was further framed by international pressure to moderate racial

and disability discrimination together with normative expectations of children. The

move to accept enrolment of a broader diversity of children into general classrooms

was influenced by developments outside Australia, particularly negative reaction in

the United States during the 1960s to the use of special education for children with

difficulties and the 1971 United Nations statements on disability (Ashman & Elkins,

1998; Foreman, 2008). Young children with delays or undiagnosed disabilities were

82


able to attend mainstream Australian early childhood centres without additional

support services because these centres offered individualised programs and had

favourable staff-child ratios relative to schools (North & Carruthers, 2008).

Alternatively, early years teachers in primary schools worked with classes of up to

40 children without assistance (Ashman & Elkins, 1998). In recognition of the

limitations on schoolteachers’ capacity to cater for diversity in this situation, children

were streamed by ability to form homogeneous school classes (Ashman & Elkins,

1998). Debate focused on the appropriateness of general classes for children with

disabilities in light of a lack of justification for keeping students in more restrictive

settings (Foreman, 2008). The gradual extension of general school access to children

with disabilities (McCall, 1954) did not mean that such children received appropriate

education. Over a period of two decades (1970s and 1980s) a lack of support

resources was identified as a barrier to the implementation of mainstreaming

policies, with claims that children with difficulties were experiencing maindumping

rather than mainstreaming (Gow, 1990).

While mainstreaming offered opportunities for children from culturally diverse

backgrounds to enter the broader Australian community, notions of risk and

assimilation framed approaches to cultural and linguistic diversity (Elkins, 1990).

Improved provision for cultural and linguistic diversity was prompted by the post-

war migration of non-English speaking European families to Australia and the

referendum on Indigenous citizenship (Elkins, 1990; Mellor, 1990). Since

mainstreaming implied that children should be ready to meet classroom expectations,

culturally and linguistically diverse groups were offered compensatory education

(Moffit, Nurcombe, Passmore, & McNeilly 1973). Australian Indigenous preschool

programs modelled on the Head Start programs in the US emphasized highly

structured English language instruction to accelerate more normative academic

achievement (Edmonds, 1979; McConnachie & Russell, 1982). The public

expectation that children would assimilate into mainstream Australian society meant

that they were immersed in English and little adjustment was made for cultural

differences (Elkins, 1990).

Although mainstreaming is identified as an historical approach, the normative

assumptions that it implies remain, perhaps related to the accountability pressures on

teachers such as statutory assessment (Conway, 2008). Criticism of some

83


contemporary programs is based in argument that low funding and support

restrictions identify them as maindumping rather than inclusion (Elkins, 2005). In

such circumstances, it has been asserted that full inclusion is not feasible (Cole,

1999), that specialised services for children with disabilities may be lost or other

students disadvantaged (Forlin, et al., 1996), and that provision for cultural and

linguistic diversity is inadequate (Talay-Ongan, 2004).

Neediness assumptions: Integration and cultural tokenism

The Civil Rights movement and enactment of Public Laws on Handicapped

Children in the United States (Cook, Klein, Tessier & Daley, 2004), and the

demands of the increasing proportion of the population born overseas influenced

social attitudes in Australia during the 1970s to 1990s, promoting greater acceptance

of diversity. Integration of programs arose from a growing concern about human

rights and poor outcomes for children from minority backgrounds, evidence on the

impact of early intervention programs, and changed awareness of disability arising in

part from the involvement of public figures in the US (Ashman, 1998; Osgood,

2005). It was acknowledged that simply placing children with differences into

general education did not adequately support their achievement and that more

specific interventions were required (Cook,et al, 2004). Therefore, integration went

beyond placement in the least restrictive environment to incorporate adaptations of

facilities and provision of support services such as speech therapy and instruction in

English as a second language (Ashman & Elkins, 1998; Mellor, 1990). Prompted by

the landmark Karmel and Collins reports on the learning potential of all children and

the need for improved educational equity, government departments increasingly took

responsibility for special education programs previously offered to school-aged

children by voluntary agencies (Collins, 1984; Karmel, 1973).

Improvement in educational access was framed by assumptions about need

(Fry, 1971; Watts, et al., 1981). Australian educational discourse in the 1980s and

1990s revealed continued emphasis on disability and neediness framed as special

needs or additional needs (Ashman & Elkins, 1998; Briggs & Potter, 1999; Forlin, et

al., 1996; Palmer, 1998; Petriwskyj, 1992; Sims, 1995). Even teaching literature on

giftedness was framed as meeting children’s needs (Porter, 1997). Serious gaps in

early childhood provision were identified through Australian research, resulting in

84


the prioritisation of educational access for all school-aged children and transfer of

early intervention from health to education departments (Pieterse, Bochner &

Bettison 1988; Watts, et al., 1981). Preschool integration programs were supported

by visiting advisory services and by publication of teaching literature on disability,

minimal brain dysfunction and hyperactivity (Center & Bochner, 1990; Department

of Education NT, 1973; Grounds, 1992; New South Wales Department of Education,

1989; Petriwskyj, 1992; Pieterse & Bochner, 1990; Plummer, 1986). The impact of

early intervention identified in the 1978 Warnock Report in the United Kingdom

(Jones, 2004), and the 1986 Education of the Handicapped Amendments in the

United States (Osgood, 2005) encouraged the development of Australian programs

for children under three years of age (Pieterse & Bochner, 1990). An underlying

notion shared across these early childhood programs was that early intervention

addressed neediness.

While the initial focus of integration programs was on disability, international

attention to children’s rights during the 1980s and 1990s promoted the development

of anti-discrimination legislation and programs for cultural minorities (Mellor, 1990;

UNICEF, 1989). Following the influx of Vietnamese refugees, bilingual programs

were established to address concerns about the English language skills of migrant

groups, although incorporation of home cultures was tokenistic (Dempster, 1984;

Schurch & Waterford, 1979). In response to family dissatisfaction with such

tokenism, multicultural resource centres were established in cities to assist early

childhood teachers in incorporating aspects of varied languages and cultures (Mellor,

1990). Concern for the poor educational progress of Indigenous children supported

federal government funding of urban and rural initiatives such as pre-preschool

programs, out-station mobile services, and flexible school groups catering for

Indigenous lifestyles (Butterworth & Candy, 1998; MCEETYA, 1996). However, the

expansion of preschool and childcare during the 1970s and 1980s as a social welfare

initiative for children deemed to be in need generated debate about whether

compensatory constructions of early education were appropriate (Ashby, 1972).

Public expectations, raised by attention to equity, children’s rights and broader

diversity groups, were not fully met by limited structural provisions. Gaps in public

provision were met by voluntary agencies offering disability programs and programs

for gifted children (Larsson, 1990; Porter, 1997; Waters & Cooper, 1978). Further,

85


the assumption that policy and structural change would ensure improved outcomes

failed to take account of the pragmatics of enactment in early childhood classrooms.

Teacher resistance to grade acceleration or curricular enrichment for gifted children,

as well as to education of children with disabilities within early childhood programs

was identified as a barrier to successful policy implementation (Braggett & Bailey,

2005; Forlin, et al., 1996; Porter, 2005). Such resistance may have arisen from

anxiety about teachers’ professional capacity to address extremes of ability, or from

assumptions that children with gifts will achieve without additional support, or from

teachers feeling overwhelmed by increased expectations to cater for diversity (Forlin

et al., 1996; Porter, 2005). Alternatively, Hehir (2005) asserted that teacher

resistance to catering for a wider range of children was based in ideologies of

ableism and historical acceptance of segregation.

Pragmatic barriers associated with funding restrictions have played a role in

sustaining negative reactions to change in contemporary Australia, since a focus on

prioritisation of access and structural provisions such as support services is evident.

Teacher responses may also have been framed by ideological stances that emphasise

equality rather than equity, and children’s needs rather than rights. Attention to

equity and children’s rights marked significant policy shifts (Karmel, 1973; Press &

Hayes, 2000; UNICEF, 1989) that have increased service access, without addressing

concerns about teachers’ attitudes, sense of professional competence or support

provision.

Participation rights assumptions: Inclusion and cultural competence

The policy emphasis has shifted in the twenty-first century to the role that

general teachers’ inclusive programs play in attending to children’s educational

participation rights (Allen & Cowdery, 2005; OECD, 2006). Recent definitions of

inclusion go beyond access and support, to incorporate curricular and pedagogic

differentiation supporting children’s sense of belonging and being valued

(Carrington, 2007). The circumstances of this shift include an emerging

understanding that learning is culturally grounded, an awareness of the competence

of young children and an increased emphasis on the responsibility of educational

programs in enhancing learning for all children (Stables, 2003). A broader and more

positive view of difference and its re-framing as a school or centre responsibility,

86


rather than a child and family problem has been reflected in a shift in discourse to

diverse learners, or diverse learning rights (Frigo & Adams, 2002; OECD, 2006).

The negative connotations of the term ‘at risk’ have led to suggestions that the term

educational inclusion is more appropriate to use in relation to broad social justice

issues (Singh & Taylor, 2007).

Assumptions about the equity role of general early childhood programs have

framed more universal provision of prior-to-school services and the public funding of

childcare support provision for children with disabilities and for children from

culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Mohay & Reid, 2006; OECD,

2006). Based on the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (Nutbrown & Clough, 2006)

and evidence of effective intervention approaches (Miesels & Shonkoff, 2000),

school programs have been re-framed as inclusive programs supported by specialised

services (Foreman, 2008; OECD, 2006). However, access to support services has

remained dependent upon formal diagnosis and specific provisions within state

jurisdictions. Such restriction and fragmentation of support provision appears to

assume a level of teacher competence and confidence in addressing diversity that

may not reflect the reality in early childhood programs (Kilgallon & Maloney, 2003;

Luke, Ladwig, Lingard, Hayes & Mills, 1999; Singh & Taylor, 2007).

Inclusion literature for teachers also continues to address single categories of

diversity, indicating limited awareness of overarching equity and participation

questions (Dempsey, 2005; Ng, 2003).There is separate consideration of ability

categories such as disability, chronic ill-health, giftedness and learning difficulty

(Foreman, 2008; Ashton & Bailey, 2004; Hay & Fielding-Barnsley, 2006; Porter,

2005) and of cultural experience such as Indigeneity, refugee status, geographic

mobility, rural isolation, gender, non-traditional family, religion and social and

economic diversity (Ashman, 2005; Comber & Kamler, 2005; Frigo & Adams, 2002;

Henderson, 2004; Nyland, 2002; Raban, 2002;Rhedding-Jones, 2005; Sims, et al.,

2000; Vuckovic, 2008).Such separation of categories fails to take into account the

argument in the international literature that narrow views of inclusion focusing on

single issues such as disability rather than multiple forms of inequality were a barrier

to understanding inclusion and to effective education supporting all children (Ng,

2005; Nutbrown & Clough, 2006; Siraj-Blatchford, 2006). It supports assertions that

labelling may be taking place at the expense of education reform directed towards

87


more inclusive approaches (Dempsey, 2005; Graham, 2006). Further, omission of

giftedness from some discussion of inclusion, and a retained focus on disability and

disadvantage indicates that assumptions of need and risk continue to frame

educational thinking (Foreman, 2008).

Critical revaluation: Overarching reform in systems and pedagogies

International critical evaluation of accepted approaches to inclusion and early

education coupled with an understanding of children as active negotiators of their

own learning, has drawn attention to social constructions of difference and increased

demands on teachers to address the participation rights of all children (Benjamin, et

al., 2003; Greishaber & Canella, 2001). Recent federal government initiatives to

reform early childhood education and care across Australia have been framed by

philosophies of children’s rights, cultural recognition, social inclusion, child agency

and family and community partnership (Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations, 2007). This shift from children to families, communities and

education systems has been accompanied by rhetoric about empowering families and

communities, respecting cultural capital, and reframing early education to support all

children’s progress more effectively (Pendergast, Chadbourne & Danby, 2009; Singh

& Taylor, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2004). This raises questions about whether the

rhetoric is matched by the reality in early childhood programs prior to school and in

the early years of school, or whether power imbalances between teachers and

families remain.

Enhanced participation of all children has challenged assumptions at both a

whole school and classroom level. Curricular differentiation and personalisation,

which incorporates pedagogic individualisation, parent empowerment, community

involvement, and cultural competence of teachers, have been advocated to address

learner diversity (Carrington, 2007; Howard, Williams & Lepper, 2005). School

reforms to extend participation of a wider range of children have drawn on equity

research and initiatives in the UK such the Index of Inclusion (Booth, Ainscow &

Kingston, 2006; Gillies & Carrington, 2004). Concern that schools were ineffective

in catering for differences has provided impetus for overarching reform approaches

such as Productive Pedagogies incorporating recognition of difference, relevance to

88


children’s lives, and a supportive classroom (Luke, et al, 1999). However, the impact

of such reforms on early childhood practice is unclear.

Opposition to the critical view that difference is a social construct

incorporating wider equity groups is framed by concern for the realities of disability,

the potential loss of specialised provisions developed over time, and the challenge of

working with diverse families (Forlin, et al., 1996; Talay-Ongan, 2004). Early

childhood teacher preparation now incorporates cultural diversity and disability, yet

limited staff knowledge, negative attitudes and inadequate support provisions have

continued to hamper inclusion (Kilgallon & Maloney 2003; Mohay & Reid, 2006).

Criticism of inclusion support provision in non-compulsory early childhood services

relates to fluctuating funding, limited access, low program quality, over-reliance on

teaching assistants, and lack of service coordination (Gavidia-Payne & Jobling,

2005; Llewellyn, Thompson & Fante, 2002; Pelusi, 1994; Sims, 1995). Such

challenges imply a recurring emphasis on addressing needs rather than rights.

While these debates appear to be based in teacher sensitivity to the feasibility

of inclusion, deeper ideological tensions within the early childhood field are evident.

Re-conceptualisation of early education has challenged normative assumptions and

traditional power relationships, drawing attention to children and families who have

been marginalised (Grieshaber & Canella, 2001). It reflects the critical evaluation of

child and family empowerment, celebration of diversity and varied pedagogies

apparent in approaches framed by recognition of difference or personalisation. Such

ideological shifts are not necessarily attended by changes in the underlying beliefs of

practitioners about the role of early education. This suggests that turning the vision

of inclusion into a reality may require deeper professional debate.

Conclusion

While trends in the US and the UK have prompted the development of

inclusive early childhood programs in Australia, the structure and focus of such

programs have been determined by the translation of national social, political and

economic trends into policies for either schools or early childhood education and

care services. Wide variations in contextual circumstances, family expectations,

children’s needs and access to support highlight the value of a national commitment

89


to ensure basic universal entitlements together with support programs to cater for

diversity in specific local contexts.

Structural divisions between education and care, preschool and early school

education, government and community services and various state and federal

jurisdictions present a challenge to effective continuity of inclusive approaches for

children from birth to eight years. This is exacerbated by different legislative and

administrative arrangements, varying outcome expectations, limited funding and

inadequate professional education (Dempsey, 2005; Mellor & Chan 2002).

Both general early childhood programs and specialised programs have played a

role in equity provisions in Australia. However, there are on-going tensions between

conceptualisations of inclusion, children’s rights, economic circumstances, support

provisions and political pressure to cater for an increasingly wide range of children

(Mellor & Chan, 2002). The identified concerns about teacher capacities, school or

centre support, locus of responsibility and the balance between universal provision

and individual learning must be addressed if early childhood inclusion is to be

effective. However, a sustained emphasis in the extant early education literature on

specific needs and service access, rather than the rights of all children to equitable

provision, is a challenge to educators to engage in deeper ideological reflection and

debate.

90


Transition to School 91

CHAPTER 6: TRANSITION TO SCHOOL

Although school readiness is a term that is still common in educational policy

discourses and evidence of the construct is still strong, there have been theoretical

challenges within the academic literature advocating this focus be replaced with a

more complex understanding framed around transition. Defining meanings

surrounding ‘transition’ and clarifying definitions are the central purpose of Paper 2.

A key challenge in achieving more effective transitions to school for diverse

Australian children and families is the persistence of a focus on children’s ‘school

readiness’ despite a clear trend internationally, particularly in Europe, towards more

complex transition approaches. There is also considerable variation in the typical age

for school entry across Australia, the type of class in which children commence and

the approaches to curriculum that create confusion about what is involved in

transition to school. A further challenge lies in the philosophical differences between

the early childhood education and care (ECEC) prior-to-school sector and the early

years of school, and the impact on efforts to establish continuity of experience for

children and families during the border crossing between these sub-sectors of early

childhood.

Paper 2 -- Trends in construction of transition to school in three Western

regions 1990-2004, seeks to both clarify the meanings of the term, and analyse the

focus and purposes of particular approaches in early childhood across Australia and

associated countries. It sets the frame within which empirical evidence on transition

in the early years in Australia can be considered.

Challenges in Defining Transition

The varied understandings of transition have arisen from several sources

including the historical development of ideas, regional variation in school entry

processes and issues, and philosophical differences in perspective on school entry.

Multiple meanings

Transition to school is framed in a variety of ways that represent both an

historical progression and a response to specific regional contexts. Some transition

publications construe transition as a single change event constrained to days or

92

92 Transition to School

weeks, or focused on the time prior to school entry or immediately afterwards, and

centred on practices to enhance children’s orientation to the new context (Pianta &

Cox, 1999). Another group of transition publications are framed by longer time

periods of several years, involving multiple change events and linkage strategies to

enhance coherence and continuity for children (Neuman, 2001). Since the

publication of paper 2 in 2005, additional definitions of transition have emerged,

focused on relationships (Niesel & Griebel, 2007) and on transition capital and

resilience (Dunlop, 2007). The range of meanings for transition confirms that

terminology is socially constructed and closely linked to context, culture, situation

and setting. Terms such as transition are used internationally and, therefore, have the

potential to create confusion and misunderstanding if contexts are not clear. Critical

analysis of literature is required to clarify definitions of transition

Readiness and transition

Despite international attention to more complex and multi-faceted approaches

to transition (Brostrom, 2002; Fabian, 2002; Johansson, 2002; Neuman, 2001; Pianta

& Kraft-Sayre, 2003; Rimm-Kaufmann & Pianta, 2000; Yeboah, 2002) the evidence

on school entry in Australia continues to focus on children’s readiness or

preparedness for school (Dockett & Perry, 2001; Margetts, 2000; Smart et al., 2008;

Weihen, 2001). The images of children inherent in readiness notions differ

substantially from those underpinning transition approaches. Readiness images

contain assumptions of normative development, and children who do not fit the norm

may be framed as in deficit (Bowman, 1999). Solutions to lack of readiness have

been identified as family programs to improve life circumstances (Smart et al.,

2008), improved ECEC programs to increase academic preparation and grade

retention to offer the gift of time through additional maturational opportunities

(Graue, Kroger & Brown, 2002).

Although some earlier transition images of the child focused on deficit (e.g.,

children and families at risk, children in poverty, children with disabilities), more

recently images of competent children and families have framed thinking (Dunlop,

2007). In essence, the focus in readiness encapsulates characteristics and attributes of

the individual child whereas in transition, the lens shifts to the role of the school and

to the sharing of responsibility between families, schools and communities (Fabian,

93


2002). Solutions to transition concerns are seen to be multi-faceted, engaging

multiple stakeholders rather than relying solely on developing the child or providing

further maturational opportunities.

School entry

The organisation of education systems within Australian states and in other

parts of the world has given rise to variability in the timing and framing of school

entry. International data indicated that children may enter schools between three and

seven years of age (OECD, 2006), although in Australia the age range is four to six

years of age (Thorpe, Tayler, Bridgstock, Grieshaber, Skoin, Danby & Petriwskyj,

2004). The first school class across the world may be a nursery, reception,

preparatory or kindergarten class or the initial class of formal, compulsory primary or

elementary education. The curriculum might be separate in the kindergarten and in

the first primary/elementary year, or there might be a shared early years curriculum.

The curriculum in kindergarten varies from play-based to structured variations on

primary education (OECD, 2006).

Thus, literature on transition to school may be addressing entry to preparatory

(usually termed kindergarten) or entry to the first year of formal or compulsory

primary education, and the issues that are addressed depend on the structures in local

settings or year levels. Authors such as Margetts (2002) in Australia, Peters (2000) in

New Zealand and Pianta and Cox (1999) in the USA have highlighted problems

related to the shift from home or childcare into school settings on the grounds of

major differences in individualised attention, social complexity and level of

expectations. However, evidence from Europe (Brostrom, 2002; Corsaro &

Molinari, 2003; Einsdottir, 2003; Kakvoulis, 1994) indicates that the major transition

point occurs with a shift in curriculum type from play-based to outcomes-focused

curriculum.

Philosophical gaps in early childhood

Although early childhood in Australia and many other Western countries

covers the age range birth to eight years (Press & Hayes, 1999), the ECEC prior-to-

school sector and the early years of school are often separated under different

jurisdictions, governed by different regulatory requirements, framed by different

94


curriculum guidelines and taught by staff with different philosophical orientations

(OECD, 2006). Note the development in Australia, in 2008, of an National Early

Years Learning Framework that addresses programs for children from birth to age

five years, not including the early years of school (P-3) (DEEWR, 2009). The

literature in Australia discusses transitions mainly in relation to ECEC prior to

school, in specific subject areas and in specific state jurisdictions (Dockett & Perry,

2007; Hill, et al., 1998; Margetts, 2002; Stamopoulos, 2001), so that it is difficult to

generalise to implications for early childhood transitions more broadly. The

philosophical gaps between prior-to-school ECEC provision and early years school

education arising from their separate development indicates that this could be a

crucial issue to investigate. Separate literature collections related to ECEC and

primary school complicate any analysis.


Paper 2 -- Trends in construction of transition to school in three Western

regions 1990-2004, addresses these issues through a structured review of approaches

to transition. A traditional literature summary did not enable synthesis of the multiple

views in disparate contexts that had emerged in the literature. It was vital to map

current conceptualisations of transition to school in order to understand approaches

that were being enacted in preparatory and school classes during the collection of

research data. The structured review also assisted in determining lines of inquiry that

would be fruitful in obtaining evidence in school contexts, particularly that focused

on the work of teachers and schools, rather than on other stakeholders.

Strategy for literature analysis

For analysis of the literature on transitions, the strategy of systematic review,

which is used in medical literature analysis, has been adopted. It has also been

utilised in a recent review of the efficacy of early intervention programs (Wise, Da

Silva, Webster & Sanson, 2005). In the development of paper 2, systematic review

was used to synthesise outcomes from various, recent qualitative and quantitative

studies, reviews of key studies (e.g., Kagan & Neville, 1998) as well as perspectives

papers on contemporary positioning on issues in regard to transition (e.g., Fabian &

Dunlop, 2002). Systematic review has the advantage of unifying a fragmented field

95


of research outcomes, highlighting critical relationships and indicating potential lines

of future inquiry (Krathwohl, 1998). Since the results of systematic review are

dependent on the criteria for comparison of studies and other papers, particular

attention was given to establishing systematic approaches to selection (see below).

The three regions in which substantial attention was given to transition to

school were identified as Europe, the USA and Australia/New Zealand. Hence,

seventy-five recent papers from these regions were analysed. Extensive database and

text sources were investigated to source a range of papers from across the world,

followed by selection of papers limited to the three regions and giving major

attention to the topic. The papers were selected on the basis of their publication in

peer-reviewed sources, and the emphasis on transition to school rather than a narrow

emphasis on readiness for school The time-period from 1990 onwards was

established, because this was the point in time in which the construct of transition

emerged, whereas earlier articles were framed more around constructs of children’s

readiness for school. The 2004 end date marked submission of this paper for

publication.

The initial selection criteria for this analysis were regional location and period

in time, since there was evidence that there were shared approaches in broad

geographic locations and that shifts in approach occurred over time. Papers were

organised regionally by author name in a year sequence, to show these two patterns.

A grid was then developed illustrating the specific year of school-entry under

discussion, the length of time considered as the transition period, the specific state or

country within a region (e.g., state of Australia), the focus of the transition process,

and the major strategies indicated in a paper (see Table 6.1). These grid sections

were refined as review of the papers indicated additional factors that were also areas

of concern. It documented the stakeholders who were the focus in each paper (e.g.,

children, teachers or families), special interest groups if they were the subject of the

paper (e.g., children with disabilities, Indigenous children) and the type of continuity

aspects discussed (e.g., curriculum, links to families). Once finalised, the grid

categories were cross-checked against the selected papers to ensure accuracy of the

initial classification of papers. It was particularly difficult to ensure accuracy against

the criterion “ specific year of school under discussion” because of the range of ages

of children concerned, the differences in schooling systems, the lack of consistent

96


meanings for shared terms such as kindergarten and the focus of some papers on a

context (e.g., special education) rather than a year level.

Author Stake holder

date place

age/context transition period

transition focus

continuity focus

Peters child 2000 NZ

ages 4-8 yrs entry – 3 years

continuity adjustment

culture

Margetts teacher 2000 Aust

reception first 9 weeks

readiness, adjustment

Figure 6.1. Example of transition tables by region and year

Impact of the paper

This paper was published in the International Journal of Early Years Education

in 2005. This is a recognised European peer-reviewed journal covering comparative

education in early childhood. It has an international readership, making it an

appropriate outlet for this paper that addressed perspectives from varied regions.

Shared concepts and foci that were highlighted in the systematic review

established patterns and relationships in the ways transition to school were defined.

This provided a more useful survey of the literature than a traditional literature

summary or review. It has been cited in two textbooks (Fabian & Dunlop, 2007;

Pendagast, Chadbourne, & Danby, 2009), a Van Leer Foundation monograph

(Vogler, Crivello & Woodhead, 2008), the OECD report Starting Strong 11 (2006)

and a journal article (Gill, Winters & Freedman, 2006), indicating the value to the

field of synthesising published understandings about the topic. The work has helped

clarify that two approaches emerging subsequent to the publication of this analysis in

2005 – relationships (Nielsel & Griebel, 2007) and transition capital (Dunlop 2007),

represented real shifts in thinking about transition to school.

This is a joint paper. The candidate drafted the content, and was responsible for

the majority of the preparation of the paper for publication. The co-authors, both

doctoral supervisors of this thesis, provided support in conceptualisation and framed

developments in style and presentation.

97


Statement of Contribution of Co-Authors for Thesis by Published Paper (Paper 2)

The authors listed below have certified that: 1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the

conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise;

2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;

3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the

editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit, and

5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication

on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.

Publication title and date of publication or status:

Contributor Statement of contribution Elizabeth Anne

Petriwskyj Lead author of the paper, preparing and revising all drafts. Developed literature research process and analysed all material. Signature

Date Professor Karen

Thorpe

Support in conceptualisation and framed developments in style and presentation, including graphs. Recommended trend analysis strategy for systematic review, and advised on its refinement.

Professor Collette Tayler

Support in conceptualisation and framed developments in style and presentation around pedagogy.

Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. Name: Signature Date

98


Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three Western Regions 1990-2004 (Paper 2) 99

CHAPTER 7: TRENDS IN CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSITION TO SCHOOL IN THREE WESTERN REGIONS 1990-2004 (PAPER 2)

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C.

International Journal of Early Years Education, 15 (1), 55-69. (2005).

Abstract

The construct of school readiness that focuses on children's maturation and

homogeneity of their attainment at school entry has been challenged by recent

research. This research indicates that there are difficulties in assessing young

children's abilities, and there are limitations to the concomitant practice of retention.

These challenges have prompted attempts to re-conceptualise entry to school as a

process of transition. However, transition has variously been conceptualised as: a set

of teacher practices in a time-limited period around school entry; a process of

establishing continuity from home to school; and a multi-layered, multi-year

experience. An analysis of academic literature from 1990-2004 in the USA,

Australia/New Zealand and Europe was undertaken to identify trends in the

conceptualisation of transition to school. The analysis suggests a trend towards more

complex understandings of transition emphasising continuity of children’s

experience, partnership with stakeholders, and system coherence across extended

time periods. However, more limited constructions persist in the academic literature,

particularly in the USA and Australian/New Zealand.

100

100 Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three Western Regions 1990-2004 (Paper 2)

Introduction

While for some time the focus around school entry has been couched in terms

of children’s readiness for school, re-conceptualisations of school entry as a longer-

term and more complex process began to emerge in the 1980s. This was in response

to professional concerns about the incompatibility of readiness constructs with

inclusive educational policies (Wolery, 1999), uncertainty about the validity and

reliability of assessments of young children’s abilities (Meisels, 2001) and concern

that educational practices of grade retention were potentially harmful (Holloway,

2003). While support continued for compensatory preschool and care programs

(Kagan & Neuman, 1998), the evidence-based practice of later school entry was

challenged on the grounds that delayed school commencement might further

disadvantage children whose home circumstances increased exposure to life hazards

(Zill, 1999).

Since the 1990s there is increasing evidence in Australia/New Zealand, Europe

and the USA, of attempts to reconceptualise the issue as transition to school. Ramey

and Ramey (1999) define transition as an ongoing process of mutual adaptations by

children, families and schools to facilitate children moving successfully from home

and early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings into the early years of

school. This paper outlines several conceptualisations located in English-language

academic literature from 1990 - 2004 in these three Western regions suggesting

several key meanings for transition to school: a set of teacher practices around a

time-limited change event, a multi-layered and multi-factorial process and increasing

intertwining of the constructs of transition and continuity.

A review of 75 peer-reviewed academic publications was followed by analysis

of the time frames, regions, frequency and key foci of various constructions. This

paper focuses not on readiness, but on the trends in how the notion of transition is

constructed. It uses the term reception for the initial school year preceding the first

primary grade, as the term kindergarten has been attached to a range of service types

in various school systems and may be confusing.

101


Transition as Set of Teacher or School Practices

Continuing interest in school readiness and initial adjustment, particularly in

the early 1990s supported a focus on school practices such as raising the age of

school entry, implementation of transition classes, retention of some children in

preschool and compensatory preschool programs to enhance school entrant

homogeneity (O’Brien, 1991), some of which have been criticised for their negative

effect on children (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). It also supported a focus on practices

teachers undertook within a limited time frame at the end of preschool or at the

beginning of a school year to assist children and families in developing familiarity

with the new context. Those involved included special education teachers, ECEC

staff in prior-to-school settings and junior primary school teachers, although the

major responsibility appeared to be taken by the sending setting (e.g., preschool) and

less by the receiving setting (e.g., school). The emphasis appeared to be on

introducing families to the school, transferring information about children and

orienting children to the physical facilities (Bruder & Chandler, 1995; Patterson &

Fleet, 1999).

Family-school interviews, family induction meetings and orientation visits to

school by groups of preschool children and families were key components of these

introductory practices, but there was considerable variability in their use (Brostrom,

2002; Einarsdottir, 2003; Kagan & Neuman, 1998). Sharing of information between

ECEC and reception teachers through meetings, transfer of children’s assessment

records and other communications about individuals and curriculum were less

frequent than parent-child orientation programs, perhaps because teachers worked in

different systems (La Paro et al., 2000). La Paro and colleagues (2000) found that

connectedness and communication were limited between reception and first grade

teachers within a system, but that they were more frequent than transition practices

involving parents at entry to first grade.

Fabian (2002), Pianta and Kraft-Sayre (2003) and Dockett and Perry (2003)

continue to recommend use of transition practices as part of a multi-layered process

because their data indicates that these practices facilitate adjustment between home-

school contexts or ECEC-school contexts. However, these more recent

considerations of teacher and school practices have incorporated wider

communication linkages between families, schools and ECEC services together with

102


processes for supporting children through the changes accompanying school entry.

Limited attention to the unequal family-school power relationships, implicit in

literature on teacher practices, indicates that this aspect warrants further

consideration if family requirements are to be met effectively.

Transition as a Time Limited Change Event

The construction of transition to school as a single-time change event for

children and families conforms to a focus on initial adjustment to the school context,

and to practices that could improve either preparedness or adjustment. The majority

of the literature in this category focused on entry to reception classes with less

emphasis on entry into the first primary class, on an assumption that the most

significant changes occurred between home/preschool/child care and school entry

(Love, 1992; Richardson, 1997; Van den Oord & Rossem, 2002; Westcott et al.,

2003).

The concept of preparedness for transition to school has arisen out of

underlying theories of social maturation or academic content knowledge readiness of

children, which remains prevalent in some areas of Australia, USA and a number of

the OECD countries where school-like reception programs are implemented to

respond to the concern about equality of opportunity for immigrants and the socially

disadvantaged (Bowman, 1999; Neuman, 2001; Zill, 1999). However, Dockett and

Perry (2003) define preparedness as being interactionist in nature, more context

specific and containing assumptions of preparation of schools and families as well as

of children. Whether this is, in fact, a new construct or merely a more palatable form

of traditional school readiness with its implied expectations of homogeneity of

school entrants, warrants further investigation, but Dockett and Perry (2003) and

Hopps (2004) point out its persistence in the minds of teachers and parents. This

retention of readiness constructs may be connected to perceptions of specific school

systems as being inflexible or to deeply held beliefs about child development and the

nature of schooling.

Studies on adjustment to school in Australia/New Zealand and Europe have

emphasised social and emotional aspects, either because of the research program

emphasis on children from minority backgrounds with limited awareness of the rules

and culture of schools or because of a perceived need to balance academic readiness

103


pressures from schools (Keinig, 2002; Margetts, 2000; Patterson & Fleet, 1999;

Peters, 2000). Skinner and colleagues (1998) indicated that teachers constructed as

challenging the behaviour of children with delayed development or children from

socially disadvantaged backgrounds used frequent, firm discipline, which resulted in

unhappiness and lowered self-esteem amongst these children. The contribution of

social relations in the classroom and the playground, including teacher-child

relationships, peer relations and friendships, appeared to be vital not only to social-

emotional adjustment but also to academic achievement (Belsky & McKinnon, 1994;

Birch & Ladd, 1997; Corsaro et al., 2003; Cronin & Diezmann, 2002; Smith, 2002;

Van den Oord, 2002). However, Ledger and colleagues (2000) found that friendships

did not necessarily make school transition easier.

The period of time constructed as transition was analysed using the stated

adjustment phase within the remit of the research as an indicator. The transition

phase for children entering school appears to range from just the first days of school

attendance (Podmore et al, 2003; Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Weihen, 2001) through to

a few months, as was the case in the majority of the Australian literature (Dockett &

Perry, 2003; Margetts, 2000; Richardson, 1997; Sims & Hutchins, 1999). Short time

frames (days or weeks) appeared in those studies or publications investing heavily in

consideration of transition practices, change events and adjustment indicators. In

literature where a longer adjustment period (months or years) appears, the change of

frame from transition as a single change event to transition as a longer process of

continuity became evident (Brooker, 2002; Fabian, 2002; Peisner-Feinburg et al.,

1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999). Broader constructions of transition to school involving

extended time frames, social as well as academic indicators of success and

interactions between children, families and schools, shift the focus from children’s

maturation and skills at school entry to a more complex interweaving of facets of

transition and to the role of the school.

104


Number of papers defining transition as time limited 1991-2004

0123456789

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

num

ber

of p

aper

s

Australia/NZEuropeUSA

Figure 7.1. Number of papers defining transition as time-limited 1991-2004

Transition as Continuity of Experience

Transition to school as a continuity issue has been framed in three different

ways – 1) communication linkages, 2) coherence of experience and 3) system

coherence. The value of each to child progress is supported in the literature. While

some level of dissonance can stimulate or positively challenge young children, the

negative impact of extreme discontinuity on children in the early years of school has

been the subject of particular attention, especially in Europe, and in relation to

children from non-mainstream socio-economic and cultural groups (Brooker, 2002;

Glover, 1994; Raban & Ure, 2000;).

Communication linkages between the home and school and between the child’s

previous ECEC service and the school offer opportunities for the sharing of

professional information between teachers, for exchanging understandings between

all adults close to the individual child, for developing increasing trust and

cooperation, and for negotiating differences of perspective amongst stakeholders

(Kakvoulis, 1994; Lombardi, 1992). Tayler (1999) and Hopps (2004) proposed the

development of these linkages, particularly between home and school, in order to

provide a more supportive environment for children, and considered issues of

coherence of children’s experience in curriculum, pedagogy and culture.

Pedagogical and curricular discontinuity for children moving from ECEC

services to school, and/or significant discontinuity between home and school

105


experience has been foregrounded as an issue of concern in recent Australasian and

European literature (Fabian, 2002; Margetts, 2002; Neuman, 2001). Initially this

interest concentrated on the alignment of curriculum between services (Barbour &

Seefeldt, 1993; DECS, 1996). The gap between preschool and traditional school

curricula can be significant, particularly regarding the use of formal approaches to

pedagogy in schools. Some of the top-down changes in the preschool sector, where

practices have become more formal as a result, have been the subject of criticism

(Neuman, 2001). However, an emerging focus on pedagogy has resulted in more

concern for coherence between school approaches and family interaction patterns, as

well as between the play pedagogies of ECEC and more didactic pedagogies of the

school (Skinner et al., 1998; Yeom, 1998).

Cultural coherence and continuity of experience for parents and children are

features of current literature on early childhood transitions for cultural minorities,

with a particular focus on partnership with families and language continuity (McCrae

et al., 2000; Podmore, et al., 2002; Sauvao et al., 2000; Sy, 2003). Continuity of

experience for children and families who have been utilising specialist early special

education services has also gained increasing attention as inclusive policies have

been implemented (Brewer, 1995; Newman, 2000). Discontinuities created by the

change in culture and expectations between specialist and mainstream services, and

between schools and homes have increased the challenge of children with

developmental delays or disabilities entering mainstream services (Bruder &

Chandler, 1995; Fowler & Ostrosky, 1994).

The need for increased structural or system coherence for all children and

families, not just those with cultural or developmental concerns, has been raised in

response to the lack of continuity of processes, policies, expectations and quality

between systems (Kagan & Neuman, 1999). Early childhood programs focusing on

transition and continuity have tended, in the USA, to emerge from a range of

agencies under different jurisdictions and with significantly different mandates.

Bauch (1993) recommended the full-service school or a school with a central

community role as a potential solution to this fragmentation. The situation in some

OECD countries, however, is more coordinated and systematically planned to ensure

higher levels of system coherence for families and children (Neuman, 2001).

106


Some approaches to developing system integration within a limited geographic

area as a means of smoothing transition appear to contain an underlying assumption

about family stability; an assumption which may not be warranted in times of

increasing family mobility (Peters, 2002). This concern has been mirrored in political

comments in relation to an Australia-wide system coordination and pressure for

national curricula and assessment. Whether or not national or state system

coordination is possible, enhancement of continuity within schools or within local

educational communities through communication linkages and connections in

curriculum and pedagogy may be negotiated to support children and families through

the transition into school.

Number of papers defining transition as continuity 1991-2004

0123456789

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

num

ber

of p

aper

s


Figure 7.2. Number of papers defining transition as continuity 1991-2004

Transition as a Multi-Layer Multi-Year Process

Recent literature from Europe and Australia appeared to frame transition into

school as an extended process, ranging from 6 months to 2 years (Brooker, 2002;

Fabian, 2002; Griebel & Niesel, 2002; Keinig, 2002; Raban & Ure, 2000) while

some USA literature has considered the first 2 to 3 years of school and sometimes the

preceding preschool years (Kagan & Neuman, 1998; Mangione & Speth, 1998;

Peisner-Feinburg et al., 1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1999). This

longer frame of reference may have its foundation in the USA experience of

differences between short-term effects on school adjustment and performance and

longer-term life outcomes in programs such as Headstart: that is, the difference

107


between initial school adjustment and developmental trajectory (Entwisle &

Alexander, 1998; Kagan & Neuman, 1998; La Paro et al., 2000; Peisner-Feinburg et

al., 1999).

The reframing of school transition as a multi-year experience appears to have

emerged alongside conceptualisation of transition as a multi-faceted process

engaging a range of stakeholders (Burchinal et al., 2002; Neuman, 2001; Pianta &

Kraft-Sayre, 2003; Rimm-Kaufmann & Pianta, 2000; Yeboah, 2002). The models of

transition developed by Ladd (1996), Ramey and Ramey (1999), Rimm-Kaufmann

and Pianta (2000), Fabian (2002) and Pianta and Kraft-Sayre (2003) share an

ecological frame of reference that considers the relationships of factors in the child

and family, the community, the school and ECEC services. This reconceptualisation

of transition as both multi-year and multi-faceted is evident in broader investigations

of the developmental trajectories of high-risk groups in USA, which have focused

well beyond the earlier readiness issue into a variety of ameliorating effects on

potential educational disadvantage, including quality ECEC programs for young

children prior to school entry (Burchinal et al., 2002).

Horizontal and Vertical Transitions

A typical construction of transitions in the literature relates to vertical

transitions: that is, transitions across time between education levels, for example

preschool, reception and the first grade of school. The core focus, particularly for

children with perceived environmental or developmental disadvantage, has been on

the transfer into reception class from home or ECEC services such as preschools

(Dockett & Perry, 2001; Pianta & Cox, 1999). However, the ages at which this major

change in context occurs are extremely varied, ranging from 4 to 6 or 7 years of age,

making comparisons difficult (Fabian, 2002). The transition into the first grade of

school from reception class has been noted by Entwisle and Alexander (1998) and La

Paro, Pianta and Cox (2000) to have been given little attention, despite the major

shift in expectations that accompanies this change in context. Fabian (2002) drew

attention to the increasing prominence of another form of vertical transition: that is,

transfers between schools for children of geographically mobile families (e.g.

refugees, immigrants, families in breakdown, employment transferees) which, in

108


countries such as Australia, can involve a major change in school system and

curriculum.

Kagan and Neuman (1998) noted that young children can experience not only

vertical transitions but also horizontal transitions: that is, across one point in time

such as within one day. Neuman (2001) suggested that horizontal transitions within

the school pose significant challenges for many children as they are superimposed on

other transitions in children’s family lives and on vertical transitions (e.g. reception

into first grade) occurring simultaneously. Wolery (1999) pointed to additional

contextual transitions for children with disabilities between mainstream and

specialist services and in-class transitions between areas or activities that Bruder and

Chandler (1995) indicated compounded stress by adding to the complexity of the

lives of children and families.

Skinner and colleagues (1998) suggested that horizontal over-differentiation,

that is, excessive division of learning areas or of time blocks in the school day,

created particular challenges for children with atypical development, social

disadvantage or minority cultural experience. Service over-differentiation and lack of

service coordination also created difficulties for these children and their families

because of uncertainty about processes and the effort required for accessing

appropriate supports (Fowler & Ostrosky, 1994).

Attention to the impact of interactions between multiple transitions is required

in research, policy development and educational practices. The implications for

teachers in the early years are that children’s responses to multiple, over-lapping

transitions need to be considered in curriculum planning and that the minimisation of

horizontal transitions is supported.

109


Papers defining transitions as multi-layered 1991-2004

01

23

45

67

89

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

num

ber

of p

aper

s


Figure 7.3. Number of papers defining transition as multi-layered 1991-2004

Differences in emphasis on transition constructs by region are evident and may

relate to teacher and parent beliefs or perceived realities in specific school systems.

Papers from Australia and New Zealand maintain an emphasis on time-limited

change, while European papers strongly favour continuity constructs, although the

focus on English language publications may be a factor in Europe. In both Australia

and the USA, papers relating to children’s school readiness continue to be published,

indicating that this construct maintains currency in some regions (e.g. Cuskelly &

Detering, 2003; Holloway, 2003; Clift, Stagnitti & DeMello, 2000). There may,

however, be a policy-level influence, as government reports in the USA and state

education authority web sites in Australia refer to school readiness (e.g. Moore,

Brown, Halle, Pitzer, & Calkins, 2002; Xiang & Schweinhart, 2002).

110


Number of papers published by country and focus of transition 1991-2004

02468

10121416

Time limited Continuity Multi-layered

Focu

s of

tran

sitio

n


Figure 7.4. Number of papers published by country and focus of transition 1991-2004

Defining Successful Transition

This redefinition of school transition has given rise to changes in the way

successful transition is determined. Success at school entry was initially deemed to

be dependent on school readiness, which was a maturational characteristic of the

individual child (Dockett & Perry 2002). As the construct of transition to school

evolved, success seemed to centre on social and emotional adjustment and normative

academic achievement, perhaps because of the link to underlying notions of school

readiness and assumptions of homogeneity of school classes. Fields (1997),

Richardson (1997) and Margetts (2000) argue from the position that success may

simply have meant abiding by classroom rules or behaving in ways that were valued

by teachers. While Skinner and colleagues (1998) criticise this viewpoint, adjustment

to rules and the classroom culture remains an enduring theme in both Australia and

the USA (Burford & Stegelin, 2003; Perry et al., 2000; Weihen, 2002).

A trend towards the recognition of the complexity of transition may be an

underlying factor in considering combined child, family and school attributes, and

more varied child qualities such as disposition and resilience (Fabian, 2002; Perry et

al., 2000). Another factor promoting change may have been the recognition of the

differences between initial adjustment success at school entry, medium-term fading

of advantage and longer-term improvement in broader life outcomes such as

increased adult employment and avoidance of incarceration (Kagan & Neuman,

111


1998). This recognition of impact in later life appears connected to an interest in

USA and Europe in defining more positive developmental trajectories for atypical

children (Burchinal et al., 2002; Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; La Paro et al., 2000;

Peisner-Feinburg et al., 1999; Skinner et al., 1998).

Enhancing Success of Transitions

Education programs aimed at enhancing the success of transitions could be

grouped according to an emphasis on improving homogeneity of school entrants or

accommodating heterogeneity and according to the time frame for transition.

Pressure for readiness or homogeneity of school entry behaviours and skills

appears to be associated with two transition conceptualisations – transition as prior-

to-school practices and transition as a single time change event, both with short time

frames. Definitions of success emphasising rapid adjustment and normative

achievement, and the introduction of measures such as raising the school entry age,

establishing reception grades, improving home-school or ECEC-school linkages or

establishing sets of transition procedures are enacted in a climate of homogeneity and

readiness for a type of school that is formal in construction. This kind of transition

places emphasis on the child being ready for a particular style of schooling and type

of program. Such emphasis increases the pressure for preschools and other prior-to-

school ECEC services to adopt more structured, academically-focused approaches in

an effort to prepare children for the classroom (Richardson, 1997). However,

Patterson and Fleet (1999) found resistance, amongst parents, to narrowing of the

curriculum. The academic effectiveness and impact on child self-esteem of earlier

structural changes such as grade retention or the provision of additional transition

grades have been questioned by O’Brien (1991) and Carlton and Winsler (1999) who

have pointed to the lack of empirical support for these practices. Depending on its

use by teachers, school entry assessment such as that used in the UK may be viewed

either as a screening process related to readiness constructs or as a broader effort to

cater effectively for diverse social and cultural groups.

Neuman (2001) pointed out that transition has also been constructed as an

equality of opportunity issue in several countries in Europe that offer universal

access to ECEC services. Universal access to ECEC services for 2 to 5 year olds can

be a means of familiarising children of new immigrants with local language, culture

112


and school structures. However, in Scandinavian countries and parts of Italy, for

example, where early childhood is seen as a life phase with its own value and

purpose rather than a period of school preparation, ECEC programs are of high

quality and have a broad focus. In these countries, formal schooling begins later,

mutually respectful collaboration between sectors is emphasised and continuity is a

central concept (Neuman, 2001). Whether these programs reflect differing images of

childhood, or differential responses to equality demands for economically or

culturally marginalised groups, or alternate notions of educational purpose is unclear.

The availability of universal, high quality, coherent ECEC services for very young

children in areas such as Scandinavia may make specific sector intervention

programs unnecessary. These programs may portray an alternative view of support

for effective transition, a view that is more complex and multi-layered. Whatever the

case, evidence of the outcomes of ECEC programs is increasingly sought and the

climate in which this outcomes-pressure takes place is one where ECEC programs

are heralded as a preventative measure for ameliorating problems for children, as

they move through the education system.

This alternate view of effective support during transition appears grounded in a

longer-term view of the transition period as a multi-year process, one that impacts on

developmental trajectory. Perhaps, too, there is a realisation of the school’s place in

accommodating entrant heterogeneity and working in partnership with the

community to develop linkages and continuity. The juxtaposition of longer transition

periods and multi-layered concepts focusing on continuity is evident in literature

from the late 1990s in the USA (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Kagan & Neuman,

1998; Mangione & Speth, 1998; Peisner-Feinburg et al., 1999; Pianta & Cox, 1999;

Ramey & Ramey, 1998), from 2000 in Australian/New Zealand (Peters, 2000: Raban

& Ure, 2000) and from 2002 in Europe (Brooker, 2002; Fabian, 2002);

The value of partnership and continuity in curriculum and pedagogy, including

the pedagogy of the home as well as of educational organisations such as preschools

and schools, has been highlighted in recent European work (Brooker, 2002;

Johanssen, 2002). In addition, the complexities of achieving such continuity where

significant cultural differences exist within a society, are noted by New Zealand and

Pacific Island researchers (Podmore et al 2003; Sauvao et al., 2000) but these may

relate to broader issues of home-school and ECEC-school power relations. While

113


there is potential for increased system coherence to contribute to improved

partnership and continuity between educational sectors, ensuring mutual respect and

partnerships of equality may be an essential factor.

Neuman (2001) pointed out that in some areas where curricular integration and

joint ECEC-school staff professional preparation have been a feature (e.g., the UK,

the Netherlands) aspects of early childhood educational philosophy and approach

have been lost. However, efforts towards curricular integration continue to be made

in some areas of Europe and Australia (Neuman, 2001) as a means of bridging ECEC

and school. The ways in which ECEC services come to terms with outcomes based

education and schools come to terms with school entrant heterogeneity appear to be

key issues.

Transition solutions that extend coordination by emphasising system level

coherence and integration of services reflect a political view of transition being a

community responsibility rather than an individual family concern (Brostrom, 2002;

Johanssen, 2002). They may also be a more practical reality in government systems

that emphasise, at a national level, more integrated services such as in Scandinavian

countries. In federated countries, such as Australia and the USA, where ECEC policy

and provision is segmented into separate federal, state and local departmental

jurisdictions (e.g., social welfare, education, and health) the challenge may be

greater. However, there is an ongoing discussion in the USA literature of the

potential for system coherence in the education of atypical children (Galper, 1999;

Kagan & Neville, 1996; Wolery, 1999) that has relevance for other countries.

Conclusion

Expectations of homogeneity in school entrants may be yielding to recognition

of the reality of diversity in young children, families and communities, as well as

presenting the potential for diversity to be positive in teaching and learning contexts.

A consequence of realising diversity, linked to the unlikely reality of having a group

of homogeneous learners ready for entry to school, brings broader constructions of

transition to school into focus. Flexibility in services and curriculum, and coherence

between learner characteristics, cultural contexts and educational provisions offer

opportunities to enrich the educational experience of all children while enhancing

outcomes for children with developmental, social or cultural differences.

114


A focus on single issues such as teacher practices or time-limited change

events has given way to more complex, multifaceted views of this phenomenon. The

time frames for school transition have also extended from commencing weeks to

several years with recent constructions of programs in Australia and other countries

grouped as early years. Definitions of successful transition now consider long-term

trajectories rather than focusing solely on initial adjustments. The current emphasis

on continuity of experience combined with extension of opportunity for children and

families, is bringing into focus broader questions of coherence of curriculum,

pedagogy and service systems, and of authentic partnerships between the families

and schools and within educational systems.

The persistence of notions of readiness at a policy and school level indicates

that challenges to more limited constructs have not impacted uniformly, and that

influences such as teacher beliefs, public perceptions and policy formation require

reconsideration.

SECTION 3: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION 115

SECTION 3: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION

Chapter 8: Inclusion in the Early Years of School

Chapter 9: Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years (Paper 3)

International Journal of Inclusive Education (30 September e-journal, 2009)

Chapter 10: Inclusive Transition and Pedagogy

Chapter 11: Pedagogies of Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 4)

Journal of Early Intervention

Chapter 12: Transition for Diverse Learners

Chapter 13: Towards Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 5)

Exceptional Children

Chapter 14: Summary and Implications

116

116 SECTION 3: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND TRANSITION

Inclusion in the Early Years of School 117

CHAPTER 8: INCLUSION IN THE EARLY YEARS OF SCHOOL

Policies of inclusion have been in place in Western countries for a lengthy

period, but empirical evidence on effective ways to enact inclusive policies in early

childhood has been limited mainly to ECEC settings prior to school, such as

preschools and child care services rather than the early years of school. Further,

conflicting views on what inclusion means and on how teachers have responded to

policy changes are also evident in the literature, but evidence on enactment of

inclusion across early childhood settings is scant. As the construct of school

readiness has been challenged by inclusive policies, attention has turned to the role

of schools in enhancing learning and development but it is unclear what the nature of

a high quality inclusive environment is in the early years and what is feasible. Paper

3 -- Diversity and inclusion in the early years, seeks to address this gap in research

evidence by investigating the approaches taken in a sample of early years classrooms

from three schools.

Challenges Addressed by Paper 3

The empirical evidence sought from the study sites aimed to address gaps in

the current literature on high quality, feasible approaches to inclusion in Australian

early years classes across both play-based and subject outcomes-based programs.

Enactments of inclusion

Policies on inclusion frame the work of teachers across a variety of settings,

but the form that inclusion takes is contested territory (Nind, Simmons, Sheehy &

Rix, 2003). Inclusion is contextually framed, so teachers could be expected to create

inclusive environments in varied ways, depending on their setting, attitude and

expertise (Nind, et al., 2003). The groups to which the notion of inclusion applies

also vary. A wide range of diversity groups are listed by the UK Office for Standards

in Education as “inclusion groups” (Nind, et al., 2003, p.3) and are considered in two

recent Australian texts on diversity and inclusion (Ashman & Elkins, 2005; Keeffe &

Carrington, 2007). However, another recent Australian text (Foreman, 2008) focuses

on children with disabilities or risks and omits children with gifts on the grounds that

they have not experienced school exclusion. Paper 3 reports on evidence of varied

118

118 Inclusion in the Early Years of School

enactments of inclusion in three different Australian early years school contexts,

taking account of the range of diversity to which schools and teachers attended.

Lack of evidence in the early years of school

Empirical evidence on inclusion in early childhood concentrates on prior-to-

school settings, and may address preschool, kindergarten (preparatory, reception) or

childcare (Cook, Klein, & Tessier, 2008; North & Carruthers, 2008; Allen &

Cowdery, 2005; Gavidia-Payne & Jobling 2005; Howard, Williams & Lepper, 2005).

Empirical evidence in school settings considers schools as a whole, and sometimes

discusses both primary and secondary schools without specific reference to younger

children (Keeffe & Carrington, 2007). A small body of work in the UK (Nutbrown &

Clough, 2006; Jones, 2004), the USA (Winter, 2005) and Australia (Pendegast,

Chadbourne & Danby, 2009; Petriwskyj, 2005a, 2005b) offers examples in the early

years of school. The limited attention to inclusion across the early years of school is

problematic as the assumption that prior-to-school content or middle school content

will be relevant across the early years is questionable. Paper 3 reports evidence

regarding inclusive environments in twenty-two Australian early years classrooms.

Evidence linking across early childhood settings

Literature on the inclusive responses of teachers in Australia has reported on

negative issues such as the limited professional capacity of teachers in ECEC settings

(Kilgallon & Maloney, 2003) and the negative attitudes of teachers in school settings

(Forlin, Douglas, & Hattie, 1996). A limited number of case studies in the UK

(Herbert, 1998; Clough & Nutbrown, 2003; Jones, 2004) have indicated that teachers

in nursery, reception and other early years classes as well as school leaders felt

unprepared. They also noted that sustained early years inclusion was facilitated by

open communication, family involvement, positive attitudes, flexible teaching and

shared high expectations. Herbert (1998) indicated that inclusion was easier in the

individualised ECEC setting, that the process of assessment to access services was

stressful for families and that the transition from the UK infants school to the junior

school could be difficult.

In an Australian large-scale mixed method study (Thorpe, et al., 2004),

teachers across preschool, preparatory and Year 1 classrooms were found to share an

119

Inclusion in the Early Years of School 119

emphasis on supportive classroom environments and connectedness, but teachers

across these contexts had low scores for recognition of cultural difference. Data

about the reasoning teachers used and the pressures they experienced in enacting

inclusive policies and ideals would offer insights into sustained inclusion. Paper 4

offers more detailed evidence at the same study sites as those studies by Thorpe et

al., (2004) and provides evidence on approaches to inclusion that are relevant across

early years settings, indicating shared directions for inclusion as teachers negotiate

children’s transition between settings.

Quality and feasibility in inclusive early years environments

Definitions of quality in early childhood programs and evidence about the

effects of variation in quality in both ECEC and the early years of school has been

developed through large-scale studies (Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish et al., 2004, 2008;

(OECD, 2006; Peisner-Feinburg, Burchinal, Clifford, et al., 1999). However, specific

evidence about quality variations in inclusive early childhood settings is scant and

evaluation instruments for measuring quality in early childhood contain only a few

items relevant to inclusion (Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2003; Hemmeter,

Ault & Schuster, 2001).

One of the challenges in providing high-quality inclusive early childhood

programs is the issue of feasibility, which Guralnick (2001) defined as “the ability of

a program to retain its core philosophical and programmatic approach while

successfully meeting the individual needs of all children within the program” (p. 14).

Feasibility reflects key elements of program integrity, minimisation of stigma

attached to difference, and adequate provision of specialist resources and services.

Guralnick (2001) identifies equitable access to services and appropriate

developmental and social outcomes for all children in the program as key domains of

inclusion. Thus, evidence about inclusive early education across the ECEC-early

years of school boundary should attend to both quality and feasibility. Paper 3

reports on quality, including feasibility, using both standard observation protocol

learning environment measures, and interviews with teachers responsible for

enactment of inclusion in early years classes.

120

120 Inclusion in the Early Years of School

Development and Impact of Paper 3

If teachers’ responses to diverse learners are to move beyond structural

solutions to children’s lack of readiness or limited progress, evidence is required of

effective approaches demonstrating more sophisticated strategies, linking high

quality inclusive environments across settings and addressing feasibility concerns.

Paper 3 draws on evidence from qualified, experienced teachers across the

preparatory to Year 2 early years section of schools, to highlight both their

approaches and the ongoing feasibility issues they identified.

The journal selected for this paper is an A publication on the ERA journal list.

It is a relatively new journal with a focus on critical theory and inclusion that takes a

different theoretical position from the traditional special education journals. This

journal perspective was essential for this empirical paper, which uses critical and

socio-cultural frames of reference, rather than a traditional behaviourist frame.

Diversity and inclusion in the early years (Paper 3) 121

CHAPTER 9: DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE EARLY YEARS (PAPER 3)

Petriwskyj, A.

International Journal of Inclusive Education (30 September e-journal, 2009)

Abstract

The emphasis on inclusion of diverse learners presents challenges to early

years teachers, particularly those whose understandings have been framed by notions

of school readiness and of special education for children with disabilities. This mixed

method study of children and teachers in early years classes across three school sites

in Australia explored factors associated with children’s development, achievement

and adjustment. The focus went beyond organisational or structural issues to

consider pedagogic responses to diverse learners from the kindergarten class through

Year 1 and Year 2. The study identified factors influencing teachers’ responses to

diversity, and highlighted areas of tension between inclusive policies, resourcing and

normative understandings that have implications for teachers’ professional learning.

122

122 Diversity and inclusion in the early years (Paper 3)

Introduction

Despite the current emphasis on inclusive education in school education and in

early education and care (Corbett & Slee, 2000; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005), there

remains confusion about the meaning of inclusion and its implications for teachers

(Ainscow 2007). Definitions of inclusion have shifted in recent times from those

focusing on readiness for assimilation into a general class (mainstreaming) and those

focusing on integration or general class placement with English language instruction

and accommodations for disability (Cook, Klein, & Tessier, 2008), to those

incorporating curricular and pedagogic differentiation to support children’s sense of

belonging (Gillies & Carrington, 2004). Some discussions of inclusion still imply

mainstreaming or integration, or incorporate segregation in special classes (Jones,

2005) or partial withdrawal (Guralnick, 2001). The emerging paradigm of inclusion

involves all children having the right to actively participate in a general education

setting and to be valued as members of that education community (Carrington,

2007). Corbett and Slee (2000) distinguished between surface inclusion led by

policy, second level inclusion focused on changes to environments and curricula, and

deep level inclusion which restructures elements of the hidden curriculum of values

and acceptance. This suggests a shift in philosophies of inclusion that encompasses

more positive images of diverse children and goes beyond surface adjustments.

Conceptualisations of inclusion in Australia now imply both social inclusion

(belonging and being valued as a person) and academic inclusion (being supported to

succeed in learning) and consider both the child and their family within their

ecological context (Ashman & Elkins, 2005).

The varying meanings of inclusion reflect the shift in thinking about diversity

in children (Graham, 2007). The focus on risk and deficit located the problem with

the individual child (Terzi, 2005). Critical evaluation of this focus has prompted a

reconceptualisation that takes account of the contexts of learning, and as a

consequence, a broader understanding of diversity that incorporates giftedness,

gender, social background, learning variations and behavioural concerns as well as

cultural and linguistic difference and disability, has emerged (Ashman & Elkins,

2005). Recent overarching constructs such as diverse abilities (Ashman & Elkins,

2005) and diverse learners (Coyne, Kame’enui, & Carnine 2007) indicate acceptance

123


of difference while constructs such as diverse learning rights (OECD, 2006) and

learners in diverse classrooms (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007) reflect newer social

models that recognise the role of social institutions in creating disabling

circumstances (Gillies & Carrington, 2004). Ng (2003) argued that broader diversity

constructs reflect the complex and multi-dimensional nature of difference and more

effectively addressed the power relations underlying inequality. These changes imply

a move away from normative ideas that underpin categorisation of children and are

connected with more differentiated pedagogies supporting learners with varied

characteristics (Graham, 2007). Debate continues over whether social constructions

of diversity ignore real impairment (Abberley, 1992) and whether there is adequate

evidence that this shift supports children with significant difficulties (Forlin, Hattie

& Douglas, 1996). It is unclear how teachers understand diversity and inclusion or

act on emerging ideas.

The challenges teachers face in implementing inclusive policies have drawn

attention to practical, attitudinal and policy issues that require resolution if deep level

inclusion is to be a reality. Feasibility, including the maintenance of the integrity of

the general classroom programme, appropriate equipment and personnel resourcing,

access to specialist services, and minimisation of the stigma associated with

difference, has been identified as a critical element in early childhood settings

(Guralnick, 2001). The keys to successful inclusion were identified by Horne and

Timmons (2007) as teacher professional preparation, family and school support, and

the provision of consultation time, but there are contextual differences. In early

childhood centres, Mohay and Reid (2006) found that inclusion was limited by staff

confidence about having the skills to offer a quality programme. However, in

schools, Forlin, Hattie and Douglas (1996) found that negative attitudes influenced

inclusion and Ainscow (2007) advocated a review of school cultures underpinning

change in practices. Wedell (2005) and Graham (2006) have noted that both

normative understandings and assumptions about homogeneity mitigate against deep

level inclusion and indicated the need for increased organisational and pedagogic

flexibility. The literature focuses separately on early education in schools and prior to

school, although links and overarching issues are beginning to be examined

(Nutbrown & Clough, 2006).

124


Recent emphasis on the role of inclusive early years education in improving

outcomes for diverse learners has focused on the quality of that education (OECD,

2006), the learning environment (Freiberg, 1999), the success of school transition

(Pianta & Cox, 1999), teacher responsiveness to diverse children (Jones, 2005) and

the connectedness of programmes to family backgrounds (Siraj-Blatchford, 2006;

Thorpe, et al., 2004). However, the definition of quality in early years programmes

has been contested. The traditional schooling focus on effective content delivery and

the traditional early childhood focus on developmental play have both been

challenged by child-responsive but educationally focused pedagogies located in

socio-cultural understandings about learners and learning (Gipps & MacGilchrist,

1999). The focus on children’s readiness for school associated with assumptions of

homogeneity within the class is still prevalent (Petriwskyj, Thorpe & Tayler, 2004),

yet readiness constructs have been criticised as being inconsistent with inclusion

(Corbett & Slee, 2000). The emerging paradigm of transition, framed by ecological,

critical and socio-cultural perspectives, considers the readiness of the school for the

reality of variation in children, and identifies relationships with family and

community as factors in quality early education (Dockett & Perry, 2007). The agency

of children as an influence on teacher practices is also increasingly taken into

consideration (Dockett & Perry, 2007; MacNaughton, Hughes & Smith, 2007).

In Australia, systemic reforms have been introduced in some states to support

more effective early years school education, as part of a wider reform movement

aimed at improving educational outcomes (Queensland Government, 2002). This

process included the introduction in Queensland of play-based non-compulsory

preparatory (kindergarten or reception) school classes as a structural or

organisational means of enhancing outcomes through smoother transition into school

as well as later entry to formal outcomes-based education (Queensland Studies

Authority QSA, 2003). Evaluation of the trial phase of this introduction indicated

unhappiness in children from culturally diverse backgrounds and a limited teacher

response to diversity (Thorpe, et al., 2004). The school version of the British Index

of Inclusion has also been introduced in Queensland to focus reform on catering

more effectively for diverse learners in a climate of teacher resistance to inclusive

policies, based in a history of specialised disability service provision (Gillies &

Carrington, 2004). The impact of these reforms on inclusive practices and children’s

125


outcomes in early years settings in Australia is unknown. More in-depth

investigation of the work of teachers in early years classrooms may illuminate issues

that require resolution for inclusion ideals to be realised.

This study focused on the question:

How do early years teachers respond to issues of concern for diverse learners?

1. What structural and pedagogic responses do teachers use?

2. How does child diversity influence teacher responses?

For this study, an inclusive definition of diverse learners is adopted to

encompass children from culturally and linguistically diverse or socially

marginalised backgrounds, children with diagnosed disabilities and/or gifts and

children identified by teachers as having behavioural or learning concerns. The term

kindergarten is used for the non-compulsory class before Year 1, as this is a widely-

used term.

Method

Tensions remain not only in defining diversity and inclusion, but also about

appropriate research methodologies for investigating teaching questions in early

years contexts (Ryan, Oschner & Genishi, 2001). Ryan and colleagues (2001) have

advocated methods of inquiry involving teachers themselves, to clarify the

complexities of teaching, rather than relying on traditional process-product research.

This mixed-method study incorporated teacher explanations of their responses to

offer insights into the issues influencing inclusive responses to diversity.

Participants

The study at three Australian government school sites involved 22 early years

teachers and 431 children in kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2 classes at the end of

2004 and the commencement of 2005. The sites represented three different contexts

– suburban, regional, and city multi-cultural. All children in the target classes were

included, with the exception of two individuals for whom permission was denied.

Child ages were from four to seven years. Permission was provided by all school

principals and all early years teachers at the three sites agreed to participate. Four of

126


the teachers were working in kindergarten classes, ten in Year 1 classes, and eight in

Year 2 classes, and all were qualified teachers with extensive early years experience.

Measures

Key variables measured were:

1. Teacher understandings of diversity and inclusion. Semi-structured

interviews were conducted with eleven teachers in kindergarten and Year 1

to elicit their understandings of diversity and the ways in which they tried

to respond to diversity in their classrooms. Interviews were audio-taped for

transcription, although one teacher who declined interview agreed to

submit written answers to the questions. Following specific questions about

child diversity in their classroom, teachers were asked

a. What do you see as your responsibility in terms of varying the

learning environment for diverse groups of children?

b. What changes do you make to your teaching approach to cater for a

wide range of children?

c. How do you change your teaching across the day, the week, or the

year based on your experience of children or your monitoring of their

responses?

d. What support systems in your school or community assist you in

working effectively with diverse children? Are they available in the

classroom, or on a pull-out basis?

2. Child learning and adjustment: Standard child assessments measured

literacy, numeracy, physical and oral language development in

kindergarten and Year 1(n=209) and classroom engagement in

kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2 (n=413) repeating measures from the

Preparing for School evaluation (Thorpe, et al., 2004). These child

assessments were administered by the usual classroom teachers, to avoid

the negative influence of external testing on young children. Teachers

were working within a limited time frame without additional training in

data collection, which restricted the measures to those that were brief and

easy to administer, with unambiguous directions and prepared assessment

forms.

127


a. Early and Emergent Literacy – A measure of concepts about print,

reading and writing developed by O’Gorman, Broughton, Lennox and

Thorpe (2003). This measure has a standard storybook in the style of

an early reader, in which the text is used as a focus for the

identification of concepts about print and reading. It also provides the

stimulus material for the writing task in which children are asked to

write about themselves. Reading is scored according to number of

words correctly read, concepts of print according to identification and

naming of letters and words, and writing according to conveying of

meaning, number of ideas expressed, complexity of usage and

concepts of print at four levels of emergent literacy behaviours.

b. General Mathematics Understanding – A 14 item measure adapted

from the Griffin and Case (1997) Number Knowledge Test measures

both number and broader mathematical understandings. The early

number individual assessment measures counting, number sense,

cardinal number, conservation and addition of small numbers. It was

supplemented with items from other strands of mathematical

knowledge (space, volume, size and shape). Children whose scores

were high were offered three supplementary items covering areas

(two-digit numbers, concrete addition and subtraction) identified as

difficult during the evaluation study (Thorpe et al., 2004).

c. Classroom Engagement - A 23 item checklist adapted from Settling

into School, which was derived from the Teacher Rating Scale of

School Adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1997) with additional items from

the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). The

classroom engagement measure is a rating scale of children’s social

adjustment and behaviour in the school setting, which is scored by

classroom teachers on a three point scale. It is constructed around four

sub-scales – cooperative participation, independence, social

participation and hyperactivity.

d. Communication and Physical Development – An 18 item measure of

vocabulary and language complexity was developed from an upward

extension of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory

(Fenson,Dale, Reznick, Thal, Bates, Hartung, Pethick & Reilly,

128


1991). In addition, six physical development items used teacher rating

of fine and gross motor development and fitness.

3. Pedagogical practice: Non-participant observations were made in twenty-

two classrooms using the standard protocol US Assessment of Practices

in Early Elementary Classrooms APEEC (Hemmeter, Ault & Schuster,

2001), which has three subscales - physical environment, instructional

context and social context. Because there were gaps in this measure for

Australian kindergarten conditions, gross motor and diversity subscales

from the associated US Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale

ECERS Revised (Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 1998) and UK ECERS

Extension (Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2003) were added. These

scales provide observational descriptors scaled from 1 (poor) to 7

(excellent), with a score of 3 representing minimal quality. There were

two APEEC diversity items and three ECERS diversity subscale items

related to participation of children with disabilities, socio-cultural

diversity, individualised planning, gender equity and racial equity. These

scales were selected because of their clarity of scoring, the range of items

covered, their inclusion of diversity items and their combined ability to

provide evidence in both outcomes-based and play-based classes.

Although their basis in developmentally appropriate practice was

problematic in a diversity study, there are few alternate tools relevant

across early years settings.

Classroom observation and teachers interviews were conducted by a single

researcher, with observations occurring at more than one time across the school day.

Teachers were asked to identify children in diversity groups, using both school data

and their own information about their class, and data were coded to assure privacy.

Analysis

Content analysis of teacher interviews derived themes from the patterns of

response to offer insights into teachers’ understandings of diversity and their

strategies for catering to the range of children in their classrooms. Learning

environment observational notes were used to supplement interview data.

Quantitative analyses were undertaken using scores derived from standard

129


observation protocols and standard child assessments in early numeracy, literacy,

classroom engagement, physical ability and language ability. The analyses

addressed two key questions: (1) What are the effects of different levels of pedagogic

practice on children’s attainment? (2) How do children in diverse groups respond to

different levels of pedagogic practice? To this end, tests of associations among

variables were explored using Pearson correlations and tests of difference between

diverse groups and others, were employed. Non-parametric tests of difference,

Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney, were used because distributions did not

approximate normality. Diversity was defined in two ways. First, difference of

ability was defined by using quartile groups to permit comparison between the

majority of the class (quartile 2 and 3) and the upper and lower outcomes groups.

This approach is consistent with interview data that suggested teachers referenced

difference normatively (for example, against an average child). Second, teacher-

defined categories of cultural and social difference, learning and behavioural

concerns and diagnosed disability were used

Results

Diversity in classrooms

Proportions of children identified by teachers as diverse learners varied from

12% to 100% per class, offering distinctly different environments for teaching. Table

9.1 shows the pattern of diversity across the sites when official school data were

used. The difference between the Non-English speaking background (NESB) and

English as Second Language (ESL) categories relates to use of ESL for support

service eligibility.

Table 9.1. Class diversity by official category and year level (n=22 classes)

Diversity Kinder (n=4) Year 1(n=10) Year 2 (n=8)

Non-English speaking background 1.75 (SD 3.5) 8.5% 4.70 (SD 5.58) 21% 2.17 (SD 3.49)

8.7%

Diagnosed disability 0.75 (SD 0.5) 3.7%

1.00 (SD 2.23) 4.6%

1.66 (SD 2.16) 6.6%

English as second language 1.50 (SD 3.38) 7.3%

3.10 (SD 3.98) 14.2%

0.33 (SD 0.51) 1.3%

Indigenous 1.25 (SD 0.96) 6.1% 1.70 (SD 2.0) 7.8% 1.33 (SD 1.30)

5.3% Other concerns (literacy & behaviour)

2.50 (SD .58) 12.2%

2.80 (SD 3.08) 12.8% 4.00 (SD 2.0) 16%

130


The key diversity areas nominated by teachers were disability, learning

difficulty and linguistic difference. No children with gifts were identified, 6.5% of

children were identified as having a diagnosed disability and three major cultural and

linguistic sub-groups (Maori/Pasifika 3.3%, Vietnamese 2.6% and Indigenous 5.9%)

were identified. Some teacher identification figures were much lower than

anticipated, given the official school data and state statistics. For example, teachers

identified 2.0% as having English as a second language (compared with official

figures of up to 14% in Year 2) and only 0.7% as being of low socio-economic status

background.

Question 1: Teacher Responses to Diversity

Teachers reported both structural and pedagogic adjustments to cater for

diversity, but more commonly reported and were observed to use structural

responses.

Structural responses

Grouping and Retention

Structural or organisational changes were made, particularly for diagnosed

disability and literacy concerns. Class streaming was evident at a site characterised

by high levels of diversity, with children with English as a second language grouped

in one class, and children with disabilities in another. The most common strategy in

Years 1 and 2 across all schools was ability grouping, but neither streaming nor

ability grouping was used in kindergarten. A third of the teachers nominated grade

retention as an appropriate response to children’s developmental immaturity and

2.4% of children were actually retained in grade. Multi-age classes were identified

by two teachers as being a practical response to diversity.

I’ve got 3 different levels of the reading groups, and try to give them work

where they’re at so they feel they’re achieving.

We have had a couple of children in the last couple of years who we have

actually got to repeat (kindergarten). They’ve come to Grade 1 and we’ve

asked them to repeat (kindergarten) because we’ve said to the parents they’re

socially and emotionally not ready. We can’t really do anything much with

them and they’ll end up repeating Grade 1.

131


Access to Support Services

All teachers commented positively on the impact in-class teaching assistance

made on outcomes but some identified limitations on consultation time and access to

specialist support as a concern. Special education teachers and aides, Reading

Recovery teachers, Indigenous and Vietnamese aides, occupational and language

therapists, guidance officers (psychologists) and teachers of English as a Second

Language were accessed, but their availability was limited to children with

diagnosed disabilities, children with little or no English or Indigenous children

(literacy only). While kindergartens did not have formal specialist staff access during

the study period, they had more general teacher aide access than Years 1 or 2 classes.

Volunteers were used to offer individual learning support, and one teaching team

offered volunteer training.

I campaign really hard for them. I get down to that special needs committee

and I start lobbying. I get whatever I can for that child

We have access to a speech pathologist but we only have a small access in

that she has very little time – only a day for the whole school.

We’ve made sure we have quite a bank of volunteers that come in. My

teaching partner, runs a volunteer programme the school has set up and

that’s done at the beginning of the year and shows them how to deal with

different children, different learning needs.

Utilisation of Support Services

The strategies for utilising support services varied, depending not only on

teacher preferences and child issues, but also on the leadership of school principals

and heads of special education within the schools. Both part-time segregation in

special education classes or English language classes and in-class segregation with a

specialist aide were used by four of the teachers, but over half the teachers used in-

class support with small groups of children or the whole class.

The guidance officer assisted in locating the student 2 days in the SEDU

(special education development unit) near our school.

The OT (occupational therapist), she also will do home programmes for

parents, and there is an aide who will work with the OT children before

132


school for a time, 15 minutes or whatever. She will come up and do their

exercises with the whole class.

Also I have the special ed teacher first session every day except Friday. She

is going to withdraw the ascertained (diagnosed) children. I like them to

work with all the children not just the ascertained children.

Pedagogic responses

Changes to curriculum and strategy

Interview and observational data indicated that teachers in kindergarten and

Year 1 made a number of adjustments to curriculum and strategy to cater more

effectively for the range of children, but there was less evidence of such adjustments

in Year 2. Teachers in kindergarten and Year 1 reported changes in task, variations in

teaching resources or levels of difficulty, alterations to instructional pacing and

assessment modifications. Most teachers indicated that they made provision for

varying learning styles. In three highly diverse kindergarten and Year 1 classes, the

teachers reported incorporating culturally appropriate resources and learning

experiences, additional language experiences and health care to cater more

effectively for children.

Varied learning styles … We’ve done a lot of Seven Ways and incorporated

that into the lessons – multiple intelligences.

We have a variety of learning experiences going on. We make sure that

children are not all sitting in rows in their desks all doing exactly that same

thing, because if you do you are probably not meeting the needs of

approximately 80% of your class.

First ... change your expectation… then depending on the child, you change

the pace at which you teach. The type of activity… you change the type of

activity. You can’t expect them all to come out of the sausage machine

exactly the same.

Classroom Environment Quality (APEEC and ECERS)

The quality of the classroom learning environments were sound (scores of 4 or

above on the APEEC and ECERS) but scores reduced markedly from kindergarten to

Year 2 (see Figure 9.1) Teachers reported that differences in human and material

133


resource provision influenced their capacity to offer optimal environments for

diverse learners.

Figure 1: Sub-scale means by class type

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

PE IC SC GM Div

APEEC, ECERS-R and ECERS-E Sub-Scales

Kinder

Year 1

Year 2

Figure 9.1. Subscale means by class type

Links between kindergarten and subsequent classes were found in room

accessibility (physical environment PE), monitoring of child progress, warm teacher-

child language and subject integration (instructional context IC), teaching of social

skills and participation of children with disabilities (social context SC). Contrasts

were found in resources including gross motor space and equipment (GM), and in

items emphasising individual differentiation rather than class conformity (flexibility

in transition between activities, display of individualised child products, child

decision-making, individualised planning). Teachers in Year 1 and 2 were critical of

the level of resource provision and they reported personally supplementing limited

materials or borrowing materials from kindergarten to cater for the range of children.

This may have inflated their instructional context (range of materials) scores.

Kindergarten teachers noted that they had less support service access than Year 1 and

2 teachers, but that the flexible environment facilitated responsiveness to diversity.

A (kindergarten) environment is just lovely to have these children in because

you’re teaching to their individual needs. It’s very different to a year 1

classroom, where you have a very structured curriculum.

Statistically significant associations were found between learning environment

scores and outcomes of children in kindergarten and Year 1, although most were

134


modest (see Table 9.2). When Year 2 classes were included, a modest negative

relationship between hyperactivity and learning environment was also found but

Year 2 classroom engagement scores should be interpreted with caution as two (out

of eight) teachers reported delaying adjustment assessment until children had settled

into Year 2.

Table 9.2. Correlation of outcomes and learning environment scores

Learning environment Physical Instruction Social G. motor Diversity

Chi

ld o

utco

mes

Reading +.051** (K) Supplementary mathematics

+.496* (K)

+.405* (K)

+.496* (K) +.187** (Yr 1) +.504* (K) +.275**(K)

+.181**(Yr 1) Hyperactivity -.172** (K-1) Manipulative skills +.253** (K)

-.210* (Yr 1)

Gross motor skills +.304* (K)

+.326* (Yr 1)

Diversity Environment (APEEC and ECERS)

Differences in catering for diversity were identified in the ECERS-E diversity

subscale and APEEC diversity items (see Table 9.3). In kindergarten classes, mean

scores for individualised planning and participation of children with disabilities were

uniformly high while in Year 1 and Year 2 mean scores for participation of children

with disabilities were sound, but means for gender and racial equity in Year 2 were

near minimal levels, indicating that teachers’ practices were less adaptive to gender

and racial diversity. Teachers in Years 1 and 2 explained that outcomes pressures

including statutory national assessment impacted on their capacity for differentiation.

When individual planning (diversity environment) quartiles were compared,

significant differences were found in children’s classroom engagement H=17.124

(df3, n=431) p<.025, literacy H=53.162 (df3, n=208), p<.005, general mathematics

H=37.239 and supplementary mathematics H= 20.095(df3, n=223), p<.005.

135


Table 9.3. Diversity item mean scores by class type

Diversity item Kindergarten Year 1 Year 2 ECERS individual planning 6.25 (SD 0.50) 4.80 (SD 1.14) 4.00 (SD 1.31) ECERS gender equity 4.50 (SD 1.00) 4.10 (SD 1.10) 2.88 (SD 0.64) ECERS racial equity 5.00 (SD 0.82) 4.90 (SD 1.20) 3.38 (SD 0.52) APEEC disability participation 6.50 (SD 0.58) 5.60 (SD 0.57) 5.50 (SD 0.93) APEEC diversity (social cultural) 4.75 (SD 1.50) 4.10 (SD 0.57) 4.00 (SD 0.00)

Many teachers commented that the limited access they had to appropriate

professional in-service learning about diversity impacted on their confidence in

addressing complex diversity issues. Professional development was provided only

when they made a special request or experienced a crisis situation. Only two teachers

reported pre-service professional learning directed at diversity issues and practices,

although a third teacher had undertaken further formal study in the area. All teachers

reported positively on the value of on-site advice from special education teachers,

English as Second Language teachers, therapists or cultural assistants.

All of the in-service just happens. It’s all reactive. So you find yourself in a

heap before you get the in-service.

We have a Vietnamese aide and an Aboriginal aide. It’s lovely because

culturally you can come on staff and not be aware of things that are

offensive and aren’t appropriate. It’s been really good and I’ve learnt a lot.

Collaborative relationships

Whilst teachers indicated that support relationships with specialist staff within

the school were particularly helpful, they also nominated school leadership,

consistent behaviour policies and cooperative teamwork as factors in their ability to

respond effectively. One teacher discussed contact with external community

agencies. While respect for families was observed, the APEEC family involvement

item showed marked variation (minimal score of 3 through to excellent score of 6)

and reduction in mean scores from year to year. Two teachers explained that

classroom involvement of families was restricted because some groups (for example,

Maori/Pasifika) valued community sharing of responsibility for children and this

resulted in loss of confidentiality of classroom information. Parent-teacher contact

was reported to be in the form of volunteer assistance to teachers (e.g., work in

classrooms), receipt of teacher advice (e.g. information meetings) and brief informal

136


contact. More extensive parent-teacher conversations about children were observed

in kindergartens.

Question 2: Impact of Diversity in Classes on Teaching

In addition to the impact of teacher provisions on children, a reciprocal

influence of classroom diversity on teachers was identified. Diversity environment

scores were highest and more diversity – appropriate changes were reported in

classrooms with very high levels of diversity.

Numbers of Diverse Learners

When diverse learners were considered as a broad group, significant positive

associations were found between total numbers of diverse learners per class and class

gross motor environment, r = +.295, physical environment r = +.236, diversity

environment r = +.209, p<.05 and social context r = +141, p<.01. Across all sites,

there was a positive association between the numbers of south-east Asian children

and the diversity environment provided r = +.139, p<.05, between the numbers of

Maori/Pasifika children and the gross motor environment r = +.142, p<.05, between

numbers of children from low socio-economic status backgrounds and both diversity

environment r = +.154, p<.05 and social context r = +.168, p<.05, and a negative

correlation between numbers of children with behavioural concerns and gross motor

environment r = -.148, p<.05. Unexpectedly, associations with instructional context

were not significant suggesting instruction approach remained more stable.

Negative associations were found between total numbers of diverse learners

per class and outcomes related to self-expression (oral communication r = -.328,

social skills r = -.262, writing r = -.204, p<.05). Expected relationships were found

between the numbers of children in diversity sub-groups and academic outcomes

(Table 9.4). However, there was no significant association between academic

outcomes and the presence of high classroom numbers of Indigenous children or

children with ‘other concerns’ (behaviour and literacy). This was an unexpected

result, but children in both these groups received literacy support services.

137


Table 9.4. Correlation of numbers in sub-groups and academic outcomes

Total Literacy Supp Maths Total Maths SE Asian +.248 * +.155 ** Maori/Pasifika -.177* ESL -.274* Low SES -.170** -.170 ** Disability -.176 **

Across the early years classes, teacher appeared to construct diversity as

disability, learning difficulty or lack of English, rather than the broader notions of

diverse learners (Coyne, Kame’enui, & Carnine, 2007) or learners in diverse

classrooms (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2005). There was limited evidence of

diversity conceptualisation encompassing issues such as social and cultural

background or giftedness, for which pedagogic responses rather than service

provision are indicated. Observations and teacher reports suggested a persistence of

normative referencing of children by teachers (e.g., focus on readiness and retention)

and an emphasis on deficit categorisation. Teachers’ discursive positioning was

consistent with their responses to diversity that focused on issues that attract funding

and additional human resource provision (e.g., learning support), although these

responses could also be interpreted as a pragmatic effort to address feasibility

concerns raised by Guralnick (2001). Such positioning is likely to be perpetuated by

the restriction of support services to formally-diagnosed groups (Graham 2006). This

suggests not only that teacher professional learning needs to focus on both disability

and broader issues such as giftedness and cultural diversity, but also that systemic

change is needed.

Teacher interviews offered insights into both their understandings of issues and

the pragmatic classroom concerns that impact on their inclusion practices. The focus

on internal support service access and the use of partial segregation in Years 1 and 2

suggest that teachers may still be developing strategies to utilise specialised services

in more inclusive ways in the context of limited professional learning, supporting

Mohay and Reid’s (2006) finding that teachers lacked confidence in their skills.

Utilisation strategies appeared to be framed by personal pedagogies, specialist staff

advice and school policy, but the level of teacher empowerment in these decisions

was unclear. The introduction of the school-level Index of Inclusion was intended to

reduce the focus on individual child deficits (Gillies & Carrington, 2004), so aspects

of the early years version (Booth, Ainscow, & Kingston 2006) might be effective in

138


assisting kindergarten and other early years teachers to reconsider their responses and

understandings. However, teachers highlighted systemic issues that need to be

addressed in the context of very complex class groups. These include the inadequacy

of support resources, limited availability of professional learning and external

outcomes pressures including statutory assessment.

Although there was an emphasis on structural responses similar to those

identified by Horne and Timmons (2007) in Canada (e.g., consultation time and

school supports), all teachers incorporated some curricular and pedagogic changes.

These changes considered content, process and output, as Tomlinson (2005)

recommended, but the systemic issues teachers in Years 1 and 2 identified above

were nominated as barriers to more differentiated classroom practices. The Early

Years Curriculum for kindergartens was intended to influence practices across the

early years (QSA, 2003) and has the potential to increase pedagogic flexibility

(Graham, 2006), but its impact appeared modest. Models of in-service professional

learning based on critical reflection, such as the action learning circles model

proposed by MacNaughton and colleagues (2007) may be relevant since they would

assist in re-framing practices in response to issues teachers identify in their own

context. Pre-service education initiatives designed to prepare teachers more

adequately for the realities of diversity in classrooms (Horn & Timmons, 2007) may

need to consider both strategies for differentiation and critical thinking about

effective contexts for early education.

Both interviews and learning environment scores indicated an overall

commitment to educational quality including diversity provisions and some

supportive links between kindergarten and subsequent classes, but declining scores

associated with increasing year levels could suggest reductions in quality of response

to diversity as children moved through the early years. The low diversity

environment scores and low scores on other individual differentiation items in Year 2

support this argument. This could affect successful transition into school, impacting

on the ongoing progress of some children (Dockett & Perry, 2007). Another

interpretation could be that the APEEC and ECERS measures were framed around

developmentally appropriate practice constructs that may not necessarily be seen as

relevant by the time children are in Year 2. Lower scores in Year 2, therefore, might

not imply poor quality, as changes may be appropriate as children move towards the

139


transition from early years into the middle school. The impact of learning

environment quality on outcomes offered some support to Freiberg’s (1999)

argument that schools need to establish supportive environments as protective factors

in the lives of children facing varied challenges. Use of the academic sub-scales of

the ECERS-E and R would have indicated curricular quality as another important

influencing factor in kindergartens, but the content would require modification for

Australian contexts and a similar measure for later early years classes was not

identified. The study highlighted the need for a single early years learning

environment measure applicable to both play-based and outcomes-based contexts

that accounts for varied diversity issues.

Some changes teachers made to the learning environment were associated with

pressures from high numbers of diverse learners. This may demonstrate teachers’ self

- evaluation of their teaching or may indicate an influence of child agency in framing

teacher responses as indicated by MacNaughton, and colleagues (2007). The low

saliency of cultural concerns in less diverse classrooms suggests that teachers

prioritise issues, or that inclusion focuses more on disability in those schools. This is

important in the light of Australian evidence linking academic learning and

children’s lifeworlds in Indigenous children (Frigo & Adams, 2002) and children

from socially diverse backgrounds (Comber & Kamler, 2004). More extensive

family and community involvement might have supported deeper understandings of

children and development of more effective and culturally relevant teaching

interactions as argued by Siraj-Blatchford (2006) and Dockett and Perry (2007). The

recent emphasis in inclusive early education on family empowerment (Guralnick,

2001) represents a different construction of family-school relationships from those

that teachers considered appropriate in their settings. Negotiation of power

relationships and collaborative resolution of differences in cultural understanding of

confidentiality required further consideration. Teachers identified the positive role of

cultural teaching assistants in guiding their understandings, which suggests they

might be a valuable link between schools, families and communities.

Limitations

While the small number of investigation sites influenced the broader

application of the study, it offered opportunities to collect in-depth data that

140


facilitated analysis of the complexities of diversity issues. Data skewing suggested

the likelihood of a ceiling effect in the mathematics, physical development and oral

communication measures. Had parents been included in the study and asked to

nominate their child’s diversity characteristics, contrasting evidence may have

pointed to additional matters to be addressed if inclusive policies are to be fully

realised. Indeed, obtaining evidence about diverse learning from parents, children

and other staff would enable deeper consideration of inclusion in practice.

Conclusion

Evidence in this study revealed understandings of diversity that appeared to be

framed by support service categories and the history of specialised service provision

for children with diagnosed disabilities. These understandings illustrate the

challenges that exist when diversity models are re-conceptualised and policy is

changed to reflect contemporary research. Application to classroom practice takes

time. Teachers need access to professional learning relevant to common concerns

and contemporary approaches in complex early years classrooms. The limited access

to pre-service and in-service professional learning programmes reported by early

years teachers indicates a potential avenue for future development in responses to

diversity.

Access to support services, availability of teaching resources and outcomes

pressures, as well as limited professional learning about diversity, influenced efforts

by early years teachers to modify the learning environment and respond more

effectively to the learning rights of diverse learners. Addressing structural issues,

systemic pressures and policy frameworks that inhibit responsive practice cannot be

underestimated. However, evidence of the impact of differentiation of pedagogical

practice for diverse learners highlights pedagogic change as a key priority for

effective responses to diversity. The challenge of different cultural perspectives was

highlighted with respect to family involvement, and further investigation of effective

relationships with families of young children is needed.

Inclusion, Transition and Pedagogy 141

CHAPTER 10: INCLUSION, TRANSITION AND PEDAGOGY

Contemporary conceptualisations of transition are not yet well supported by

research evidence that can guide effective practice. Further, the recent emergence of

the constructs of diverse learners and deep inclusion has exposed a gap in the early

childhood research literature. While there are plentiful data on specific sub-groups

such as children with disabilities, there is an absence of material that attends to the

teacher’s task of planning for, and responding to the range of diverse learners in their

classrooms. The intersection of the emerging constructs of transition and inclusion

are not yet well attended by evidence from a shared literature identifying areas of

commonality or interaction. There has been some shared focus on structural changes

such as new curricula (QSA, 2003), but very limited attention has been given to

enactment of inclusive pedagogies in early years classrooms, and their application to

transition processes.

If teachers’ conceptualisations of school entry are to move beyond children’s

readiness and structural provisions, evidence is required of effective transition

pedagogies linking high quality learning environments across settings while

attending to inclusion and addressing feasibility concerns (Guralnick, 2001). The

lack of a body of literature that links pedagogies of inclusion to pedagogies of

transition offers a challenge in defining conceptual links. Links between the separate

bodies of literature need to be clarified if pedagogies of transition supportive of a

broader diversity of school entrants are to be investigated.

Paper 4 -- Pedagogies of inclusive transition, seeks to both integrate the two

bodies of literature on inclusion and transition, and to investigate the pedagogic

practices of experienced, qualified early years teachers engaged in working with a

range of children during transition to school.


Paper 4 reports empirical evidence on transition and inclusion, with a specific

focus on pedagogies in early years classrooms from Preparatory to Year 2. Its initial

role of drawing together disparate bodies of literature to establish shared conceptual

ground proved to be the most complex challenge of the thesis.

142

142 Inclusion, Transition and Pedagogy

Transitions, diversity and inclusion in early childhood

The multiple meanings for transition, inclusion and the broader construct of

diverse learners defined in papers 1 and 2 indicate the potential for confusion or

dispute amongst teachers as to the most effective responses to a range of children

entering school. The varied notions of transition to school and the web of ages,

contexts, curricula and issues involved even within a limited geographic region such

as Australia, make analysis of transition issues complex. Early childhood literature

continues to focus on sub-groups of diverse learners, either because of the

complexity of researching broader groupings, or lack of awareness of recent

constructs, or because of professional specialisations in specific sub-groups.

However, the recent broader construct of diversity (Carrington, 2007), or learners in

diverse classrooms (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007), is being investigated in

Australian school education.

The intersection of the emerging construct of transition with contemporary

views on diversity and inclusion presented an initial challenge in development of

paper 4. Conceptual links can be established between the two in terms of the key

ideas (Figure 10.1). However, empirical evidence in early years contexts, is scant,

offering teachers limited guidance regarding effective approaches. Evidence across

the early years, such as that reported in paper 4, is needed to link approaches and

provide examples of effective transition processes for the broader grouping of

diverse learners.

Inclusion Transition Surface inclusion, mainstreaming and assimilation

Readiness for school

Second level inclusion, integration and cultural tokenism

Preparedness and teacher practices supporting a single change event

Deep inclusion, belonging and cultural competence

Continuity, multi-layer, and relationships

Personalisation and system reform Resilience and transition capital Figure 10.1. Intersection of inclusion and transition of key ideas

Emerging attention to pedagogies in the early years

Attention in early education has focused on class structures, curricular models

and standardised evaluation frameworks as a mechanism for enhancing quality (Ryan

& Goffin, 2008). For example, in the Queensland preparatory classes, Early Years

143


Curriculum Guidelines and an early learning assessment framework linked to the key

learning areas of the school syllabus have been developed to guide teachers

(Queensland Studies Authority, 2006). However, the central role of teachers in

enacting specified ideals has been overlooked (Ryan & Goffin, 2008). Inattention to

pedagogical interactions that form the basis of everyday enactment of curricula in

classrooms has been criticised by Pollard (2001) in school settings and Grieshaber

(2008) in ECEC settings. They argue that pedagogy is pivotal in complex

contemporary educational environments, particularly those centred on socio-cultural

approaches. Grieshaber (2008) asserts that teachers need a repertoire of pedagogical

approaches on which they can draw in making skilful professional decisions to suit

specific learning situations.

The quality of pedagogy in both preschool education (Sammons, et al., 2004),

and in the primary school (Sammons, et al., 2008) has been identified recently as a

key influence on children’s progress. Such quality has been characterised by focused

interactive teaching (Thorpe, et al., 2004), sustained shared thinking (Sammons, et

al., 2004), a positive classroom climate and supportive feedback (Sammons, et al,

2008). Exploration of these concepts in school education reforms such as Productive

Pedagogies (Luke, Ladwig, Lingard, Hayes & Mills, 1999) and in social-

constructivist reforms in ECEC (Fleer, Jane & Hardy, 2007) offers opportunities to

link pedagogies before and in schools, but evidence of their application is required.

In paper 4, evidence of pedagogies and links from experienced teachers in both play-

based and subject-based early years settings in an Australian context is discussed.

Changes in pedagogies across transition to school

Enactment of understandings of quality practice by early childhood teachers is

guided by varied theoretical perspectives, from traditional behaviourist or

maturationist theories through to more recent perspectives based on social-

constructivist, ecological and critical theories (Raban, Nolan, Waniganayake, Ure,

Deans & Brown, 2005). The multiple meanings contained, therefore, by common

terms such as play-based learning and constructivist teaching, and the varied teacher

enactments in ECEC prior-to-school settings and in primary schools add to the

challenges of examining and linking pedagogies across preparatory and early years

classes. Play has been identified as a key pedagogical tool across early childhood

144


settings in which constructivist or social-constructivist approaches are used (Dockett

& Fleer, 1999). However, play varies in its level of spontaneity, its contexts and

themes, the purposes it serves, the locus of control (child, adult or both) and the

degree and style of teacher mediation. Play as a pedagogical tool may draw together

elements of both child-controlled and teacher-controlled learning, although the

balance between the two shifts, dependent upon the pedagogical approach teachers

adopt (Dockett & Fleer, 1999)

The shift between pedagogies based on play or on subject outcomes represents

a potential source of discontinuity for children during transition into school

(Petriwskyj, 2005a). However, the assumption that transition to school will mean an

abrupt change from individualised play-based pedagogies to whole class didactic

pedagogies may be unfounded. Although spontaneous play in primary school appears

confined largely to the playground or kindergarten/preparatory classes, Dockett and

Fleer (1999) found that teachers in early years classes incorporated developmental or

instructional play to support active learning whilst meeting curriculum outcomes. In

the Preparing for School evaluation in Queensland (Thorpe, et al., 2004), preparatory

teachers reported significantly less teacher-directed and more child-initiated

individual activity than teachers in Year 1, but Year 1 pedagogies incorporated small

group learning rather than being dominated by whole class teacher directed work.

Closer investigation of links between pedagogies presented in Paper 4 aimed to

provide more detailed evidence of effective ways to reduce the challenge of sharp

discontinuity.

Pedagogies of inclusion and transition

Strategies for improving inclusion was initially centred on structural

adjustments such as placement or access, curriculum revision and school re-

organisation, but recently attention has turned to critical evaluation of attitudes and

responses (Nind, et al., 2003). Recent attention to the impact of the role of teachers in

facilitating successful transition and inclusion has been based on the recognition of

potential gaps between policy or curricula and their enactment in classrooms.

Pedagogies of inclusion have been framed by an emphasis on differentiation,

transformation, connection (Corbett & Norwich, 2005), on dynamic responses (Nind,

2005), or on more extensive educational reform (Kincheloe, 2004). Simple responses

145


to diversity such as differentiation for ability groups or individuals and more

dynamic responses such as process-based teaching cater for differences in current

child performance, but leave assumptions about typical teaching practices and

normative abilities unchallenged. Alternate approaches, such as child-organised

learning, interactive teaching (Nind, et al., 2003), connective teaching (Corbett,

2001), transformative and critical pedagogies (Nind, 2003: Giroux, 2003) attend to

the co-agency of teachers and children, but vary in their focus on children,

connection of experiences, relationships or educational reform.

Differences between transition pedagogies can also be identified in their

emphasis on changes to typical teaching practices (Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003),

continuity of children’s experience (Brostrom, 2002), relationships (Niesel &

Griebel, 2007) or more extensive change involving multiple layers and stakeholders

(Dunlop, 2007). They also vary in their emphasis on the characteristics of children,

the role of schools and teachers or on the shared responsibilities of stakeholders. The

ways in which transition and inclusion pedagogies link in practice is explored in

Australian early years classes from Preparatory to Year 2 in paper 4.


Paper 4 -- Pedagogies of inclusive transition, required initial analysis of the

literature on pedagogies of inclusion and pedagogies of transition, to define common

theoretical frames of reference or common conceptual themes. The analysis of

pedagogic positions and themes used three frames – image of the child, theory frame

underpinning pedagogy, and emphasis in educational strategies. The themes derived

from the initial analysis of these positions were refined further once empirical data

were considered in relation to the themes. This resulted in one category (interaction)

being sub-divided into two themes or categories (continuity and relationship). Paper

4 linked these categories, derived predominantly from literature on pedagogies of

inclusion, to pedagogies of transition to school (Figure 10.2). The shared constructs

were then used for deriving meaning from the empirical evidence from teachers.

146


Pedagogies of inclusion and transition Optimisation and compensation – remediation, readiness Variation of typical practices – differentiation, orientation practices Connectedness and continuity – lifeworld connection, program continuity Relationships and communication - support, interactions Educational reform – transformative social action, enhancing transition capital Figure 10.2. Pedagogies of inclusion and transition

This evidence was considered from three perspectives, or using three lenses –

response to diverse learners, stakeholder interactions, and interaction with internal

and external school contexts - to reflect the different issues arising from these aspects

of transition (Niesel & Griebel, 2007) and inclusion (McWilliam, de Kruif & Zulli,

2002). Critical reflection on the outcomes of analysis highlighted issues of school

power-dynamics (Kincheloe, 2004) that may unintentionally be silencing some

voices such as those of minority group families (Giroux, 2003).

The journal selected for this paper is directed towards a readership including

practitioners as well as academics, administrators and policy-makers, who might

value detailed evidence about pedagogies in a range of early years school settings. Its

focus is early intervention, incorporating varied aspects of diversity and focusing on

children in the age range birth to eight years. The content of this paper contributes to

a book chapter on critical perspectives on transition with Professor Sue Grieshaber in

a text edited by Jalongo, to be published in 2010.

Development of an Initial Conceptualisation of Inclusive Transition

The ecological and dynamic ecological models of transition to school do not

incorporate consideration of inclusion, nor do they capture trajectory. The initial

conceptualisation or image generated for this study illustrates a framing of inclusive

transition that also represents trajectory. It organises approaches to inclusion and

transition in the order of their emergence, and of their apparent complexity and

sophistication. The conceptualisation is presented in Figure 10.3. This initial

conceptualisation is evaluated against the empirical evidence presented in Papers 4

and 5. A re-conceptualisation that takes empirical evidence into account is then

presented in Chapter 14.

147


Figure 10.3. Conceptualisation of relationship of inclusion and transition approaches

DIVERSITY APPROACH

Relationship

Multi-layer

Continuity

Transition practices

Readiness

Preparation for change event

Segregation

Mainstreaming

Integration

Inclusion

System reform

TRANSITION APPROACH

148


Pedagogies of Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 4) 149

CHAPTER 11: PEDAGOGIES OF INCLUSIVE TRANSITION TO SCHOOL (PAPER 4)

Petriwskyj, A.

Journal of Early Intervention (submitted)

Abstract

Teachers in inclusive early education classrooms face competing pressures that

are highlighted as children transition from play-based settings into formal school.

Their challenge is to engage in pedagogical practice that caters for the complex range

of school entrants. Yet, the existing literature reports on transition challenges for

separate groups of children, rather than on shared needs or processes within diverse

class populations. This study addressed this gap by investigating practices that

supported transition in three Australian schools in which the populations represented

different types of pedagogic challenge. Four categories of approach to inclusive

transition were identified from a synthesis of the literature. Results from the study

indicated that teachers adopted a range of approaches framed by the visibility of

learner diversity, by classroom and whole-school context, and by the teachers’

professional transition in enacting changing policies. The results suggest that

competing demands are balanced in dynamic and contextually-framed ways.

Keywords: Context, diversity, inclusion, pedagogies, transition

150

150 Pedagogies of Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 4)

Introduction

Teachers in inclusive early education settings confront competing demands of

meeting educational outcome standards and catering for individual learning patterns

in children. They face the dilemma of balancing demands for socially appropriate

behaviours in a school setting with the need to engender a sense of belonging. This

requires sensitivity to individuals and their family backgrounds. This tension is

particularly evident as children transition from child-focused early education and

care (ECEC) settings into school settings facing formal accountability pressures. The

development of inclusion policies has shifted attention from a focus on normative

constructions of children’s readiness for school to one which is focused on schools’

provision for diversity and practices to facilitate transition for a broad range of

children (Graue, 2006). This paper identifies shared approaches to inclusion and

transition in recent professional literature, and reports on an investigation of such

approaches in three schools in Queensland, Australia.

Current conceptualisations of transition to school in the extant literature vary

with regard to the time period defined as transitional, the degree of focus they place

on structural or pedagogic factors, and the level of emphasis on specific diversity

categories compared with the broad range of abilities and cultures (Dockett & Perry,

2007; Dunlop, 2007; Neuman, 2001). Such a fragmented approach presents a

challenge to teachers who must consider both normative outcome demands and the

needs of individual children. In the USA and Australia, research about transition

reports mainly on kindergarten entry, on structural solutions such as raised age of

entry, and on the challenges of specific groups such as children with disabilities,

gifted children and children from culturally diverse backgrounds (Porter, 2005;

Petriwskyj, Thorpe & Tayler, 2005; Raban & Ure, 2000). However, kindergarten has

been utilised in Australia both as a means of acceleration or retention of children

with non-normative progress, and as a pedagogic opportunity to address individual

patterns of development (Thorpe, et al., 2004). International attention has also been

given to the pedagogic changes associated with the transition from kindergarten into

first grade, including the role of schools in meeting children’s varied needs (La Paro,

Pianta & Cox, 2000; Sink, Edwards, & Weir, 2007). Further evidence is required of

151


transition pedagogies that attend broadly to diversity rather than to separate groups,

and that extend beyond initial entry to kindergarten. This paper addresses this gap.

Extant literature reports separately on pedagogies of inclusion and of transition,

and on early childhood education and care (ECEC) and school contexts. Yet, if

transition practices are to be inclusive, they must cater effectively for the complexity

and diversity of school entrants. This paper examines the pedagogic links between

transition and inclusion, in order to identify more effective ways of addressing school

transition for a range of diverse learners. Analysis of the literature on pedagogies of

inclusion and of transition indicates four shared approaches that frame practice - (1)

variation to teaching practices, (2) continuity (3) relationships and (4) pedagogic

reform. These are framed by differing assumptions and attention to diversity groups.

In the current paper these themes guide analysis of teacher and school pedagogical

practice, and are now discussed.

Variation to teaching practices

Variations to typical classroom practice indicate recognition of diverse ability,

constructed as deficit or divergence from the norm. Both differentiated programs and

preparatory transition practices support school orientation and subsequent

achievement for children with disabilities, gifted children and children deemed to be

at risk (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Carrington, 2007; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003;

Podmore, Sauvao, & Mapa, 2003). Transition for gifted children and children with

limited English or disabilities may also involve a process of categorisation to access

modifications to standard provisions, despite criticism of such categorisation as

stigmatising difference (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Foreman, 2008).

Continuity of pedagogy

Continuity approaches attend to culture and ability and are framed by

constructions of children and families as resourceful contributors. These approaches

consider both home-school consistency and graduated change as children move

between ECEC and school programs. Continuity between home and school reduces

the alienation that children from culturally diverse backgrounds may feel in school,

as it values their cultural resources and family contribution (Comber & Kamler,

2004; Corbett, 2001; Espinosa, 2005). Graduated change between programs has been

152


addressed through increased formality in ECEC, incorporation of play pedagogies in

school or interactive experiential pedagogies across the early years (Brostrom, 2005;

Neuman, 2001; Thorpe, et al., 2004). While some dissonance can positively

challenge children as they move between settings, extreme discontinuity has been

found to have a negative impact on children from social and cultural minorities,

gifted children and children with disabilities (Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Gregory,

1997; Raban & Ure, 2000; Reitveld, 2008).

Relationship-based pedagogies

Pedagogies based on relationships have been identified as both inclusive and

effective for transition (Niesel & Griebel, 2007; Nind, 2005). These relationships

may include peer friendships, teacher-child relationships, family-school and

community-school partnerships (Brady & Kennedy, 2003; Dockett & Perry, 2007;

Ledger, Smith, & Rich, 2000). Children experiencing stress may be supported

through relationship based pedagogies that include familiarisation with teachers, peer

support, social learning programs and protection from bullying (Briggs & Potter,

1999; Cahill & Freeman, 2007). While earlier relationship-based approaches reflect

assumptions of risk resulting in a focus on addressing vulnerability, more recent

approaches indicate recognition of competence in children and families and a focus

on partnership (Briggs & Potter, 1999; Cahill & Freeman, 2007). Regardless of the

risk or competence frame, children who have effective relational support are more

likely to transition well (Thorpe, et al., 2004).

Pedagogic reform

Critical re-evaluation of deficit or vulnerability assumptions, and an awareness

of disability, risk and cultural diversity as social constructions have exposed

inadequacies in accepted approaches and prompted pedagogic reform (Nind, 2005).

A narrow focus on specific groups has been criticised for encouraging isolated

multiple additions to practice (Bartolome, 2003). Pedagogic reform, in contrast,

involves a more pro-active and wholistic approach. Inclusion reform approaches

include multi-modal, universal design and productive pedagogies. These attend to

power inequalities, support positive recognition of difference and promote broader

153


reform considering all children (Allan, 2003; Brady & Kennedy, 2003; Nind, 2005;

Sheets, 2005; Van Kraayenoord, 2007).

Reform of transition processes to incorporate attention to child agency and

transition capital, based on assumptions of the participation rights and competence of

children and families, has been suggested as a positive way of attending to diversity

across school entry (Dunlop, 2007). However, evidence is required of

implementation of transition reforms that attend to diversity and represent deeper

attitudinal changes. This study investigating pedagogies through listening to

teachers’ explanations, may illuminate effective pedagogies, contextual influences or

areas for critical reflection (Ryan, Oschner & Genishi, 2001).

The Study

The study aimed to identify the approaches that teachers considered effective

for diverse learners during transition across school entry and the first years of school,

and to examine the influences on their practice. Pedagogy was investigated in

Kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2 at three Australian schools in which the populations

presented different types of challenge for inclusive practice across the school

transition. The study questioned teachers about diversity and transition, and

examined within-site associations between diversity and pedagogy. Pedagogy was

examined at 3 levels: learning environments, inclusion and transition. Results were

considered in relation to the 4 inclusive transition approaches identified in the

literature - varied practices, continuity, relationship, and reform - as well as

traditional readiness.

The questions framing this study were:

• How does learner diversity influence pedagogy for inclusive transition?

• How do teachers enact inclusion from Kindergarten through to Year 2?

• How do teachers support transition to school for the diversity of learners?

• How do teachers balance competing demands of adjusting for individuals

and meeting external expectations?

154


Method

Study sites

Three government school sites in Queensland, Australia were the focus of this

study. These schools contained co-located, non-compulsory, full-time Kindergarten

classes which were all on government school sites. The schools were sampled on the

basis of location and socio-cultural characteristics of the population, to represent

typical school sites in urban and regional areas. The sites represented varied

challenges in terms of complexity and diversity in their populations and the school

environment. However, all teachers were degree-qualified and experienced, and had

access to a range of specialist support services. The Kindergartens followed a

focused play-based curriculum, while the Years 1 and 2 curriculum was based on

subject outcomes.

Classroom learner diversity

Because school data on categories of learner diversity were limited to those

supported by government funding, broader categories including cultural and social

diversity, Indigenous background, giftedness, learning and behavioural issues were

presented to all teachers, who identified children in their class who fit criteria for

these categories. Children could be identified in more than one category. The

cultural and linguistic categories were those most commonly present in Queensland

schools – Indigenous, Maori-Pasifika and South-East Asian, predominantly

Vietnamese (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). These diversity data were coded

to assure privacy and aggregated by year level and site.

Pedagogic practices K-2

Non-participant observations were made in twenty-two classrooms to identify

patterns of pedagogic provision across Kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2.

Observations were based on the standard protocol US Assessment of Practices in

Early Elementary Classrooms APEEC (Hemmeter, Ault & Schuster, 2001) that has

physical environment, social context and instructional environment sub-scales.

Because there were gaps in this measure for purposes of this study, gross motor and

diversity subscales from the associated US Early Childhood Environment Rating

155


Scale ECERS Revised (Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 1998) and UK ECERS Extension

(Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2003) were added. These measures, while not

developed on Australian classrooms, have been used internationally and shown to

have strong predictive value in terms of later child outcomes and have been

previously used in Australian settings (Bowes, Wise, Harrison, Sanson, Ungerer,

Watson & Simpson, 2004). These scales had uniform scaling and were selected for

their clarity of scoring, incorporation of diversity items and relevance to both

subject-based and play-based classes. A single researcher made observations at more

than one time period (4 hours per classroom) against descriptors scaled from 1 (poor)

to 7 (excellent), with a score of 5 representing sound practice.

Teacher explanations of pedagogies

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with teachers (n=11)

from each class in Kindergarten and Year 1 to elicit their understandings of diversity

and transition, and explanations of their pedagogies. Interviews were audio-taped and

transcribed. Teachers were asked the following:-

1. What changes do you make to your teaching approach or learning

environment to cater for a wide range of children?

2. What support systems in your school or community assist you in working

with diverse children? How are they provided?

3. How do you assist varied children to transition to school?

4. What do you hope other people will contribute to transition processes and

what communication do you use with these people?

Content analysis of teacher interviews derived themes that were organised into

patterns of pedagogic practice at each site. Learning environment observational notes

were used to supplement analysis of interview data. This analysis offered insights

into teachers’ understandings of diversity and transition and influences on classroom

pedagogies. Transition approaches reported by teachers in interviews were

categorised using the approaches identified in the literature (readiness, changed

practices, continuity, relationship or pedagogic reform) and were numerically coded

according to the emphasis teachers placed on their value. Where teacher interviews

made brief reference (i.e., mentioned once) to an approach a score of 1 was allocated,

where a strategy was afforded extensive discussion (i.e., explained in detail) a score

156


of 2 was allocated, and where a particular approach was criticised negative codes of

1 or 2 were assigned using the same strategy as for those positively allocated. Both

coded data and learning environment observational scores were analysed using

descriptive statistics to identify means at year levels within each site. Data from the

three sites are presented separately as case studies to highlight the place of contextual

factors such as school policy, class composition, and shared pedagogical approaches

on practices. The schools represented different environments, had different types and

levels of learner diversity, and encouraged different pedagogical approaches.

Results

Site 1 regional school

School context. This school, serving a regional town and rural community, had

a stable group of local-resident teachers and large class groups (over 25) that

included children of an itinerant rural labour force. The principal had instigated

reforms, including multi-age and multi-modal teaching and a whole-school social

learning program. The Kindergarten teachers were qualified in early childhood

education and one also held special education qualifications. The regional location of

the school imposed some limitations on access to in-service professional education.

The teachers reported having had no training in cultural diversity although they had

attended short in-service seminars on multi-modal learning and disability.

Diversity context. Across K-2 at this school, mean teacher-identified class

diversity was low (24%). However, there were differences in categories identified at

each year level, as shown in Table 11.1. Kindergarten teachers reported the presence

of additional cultural and linguistic groups and high numbers of children from low

socio-economic status backgrounds, although this was not reported in other grades,

indicating differing awareness of family circumstances as children moved into and

through school. Year 1 teachers reported low diversity levels and their nominations

comprised mainly official categories recognised for allocation of additional support.

Year 2 teachers identified more children with learning or behavioural difficulties as

support services were increasingly directed towards meeting statutory assessment

pressures.

157


Table 11.1. Year level learner diversity at Regional School (R), Suburban School (S), and Multicultural School (M)

Kindergarten Year 1 Year 2 School

R School S

School M

School R

School S

School M

School R

School S

School M

School support data Indigenous literacy n.a. n.a. n.a. 6% 5% 11% 6% 4% 4%

Disability 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% 12% 4% 4% 4% Learning support n.a. n.a. n.a. 4% 12% 21% 10% 24% 20%

English as 2nd lang. n.a. n.a. 25% n.a. n.a. 32% n.a. n.a. 4%

Teacher-identified diversity data Indigenous 7% 0 5% 6% 3% 12% 6% 6% 8% Asian 2% 5% 30% 0 3% 35% 0 6% 32% Maori/Pasifika 2% 0 15% 0 8% 15% 2% 10% 20% Limited English 0 5% 25% 2% 2% 33% 0 4% 32%

Low SES 30% 0 35% 0 10% 28% 10% 6% 12% Disability 2% 5% 5% 3% 10% 8% 2% 4% 4% Gifted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Learning or behaviour 18% 10% 30% 12% 17% 23% 40% 38% 20%

Total 42% 22% 82% 14% 45% 87% 46% 64% 96%

Learning environments. Scores were assessed using standard measures across

the rating 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent). Regional School maintained sound instructional

environment quality (APEEC mean 5.14, SD 0.89) and all teachers reported offering

support for children with learning difficulties. Consistent attention to relationships

was identified in sound teacher-child language scores (APEEC mean 5.17, SD 1.16)

and good scores for support of children’s social skills (APEEC mean 5.83, SD 0.75)

that included weekly multi-age social learning classes and a peer buddy program.

However, Figure 11.1 shows pedagogic discontinuity K-1 across all sub-scales.

Teacher reports indicated a shift from individualised interactive play in Kindergarten

to structured ability-group learning and whole class didactic teaching in Years 1 and

2. Some exploration of continuity was apparent in multi-modal activities in Year 1

and increasing teacher-direction of the Kindergarten program as the year progressed.

158


Learning Environment Year Level Mean Scores at Regional School

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

physical instr. social g.motor diversity

APEEC and ECERS Learning Environment Subscales

Mean

Sco

res

KinderYear 1Year 2

Figure 11.1. APEEC and ECERS Environments K-2 at Regional School

Inclusive practices. In Kindergarten, high quality provision for disability

(APEEC mean 6.5, SD 0.43) was evident in ground floor locations, large floor space

and extensive materials rather than in support service access. Practices in

Kindergarten also incorporated family involvement and individualised planning.

Disability provisions in Years 1 and 2 were constrained by more limited room access

(APEEC mean 4.74, SD 0.82) and teaching materials (APEEC mean 4.55, SD 0.58).

No specific provision was identified for itinerant children and limited provision was

noted for gender equity (ECERS mean 3.5, SD1.3), racial equity (ECERS mean 3.6,

SD1.19) and social diversity (ECERS mean 3.7, SD1.06) (Figure 11.2).

Diversity Environment Year Level Item Mean Scores at Regional School

01234567

family

inv.

disa

bilities

socia

l div

individ

ual

gend

er

racia

l eq.

APEEC and ECERS Diversity items

Mean

Year

Level

Sco

res kinder

year 1year 2

Figure 11.2. Diversity environment item means K-2 at Regional School

159


In accordance with school policy, speech and occupational therapy was

reportedly offered to whole classes in Year 1 and 2. However, specialist teachers

were observed withdrawing children from class for individual assistance, indicating

tensions between practices and the defined school policy.

Transition approaches. While children’s Kindergarten commencement was

reported to be gradual and involve family support, all teachers’ conceptualisation of

transition to school focused on the changes involved in transitioning from

Kindergarten to Year 1. School practices emphasised children’s preparation for Year

1 and supportive relationships (Figure 11.3). Further, teachers identified grade

retention as a solution to lack of readiness.

Mean Transition Scores K-1 at Regional School (Range 0-4)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

read

ines

s

prac

tices

cont

inuity

relatio

nship

refo

rm

Reported Teacher Approaches

Mean

co

ded

in

terv

iew

sco

res

KinderYear 1

Figure 11.3. Transition approaches K-1 at Regional School

Kindergarten teachers reported transferring child records at the end of the year,

although separate class timetables were identified as a barrier to consultation with

Year 1 teachers. Transition processes were based on expectations of stability in both

staffing and child enrolment. To prepare children for Year 1 entry, the school offered

an orientation program towards the end of the year, including having the

Kindergarten children share a playground with older children, take part in specialist

subject classes (e.g., music), and visit the Year 1 classrooms.

In summary, at Regional School

• The lower visibility of diversity and complexity indicated that this was

not as salient a problem as meeting statutory assessment expectations.

160


• Transition focused on child readiness, preparatory practices, and support

relationships within the school.

• Tension between reform initiatives and classroom practice meant that

policies were not uniformly enacted.

• Adjustment and attainment were prioritised over provision for diversity,

rather than being seen as shared and linked priorities.

Site 2 suburban school

School context. The Suburban School served an urban population characterised

by a broad range of economic, social and cultural diversity. Classes were small K-1

(up to 20), but larger by Year 2 (up to 25). Most early elementary teachers had been

at the school for several years and held specific qualifications for early childhood or

early elementary education. The deputy principal also had extensive early elementary

teaching experience.

Diversity context. Across K-2, mean teacher-identified diversity was moderate

(38%). This school enrolled children from a range of diversity groups including

children in foster care. Teacher-identified learning or behaviour difficulties increased

markedly from Kindergarten to Year 2 (Table 11.1), as children’s academic progress

was assessed and increasing pressure to improve academic outcomes was placed on

teachers. Statutory assessment was nominated by teachers as a constraint.

Learning environments. Consistency in learning environment sub-scale means

K-2 is shown in Figure 11.4. In addition, continuity within the teaching day was

rated as high (APEEC horizontal transition item mean 6.54, SD 0.71) with consistent

provision for flexible change between learning activities. Teacher report and further

observation indicated that the Kindergarten program included whole class direct

instruction and specialist subject lessons as well as discovery play. In Years 1 and 2,

gradually increasing whole class direct instruction was observed and reported in

addition to small group experiential learning incorporating arts, dramatic play and

perceptual motor activity. Further continuity was reported beyond Year 2.

161


Learning Environment Year Level Mean Scores at Suburban School

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00



Mean

Sco

res

KinderYear 1Year 2

Figure 11.4. APEEC and ECERS environments K-2 at Suburban School

Inclusive practices. Attention to diverse abilities was evidenced in uniformly

good scores for participation of children with disabilities (APEEC mean 5.88, SD

0.35) and in observed and reported provision for learning difficulties. While

awareness of socio-cultural variation was evident (Table 11.1), limited observations

of connection to children’s cultural backgrounds were recorded, and scores for

gender equity and racial equity were modest (ECERS means of 4.1 and 4.2) (Figure

11.5).

Diversity Environment Year Level Item Mean Scores at Suburban School

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

family

inv.

disa

bilities

socia

l div

individ

ual

gend

er

racia

l eq.

APEEC and ECERS Items

Mean

Year

Level

Sco

res

kinderyear 1year 2

Figure 11.5. Diversity environment item means K-2 at Suburban School

Teachers reported that the Kindergarten had access to support services only for

children with diagnosed disabilities. In Years 1 and 2, support provisions for

162


disabilities and learning difficulties included in-class assistance, ability group

differentiation, in-class partial segregation and some withdrawal for special

education interventions. Teachers’ explanations presented differences between

classroom and specialist staff in enactment of inclusive policies, with specialist staff

reported to be more likely to withdraw children. Teachers K-2 reported that their

capacity to cater for diverse abilities was constrained by physical facilities (e.g.,

distant toilets) and lack of varied teaching materials.

Transition approaches. Under the leadership of senior teachers and the deputy

principal, there was a shared focus on children’s preparation for school and on

program consistency and continuity. However, transition processes reported by Year

1 teachers were also multi-year and included a focus on relationships (Figure 11.6).

Mean Transition Scores K-1 at Suburban School (Range 0-4)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

read

ines

s

prac

tices

cont

inuity

relatio

nship

refo

rm


Mean

co

ded

in

terv

iew

sco

res

KinderYear 1

Figure 11.6. Transition approaches K-1 at Suburban School

Teachers reported differentiation in transition processes based on evidence of

individual children’s characteristics. Class composition was planned collaboratively

with respect to children’s friendships and personal responses. Teachers shared child

progress files and participated in transition discussions, as staff communication was

deemed vital. The program at commencement of Year 1 was designed with

reference to both Kindergarten child records and initial observations in Year 1.

Relationships amongst the children in early elementary classes, and between teachers

and other classes were fostered through timetabled involvement of Year 1 teachers in

the Kindergarten program, a buddy system and an early elementary social learning

163


program across mixed year levels. Families were engaged in transition through

information sessions, first day social events, or volunteer classroom work.

There was variation in teachers’ construction of transition to school indicating

conflicting positions. Several teachers understood transition as a single change event.

These teachers reported that they valued children’s social-emotional readiness and

occasionally used grade retention. However, most teachers, including two of those

endorsing views of children’s school readiness, discussed transition as on-going or

cyclic change processes requiring school provision.

In summary, at Suburban School

• There was more overt acknowledgement of complexity related to teacher

awareness of individuals and higher levels of diversity.

• Synergy between practice and policy was framed by shared pedagogic

understandings, leadership and complex transition processes.

• Transition pedagogies indicated respect for diversity and a focus on

continuity yet teachers endorsed readiness notions, indicating tensions

within individual teachers. Differences between classroom and specialist

teacher practices indicated tensions in understandings of inclusion.

• Achievement and adjustment were priorities, yet consideration for

individual ability and relationships was evident.

Site 3 multicultural school

School context. This city school served a population with a high level of social

and cultural complexity. Although most teachers had been at the school for some

years, some were more recently appointed. The principal and half the early

elementary teachers held early years qualifications incorporating studies in diverse

abilities. Teachers were selected for small classes (20 children) that were supported

by special education staff, bi-lingual cultural teaching assistants and visiting teachers

of English as a Second Language ESL. Classes were grouped according to diversity

category, with one class comprising children with little English and a multi-age class

containing several children with disabilities. An after-school homework program was

available for Indigenous children, although links with this program were not

identified.

164


Diversity context. Across K-2 at this school, mean teacher-identified diversity

was very high (83%). High levels of cultural and linguistic diversity were

recognised, in addition to learning and behavioural difficulties (Table 11.1). Many

children were identified in more than one category, indicating awareness of multiple

variations within learners. Recognition of low socio-economic status declined K-2.

Learning environments. Graduated changes between the Kindergarten class

and the Years 1 and 2 classes (Figure 11.7) included physical environment item

reductions in teaching materials and in room accessibility (APEEC item means of 7

to 5). There was a reported and observed gradual shift from interactive play-based

learning to experiential subject-based learning, although direct instruction in oral

language was observed across K-2. Some Year 1 teachers enhanced program

continuity by incorporating perceptual-motor activities and Kindergarten health

features such as eating in the classroom and resting after lunch.

Learning Environment Year Level Mean Scores at Multicultural School

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



Mean

Sco

res

KinderYear 1Year 2

Figure 11.7. APEEC and ECERS environments K-2 at Multicultural School

Inclusive practices. Continuity K-2 in small group learning, English language

instruction, differentiated learning tasks and multi-modal assessment was observed.

Consistency was evident in participation of children with disabilities (Figure 11.8)

yet there was graduated change in other aspects of diversity provision and gender

equity scores were low by Year 2 (ECERS mean 2.3, SD 1.22).

165


Diversity Environment Year Level Item Mean Scores at Multicultural School

012345678

family

inv.

disa

bilities

socia

l div

individ

ual

gend

er

racia

l eq.

APEEC and ECERS Items

Mean

Year

Level

Sco

res kinder

year 1year 2

Figure 11.8. Diversity environment item means K-2 at Multicultural School

The Kindergarten program was reported and observed to incorporate explicit

connection to home cultures in resources and displays, an oral language program and

modification of teaching strategies to suit cultural preferences, learning modes and

varied abilities. In Years 1 and 2, cultural events were celebrated, although

connection to children’s backgrounds was less embedded than in Kindergarten. Year

1 and 2 teachers cited the pressure of statutory assessment as a barrier to further

program differentiation. Teachers commented on the value of in-service education on

disability, leadership from a principal with an early elementary background, and

advice from specialised staff (e.g., ESL teacher), yet expressed a need for in-service

education in cultural diversity. Learning support was offered in-class following

school policy, yet special education staff withdrew some children for interventions,

indicating variations in implementation of policy.

Transition approaches. Conceptualisations of transition that teachers expressed

in interview were multi-faceted, and emphasised continuity and relationships as well

as preparatory practices. Child readiness was criticised by Kindergarten staff,

although Year 1 teachers reported valuing school introductory practices such as

visiting Year 1 classrooms and using the school playground with older children

(Figure 11.9).

166


Mean Transition Scores K-1 at Multicultural School (Range 0-4)

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

read

ines

s

prac

tices

cont

inuity

relatio

nship

refo

rm


Mean

co

ded

in

terv

iew

sco

res

KinderYear 1

Figure 11.9. Transition approaches K-1 at Multicultural School

Transition pedagogies focused more on relationships within the school than

externally with families and the local community. Links between classroom teachers

were established through timetabled inter-class visits and K-3 teacher meetings

framed by a shared philosophy. However, specialist teachers were not involved.

Teachers reported that children offered peer support through a buddy system and

shared use of an early years playground. Cultural teaching assistants linked

communities and schools as well as assisting teachers to develop cultural

competency. However, culturally diverse families with a sense of communal

responsibility for children found the school expectations of classroom confidentiality

challenging. Families, therefore, were not engaged in classroom volunteer work yet

the teachers spoke respectfully with parents and invited them to observe teaching.

In summary, at Multicultural School:

• The high levels and visibility of diversity and complexity prompted

multi-faceted transition processes and inclusive pedagogies.

• There was evidence of synergy between policy and practice suggesting

shared understandings of pedagogy and inclusion.

• Feasibility tensions were managed by both structural and pedagogic

changes. Family-school relationships, classroom-specialist teachers

variations in practice, and K-1 expectations were areas of tension

167


• Provision for diverse ability and culture was prioritised, yet a shift in

priorities was evident as statutory assessment pressures increased.

Discussion

Inclusive transition to school incorporates children’s participation and sense of

being valued as well as a positive disposition to learning and long-term positive

developmental trajectories (Fabian, 2002; La Paro et al., 2000; Reitveld, 2008). Such

definitions consider both children’s on-going progress and schools’ provision for

diversity. The approaches at these sites were framed not only by the visibility of

learner diversity, but also by classroom and school contextual factors. Pedagogic

decision-making reflected the varied priorities of competing demands to meet

diversity needs and educational outcome standards in each context.

Learner diversity and classroom context factors

Inclusive transition pedagogies are constructed around varied practices,

continuity, relationships or educational reform (Dunlop, 2007; Raban & Ure, 2000;

Reitveld, 2008). Classroom approaches may reflect teacher capacity or contextual

pressures (Neuman, 2001; Reitveld, 2008). In this study, pedagogies were responsive

to the demands of class complexity and teachers’ awareness of diversity. They were

further influenced by classroom-level factors such as professional knowledge and

understanding, collaborative processes and access to support.

The preparatory practices approach to transition at the site with low levels and

visibility of learner diversity focused on readiness of children for Year I, secure

relationships and support for difficulties. It was framed by restricted access to

professional learning, and discontinuities in facilities, support provision and teacher

preparation. The emphasis on continuity pedagogies at the site characterised by

moderate diversity levels was framed by teacher awareness of individuals, shared

professional knowledge, and staff communication. Multi-faceted approaches at the

most complex site emphasised the school’s preparedness for diversity (Graue, 2006).

Contextual complexity, workforce cultural diversity, and staff collaboration based on

a shared philosophy framed this approach. Reforms at each site were emerging as a

result of whole-school factors and teachers’ changing professional understanding.

168


Inclusion K-2 and whole-of-school contextual factors

Inclusive processes supporting transition are framed by whole-school factors

such as leadership, policy, policy and relationships amongst stakeholders (Dempsey

& Arthur-Kelly, 2007; Dockett & Perry, 2007; Niesel & Griebel, 2007). This study

indicated a role for school principals, yet the potential of distributed leadership was

demonstrated (Brady & Kennedy, 2003). Pedagogies attended to internal school

relationships and child difficulties more than family and community partnerships and

child strengths.

While teachers at the least complex site were engaged in pedagogic change

under the leadership of the principal, teacher knowledge and staff resistance

impacted on the consistent enactment of policy (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007).

Further, teachers emphasised school preparation practices in the co-located

Kindergarten. This may not adequately address the requirements of itinerant children

or others who have not attended this program (Fabian, 2002). Distributed leadership

at Suburban School promoted consistent enactment of policy and supportive

relationships amongst staff and children. However, the uni-directional nature of

interactions with families suggested respect for their involvement, rather than family

empowerment and home-school continuity. This may impact on economically,

socially and culturally diverse children (Espinosa, 2005; Raban & Ure, 2000).

Pedagogic consistency at the most complex site was supported by leadership from

the principal, and by negotiation of a shared philosophy that showed respect for both

child-centred and subject-centred perspectives (Yeom, 1998). The school addressed

challenges through structural and pedagogic provisions, yet narrow engagement with

families and communities may have influenced the scope of responses to cultural

diversity (Thorpe et al., 2004).

Transition to school and teachers’ professional transition

Effective enactment of policy change in revised pedagogies is an ongoing

process that reflects not only curriculum requirements and school expectations, but

also teachers’ philosophical positions (Dempsey & Arthur-Kelly, 2007). In this

study, professional education, statutory assessment pressures, school policies and

169


changes in teachers’ understanding influenced pedagogies and responses to policy

change.

Within-site tensions indicated teachers’ transition towards meeting changing

policy expectations around inclusion and transition. At Regional School, variations

in approach suggested teachers were in transition towards reform ideals, encouraged

by the principal. The consistent professional preparation of Suburban School teachers

was reflected in the shared emphasis on continuity and on individualised transitions

that indicated awareness of child agency. Yet, readiness views were also expressed,

indicating individual teacher transitions between normative assumptions and

emerging recognition of competence in children. It may also reflect tensions between

statutory assessment pressures and ideals of accommodating individual learning.

While a shared emphasis on continuity was evident at Multicultural School,

strategies such as the categorical grouping of children and restriction of family

involvement were inconsistent with the inclusive views of Kindergarten staff. Across

the sites, tensions between child competence assumptions of some teachers and

deficit-focused approaches of special education staff were evident, probably arising

from contrasts in professional preparation. This represents another area of transition

towards development of a coherent approach.

Balancing competing demands

The findings of this study indicate that teachers employed both personal and

site-related strategies to balance competing demands as children transition from play-

based early childhood programs into formal school classes. The need in school

classes for children to achieve minimum academic and social conduct standards was

juxtaposed with the need to cater for diversity in abilities and culture. In assessing

the reasons for these different approaches by teachers, two questions were raised:

1. Do the approaches in the literature represent a hierarchy of complexity?

2. Are the approaches to inclusive transition separate or overlapping?

The discussion of inclusion and transition pedagogies in the literature

suggested a hierarchy of complexity, with pedagogic reform representing the most

complex and sophisticated approach (Dunlop, 2007; Nind, 2005). However, Van

Kraayenoord (2007) argues that both pedagogic reform and varied or differentiated

170


practices may be needed to address diverse learning depending on the context and

children’s needs. The variations between and within schools in this study indicated

that the approaches in the literature represent either a proportional response to

varying levels of diversity in the student population, or an array of potential,

overlapping provisions for specific contextual demands and resources. Each site

addressed the competing demands on teachers’ time and attention through strategies

that reflected the complexity of their classrooms and the knowledge base of their

teachers. The facilities, leadership strategies and support relationships of the

particular school influenced the ways in which teachers were supported to enact

changing policies and to cater for diversity in abilities and culture within the

classroom. However, variations in complexity were evident, suggesting that this

question requires further investigation. In addition, further investigation of the

influence on classroom pedagogies of teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning,

would offer deeper insight into the challenges they face in enacting changing

policies.

Conclusion

Inclusive pedagogies of transition in this study were framed by the visibility of

learner diversity and by school and classroom contextual factors. All of the teachers

were focused on variation in their teaching practices, attending to continuity and

facilitating relationships within the school, but to varying degrees. There was

evidence of exploration of reform pedagogies. The attention to specific categories of

diversity and more limited recognition of broader and more complex understandings

of diversity may be inhibiting more extensive pedagogic reform. The tensions

evident between readiness or deficit notions and inclusive pedagogies reflected the

professional transition process of staff. The varied ways in which teachers and

schools responded to competing pressures suggest that these complex professional

decisions entail a shifting balance between ideals and pragmatic considerations that

are dynamic and contextually grounded.

Transition for Diverse Learners 171

CHAPTER 12: TRANSITION FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS

The multiplicity of issues surrounding successful transition to school for

diverse learners suggests the need for an approach that attends to issues beyond the

provision of preparatory classes and curricula in ECEC. The quality of such

provision and ongoing educational quality in the early years of school, together with

effective transition and inclusion practices are important elements. However, they

operate within a framework of structural provisions and support relationships that

enhance the capacity of teachers to act in effective ways. Tension and balance

emerge as key concerns in inclusive transition.


Readiness, preparedness and inclusive transition

The persistence of the concept of readiness and its re-emergence as

preparedness in which there is shared responsibility of child, family, teachers and

school, indicate the importance to stakeholders of optimising children’s progress

prior to school entry (Dockett & Perry, 2007). Preparedness goes beyond individual

child readiness to consider the shared preparation of children, families, schools and

communities for children’s transition to school (Dockett & Perry, 2007). However,

inclusion implies that preparation of children does not assume normative skills or

maturity and that transition to school involves a process of border crossings rather

than a set of personal capacities (Graue, 2006). Thus, inclusive transition considers

multiple perspectives and pathways showing recognition of, and respect for diversity.

School, family and community rights and concerns

Respectful consideration of these multiple perspectives and pathways could be

complex and challenging, since it involves negotiating a balance between the rights

and concerns of the school as a whole and the concerns of families and communities.

Expectations of normative family attitudes and approaches are unrealistic, given that

families could be Indigenous, multi-racial, adoptive, disrupted, blended, or refugee

families, or families with same-sex parents, serious health issues, abusive

relationships, limited financial means or a range of other differences from middle-

172

172 Transition for Diverse Learners

class European stereotypes (Ashman, 2009). Projecting values of inclusion and

accommodating differences in children’s and families approaches represents a

contemporary educational challenge, of which transition to school is a part.

Evidence-based information on ways to negotiate this complex task would assist

schools in adopting a broader support network to guide effective and respectful

practices.

Prior to school ECEC and early years of school

The tension between diversity and inclusion (Ashman, 2009) is reflected in the

dual demands of the individual and the class. Osbourne (2001) argued that resolution

of this tension was not necessary, but that teachers should maintain awareness of it

and seek to maintain balance. The ways this balance is achieved in prior-to-school

and school early years settings is not necessarily identical, since different curricula,

philosophies, adult-child ratios and statutory outcomes demands impact on the

different settings. Transition processes highlight the tension between the

responsibilities and approaches of ECEC prior-to-school settings and early years

school classroom in terms of the ways children are introduced to school cultures and

facilities, and the expectations of children’s prior development and learning at school

entry. They also draw attention to the need for the establishment of balance and

continuity between the pedagogies of those settings, demonstrating respect for both

individually-focused, play-based approaches and subject outcomes-based learning

(Yeom, 1998). Evidence of pedagogic responses and structural supports that

facilitate transition between these settings would indicate successful ways to achieve

balance and enhance appropriate continuity.

Teacher capacity-building and limits of responsibility

Development of more inclusive and responsive pedagogies that attend to these

links between curricula and pedagogies, requires high levels of capacity in early

years teachers. The emphasis on teachers’ pedagogic capacity-building through pre-

service education, in-service formal professional development and informal

professional learning such as action learning circles (MacNaughton, Hughes &

Smith, 2007) needs to be balanced by consideration for the multiple pressures on

teachers and the limits of their professional responsibility towards children and

173


families (Ferguson, 2008). Attention to the sharing of responsibility amongst a wider

range of stakeholders has potential to reduce stress. This could include involvement

of a range of staff within a school, such as school principals and specialist teachers in

broader inclusion and transition processes, and in professional learning. It might also

involve the wider community, particularly external agencies (e.g., family support,

outside school hours care) that may be working with children and families.

Structural supports and pedagogic responsiveness

Provision of effective structural supports have, in the past, been emphasised as

the key issues in inclusion, although increasingly teacher effectiveness has been

foregrounded (Hattie, 2003). The contribution of structural factors and pedagogic

factors is unclear, but structural factors appear to set the frame within which teachers

feel empowered to enact inclusion and transition ideas. Further evidence of the

interaction between structures and pedagogies are important in effective practice

across the range of children in a school and class setting. Paper 5 seeks to address

these issues by linking them under three broad questions focused on transition to

school, but attending to diversity and inclusion. It considers both distal factors

influencing teachers’ sense that potential responses are feasible, and proximal factors

directly related to teachers’ pedagogies and children’s outcomes.


Since the current study arose from diversity gaps identified in the large-scale

Preparing for School study (Thorpe, et al., 2004), paper 5 links evidence from the

two studies to address overarching challenges in transition to school relevant to

diversity. It considers quantitative and qualitative evidence from 39 schools and three

focused study sites over a period of 2 ½ years from preparatory through to Year 2.

The selected journal, Exceptional Children, is the highest ranked international

journal in the field of education for diverse groups (Impact Factor of 3.2 in 2006). It

publishes research and review articles on diversity issues that have relevance for

research, policy and practice and its readership encompasses teachers, departmental

policy-makers, school administrators and academics. This journal has been selected

because of the importance of debating emerging ideas within the early intervention

field. However, the requirements of this journal mean that the paper is in a different

174


paradigm from the other papers and adopts different language suited to the particular

audience. Its length is also suited to the expectations of the journal, clarified through

direct communication with the editor.

This is a joint paper, as it reports the shared outcomes of both this study and of

the Preparing for School study from which it arose. The co-authors of Paper 5, who

are the doctoral supervisors, were the lead researchers in the Preparing for School

project, and the lead authors of its report. The candidate was also part of the research

team and an author on the report contributing to collection of qualitative data and

analysis. The contributions of the authors of Paper 5 are indicated by the naming

sequence for authorship. The candidate was lead author and developed manuscript

drafts. The second author contributed significant development of the sections

reporting on the Preparing for School project, and the third author refined the paper.

175


Statement of Contribution of Co-Authors for Thesis by Published Paper (Paper 5)

The authors listed below have certified that: 1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the

conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in their field of expertise;

2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, except for the responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;

3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria; 4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the

editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the responsible academic unit, and

5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication

on the Australasian Digital Thesis database consistent with any limitations set by publisher requirements.

Publication title and date of publication or status:

Contributor Statement of contribution Elizabeth Anne

Petriwskyj Lead author of paper, developing and refining manuscript drafts. Member of the Study 1 research team, contributing to data collection, analysis and writing. Collected and analysed all data for Study 2, and wrote Study 2.

Signature

Date

Professor Karen Thorpe

One of the lead researchers in Study 1. Experimental design, data collection and analysis and revising student draft of Study 1. Advised on design, data analysis and writing in Study 2 as thesis supervisor.

Professor Colette Tayler

One of the lead researchers in Study 1. Advised on Study 2 as

thesis supervisor, and refined the paper.

Principal Supervisor Confirmation I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship. Name Signature Date

176


Towards Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 5) 177

CHAPTER 13: TOWARDS INCLUSIVE TRANSITION TO SCHOOL (PAPER 5)

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C.

Exceptional Children (submitted)

Abstract

Policies of educational inclusion challenge the construct of school readiness

and require schools to prepare for the diversity of exceptional children as they

transition to school. However, there is limited empirical evidence concerning how

this challenge is met. We present two Australian studies that investigate inclusive

practices across the transition to school. Study 1 examined outcomes of three

different teaching programs delivered in 39 schools. The results indicate that

program effects were particularly potent for exceptional children. Study 2 focuses on

pedagogy in three of the schools. Results indicate that school provisions were

reactive rather than systematic, that saliency of need directed response, and that

improved professional knowledge impacted on quality of pedagogy and its relevance

to exceptional children.

Keywords: Diversity, exceptional inclusion, transition

178

178 Towards Inclusive Transition to School (Paper 5)

Introduction

The enhancement of educational opportunities for young children with diverse

abilities and cultural backgrounds has focused on their readiness for school and

remediation of difficulties (Rimm-Kaufmann, Pianta & Cox, 2000). Policies of

inclusion and a concomitant refocusing on transition to school have shifted attention

to the educational circumstances influencing successful school commencement

(Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003; Sink, Edwards & Weir, 2007). However, the extant

research literature reports separately on school transition for specific categories of

exceptional children (Brooker, 2002; Raban & Ure, 2000; Reitveld, 2008; Whitton,

2005). In reality, teachers and schools are required to provide for multiple categories

of children simultaneously. Evidence is required of transition approaches that

enhance the progress of all children.

Recent critiques of the constructs of children’s readiness and educational risk

express concern that such constructs focus on children’s non-normative progress,

rather than considering school and community inputs to educational success (Gill,

Winters & Friedman, 2006). Inclusive policies have further challenged normative

readiness constructs. The emerging paradigm of inclusion goes beyond school access

to involve all children having the right to actively participate in a general education

setting and to be valued as members of the school (Carrington, 2007). Although

some emphasis on disability is still apparent, inclusion attends to a wider range of

differences including economic, social, cultural and linguistic diversity, gender and

giftedness (Boardman, 2006; Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Espinosa, 2005). Overarching

terms such as exceptional children (Allen & Cowdery, 2008) and children with

diverse learning rights (OECD, 2006) indicate awareness of broader categories of

exceptionality and of the shared educational rights of exceptional children. These

terms also account for multiple exceptionalities that may exist within an individual

child, and for the overarching inequalities attending diversity (Ng, 2003).

Policies of inclusion have also prompted re-consideration of deficit-focused

constructs, and reframing of educational approaches. Differentiated pedagogies have

been found to address the needs of children with difficulties and gifted children

(Braggett & Bailey, 2005; Westwood, 2001). However, improved achievement

among socially and culturally diverse children has been found to be associated with

179


the connectedness of learning to children’s background, and the establishment of

partnerships with families and communities (Brooker 2002; Espinosa, 2005). Recent

emphasis on the role of early education in improving outcomes for young children

has considered early educational quality (OECD, 2006), the wider role of schools in

providing for a range of children (Graue, 2006), and the effectiveness of transition

programs (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Dunlop, 2007).

Evidence from both the USA and the UK indicates that sustained high quality

early education has positive impact for all children, but particularly for exceptional

children (Peisner-Feinburg, Burchinal, Clifford, Yazejian, Culkin, Zelazo, Howes,

Byler, Kagan, & Rustici, 1999; Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, Siraj-Blatchford,

Taggart, Barreau, & Grabbe, 2008). In studies of pedagogic practice in preschool,

better outcomes have been found to be associated with a balance of adult-led and

child-led activities and positive adult-child interactions (Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish,

Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, Elliott & Marsh, 2004). School pedagogic quality

associated with improved outcomes included teacher sensitivity and involvement,

rich teaching strategies, a positive and orderly classroom climate, and child agency

(Sammons et al, 2008).

Effective transition to school programs focus on the preparedness of the school

for the diversity of children in the school community rather than solely on the

qualities of the children as they enter school. This approach directs attention to the

support provided for the family and community by the school as well as the family

and community’s engagement with school (Dockett & Perry, 2007). However, the

extent of such engagement varies in complexity and duration. If transition is

conceptualised as preparation for a single change event, structural and procedural

components (e.g., age of entry) can take precedence over more complex strategies

directed to family and child well-being (e.g., gradual transition) (Dockett & Perry,

2007). Factors associated with well-being may be significant for children who are

exceptional, particularly if transition involves diagnosis to access support services or

changes to the timing of school entry linked to disability or giftedness (Hanson,

Beckman, Horn, Marquart et al., 2000; Porter, 2005). In addition to effective school

orientation practices, continuity of pedagogies, friendships and other relationships

have been shown to have a positive impact on children’s transitions (Brostrom, 2005;

Corsaro & Molinari, 2000; Reitveld, 2008) Re-conceptualisation of transition as a

180


shared process over longer time frames involves effective policy (Kagan, 2009)

together with practices linking programs (Hanson et al., 2000), enhancing continuity

(Gill et al., 2006; Petriwskyj, Thorpe & Tayler, 2005) and capitalising on children’s

cultural resources (Dunlop, 2007).

In Australia, systemic changes have been introduced to enhance inclusion and

transition into school, as part of a wider educational reform movement (Luke,

Ladwig, Lingard, Hayes, & Mills, 1999). The challenge to improve provision for

exceptional children in the early years has been addressed through the provision of a

full-time, universally accessible kindergarten program, linked to schools and staffed

by qualified teachers (OECD, 2006) and through the development of transition

processes to smooth school entry (Dockett & Perry, 2007). However, evidence on

the circumstances influencing successful transition of broader groups of exceptional

children is required to frame more effective early elementary policy and practice.

This paper presents two linked studies that examine the effectiveness of school

practices in facilitating transition to school of a diverse range of children. The first

study utilised a representative population cohort (N=39 schools) to examine the

progress across the range of children (N=1831) as they transitioned to school. The

second was a detailed study of three schools sampled from the larger cohort that

examined in detail the pedagogic provision for diversity during transition (Figure

13.1).

The studies addressed two key questions:

1. How do children with diverse abilities and culture adjust and achieve

across the transition to school? (Study 1)

2. What do schools and teachers do to facilitate inclusive transition?

(Study 2)

181


Figure 13.1. Structure of linked studies

Study 1: Population study of the progress of exceptional children across the K-2 transition

Sample

The population cohort of 1831 children from 39 schools included all those

participating in a government education authority trial of a full-time, non-compulsory

kindergarten program in Queensland Australia. Children in the trial experienced one

of three programs: trial full time kindergarten, existing part-time kindergarten or

formal year 1. The schools represented the diversity of the population and were

selected with reference to size, socio-economic status and cultural diversity of the

school, and geographic locality. Of the 39 schools, nine were non-government, six

Catholic and three other religious denominations, providing representation of the

Australian primary (elementary) school population (Australian Bureau of Statistics,

2006).

Time Measures

2003-2004

2003-2004

2004-2005

Children: Literacy Math Language Adjustment School: Support

Teacher: Support Pedagogy Children Literacy Math Language Adjustment

Study 1: Population study - 39 schools - 1831 children - 1421 parents - 39 principals

Focused Study 2 Kindergarten to Year 1 - 3 schools - 6 teachers

Focused Study 2 Kindergarten to Year 2 - 3 schools - 22 classrooms - 11 teachers - 431 children

182


Measures

Child and family characteristics:

1. Socio-Economic difference: Details of family income and education were

obtained from parents. Incomes below $AUD 40,000 were indicative of

poverty. Education attainment below Year 10 represented incomplete

parental secondary school education.

2. Cultural and language difference: This was measured using parent

nominated cultural identity. There were 3 groups of sufficient size for

separate statistical analysis (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island n=76,

Pacific Island n=35, Asian, predominantly Vietnamese n=50).

3. Child difficulties: Children who had any health, behavioural and learning

difficulty for which they had been referred for professional investigation,

were identified by parents at school entry.

4. Poor progress: This was defined as the lowest quartile of progress for

measures of adjustment and attainment at the end of the kindergarten

year.

Child outcomes: Adjustment:

1. Settling into School: This 23 item checklist derived from the Teacher

Rating Scale of School Adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1997) was completed

by the classroom teacher for each child

2. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997): This 25 item

checklist was completed by parents. The measure contains five subscales:

pro-social behaviour, conduct problem, emotional problems, peer

problems and hyperactivity.

Child outcomes: Attainment:

1. Early and Emergent Literacy: Children were individually assessed using

a measure of concepts about print, reading and writing (O’Gorman,

Broughton, Lennox &Thorpe, 2003).

2. General Mathematics Understanding: Children were individually

assessed using a 14 item measure adapted from the Griffin and Case

(1997) Number Knowledge Test measuring both number and broader

math concepts (space, volume, size and shape).

183


3. Communication: Children were individually rated by teachers using an

18 item measure of language complexity developed from the MacArthur

Communicative Development Inventory (Fenson, Dale, Reznick, Thal,

Bates, Hartung, Pethick & Reilly, 1991).

School provision

1. Program types: Because the data for this study were derived from a trial,

children of the same age within the same schools were distributed across

three programs: (1) Existing kindergarten– a part-time, play-based,

discovery learning curriculum (2) Trial kindergarten - full time, play-

based with developmental goal-orientated curriculum, and (3) Year 1 – a

full-time, formal knowledge-focused curriculum. All programs were

delivered by experienced teachers with University bachelor degree

qualifications in education. There were no statistical differences in the

distribution of exceptional children across programs.

Analysis

To examine whether features of family and child background predicted

children’s adjustment (SDQ) and attainment (literacy, numeracy, communication)

regression models were run entering parent education, family income, age and sex of

the child, past care and educational experiences and current program enrolment. To

examine how exceptional children compared with other children in adjustment and

academic attainment across the school year, tests of difference (ANOVA or non-

parametric as appropriate) were conducted using the rate of progress in each outcome

measure taken from Term 1 (commencement of school) to Term 4 (final term) as the

outcomes. These analyses were conducted to compare progress of 3 groups of

exceptionality: (1) socio-economic (2) culturally diverse groups and (3) children with

parent - identified health or behavioural difficulty. Interaction effects of program and

exceptionality were examined. Progress on all child outcomes across the year were

used to derive an aggregated progress score with children in the lowest quartile

deemed to be a “poor progress” group. Logistic regression was employed to identify

the predictors of poor baseline and progress (bottom quartile vs. others) across the

school year. The model entered age and sex of child, family income, parent

184


education, cultural identity, parent-identified difficulty, prior care and education, and

current program.

Results

Predictors of children’s outcomes across the cohort

Results of the regression examining predictors of academic attainment across

the school year are presented in Table 13.1. Across the total population of children,

all models were statistically significant and indicated the predictors of higher

scholastic achievement (R2 literacy = 0.51; R2 Math = 0.29; R2 oral language =

0.11) were being older, being female, being from a family with higher income,

attendance at a high quality pre–kinder program and exposure to the trial

kindergarten program. Full-time kindergarten with a focused interactive play

program impacted more than a part-time discovery play program. Results of the

regression examining predictors of school adjustment and behavioural difficulty

across the school year are presented in Table 13.2.

Predictors of better adjustment to school (R2 = 0.13) were being female,

enrolment in the trial kindergarten program, experience of a quality pre-kindergarten

program, and higher family income. Predictors of parent reported behavioural

difficulties (R2 = 0.05) were older age, being male, being in a formal school program

(Year 1), having more time in centre-based care prior to school, lower maternal

education and lower family income. The results indicate that family background,

and both prior and current educational experiences make a difference to learning and

adjustment for all children.

185


Table 13.1. Significant predictors of attainment in the first school term

Literacy R2=0.51 (F(7,1520)=79.68, p<.001)

Number R2=0.29 (F(7,1405)=28.79, p<.001)

Communication R2=0.11 F(7,1535)=9.517, p<.001)

Variable Beta P< Beta P< Beta P< Comment

Age of child .271 0.0001 .220 0.0001 -0.055 ns Older children achieve better in literacy and numeracy

Child is female .210 0.0001 .064 0.0001 0.140 0.001 Girls scores higher than

boys

Kindergarten enrolment .148 00001 .129 0.0001 ns ns

Trial kindergarten program scores higher than existing program

Year 1 enrolment .570 00001 .414 0.0001 0.279 0.001

Year 1 scores higher than existing kindergarten program

Preschool program .068 0001 .113 0.0001 .0.055 0.04

Children who attended a high quality pre-kinder program score higher

Maternal education -0.74 0.007 Ns ns ns ns

Higher maternal education higher literacy achievement

Family income .087 0.0001 .166 0.0001 0.177 0.001

Children from low income families score lower

186


Table 13.2. Significant predictors of adjustment in the first school term

Settling into School R2=0.13;

(F(7,1603)=3.727, p<.001))

SDQ R2=0.05

(F(7,1823)=10.0, p<.001

Variable Beta p< Beta Signif. Comment

Age of child -.011 ns 0.104 0.008

Age not associated with adjustment but more difficulties reported for older children

Child is female .110 0.0001 -.100 0.001

Girls adjust more readily than boys and have less behavioural difficulties

Kindergarten enrolment -.154 0.0001 ns ns

Children in trial kinder program scores adjust better than those in existing kinder program

Year 1 enrolment .120 0.025 0.144 0.006

Year 1 children more adjusted and less behavioural difficulties than children in existing kinder program

Preschool program .056 0.005 ns ns

Attendance at high quality pre-Kinder program, better adjustment

Time in centre-based childcare

ns ns 0.58 0.32 Longer time in childcare moderate increase in behavioural difficulties

Maternal education ns ns 0.126 0.001

Children of lower educated mothers have more behavioural difficulties

Family income .113 0.0001 -0.194 0.001

Children from low income families adjust less well and have more behavioural difficulties

Economic and social disadvantage

Family income, as the most consistent predictor of attainment and adjustment,

was the variable employed to assess socio-economic effects. Factorial ANOVAs

were used to assess the effects of family income, program and interaction of income

with program on children’s school adjustment and attainments across the year.

Results are presented in Table 13.3. These indicate that children’s adjustment to

school across the year was not significantly related to family income but that there

was a significant effect of family income on progress in mathematics and oral

communication. Significant interaction effects between income and program were

evident for language and math attainment. These interactions are presented in

Figures 13.2 – 13.4 which document most evident effects for children above and

below a family income of $AUD40,000 per year, a cut-point which signified

poverty, at the time of assessment. For language and adjustment the positive effects

187


of a full time kindergarten program are most notable for low - income groups.

Progress in math was notably higher among high-income families. The most clear

program effect for low-income families was that full-time programs (Year 1 and trial

kindergarten) were most effective in attaining steeper rates of progress in math.

Table 13.3. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and family income on change in scores across the school year

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

< $20,000 $20-40,000 $40-60,000 $60-80,000 >$80,000Annual family income ($AUD)

p/t kindertrial kinderyear 1

Figure 13.2. Group change scores for language outcomes by family income

Value Add Measure Statistical Significance Family Income

Statistical Significance Program Enrolment

Statistical Significance Interaction: Family Income and Program Enrolment

Parent Report Measures Total Difficulties Scale (SDQ) F(4,1022)=1.89, n.s. F(2,1022)=6.13, p<.003 F(8,1022)=.70, n.s.

Language Development F(4,933)=1.17, n.s. F(2,933)=8.63, p<.0001 F(8,933)=1.89, p<.05

Teacher Assessed Measures Settling Into School F(4,1208)=2.12,

p<.05 F(2,1208)=16.75, p<.001 F(8,1208)=1.17, n.s.

Early Number F(4,1262)=4.21, p<.003 F(2,1262)=24.3, p<.0001 F(8,1262)=2.02, p<.05

Developing Communication

F(4,1212)=2.31, p<.01 F(2,1212)=4.75, p<.05 F(8,1212)=2.61,

p<.009

188


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

< $20,000 $20-40,000 $40-60,000 $60-80,000 >$80,000Annual family income ($AUD)


Figure 13.3. Groups change scores for number outcomes by family income

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

< $20,000 $20-40,000 $40-60,000 $60-80,000 >$80,000Annual Family Income ($AUD))


Figure 13.4. Group change scores for adjustment outcomes by family income

Cultural and linguistic diversity

To assess the adjustment and attainment of children from culturally diverse

groups the progress of children whose parents identified as Indigenous Australian,

Pacific Island or Asian ethnicity was compared with that of Anglo-Australian

children. Non-parametric Mann - Whitney U tests were used for these analyses

because of the unequal and small sample sizes and non-normality of the distribution

of the outcome scores. Table 13.4 presents results of these tests conducted in Term 4

(end of school year). These indicate that Indigenous Australian children were

attaining significantly lower than comparison children on math and literacy and had

189


poorer oral communication skills. Asian children were assessed to have poorer

communication and adjustment.

Analyses of behaviour difficulties among the Asian children indicated that,

although there were no differences at school commencement, by the end of the

school year parent-completed SDQ scores were significantly higher with the source

of raised total scores deriving from emotional difficulties (U = 9301.5, p<0.05) and

peer problems (U = 9410.5, p<0.02). Children identified as Pacific Islander had

poorer attainment in math and poorer communication scores compared with Anglo-

Australian children. The three culturally and linguistically diverse groups were

collapsed into a single group to provide sufficient sample size to enable factorial

ANOVA that were used to assess the effect of cultural diversity, program and

cultural diversity effects by program, on progress across the year in attainment and

adjustment outcomes. Results are presented in Table 13.5 and indicate significant

culture effects for oral communication and adjustment and program effects for

progress in behavioural adjustment (SDQ), adjustment to school, oral communication

and math. No interaction effects of culture by program attained statistical

significance.

Table 13.4. Mann-Whitney U tests for CALD group outcomes Term 4

Measure Indigenous n=76 Asian n=50 Pacific Is. n=35 Parent-reported Language U=9950.5, p<.01 U=6782, p<.01 U=5022.5, p<.05 Total difficulties (SDQ) U=22134, p<.001 U=7379.5, p<,05 U=7161.5, ns

Teacher-assessed Early Literacy U=22739.5, p<.01 U=18699.5, ns U=13237, ns Early Number U=22914, p<.001 U=18739.5, ns U=10511.5, p<.001 Developing Communication U=17673.5, p<.001 U=11176, p<.001 U=9221, p<.001

Settling into School U=19056, p<.001 U=18643.5, ns U=12953, ns

190


Table 13.5. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and cultural background on change in scores across the school year

N1 Indigenous, Asian & Pacific Islander, N2 Caucasian, N3 existing kinder, N4 trial kinder, N5 Year 1

Children with parent-identified difficulties

The adjustment and attainment of children with parent-identified health and

behavioural difficulties was compared with that of all other children. Non-

parametric, Mann -- Whitney tests were used for these analyses because of the

unequal and small sample sizes and non-normality of the distribution of the outcome

scores (Table 13.6). Children with health difficulties had significantly poorer

adjustment and attainment with the exception of math. Children with behavioural

difficulties had significantly poorer attainment and adjustment on all measures.

Children with health and behavioural difficulties were collapsed into a single group

to provide sufficient sample size to enable factorial ANOVA which were used to

assess the effect of parent identified difficulty effects by program on progress across

the year (Table 13.7).

Value Add Measure Statistical Significance Cultural Background


Statistical Significance Interaction: Ethnic Background and Program Enrolment

Parent Report MeasuresTotal Difficulties from Strengths and Difficulties

N1=97 N2=1061 F(1,1152)=.02, n.s.

N3=194 N4=549 N5=415 F(2,1151)=6.19, p<.01

N3=194 N4=549 N5=415 F(2,1151)=1.72, n.s.

Teacher-assessed measures

Settling into School N1=142 N2=925 F(1,1061)=5.06, p<.05

N3=186 N4=471 N5=410 F(2,1061)=15.50, p<.001

F(2,1061)=1.15, n.s.

Early Number N1=139 N2=922 F(1,1053)=0.4, n.s.

N3=180 N4=467 N5=394 F(2,1053)=11.61, p<.001

F(2,1053)=0.29, n.s.


N1=134 N2=879 F(1,1013)=13.99, p<.001

N3=176 N4=454 N5=383 F(2,1013)=7.97, p<.001

F(2,1013)=2.25, n.s.

191


Table 13.6. Mann-Whitney tests of difference for parent reported difficulties

Measure Health conditions (n=116)

Developmental/ Behavioural difficulties (n=167)

Parent-reported Language U=73602, p<0.01 U=90758, p<0.001 Total difficulties (SDQ) U=62769, p<0.001 U=64641, p<0.001

Teacher-assessed Early Literacy U=64681, p<0.001 U=99920, p<0.05 Early Number U=65254, ns U=89722, p<0.01 Developing Communication U=53657, p<0.001 U=71735, p<0.001

Settling into School U=52852, p<0.001 U=60959, p<0.001 Table 13.7. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and parent reported difficulty on change scores from Term1 to Term 4

N1 Has reported difficulty, N2 Does not have reported difficulty, N3 existing kinder, N4 trial kinder, N5 Year 1

Parent-reported difficulties were only associated with poorer progress in math

and were not significant for other attainment measures or adjustment. Significant

program effects were evident for all measures of attainment and adjustment with

program interaction effects for math and behavioural adjustment. Children with

difficulties actually regressed in math in the part-time kindergarten program while

those in the full-time kindergarten program regressed in behavioural adjustment

(Figures 13.5 and 13.6).

Value Add Measure Statistical Significance Developmental or Behavioural Difficulties


Statistical Significance Interaction: Developmental or Behavioural and Program Enrolment

Parent Report Measures Total Difficulties from Strengths and Difficulties

N1=158 N2=998 F(1,1150)=2.42, n.s.

N3=194 N4=547 N5=415 F(2,1150)=6.36, p<.01

F(2,1150)=4.89, p<.01

Language Development

N1=125 N2=837 F(1,956)=.35, n.s.

N3=159 N4=450 N5=353 F(2,956)=3.39, p<.05

F(2,956)=1.03, n.s.


Settling Into School N1=90 N2=1082 F(1,1166)=1.88, n.s.

N3=183 N4=551 N5=438 F(2,1166)=15.85, p<.001

F(2,1166)=1.88, n.s.

Early Number N1=152 N2=1296 F(1,1442)=15.05, p<.001

N3=180 N4=467 N5=394 F(2,1442)=27.12, p<.001

F(2,1442)=4.18, p<.001


N1=140 N2=1232 F(1,366)=3.15, n.s.

N3=231 N4=626 N5=515 F(2,1366)=6.26, p<.001

F(2,1366)=125,n.s.

192


Figure 13.5. Mean Scores at Term 1 and Term 4 for Early Number total teacher assessed measure by program and performance at baseline

Figure 13.6. Mean scores at Term 1 and Term 4 for Language Development total parent report measure by program and performance at baseline

Children making poor progress in the first year of school

Poor progress across the year was defined as bottom quartile of progress on

each of the outcome measures. These were compared with those who made greater

progress in a series of factorial ANOVAs that entered poor score at baseline and

program. Results are presented in Table 13.8. These indicate that the children who

had poor baseline attainment made more progress throughout the year except in

behavioural adjustment (SDQ). Program effects were significant for school

adjustment, math and language, and a baseline score by program interaction effect

was also significant for school adjustment, math, and language. In school adjustment

and communication children with difficulties made greater progress in the full-time

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Term 1 Term 4

P-T kinder bottom quartile baseline

P-T kinder above bottom quartilebaseline

Kindergarten Year bottom quartile baseline

Kindergarten above bottomquartile baseline

Year 1 bottom quartile baseline

Year 1 above bottom quartile baseline

1011121314151617181920

Term 1 Term 4

Mean Overall Language Development Score

P-T kinder bottom quartile baseline

P-T kinder above bottom quartilebaseline

Kindergarten bottom quartilebaseline

Kindergarten above bottomquartile baseline

Year 1 bottom quartile baseline

Year 1 above bottom quartilebaseline

193


kindergarten program. In math these children regressed if enrolled in the part-time

kindergarten program.

Table 13.8. F values and significance for factorial ANOVA: Program enrolment and poor outcomes at baseline on change scores from Term 1 to Term 4

Value Add Measure Statistical Significance Poor Outcome at Baseline


Statistical Significance Interaction: Poor Outcome at Baseline and Program Enrolment

Parent Report Measures Total Difficulties from Strengths and Difficulties

N1=304 N2=854 F(1,152)=3.79 ns

N3=183 N4=558 N5=417 F(2,1152)= .19, ns

F(2,1152)=.34, ns

Language Development

N1=261 N2=698 F (1,953)=14.20. p<.0001

N3=147 N4=455 N5=357 F(2,953)=4.23, p<.05

F(2953)=.12, ns


Settling Into School N1=341 N2=884 F(1,1219)=50.11, p<.0001

N3=192 N4=593 N5=440 F(2,1219)=23.01, p<.001

F(2,1219)=6.34, p<.01

Early Number N1=346 N2=1014 F(1,1354)=42.29, p<.001

N3=224 N4=626 N5=510 F(2,1354)=40.74, p<.001

F(2,1354)=4.36, p<.05


N1=322 N2=840 F(1,1156)=98.52, p<.001

N3=179 N4=571 N5=412 F(2,1156)=11.84, p<.001

F(2,1156)=9.68, p<.001

N1 Bottom quartile baseline score, N2 Above bottom quartile baseline score, N3 Existing kinder, N4 Trial kinder, N5 Year 1

Results of logistic regression analyses are presented in Table 13.9. These

indicate that predictors of poor baseline performance at entry to school were being

younger, being male, low family income, low maternal education, having a parent-

identified difficulty and being from culturally diverse group. Predictors of poor

progress were not being in the trial kindergarten program and not having attended a

group-based care program in the year prior to school.

194


Table 13.9. Predictors of scores at baseline and of poor progress following logistic regression

Variable B Wald Significance Predictors Poor baseline R2=0.28 Age in months .120 43.30 p<.0001 Younger children Child is female -.385 4.61 p<.04 Male children Family income .348 13.64 p<.0001 Lower income

Maternal education .89 9.74 p<.003 Mother educated only to Year 10

Developmental or behavioural difficulty 1.52 29.38 p<.0001 Child has developmental or

behavioural difficulty Indigenous Australian, Asian or Pacific Islander 1.24 23.24 p<.0001 Child is from culturally

diverse group. Poor progress R2=0.08 Attended group-based care 2002 -.39 4.49 p<.04 Did not attend group-based

care 2002 Enrolled in trial kindergarten 2003 -1.04 17.48 p<.0001 Not enrolled in trial

kindergarten 2003

Discussion of study 1

The results of this study indicate that exceptional children, those from

culturally and economically diverse backgrounds, or those with parent identified

health or behavioural difficulty, face far more challenges in the transition to school.

They enter school with lower adjustment and attainment scores and their progress is

more sensitive to the experiences they have in school. A consistent effect (effect

sizes ranging from .15 - .57) of school program on children’s attainments and

adjustment was found. Children in the full-time programs and particularly those in

the kindergarten program with a focused curriculum, made greater rates of progress

than those in the part-time program. The effects were of a higher magnitude for

exceptional children. The results suggest that educational provisions are important

for all children, but for those who are exceptional, particularly potent.

There are two potential explanations for the stronger effectiveness of the full-

time focused curriculum kindergarten program. First, the full-time program provided

greater quantity of educational experience. For children from home backgrounds that

are disadvantaged or less aligned with the culture of the school, more time in an

educational program is likely to increase their rate of progress. Although some

studies report part-time programs as effective in addressing social equity (Sammons

et al., 2004) there is also evidence that the provision of full-time preschool program

experience has relatively greater effects than part-time (Schroeder, 2007). Second,

the full-time program may provide greater quality of experience. There is evidence

that the provision of high quality preschool experience has relatively greater effects

195


for those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Winter & Kelly, 2008). Our data indicate

that in the year prior to kindergarten some children, and often the more

disadvantaged, had multiple and unregulated care arrangements. When care is part

time children have less continuity of experience and supplementary care

arrangements may not be educationally focused. Further, the curriculum in the trial

kindergarten was focused more clearly by attainment goals than that of the part-time

program. However, there was no direct assessment within classrooms of teacher

practice.

The study indicates the need to further investigate the effectiveness of practice

within the classroom. This requires independent observation of pedagogy. For this

reason Study 2 provides a detailed study of school and teacher practices in three

different schools sampled from the original 39 schools.

Study 2: Focused studies of school and teacher practices that aim to facilitate inclusion across the K-2 transition

Focused studies were undertaken in 3 schools sampled from those investigated

in Study 1. The study investigated classroom pedagogies, teachers’ explanation of

their practices and child outcomes in classrooms, catering for years K- 2 in these

schools. There were three waves of data collection in the focused studies. The first

examined pedagogical practice across 6 classrooms in K-1 while the second and third

collected data in 22 classrooms across K-2 (see Figure 13.1).

Sample

Three schools were sampled from the cohort of 39 on the basis of location and

socio-cultural characteristics of the population, to represent typical school sites in

urban and regional areas. The size of the school was held constant representing

average school size for primary (elementary) schools in Queensland, Australia.

(Thorpe, et al., 2004; ABS, 2007)

196


Measures

Identification of exceptional children:

1. Official school data: These provided data on children eligible for funded

school support services.

2. Teacher identification of exceptional children: Teachers were asked to

nominate children in broad categories including social and cultural

background, learning or behavioural difficulties and giftedness.

Child outcomes:

1. Standard assessments of performance: These utilised the same measures

as those employed in Study 1. Teacher assessments of school adjustment

were repeated from kindergarten to Year 2 (N = 431). Academic

attainment measures were repeated in kindergarten and Year 1 (N = 222),

with an extension of the math measure on three items identified as

difficult in the cohort study.

School provision and pedagogical practices:

1. Official school data: These provided data on levels of teacher aide and

volunteer access, and classroom teacher qualifications.

2. Classroom Observation Scoring Manual COSM (Luke, Ladwig, Lingard,

Hayes & Mills, 1999): Observations of pedagogic practice and teacher

interview were undertaken in K-1 (6 classrooms) using four sub-scales of

this measure: supportive classroom, connectedness, intellectual quality

and recognition of difference. These are scaled from 1(low) to 5 (high).

3. Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms APEEC

Observation of pedagogic practice in K-2 (22 classrooms) was

undertaken using sub-scales of three identically-scaled classroom

observation schedules: three subscales of APEEC (Hemmeter, Ault &

Schuster, 2001) - physical environment, instructional environment and

social context. These are scaled from 0 (poor) through to 7 (excellent).

4. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale ECERS Revised (Harms,

Clifford & Cryer, 1998) gross motor subscale, and ECERS Extension

197


(Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2003) diversity sub-scale. These are

scaled from 0 (poor) through to 7 (excellent).

5. Teacher approaches to exceptionality, transition practices and school

provision: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with K-1 teachers

(11 teachers). Interviews provided data on approaches to inclusion of

exceptional children, transition practices and school provision, and were

numerically coded to allow associations to be explored statistically.

Analysis

The analyses addressed three questions regarding inclusive practices across

transition.

1. What do schools and teachers regard as an exceptional child?

2. What is the relationship between recognised proportions of exceptional

children in a class and school and classroom practice?

3. What practices are associated with better outcomes for exceptional

children?

Teacher identification of exceptional children was descriptively analysed, and

compared with official data and classroom observation to examine comparative

levels of recognition of exceptionality within classes. Year level sub-scale means for

APEEC, ECERS and COSM were calculated to measure the observed quality and

continuity of provision. Year level item means relevant to the classroom provisions

for exceptional children (APEEC family involvement, participation of children with

disability, and social diversity, and ECERS-E individual planning, gender equity and

racial equity) were also calculated. School data were aggregated to offer sample sizes

that would permit numeric analysis. Pearson product moment procedures were used

to evaluate the association between diversity awareness and classroom pedagogy,

and between pedagogic quality and child outcomes. To establish whether there were

differences between the outcomes of groups of teachers and of exceptional children,

non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were employed because of

small sample sizes and non-normality of outcome distribution.

To examine support levels, an Extended Community Support Index ESCI was

derived from measures of family involvement, volunteer classroom assistance,

198


community links, and collegial support, then reduced to a dichotomous variable in

line with its bivariate distribution. To evaluate the effect of such support on child

outcomes, non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests were used for small and unequal

sample sizes.

Audio-recorded interview data were transcribed and analysed to develop

themes offering insight into pedagogies and teacher understandings of exceptionality,

inclusion and transition. Interview data on approaches to transition and inclusion

were coded for numeric comparison of reported approaches and observed

pedagogies. Coding categories were derived from a review of key transition (see

Petriwskyj et al., 2005) and inclusion (Nind, 2005) practices identified in the

literature. The coding assigned a value of 1 for simple identification of a category

of practice employed while a value of 2 was assigned to those providing detailed

accounts of their practice. Using the same criteria, those that were specifically

identified as approaches that would not be used were negatively coded. To identify

associations between teacher identification of exceptionality and teacher approaches

to inclusion and transition, Pearson correlations were employed.

Results

What do schools and teachers regard as an exceptional child?

Table 13.10 presents a summary of official figures and teacher identified

categories of exceptional children across K-2 classes. Results present two important

areas of discrepancy. First, there are evident discrepancies between numbers based

on teacher identification and those deriving from official figures within the same

category. Teachers identified more children as reaching their criteria for categories of

exceptional need than the official figures for the same category. These differences

are largely accounted for by narrow, financially-based criteria for official support

service categories, compared with teacher focus on children’s characteristics and

support needs. Second, teachers identified additional categories of exceptional

children. Through their response in identifying exceptional children and in

interviews, teachers indicated their recognition of externalising behaviours, limited

English, disability and low literacy achievement as categories of exceptionality.

Internalising behaviours, social-cultural differences, or mild delays were less likely

199


to be identified. Although standard child assessments revealed a number of high

achieving children, teachers did not identify any child in the category of giftedness.

The results also reveal change across K-2. Identification of learning or

behaviour difficulties increased across this period. This is likely to reflect increasing

structure and formality of schooling, increasing provision of school learning support

services and introduction of formal outcomes-based statutory assessment. Teacher

identification of limited English peaked in Year 1 with shifts in academic

expectations and introduction of English as Second Language ESL support programs.

Recognition of social disadvantage decreased across the period as distance between

the initial home-school transition increased.

Table 13.10. Class composition by official and teacher-identified categories

Kindergarten (N=4) Year 1 (N=10) Year 2 (N=8) Class size Mean enrolment 20.5 (SD 4.43) 21.9 (SD 3.87) 25.1 (SD 1.26) Official support service categoryDisability 3.7% 4.6% 6.6% Indigenous literacy Na 7.8% 0.3%

Learning support Na 12.8% 16% ESL 0.6% 14.2% 1.3% Teacher identified Disability 5.0% 8.9% 4.1% Indigenous 5.0% 7.8% 6.5% NESB 12.5% 25.2% 18.3% Limited English 7.5% 16.8% 6.6% Low income 20.2% 15.6% 9.1% Literacy or behaviour 13.7% 18.5% 36.8%

What is the relationship between recognised proportions of exceptional children in a class and school and classroom practice?

Classroom- level practices for exceptional children K-1 and K-2

Observed provision for exceptional children. Observation scores for classroom

practice using COSM in K-1 classes are presented in Figure 13.7. These indicate that

scores for practises providing evidence of recognition of difference were lower than

those in the three other domains of pedagogic practice identified by this measure

(supportive classrooms, connectedness, or intellectual quality). Kindergarten scores

were lower than Year 1 except in connectedness to children’s backgrounds.

200


Figure 13.7. Mean score for K-1 classes on four domains of the COSM

APEEC and ECERS-E learning environment item-level scores related to

exceptional children across K-2 are presented in Figure 13.8. These indicate modest

provision for social diversity (APEEC mean 4.18, SD 0.73), gender equity (ECERS-

E mean 3.73, SD 1.12) and racial equity (ECERS-E mean 4.36, SD 1.18) and a

reduction in scores across K-2. There was evidence of high quality provision for

participation of children with disabilities (APEEC mean 5.73, SD 1.08), a category

for which there was official recognition and provision of funded support services.

APEEC and ECERS-E item means by year level

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

disabilities diversity individualplan

genderequity

racial equity

Items related to provision for exceptional children

kinder

Year 1

Year 2

Figure 13.8. APEEC and ECERS-E environment item means K-2 related to exceptional children

To evaluate the association between teacher recognition of exceptional children

and classroom pedagogy, Pearson correlations were calculated between recognition

scores and APEEC and ECERS sub-scale scores. There was a significant positive

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14

Supportive classroom

Connectedness Intellectualquality

Recognition ofdifference

mea

n sc

ore

KindergartenYear 1

201


association between teacher identification of exceptional children and gross motor

environment, r = +0.295 p<0.05, physical classroom environment r = +0.236 p<0.05,

diversity environment r = +0.209, p<0.05, and social context r = +0.141, n = 22,

p<0.01). Notably, there was not a significant association of identification of

exceptional children with instructional environment scores.

Observed continuity and graduated change. The APEEC and ECERS

environment item means indicated graduated change over time, rather than abrupt

discontinuity. Continuity or consistency in APEEC and ECERS-R items that

measured relationships is shown in Figure 13.9. Consistent promotion of peer

relationships was evidenced in sustained encouragement of social skills K-2 (APEEC

mean 5.91, SD 0.75). The maintenance of warm teacher-child language K-2 (APEEC

mean 5.64, SD 1.14) indicated continuity in positive interpersonal classroom climate.

However, an overall decline in APEEC and ECERS learning environment means

from kindergarten to Year 2 was evident, particularly in individualised planning

(Figure 13.8). To evaluate year level differences in individualisation, Kruskal-Wallis

tests were used. Significant year level differences were found in individual flexibility

of horizontal daily transitions between activities H = 11.102, (df2, n = 22), p<.025,

displays of individual child work H = 7.588 (df2, n = 22), p<0.025 as well as

individual planning H = 7.728 (df2, n = 22), p<0.025, with higher scores in

kindergarten, indicating increasing class conformity across K-2.

APEEC and ECERS-R item means by year level

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

social skills teacherlanguage

familyinvolvement

staffcooperation

Items related to relationships

Kinder

Year 1

Year 2

Figure 13.9. APEEC and ECERS-E environment item means K-2 related to relationships

202


Reported transition processes. Results of the analysis of coded teacher

interviews are presented in Figure 13.10. These indicate that the teachers’

conceptualisations of transition focused primarily on practices that prepare children

for the change event of the shift from play-based kindergartens to subject-based Year

1 classes. However, other conceptualisations were held, often in conjunction with

those of a single school-entry change event and preparatory practices. Year 1

teachers more frequently focused on normative conceptualisations of transition

framed by school readiness and grade retention. Understandings of transition that

were more complex and multi-faceted processes involving learning continuity and

peer and collegial relationships were less frequently reported.

Continuity of transition approaches K-1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

read

ines

s

even

t

prac

tices

cont

inuity

multi

relatio

nship

Reported teacher approaches K-1

Kinder

Year 1

Figure 13.10. Comparison of transition approaches K-1 (coded from interview)

The relationship between identification of exceptional children and reported

inclusion and transition approaches is shown in Figure 13.11. One class was omitted

as an outlier because the class composition was specifically modified by school

administration to accommodate the teacher’s leadership responsibilities.

Examination of the trend in this relationship identified an evident change in response

when more than 50% of the class composition was identified as exceptional in some

respect. Above this level more complex conceptualisations of both transition and

inclusion are evident, involving multi-faceted strategies, continuity and relationships.

203


inclusion and transition approaches

0123456789

10

12%

15%

22%

45%

46%

61%

77%

82%

95%

100%

Proportion of class identifed as exceptional

inclusion

transition

Figure 13.11. Proportion of each class identified as exceptional children and reported complexity/sophistication of approaches to inclusion and transition (coded interview scores)

School-level provision for exceptional children K-2

Structural provision. Observation and official school data indicated structural

changes (e.g., more teacher aides, clustering children according to category, smaller

classes, more learning support teacher access) in classrooms that had very high levels

of exceptional children. Mean official teacher aide hours per week fell across K-2

from 15.00 (SD 3.56) to 4.00 (SD 2.19). Pearson procedures were used to evaluate

the relationship between teacher aide hours per week and learning environment

quality. There was an association between high levels of paid aide assistance and

instructional environment quality (r = +.728, n = 22, p<.05). However, official mean

volunteer hours per week increased K-2 from 3.50 (SD 3.31) to 5.17 (SD 2.04)

indicating other human resource availability. Comparable official data on the level of

access to University-qualified learning support and subject-specialist teachers were

not available.

Professional knowledge of classroom teachers. Examination of official data

indicated that all kindergarten and half of Year 1 teachers held specialist early

education qualifications incorporating individualised learning. One third of this

specialist group of 10 teachers had undertaken formal pre-service or post-graduate

studies in educating exceptional children, yet the 12 generalist teachers had

experienced only limited in-service training on teaching children with disabilities. To

examine the effect of teacher preparation, non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests were

undertaken. The specialised early education group adopted significantly more

204


complex transition approaches (U = 4089.50, p<0.005), more inclusive responses (U

= 1036.00, p<0.005) and higher quality ECERS-E diversity environments (U =

5151.00, p<0.05) than the generalist group of teachers. Comparable data on the

professional preparation of learning support and subject-specialist teachers were not

available.

What practices are associated with better outcomes for exceptional children?

Pedagogic quality. High quality diversity environments were associated with

improved reading scores in kindergarten but not Year 1, and the association with

writing scores did not reach significance. Higher levels of association between

learning environment quality and attainment were found for math. This is shown in

Table 13.11. There was also a modest yet significant association between social

learning environment scores and classroom engagement in kindergarten (r = .202,

p<05) but not in Year 1. There was a negative association between diversity

environment scores and oral communication outcomes. The association between

instructional environment quality and child outcomes did not reach significance

except for kindergarten math.

Family and community engagement. Reduction in APEEC item means for

family involvement from K-2 shown in Figure 8 and variation in volunteer assistance

indicated a shift in wider engagement with the work of schools. Non-parametric tests

were used to evaluate the impact on children’s outcomes of engagement with the

work of schools measured by the Extended Community Support Index ESCI. There

was a significant difference in children’s classroom engagement between schools

with high and low ESCI scores (U = 4563.5, p<0. 05), indicating that the better the

links between staff, family and community, the better children adjusted to school.


Table 13.11. Correlation of child outcomes and learning environment quality

APEEC and ECERS learning environment scores K-1 Physical Instructional Social Gross motor Diversity

Chi

ld o

utco

mes

sc

ores

K n=64

Yr1 n=158 K n=64

Yr 1 n=158

K n=64

Yr 1 n=158

K n=64

Yr 1 n= 158 K n=64

Yr 1 n=158

Reading -.107 -.136 .103 -.146 -.107 -.101 -.165 .073 .251** -.102 Writing -.194 .039 -.102 .031 -.194 .068 -.213 -.043 -.016 .093 Math .496* .082 .405* .129 .496* .187* .504* -.005 .275** .181** Communication -.045 -.142 -.231 .015 -.045 .030 .010 -.059 -.345* .040 Physical .176 -.013 .143 .022 .176 .006 .179 -.134 .096 .066


Discussion of study 2

Across the findings two clear trends were evident. First, higher levels of

recognition of diversity were associated with higher levels of reported and observed

pedagogic quality. There was one notable outcome that did not fit this trend.

Relationships between recognition of exceptionality and instructional environment

quality did not reach significance. This is possibly because this aspect of quality was

driven more by other pressures such as statutory assessment demands and teachers’

beliefs about instructional quality.

Second, higher scores on measures of pedagogical practices were associated

with improvements in child outcomes. There were two outcomes that did not fit with

this trend. Oral communication was negatively associated with the quality of the

diversity environment. The most likely explanation for this finding is that schools,

because of staffing needs, clustered children with limited English and with specific

disabilities in category-based classrooms. Further, expected relationships between

instructional environment quality and attainment were limited. This may be because

the pedagogies of staff additional to classroom teachers (e.g., learning support staff)

or factors additional to those measured in the APEEC sub-scale (e.g., the academic

quality of the program) were also important influences.

Improved child outcomes arose from supportive engagement of families and

communities with the work of schools and from sustained quality as Sammons et al.,

(2008) also found in the UK. However, high quality pedagogy was framed by the

saliency of exceptional need, the nature of funded provisions for exceptional children

and the professional knowledge of teachers. Service provision and classroom

pedagogies were directed towards highly salient categories attracting funding support

(e.g., disability). There was more limited recognition of broader categories of

exceptionality. Harry (2008) indicates that this may serve as a barrier to teacher

responsiveness to children as they moved into and through early elementary school.

Qualified teachers specialising in early education and education of exceptional

children made more inclusive provision and engaged in more complex transition

processes than generalist teachers, indicating that specific forms of professional

knowledge supported more effective provision for complex class groups of young

children.

207


General Discussion

We conducted two studies to examine inclusive transition practices across the

entry to school. The first examined the effects of three different teaching programs

on a population cohort of 1,831 children. This study showed that different program

types yielded different outcomes for children. A full-time, play-based curriculum

with developmental goal orientation resulted in steeper rates of progress for all

children but was particularly effective for exceptional children. Study 2 examined the

features of teaching programs that best deliver positive outcomes for exceptional

children and undertook observations of classroom pedagogies. Four key findings

emerged:

1. Effective practice commences with recognition of exceptional need.

2. Observed quality of pedagogical practice was positively associated with

the outcomes for exceptional children.

3. Transition to school for exceptional children is facilitated by attention to

relationships and continuity of learning environment such that change is

gradual rather than abrupt.

4. Classroom teacher professional knowledge, both of the early years and of

exceptionality, affects the complexity/sophistication of practices.

Effective practice commences with recognition of exceptional need.

Pedagogic provision was framed by the complexity of the class groups and by

teachers’ recognition of exceptional need. When the proportion of children in a class

identified as exceptional exceeded 50% notable differences in the sophistication and

complexity of teacher’s reported beliefs about, and approaches to, transition and

inclusion were evident. However, our data suggest that giftedness, culture, gender

and social background were categories of exceptionality that were less frequently

recognised by teachers. Prior studies have reported similarly (Boardman, 2006;

Brooker, 2002; Freebody, Watters & Lummis, 2003).

Recognition of exceptional children and the quality of provision were framed

by external factors such as funding availability and statutory assessment

requirements. Access to additional support resource was associated with increased

teacher rates of identification of English as a second language and learning

208


difficulties, indicating that the system is categorical and reactive. Teachers’ attention

to externalising behaviours, limited English, literacy difficulties and disability, rather

than to high achievement and cultural diversity, indicated that their focus was on

categories of risk and was perhaps framed by funding regimes and support services

focused on specific deficits. This focus has been found to be associated with

practices that are not inclusive and potentially stigmatising such as withdrawal or

segregation (Ashman, 2009) and grade retention (Graue, 2006). Existing literature

suggests that inattention to giftedness, social background and culture may lower

teachers’ expectations and limit meaningful learning opportunities (Comber &

Kamler, 2004; Freebody et al., 2003; Luke, et al., 1999; Siraj-Blatchford, 2006;

Whitton, 2005).

Observed quality of pedagogic practices

In these studies higher levels of adjustment and attainment were found to be

associated with supportive school and classroom practices. The quality and

continuity of programs in kindergarten and early elementary school supported

sustained progress. This reflects a similar finding to that of Sammons et al., (2004;

2008) on the importance of quality in both prior-to-school and early school

provision. At a classroom level, improved outcomes for children were moderately

but significantly positively associated with observed quality of pedagogies. The

sensitivity of exceptional children to pedagogic quality in these studies was an

important issue, as lower quality pedagogy was associated with little or no progress,

while high quality pedagogy supported sound progress even for children with low

entry outcomes.

School practices were found to be reactive, deficit-framed and internally-

focused, rather than systematic, pro-active and inclusive of external stakeholders.

This was evident in narrow provision for exceptional children and for family and

community engagement. Systematic school-level provisions may be particularly

important in the most complex classrooms, such as those in which teachers identified

a high proportion of the class as exceptional children. However, the opportunities for

family and community support for the work of schools were not yet being fully

realised, as teachers focused inwardly towards school relationships, rather than

outwardly towards broader stakeholder partnerships. Parents indicated awareness of

209


their children’s developmental difficulties, and improved child adjustment was

moderately but significantly associated with engagement of the school with families

and the community. Harry (2008) and Niesel and Griebel (2007) note that more

extensive family and community engagement can alert teachers to children’s

individual and cultural needs, and thereby facilitate their progress.

Gradual transition to school

Transition to school was enhanced by the maintenance of pedagogic quality,

established transition practices, enabling relational environments, continuity of

learning and graduated change, supporting the findings of recent European and

Australian studies (Brostrom, 2005; Dockett & Perry, 2007; Niesel & Griebel, 2007;

Raban & Ure, 2000; Sammons, et al., 2008). However, reduction in the quality of

diversity environments was influenced by academic outcome pressures, professional

knowledge and teachers’ awareness of individual differences and backgrounds. This

reflects similar influences to those identified in the UK (Brooker, 2002). The

findings on these studies prompt the need to develop clearly articulated policies on

school transition that go beyond introductory practices and consider the congruence

and quality of children’s learning experience, as proposed by Kagan (2009)

Classroom teachers’ professional knowledge

These studies highlighted the impact of teacher quality on the provision of

programs that attend to the needs of individuals and to exceptional children. The

finding that the specialised professional knowledge of University-educated early

education teachers was a positive influence on program quality differs somewhat

from Pianta’s (2006) finding in the US. This variation may have arisen from

differences in the level or content of teachers’ education, or from particular features

of the samples.

Although specialist preparation emerged as an advantage, the more limited

knowledge base of some staff was a constraint. This supports Giangreco and Broer’s

(2005) finding regarding variable teacher knowledge of exceptionality and the

allocation of less qualified paraprofessionals to teaching exceptional children. Since

broader education in exceptionality-responsive pedagogies has been reported to

support the implementation of inclusive policies, consideration of professional

210


education across the whole school may be required (Harry, 2008). Enhanced

professional education could assist schools to avoid reactive or deficit-focused

approaches, inconsistent practices and multiple yet separate categorical provisions,

thus supporting more coherent educational reforms (Ng, 2003).

Limitations

While the learning environment measures employed in this study were valuable

in highlighting a range of pedagogical practices, these were not specifically designed

to capture provision for exceptional children and may not have captured sufficiently

some factors relevant to the broader range of exceptional children in an Australian

context. More extensive investigation of instructional content quality would offer

more insight into the role of overall instructional quality in children’s progress. More

recent observation measures such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System

CLASS (Hamre & Pianta, 2007) assess the quality of learning opportunities across

ECEC and early elementary settings. There is a need for observation measures of

pedagogic quality that specifically focus on diversity and inclusion practices.

The need for wider investigation of the effects of teacher qualifications and

methods of maximising use of a range of staff skill to support exceptional children is

also indicated. The contribution of qualified subject specialist and learning support

teachers would provide information on pedagogic practices beyond those adopted by

classroom teachers. Further, the interview data suggested the need for more extensive

investigation of teachers’ belief systems underlying their inclusion and transition

school transition.

Conclusion

The evidence from these studies indicates the importance of recognising

children’s exceptional need and of providing high quality early education programs

both prior to and within early elementary school. It also drew attention to the value

of multi-faceted gradual approaches to transition that attend to the needs of

exceptional children in non-stigmatising ways. While support service access eases

the pressures of catering for extremes of complexity in classrooms or overlapping

demands on teachers’ attention and time, such supports alone were not sufficient.

Professional education and wider family and community relationships emerged as

211


contributors to high quality pedagogy supporting exceptional children entering

school. The need for overarching systematic approaches to manage classroom

complexity, rather than reactive single-issue responses, is highlighted as a key

consideration supporting exceptional children entering school. The need for

overarching systematic approaches to manage classroom complexity, rather than

reliance on reactive single-issue responses, is highlighted as a key consideration.

212


Summary and Implications 213

CHAPTER 14: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

The evidence from this study shows varied inclusive transition trajectories that

relate to both the salience of classroom diversity and individual teacher’s approaches

to transition and inclusion. These relationships are presented in Figure 14.1. The

conceptualisation presented here moves beyond the current ecological models of

transition to consider aspects of inclusive practice. Three empirical papers from this

study emphasise inclusion (Paper 3) transition (Paper 4) then both in synthesis (Paper

5) to draw out aspects of the evidence on inclusive transition practices.

However, empirical analysis indicated that this initial conceptualisation failed

to adequately explain the range of school and classroom level factors impacting on

inclusive transition. The analyses presented in Paper 4 indicated that the original

conceptualisation of transition practices as hierarchically organised from low level

structural to higher level complex practices (incorporating attitudinal change) did not

explain the realities in the field. Rather, the data presented indicated that both simple

and complex practices existed side by side in school and classroom settings. Indeed,

teachers could simultaneously hold conceptualisations of transition that were

simplistic alongside more complex understandings. These findings may relate to the

context of a classroom, school, or community. Thus, an alternate conceptualisation,

accounting for the complexities of inclusive transition presented in these data has

been developed. This is shown in Figure 14.2.

214

214 Summary and Implications

Figure 14.1. Conceptualisation of relationship of approaches to salience of diversity

Multifaceted Approaches

The evidence from this study indicates that inclusive transition is a complex

process presenting multiple challenges for teachers and schools, and questioning

underlying belief systems. Such complexity necessitates multi-faceted approaches to

inclusive transition rather than single actions. The evidence presented here suggests

that the focus of the education system on structural provisions was inadequate to

address the challenges faced by teachers whose classes are characterised by variable

levels of complexity and diversity. The question of feasibility also emerged with

increasing numbers of single-focused solutions directed at diversity sub-groups

adding to teacher burden and possibly, despite intent, detracting from optimal

TRANSITION AND INCLUSION APPROACHES

SALIENCE OF DIVERSITY

Low High

Complex

Simple

Multicultural School Suburban School

Regional School

215


practice. Although the evidence from teachers demonstrates the value of structural

support in easing the pressures of catering for extreme diversity or overlapping

demands on their attention and time, this was not sufficient to address the tensions

experienced in diverse classrooms. Factors that were found to impact directly on

children’s outcomes include relationships, shared agency and pedagogies informed

by diversity.

The co-existence of a range of approaches to both inclusion and transition in

pedagogical practice observed in this study suggests that teachers are adding onto

existing repertoires of practice, rather than undertaking more extensive reform

involving deeper critical reflection. Alternatively, it could indicate that multiple

pathways may be required for diverse populations and teachers with varying

capacities, and that this multiplicity of approaches is directed by the limitations of

feasibility in specific contexts. Inclusive transition to school enlists multiple inputs

including policy frameworks, resource provision, broader staff capacity and

relationships among stakeholders. It considers the complex array of contributions

from children’s backgrounds and abilities, and their interactions with school and

community provisions and practices.

The revised conceptualisation of transition to school is shown in Figure 14.2 as

a series of inter-linked elements across both prior to school and school contexts.

These are explained in detail in the sections below. This new conceptualisation links

the sequence of elements of inclusive transition to frame their contribution to a

successful outcome defined, not only by child progress and disposition, but also

family and community confidence or satisfaction. This does not imply that

shortcomings at any one element of context will preclude successful inclusive

transition, since expectations of resilience in children and families underpin this

conceptualisation. It indicates that while children’s support and learning prior to

school entry makes a difference, it does not necessarily mean normative readiness

expectations of children. The concerns about feasibility that policies of inclusion

have prompted are addressed by a range of school-level provisions aimed at

enhancing the capacity of teachers. Such provisions support teachers’ enactment of

pedagogic ideals at a classroom level.

216


Figure 14.2. Inclusive transition to school journey

Support and Learning Prior To School

The understandings expressed by experienced teachers regarding children’s

readiness for school appear to contain normative ideas that are inconsistent with deep

inclusion (Corbett & Slee, 2000). However, the empirical evidence from this study

that documented teachers’ efforts to cater for diversity indicated that they do, in fact,

Family & community confidence in school

Positive disposition to learning; child resilience

Children feel valued; sense of belonging

Academic & developmental progress

Support and learning prior to school Quality ECEC programs Transition program Support identification Family support

School feasibility provisions: Opportunities to teach Structural provision Support processes Policy formation Staff capacity building

Teacher enactment of ideals: Opportunities to learn Pedagogic quality, continuity and differentiation Recognition of diversity Affective & relational frame Child/family agency & capital

217


differentiate curriculum and pedagogy. Though they use terms such as ‘readiness’,

their actions suggest understandings that extend beyond expectations of

homogeneous development at school entry. Perhaps the term ‘readiness’ needs to be

reconsidered, as it does not adequately describe teachers’ emerging understandings.

Their awareness that optimal progress, taking account of child abilities, background

and available support prior to school entry, is highly advantageous, needs to be taken

into account. The evidence from this study indicates that the effectiveness of the

following forms of support require further empirical investigation because of their

potential to contribute to children’s progress and facilitate transition across the early

years.

Programs prior to school

Access to quality ECEC programs. Access to ECEC services prior to

school set the basis for early learning. The data indicated that both quantity

(e.g., full-time Preparatory provision) and quality learning environments as

measured by APEEC and ECERS make a contribution. However, the question

of what instructional quality means in inclusive Australian early years

classrooms remains unresolved. The new Early Years Learning Framework in

Australia (DEEWR, 2009) represents an opportunity for negotiation of the

meaning of quality in early education prior to school.

Transition programs. Transition programs introduce children and families

to the school context, and establish socially supportive relationships or build

upon existing relationships such as child friendships.

Support processes

Family support. Processes of support given to families assist them to

provide optimal conditions for children with pre-existing health and

developmental concerns, or to children from culturally and linguistically

diverse backgrounds.

Support identification. Identification of children’s support requirements,

enable children and families to be linked with relevant community agencies, to

assist families in accessing diagnosis if this is indicated and to obtain advice

from support agencies on program modifications.

218


Expectations that the provision of an ECEC program alone provides for

effective transition and subsequent progress represent an over-simplification of

transition processes. There is a need for attention to the practices within programs,

and those that link to families and communities.

Contextual Issues Influencing Feasibility

The concerns teachers in this study expressed with respect to the feasibility of

enacting policies and professional ideals in highly complex and diverse classrooms

indicates the need to surround them with supportive structures, processes and

relationships. Such contextual supports enhance their opportunities to teach (Hamre

& Pianta, 2007).

Structural supports

Teachers’ reliance on support provisions such as teacher-aide allocations,

specialist teacher access, adequate facilities and limited class sizes, highlighted the

crucial contribution that material and human resource make to the feasibility of

inclusive transition practices.

Staff child ratios Small class sizes and allocation of teacher aides or

specialist teachers in these classrooms supported provision for diversity.

Adequate adult-child ratios permit the scaffolding and transformation of

children’s understandings that are core processes in interactive early childhood

pedagogies as highlighted by Raban and colleagues (2005).

Staff consultation time. Since teacher aides, subject specialist teachers

and special education teachers, as well as classroom teachers, were observed to

work routinely with early years students, school consultation time may need

investigation. Early years practices that respect both play-based and subject

based approaches may require a consultation time allocation to negotiate

understandings and make realistic decisions supporting continuity of learning

as children move between classes or staff members.

219


Wider support relationships

The opportunities for wider support for the work of schools and teachers were

not yet being fully realised, as the evidence presented here suggested that teachers

focused inwardly towards school relationships and leadership, rather than outwardly

towards broader community partnerships.

School leadership. Teachers reported on the importance of school

leadership and the value of assistance from a range of school colleagues,

indicating that a supportive and inclusive school culture was a key factor

assisting teachers. They nominated leadership by principals who were

knowledgeable about early years education as vital, yet parallel leadership by

senior early years teachers was also evident (Andrews & Crowther, 2002).

Community involvement. Little interaction with external groups was

found in this study. More effective relationships with the local community and

external professionals may have enhanced children’s horizontal transitions (e.g.

between external therapists or outside-school-hours-care and the school) and

assisted teachers in developing programs relevant to the local context.

However, teachers’ limited engagement with the external professional and

local community suggested that this may be constructed as the role of a

principal or that teachers felt overwhelmed with other responsibilities.

Policy context

The data presented in this study indicated that teachers and schools were

attending more to funded categories of diversity rather than to adopting a broad

conceptualisation of diversity and complexity in their classrooms. They emphasised

transition practices that prepared children for existing school structures and cultures.

Further, the relationship between stakeholders focused on student and staff relations,

rather than wider family and community relationships. This finding prompts the need

to develop more effective policies and procedures.

Policy and procedure clarification. Clearer inclusion policies and

procedures need to be developed, as teachers were attending more closely to

transition and diversity issues that attracted funded support services rather than

to social and cultural discontinuities and lack of challenge for high achieving

220


children. This is an example of teachers’ work being driven by routines and

procedures related to the funding and resource streams, even where a new

policy (e.g., the Inclusion Statement, Education Queensland, 2005a) contained

a different message.

Broader policy focus. The focus of this study on the entirety of classroom

diversity indicated the need for further development of policy and procedures.

Policy enactment for gifted children required attention, as low teacher

awareness of giftedness may be a key factor in the lack of implementation of

existing policies. Policy inattention to culture as a resource may be limiting

teachers’ expectations and reducing meaningful learning opportunities

connected to children’s lifeworlds. The current policies on cultural diversity

primarily address literacy, English as a second language and Indigeneity

(Education Queensland, 2000b, 2001c, 2005b) rather than broader cultural

constructions taking economic, social, cultural and linguistic diversity into

account. These policies may contribute to cultural diversity being constructed

as sub-group risks, rather than prompts for differentiated pedagogic response

for entire classrooms. Formal recognition of the limited enactment of policies

is indicated by recent changes to school procedures requiring action plans to be

developed on inclusion and giftedness (Education Queensland, 2008).

Transition policies. Policies of transition to and through the early years of

school need to include entry to the Preparatory year, transition from

Preparatory to Year 1 and subsequent transitions in order to sustain children’s

academic progress and motivation. These policies need to consider transitions

of all children rather than just targeted consideration of children considered at

risk, such as children with high support needs (Education Queensland, 2007b)

or Indigenous children (Education Queensland, 2000b). Targeted policies

potentially stigmatise these children and fail to consider other groups such as

culturally diverse or geographically mobile children.

Family and community participation policy. Clear policies on stakeholder

partnership may assist teachers to change their attitude towards families and

communities. The study indicated that families and communities were

excluded or were engaged in teacher-decided classroom assistance tasks. They

could be involved in reciprocal communication and shared decision-making

221


around transition and provision for diversity, in order to support children’s

ongoing learning and adjustment.

Teacher capacity building

The data presented here suggested that teachers’ rely on reactive additions to

repertoires of practice, rather than broader pre-active educational reform, and

indicated the need to change professional education. The limited education of

teachers regarding diversity and transition identified in this study, involved not only

general classroom teachers, but also other staff, such as teacher aides, specialist

subject teachers and special education teachers.

Pre-service education in diversity. Only the early childhood teachers in

this study had pre-service education on diversity and transition, although this

may have been related to the time or location of the pre-service education of

generalist primary staff. Pre-service education on critical reflection, transition

and broader diversity provisions would position a range of teachers within

schools and ECEC services to adopt more consistent and inclusive approaches.

The content of staff pre-service education may be the key area for change, as

the focus of Australian early childhood literature on single categories such as

specific disabilities or risk groups indicated that the broader impact of diversity

and complexity is not yet being addressed effectively.

Professional development. In-service education or professional

development for staff working with early years students should include not

only classroom teachers but also teacher aides, specialist subject teachers,

special education and therapy staff. While principals in these schools

demonstrated understandings of early years education and inclusion, principals

in other schools may benefit from inservice education if their understanding is

narrow (Stamopoulos, 2001). This would offer the opportunity to develop more

consistent transition and inclusion processes across a school, based on recent

evidence of effective pedagogies for young children in the early years.

Critical reflection. The professional transition processes of teachers

required further consideration, as teachers in this study expressed contradictory

and inconsistent understandings. Behavioural change may involve values

222


change through diversity consciousness-raising and challenge to attitudes or

reflection on personal epistemologies (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2006; Sims,

2002). The Index of Inclusion (Booth et al., 2004) is now being used as a

prompt for reflection in some Australian schools, but the early childhood

version (Booth et al., 2006) may be more relevant for play-based Preparatory

classrooms. Teacher action research based on critical reflection may also be

valuable for addressing specific concerns in context (MacNaughton, et al,

2007).

Pedagogies and Relationships Impacting Children’s Progress

Although the surrounding framework of support and capacity-building

enhances teachers’ opportunities to teach effectively, it is their pedagogic practices at

a classroom level that were shown in this study to impact directly on children’s

opportunities to learn (Hamre & Pianta, 2007).

Pedagogies of continuity and graduated change

The shared attention to continuity between Preparatory and Year 1 and 2

programs was an unexpected strength in the approaches observed in this study. It

took varied forms, depending on the capacities and attitudes of teachers and other

staff, the leadership shown by teacher-leaders or school principals. However,

awareness of children’s abilities and backgrounds framed practice.

Recognition of diversity. Effective provision for diverse learners

commenced with recognition of individual responses, friendships, abilities and

cultural background. Such recognition enabled teachers to differentiate for

individual children, and to identify children’s further support requirements.

Teachers with a heightened awareness of the variations within the school

community engaged in more complex and sophisticated approaches to

inclusion and transition.

Gradual transition. Gradual change across Preparatory and Year 1 in

structure, and from Preparatory to Year 2 in the level of child focus in this

study provided opportunities for children to adjust without confronting the

shock of sudden, sharp discontinuities. However, further investigation of what

223


quality means across early years classes appears warranted, as the learning

environment scores in Year 2 were sometimes at minimal levels. This finding

in Year 2 may simply reflect the developmentally appropriate basis of the

learning environment instruments, and may be an expected trend as children

move towards the middle school, yet it failed to demonstrate consistently

inclusive, learner-centred pedagogies.

Continuity. Teachers in this study were exploring ways to balance

children’s continuity of experience with meeting expectations regarding

outcomes. The extension of explicit teaching into Preparatory play-based

programs attended to diverse family expectations and facilitated children’s

sense of being competent at school entry without excessive push-down of

formal schooling. Further, the extension of selected play experiences, social

skills learning, perceptual-motor experience and health and safety practices

into Year 1, enriched children’s learning opportunities while attending more

broadly to their development and adjustment.

Broad learning focus. Sustained incorporation of broader learning and

development opportunities through the early years of school was apparent in

only a few classrooms. The unexpected stability of oral communication, gross

motor development and mathematics scores between Preparatory and Year 1

classes may have been related to measurement limitation but it may also reflect

some narrowing of the curriculum in practice. The identified links between oral

communication and academic achievement indicate that the maintenance of

broader language programs, rather than a narrow print literacy focus, may

assist a range of children, as recommended by Hamston and Scull (2007).

Family and community connectedness. Exploration of opportunities for

enhanced connectedness and continuity in these data included limited links to

children’s home cultural traditions, some incorporation of first languages, and

teacher-framed classroom involvement by community volunteers. More

extensive involvement of families and communities in schools may offer

further opportunities to enhance continuity and adjustment.

224


Relationship and affective support

The shared focus on relationships across year levels in this study indicated that

this was an important point of connection for teachers who may have different

perspectives on ways of including children and on ways of effecting transition. The

relationships were primarily internal to the schools, and failed to take into account

wider stakeholder groups in more equitable relationships. Since social inclusion

implies a sense of belonging and feeling valued this is a vital element of inclusive

transition. The reduced focus on diverse abilities and culture as children move into

Year 2 indicated the need for more sustained attention to diversity and continuity.

Peer relationships. Peer relationships and friendships were maintained in

these classrooms through social learning programs, buddy programs, and

sometimes class allocation, indicating that teachers were aware of the value of

peer support and friendship in enhancing children’s confidence, security and

sense of belonging to the class and school.

Teacher-child relationships. Teacher-child relationships were found to be

consistently warm and supportive, providing a nurturing affective environment

for less secure children that could be expected to assist children to feel they are

valued. However, it was unclear how this warmth was balanced by high

expectations that challenged children’s thinking and achievement. This element

was missing from the observation instruments, but may be crucial for advanced

children who require extension or for children whose progress is potentially

impeded by low teacher expectation, such as children from low-income

families and Indigenous children.

Staff relationships. Sound staff relationships in this study were reported

to support teachers in implementing ideals and striving for higher quality

pedagogies, yet ran the risk of maintaining traditional approaches without the

critical reflection that could support reform. The role of volunteers and teacher

aides also requires further investigation, as over-reliance on untrained or

minimally-trained paraprofessionals for highly complex learning support is

problematic if quality is to be sustained. The educational participation rights of

all children include the right to a quality education that considers diversity.

225


Family-teacher partnerships. Family-teacher partnerships required further

consideration, as discussed previously, because of their value in facilitating

children’s transition to school. Teacher beliefs about the role of families and

communities may need to be explored further to determine avenues for changes

in power relationships between staff and families.

Differentiation in transition processes

Differentiation was observed in content, outcome and process, but the

realisation of differentiation practices specific to transition was not sufficiently

developed. It offers the potential for enhancing transition strategies by making

processes more individually relevant without stigmatising diversity sub-groups or

individual children and families. There was some limited evidence in this study of

exploration of this concept of transition differentiation through two strategies.

Teacher communication. In-depth sharing of teacher information about

individual children’s progress and responses offered teachers the opportunity to

prepare learning opportunities in advance and to reflect on their pedagogies so

their approach was relevant to all children.

Class allocation. Thoughtful allocation of children to classes based on

individual affective responses and peer relationships reflected efforts to

personalise teaching and to sustain a supportive affective climate.

However, the need to consider school transitions of children who have not

attended the Preparatory program, children who are geographically mobile or who

are experiencing stress. This is another situation in which deeper engagement with

families and communities would offer better opportunities to develop programs that

attend to the varied requirements of children whose life experience and educational

background may be outside the anticipated range or whose right to participate fully

has not been adequately considered. Differentiation of transition processes requires

further investigation, as teachers in other schools may have developed alternate

approaches beyond those observed or reported in this study.

226


Educational reform, transition capital, child and family agency

The exploration of reform ideas such as multi-modal strategies and multi-age

structures could be fruitfully extended to broader educational reform approaches.

Further consideration is needed of the transition capital children and families bring

with them to border crossings such as entry to Preparatory or Year 1, and the ways

teachers can capitalise on these resources to enhance children’s resilience (Dunlop,

2007). Enhancement of the agency of children and families in school decision-

making processes is indicated as a potential avenue for progress.

Inclusive transition

Although teachers in this study used the term ‘readiness’ and demonstrated

some normative understandings, their conceptualisations were more complex than

their use of this term implied. They demonstrated understanding of the need to

support child outcomes by taking individual differences into account, and some

attended to a sequence of transitions over an extended time frame. An inclusive

transition is, therefore, defined as an on-going and non-discriminatory process of

mutual adaptation by diverse children, families, schools and communities to facilitate

all children moving successfully from home and ECEC centres into and through the

early years of school.

Successful or adaptive transition as defined by McIntyre (2003) considers only

children’s adjustment to the school as indicated by positive relationships with

teachers and peers, progress in social skills at school, and low reporting of problem

behaviours. Successful transition to school may be defined more broadly through

varied child qualities such as positive disposition towards learning and resilience in

the face of challenge (Fabian, 2002; Perry et al., 2000) or through longer-term

positive developmental trajectories (Burchinal et al., 2002; La Paro et al., 2000).

Such definitions fail to consider on-going learning or the adjustment of schools to

learner diversity. In the context of inclusion, Reitveld (2008) defined successful

transition as “being treated as an equal, valued and contributing member of the

centre, class and school, and participation in the full range of culturally-valued roles

of that setting” (p.2). This study expands Reitveld’s definition to incorporate more

explicit reference to academic and developmental progress together with affective

227


factors and wider stakeholder satisfaction. Thus, it is proposed that successful

transition be defined more comprehensively as (1) positive academic and

developmental progress; (2) feeling valued and having a sense of belonging to the

class and school; (3) resilience and positive disposition towards learning; and

(4)family and community confidence in the process

It is recommended that future empirical research should evaluate successful

transition against all four of these criteria.

Limitations of the Research

The empirical content of this thesis focused, for the main part, on the study of

three school sites in exploring inclusive transition practices and their effects on

children’s progress. The study of this small sample of three sites enabled in-depth

data collection using multiple methods, to document and analyse the role of

pedagogical practice in the transition to school of the diverse range of learners in

Preparatory to Year 2 classrooms. Though selection of the three schools was

systematic, with school size held constant and sampling directed by location and

population characteristics, the small sample and restriction to “average size” schools

limit the generalisability of findings. It is likely that variation in school size, for

example, affects the availability of both human and material resource.

Data on transition approaches relied heavily on teacher report through

interview and may not be a sufficiently robust method to enable identification of any

association between transition approaches and child outcomes. Currently there are

not any available standard measures of teacher beliefs and practices pertaining to

transition practices. Pilot work for this study tested alternative methods of data

collection to asertain teacher views using personal construct theory and repertory

grid technique (Fetherstone, 1995). However, teachers found the procedure

confusing. In contrast, teacher report was found to both provide rich explanations of

pedagogic choices and to substantiate data collected through observations of

classroom learning environments. Reported practices aligned with standard

observation scores and field notes. The purpose of this study was to reveal details

about the processes surrounding diverse children’s transitions into formal school

settings. Such detail has hitherto been lacking.

228


The measurement tools, as with all instruments serving to reduce real-life

experience to focused analysable data, were also found to have limitations. In

particular, those for classroom environment and mathematics measurement reflected

the current status of measures sensitive to early years pedagogies. The lack of a

learning environment measure that could be used effectively in both play-based and

subject outcomes-based classrooms presented problems of comparability. Further,

the theoretical underpinning of these standard measures reflects traditional notions of

developmentally appropriate practice that reinforce stereotypes and standardised

pedagogies (Grieshaber, 2008). The learning environment measure also combined

structural features of environments provided by the school (e.g., room access,

teaching materials) with pedagogic choices and interactions, so that focusing on

quality of teaching was more difficult. A single measure, covering both setting types,

and focused on teacher choices and interactions would be more relevant. However,

elements addressing inclusive practice need to be incorporated.

Implications for Practice and Research

Transition to school processes that are inclusive of diverse learners need to go

beyond the single event of school, to consider provisions and practices across the

multiple transitions that occur in the early years of school. The empirical data

indicate the contributions of school provisions and early years pedagogies to

children’s transitions, and of links between these and prior to school provisions.

However, there are gaps in existing evidence remaining. There is a need for more

evidence about enactment of inclusion in the early years of school, and

implementation of pro-active approaches that take a critical position and that aim to

reform existing systems that produce reactive and fragmented responses to diversity.

Implications for practice

This study delivers key directions for practice in early years education aimed at

achieving inclusion of the diversity of learners as they undertake the educational

transition from play-based to outcomes-based approaches. These can be grouped into

four key areas for action 1) Philosophical re-positioning framed by participation

229


rights 2) Policy and planning at a system level 3) Preparation of staff, both pre-

service and in-service, and 4) Pro-active reform of practices.

Philosophy A shift in philosophy is required to re-frame teachers’

approaches to inclusion and transition such that they attend to children’s

participation rights. Such a shift would entail both critical reflection on the

values and beliefs that underpin practice, and re-negotiation of philosophies

across early years education. Deep professional discussion of practice and

underlying philosophical positions may be required to clarify the

understandings teachers hold, and to support their re-negotiation of new ways

of thinking. This re-positioning should include the replacement of terms such

as ‘readiness’ and ‘special/additional needs’ with more inclusive and positive

terminology, to reflect a re-conceptualisation of children as competent learners,

and of early education as a rights-based rather than needs-based endeavour.

However, the key shift needs to be in the images teachers hold of diverse

children and the way they understand their multiple and conflicting

responsibilities. Allan (2004) argues that the complexities and tensions inherent

in inclusion need to be acknowledged and negotiated, together with reflection

on the ethics of interactions with the diversity of children in classrooms.

Preparation Professional education of all staff in leadership or teaching

roles is required to build capacity in recognising diversity, enacting reforms

and developing a coherent educational culture and approach. The knowledge of

teaching assistants, subject-specialist teachers, diversity-specialist teachers,

school leaders and early years teachers regarding inclusion, early education and

school transition needs to be deepened. Reforms to professional education

should consider both pre-service education for the emerging generation of

teachers and in-service education for experienced staff across schools and

ECEC. Its content needs to encompass overarching approaches to equitable

provision for the range of diverse abilities and cultural backgrounds in

contemporary classrooms, not just isolated strategies for specific disabilities.

Rather than teacher preparation becoming an overlay of special education

practice onto general education practice, it needs to be a negotiated inquiry into

230


practice and relationships, to facilitate more complex ways of thinking about

teaching and learning in complex classrooms.

Policy and planning School-level policies and procedures are required to

support teachers in utilising limited support services in more inclusive ways, so

they are more effective in enacting inclusion and transition ideals. Further,

school-level policies and strategies are needed to strengthen relationships with

families and the wider community, and to establish a culture of respectful

negotiation of decisions underpinned by more equitable teacher-family power

dynamics. This is particularly important in communities where social,

economic and cultural differences between teachers and families can limit

shared understandings and communication. Transition policies that consider

the range of children’s abilities and backgrounds are also required to address

the participation rights of all children. Such policies should incorporate longer-

term processes across both sending and receiving settings, and involve

families. This would require respectful consideration of family and community

cultural experiences, and negotiation of various structural and pedagogic

differences between ECEC and the early years of school.

Pro-active and systematic reform of practice. Pro-active reform

approaches to inclusion, attending to diverse abilities and cultural background,

are required to address the participation rights of all children. Inclusive

education approaches based on Productive Pedagogies or on Universal Design

for Learning (Van Kraayenoord, 2007) offer overarching, systematic strategies

catering for learner diversity. The incorporation of pedagogic action research

and of evaluative tools such as the Index for Inclusion may assist in reform by

involving teachers in collaborative critical reflection on values, cultures,

policies and practice. Differentiation may still be required to respond to

emergent classroom circumstance, but will not really support inclusion if it

focuses solely on children’s difficulties or deficits. Broader constructions of

diversity offer the opportunity for teachers to attend to the complexity of

classes and to develop more sophisticated processes that consider the range of

children. However, achieving a balance between respect for diversity and

expectations for academic outcomes remains a key challenge that is faced by

systems, schools and individual teachers.

231


Implications for future research

This study has identified three questions yet to be addressed in future research.

1) How can responsibilities for educational outcomes and inclusion be effectively

balanced?

2) What are successful examples of reform strategies in early years education?

3) How do teachers’ professional transition processes impact on early education

practice?

Balancing educational expectations. The problem of achieving a balance

between children’s achievement and respect for diversity requires further

investigation to identify effective strategies in a variety of contextual circumstances.

This might be examined through case studies of comparable children experiencing

variations in pedagogies of inclusion and transition (e.g., withdrawal from class or

in-class support; short-term preparatory processes or long-term transition processes).

It might also be addressed through surveys of a wider range of early years teachers in

varied settings, with questions framed by evidence from this study. Since teacher

preparation and contextual circumstances impact on the outcome, a stratified

purposeful sample could be used, following the model in the Starting School

Research Project SSRP in Australia (Dockett & Perry, 2007). It would include

teachers with early education qualifications, generalist primary qualifications and

specialist qualifications in diversity (e.g., special education, English as a second

language). Further it would target teachers in a range of communities in terms of

geographic location, socio-economic status, cultural background and service access.

Reform exemplars. The ways in which early years inclusion and transition are

enacted in a wider variety of schools needs to be examined, to offer insights into

successful strategies that could be used as examples to other teachers. Effective

strategies for teacher access to these exemplars also needs investigation, as reform of

practice requires both the sharing of practical ideas and negotiation of deeply-held

beliefs about teaching and learning. Extension of this study to schools with non-

traditional grade structures such as multi-age settings and small rural schools would

indicate the role of alternate structural features in supporting more inclusive

transition. Further, the extension of this study to schools that are already using

232


reform pedagogies would offer evidence of pro-active approaches to transition and

inclusion. This question might be also examined by researching the strategies

adopted in identified centres of excellence, following the intensive case study model

adopted in the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education EPPE study in the United

Kingdom (Sammons, et al., 2008).

Transition of teachers. The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom

pedagogies, and the professional transition of teachers from traditional theory frames

to socio-cultural and critical frames need to be further examined. This would offer

insight into the potential for transition reforms focused on transition capital, child

agency and child resilience, as well as on continuity of learning that respects both

ECEC and school pedagogies. These questions might be examined through

observation and interview of a wider range of teachers, in terms of both their

background of qualifications and experience, and in terms of their location and

school type. Examination of teachers’ underlying assumptions and values might also

be addressed through an epistemological beliefs questionnaire (Brownlee &

Berthelsen, 2006). However, the findings in the current study, of multiple positions

with a single teacher is particularly provoking. Thus deeper examination of teacher

interview data from this study, using discourse analysis, might be of greater value in

highlighting contradictions and hidden meanings regarding this interesting problem.

Such evidence would extend understandings about the application of deep level

educational reform to transition to school, with the aim of assisting diverse learners

without stigmatisation.

Bibliography 233

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abberley, P. (1992). The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. In T. Booth, W. Swan, M. Masterton, & P. Potts (Eds.), Policies for diversity in education (pp.231-240). London: Routledge.

Abbott-Shim, M., Sibley,A., & Neel, J. (1992). Assessment profile for early childhood programs: Preschool, infant, school-age. Atlanta: Quality Assist.

Adler, S. (2001). Racial and ethnic identity formation of mid-western Asian-American children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(3), 265-293.

Ailwood, J. (2003). A national approach to gender equity policy in Australia: Another ending, another opening? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(1), pp. 19-32.

Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 3-7.

Allan, J. (2004). Deterritorializations: Putting postmodernism to work on teacher education and inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(4), 417-432.

Allan, J. (2003). Productive pedagogies and the challenge of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 175 -178.

Allen, K., & Cowdery, G. (2009). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood education, 6th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar.

Allen, K., & Cowdery, G. (2005). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood education, 5th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson.

Allingham, S. (2002). Policy influences on learning and teaching in the preparatory year. In C. Nutbrown (Ed.), Research studies in early childhood education (pp. 13-22), Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Allodi, M. (2002). Two-level analysis of classroom climate in relation to social context, group composition and organisation of special support. Learning Environments Research, 5, 253-274.

Alloway, N., Freebody, A., Gilbert, P., & Muspratt, S. (2002). Boys, literacy and schooling: Expanding the repertoires of practice. Curriculum Corporation: Melbourne.

Andrews, R., Elkins, J., Berry, P., & Burge, J. (1979). A survey of special education in Australia: Provisions, needs and priorities in the education of children with handicaps and learning difficulties St Lucia: Schonell Research Centre.

Anastasiow, N., & Nucci, C. (1994). Social, historical and theoretical foundations of early childhood special education and early intervention In P. Safford, B. Spodek, & O. Saracho (Eds.), Early childhood special education. New York: Teachers College Press.

234

234 Bibliography

Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of the black box of school reform. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(4), 152-159.

Anning, A. (1997). The first years at school: Education 4 to 8 (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ashby, G. (1972). Preschool theories and strategies. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Ashman, A. (2009). Contemporary cultures and education In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Education for inclusion and diversity (3rd ed., pp. 3-34). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (2009). Education for inclusion and diversity (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.

Ashman, A. (2005). Society, culture and education. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 6-35). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Learning opportunities for all children. In A, Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (pp. 5-38). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Ashton, J., & Bailey, J. (2004). Slipping through the policy cracks: Children with chronic illness in early childhood settings. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(1), 50-58.

Attwood, T. (2006). The complete guide to Asperger’s syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Census of population and housing. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au (Accessed 5 November 2008).

Balandin, S., Sweep, A., & Hand, L. (2008). Communicating together: Functional communication in the classroom. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (2nd ed., pp. 344-387). South Melbourne:Thomson.

Barbour, N., & Seefeldt, N. (1993). Developmental continuity across preschool and primary grades: Implications for teachers. Wheaton: ACEI.

Bartolome, L. (2003). Beyond the methods fetish: Towards a humanising pedagogy. In A. Darder, M. Balodano, & R. Torres, R. (Eds.) The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 408-429). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Bauch, J. (1993). Building bridges from home to school. Paper presented at Southeastern Symposium on School Restructuring, Nashville, April 27.

Baumfield, V., & Devlin, N. (2005). Staying on task: Can a thinking skills approach support a productive pedagogy for inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 5(1), 37-42.

Belsky, J., & McKinnon, C. (1994). Transition to school: developmental trajectories and school experience. Early Education and Development, 5(2), 106-119.

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/�

235

Bibliography 235

Benjamin, S., Nind, M., Hall, K., Collins, J., & Sheehy, K. (2003). Moments of inclusion and exclusion: Pupils negotiating classroom contexts. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(5), 547-558.

Bennathan, M., & Boxall, M. (1996). Effective intervention in primary schools: Nurture groups. London: David Fulton.

Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61-79.

Boardman, M. (2006). The impact of age and gender on prep children’s academic achievements. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(4), 1-6.

Boardman, M. (2002). Full-day or half-day kindergarten? Kindergarten teachers’ voices in the debate. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(4), 6-11.

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston, D, M. (2006). Index for inclusion: Developing learning, participation and play in early years and child care . Bristol, Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2004). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Booth, T. (2003). Viewing inclusion from a distance: Gaining perspective from comparative study. In M. Nind, J. Rix, K. Sheehy, & K. Simmlons (Eds.), Inclusive education: Diverse perspectives (pp. 253-263). London: David Fulton.

Boulton-Lewis, G. (1998). Children’s strategy use and interpretations of mathematical representations. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 17 (2), 219-237.

Bowman, B. (1999). Kindergarten practices with children from low income families. In R. Pianta & M. Cox, (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 281-304). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods. Melbourne: Longman.

Butterworth, D., & Candy, J. (1998). Quality early childhood practice for Aboriginal children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(2), 20-25.

Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2003). Curriculum construction. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Bracken, B., & Brown, E. (2008). Early identification of high-ability students: Clinical assessment of behaviour. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 403-426.

Braggett, E. & Bailey, J. (2005). Gifted and talented children and their education. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (2nd ed., pp. 362-404). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Braggett, E. (2002). Gifted and talented children and their education. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 286-344). Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.

236

236 Bibliography

Brandes, J, Ormsbee, C., & Haring, K. (2007). From early intervention to early childhood programs: Timeline for early successful transitions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(4), 204-211.

Brantlinger, E. (2005). Slippery shibboleths: the shady side of truisms in special education. In S. Gabel (Ed.), Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method. New York: Peter Lang.

Brewer, J. (2001). Introduction to early childhood education: Preschool through primary grades. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Brewer, L. (1995). Early intervention: transition to school. What do teachers think? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 1-13.

Briggs, S. (2005) Inclusion and how to do it: Meeting SEN in primary classrooms. London: David Fulton.

Briggs, T. & Potter, G. (1999). The early years of school: Teaching and learning. South Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.

Brooker, L. (2005). Learning to be a child: Cultural diversity and early years ideology. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 115-130). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Brooker, L. (2003). Learning how to learn: Parental ethnotheories and young children’s preparation for school. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(2), 117- 128.

Brooker, L. (2002). Starting school: Young children learning cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brostrom, S. (2005). Transition problems and play as a transitory activity. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(3), 17-26.

Brostrom, S.(2002). Communication and continuity in the transition from kindergarten to school. In H. Fabian, & A-W. Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education (pp. 52-63). London: Routledge-Falmer.

Brownlee, J., & Berthelsen, D. (2006). Personal epistemology and relational pedagogy in early childhood teacher education programs. Early Years, 26(1), 17-29.

Bruder, M., & Chandler, L. (1995). Transition. In S. Odom & M. McLean, (Eds.), Early intervention/ early childhood special education (pp. 287-308). Austin: Pro-Ed.

Burchinal, M., Peisner-Feinburg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002). Development of academic skills from preschool through to second grade: Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 415-436.

237

Bibliography 237

Burford, R., & Stegelin, D.(2003). An integrated approach to teaching social skills to preschoolers at risk. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(4), 22-27.

Butterworth, D., & Candy, J. (1998). Quality early childhood practice for Aboriginal children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(2), 20-25.

Cahill, H., & Freeman, E., (2007). Creating school environments that promote social and emotional wellbeing. In M. O’Keefe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity (2nd ed., pp. 90-107). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Cannella, G. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution New York: Peter Lang.

Carlton, M., & Winsler, A. (1999). School readiness: The need for a paradigm shift. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 338-352.

Carrington, S. (2007). Classroom relationships, pedagogy and practice in the inclusive classroom. In M. Keefe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity (2nd ed., pp.108-127). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Cassidy, M. (2005). They do it anyway: A study of primary 1 teachers’ perceptions of children’s transition into primary education. Early Years, 25(2), 143-153.

Center, Y., & Bochner, S. (1990). Integration in Australia: Preschools and schools. In S. Butler (Ed.), The exceptional child: An introduction to special education (pp.56-90). Marrickville: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Chun, W. (2003). A study of children’s difficulties in transition to school in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 173(1), 83-96.

Christensen, P., & James, A. (2000). Childhood diversity and commonality: Some methodological insights. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practice (pp. 160-178). London: Falmer Press.

Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2003). The index for inclusion: Personal perspectives from early years educators. In M. Nind. K. Sheehey & K. Simmons (Eds.), Inclusive education: Learners and learning contexts (pp. 85-93). London: David Fulton.

Clough, P. (1998). Managing inclusive education: From policy to experience. London: Paul Chapman.

Clunies-Ross, G. (1988). Early education and integration of children with intellectual disabilities: Some results of a ten year EPIC. In M. Pieterse, S. Bochner, & S. Bettison (Eds.), Early intervention for children with disabilities: The Australian experience. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Clyde, M. (1991). The transition from childcare to school. Paper presented at First Years of School conference, Auckland, January 15-18.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge-Falmer.

238

238 Bibliography

Cole, P. (1999). The structure of arguments used to support or oppose inclusion policies for students with a disability in Australia. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 24 (3), 215-226.

Collins, M.K. (1984). Integration in Victoria: Education report of the ministerial review of education services in Victoria. Victoria.

Comber, B., & Kamler, B. (2005). Turn around pedagogies: Literacy interventions for at-risk students. Newtown: Primary English teachers Association.

Comber, B.,& Kamler, B. (2004). Getting out of deficit: Pedagogies of reconnection. Teaching Education, 15 (3), 293-310.

Connell, P., & Harrod, C. (2003). The impact of the preparatory year on early childhood pedagogy in Queensland. Paper presented at the International Conference on Pedagogies and Learning, Toowoomba, October1-4.

Connolly, P. (2004). Boys and schooling in the early years. London: Routledge Falmer.

Conway, R. (2008). Adapting curriculum, teaching and learning strategies. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (pp. 95-163). Southbank: Thomson.

Conway, R. (2006). Students with emotional and behavioural disorders: An Australian perspective. Preventing School Failure, 50, 15-20.

Cook, R, Klein, M.D., & Tessier, A. (2008). Adapting early childhood curricula for children with special needs. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Copland, I. (1995). Is developmentally appropriate practice relevant to early childhood special education? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 31-39.

Corbett, J., & Norwich, B. (2005). Common or specialised pedagogy? In M. Nind, J. Rix, K. Sheehy & K. Simmons (Eds.), Curriculum and pedagogy for inclusive education: Values into practice, (pp. 13-30). Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.

Corbett, J. (2001). Supporting inclusive education: A connective pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Corbett, J., & Slee, R. (2000). An international conversation on inclusive education. In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong & L. Barton (Eds.), Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives (pp. 133-146). London: David Fulton.

Corsaro, W., Molinari, L., Hadley, K., & Sugioka, H. (2003). Keeping and making friends: Italian children’s transition from preschool to elementary school. Social Psychology Quarterly. 66 (3), 272-292.

Corsaro, W., & Molinari, L. (2000). Priming events and Italian children’s transition from preschool to primary school: Representation and action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1), 16-33.

Coyne, M., Kame’enui, D., & Carnine, D. (2007) Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

239

Bibliography 239

Creemers, B., & Reezigt, G. (1999). The role of school and classroom climate in elementary school learning environments. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 30-47). London: Falmer Press.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cronin, R., & Diezmann, C. (2002). Jane and Gemma go to school: Supporting young gifted Aboriginal students, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(4), 12-17.

Cronin, R. (2001). Addressing educational inequity for urban Indigenous students. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2(3), 372-381.

Crothers, P. (2004). Queensland prep trial. Pedals, January, 26.

Cummins, J. (2003). Challenging the construction of difference as deficit: Where are identify, intellect, imagination and power in the new regime of truth? In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 41-60). New York, Routledge Falmer.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Cuskelly, M., & Deterring, N. (2003). Teacher and student teacher perceptions of school readiness. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 39-46).

Danaher, P. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 221-230.

Davis, P. (2003). Including children with visual impairment in mainstream schools: A practical guide. London: David Fulton.

Deiner, P. (2005). Resources for educating children with diverse abilities (4th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

de Lemnos, M. (1982). Patterns of pre-school attendance and attitudes to pre-schooling in different cultural grouping. Second National Child Development conference, Melbourne, August.

Dempsey, I., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2008). Maximising learning outcomes in diverse classrooms. South Melbourne: Thomson.

Dempsey I. (2005). Legislation, policies and inclusive practices. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (pp. 37-62). Southbank: Thomson.

Dempster, J.(1984). English as a second language in early childhood. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early learning framework for Australia. Barton: Author.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2007). Inclusion and professional support program.

240

240 Bibliography

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/early_childhood/programmes_funding/child_care_inclusion_professional_support_program.htm (Accessed 16 July 2009)

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2007). Best start. http://www.education.vic.gov.au/ecsmanagement/beststart/ (Accessed 16 July 2009)

Department for Education and Community Services (1996). Understanding giftedness: A guide to policy implementation. Campbelltown: Author.

Department of Education and Children’s Services (1996). Continuity of learning project: Strengthening links from kindergarten to school. Adelaide: Author.

Department of Education (1973). The hard of hearing child in Northern Territory schools: Some hints and suggestions. Darwin: Author.

Dionne, G., Dale, P., Biovon, M., & Plomin, R. (2003). Genetic evidence for bi-directional effects of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development, 74(2), 394-412.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007) Transitions to school: Perceptions, expectations and experience. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Dockett, S., Mason, T., & Perry, B. (2006). Successful transition to school for Australian Aboriginal children. Childhood Education, 82(3), 139-144.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2003). Children starting school: What should children, parents and schoolteachers do? Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(2),1-12.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2002). Who’s ready for what? Young children starting school. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(1), 67-89.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2001). Beginning school together: Sharing strengths. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Dockett, S., & Fleer, M. (1999). Play and pedagogy in early childhood: Bending the rules. Marrickville: Harcourt Brace.

Doucet, F., & Trudge, J. (2007). Co-constructing the transition to school. In R. Pianta, M. Cox, & K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 307-328). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Dunlop, A-W. (2007). Bridging research, policy and practice. In A-W. Dunlop, & H. Fabian, H. (Eds.), Informing transitions in the early years: Research, policy and practice (pp. 151-168). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Dunlop, A-W. (2004). The challenges of the early educational transitions: Change the child or change the system. Paper presented at Continuity and change: Transitions in education conference. University of Western Sydney, Sydney, February.

Dyer, W. (1973). Aboriginal adults as teaching assistants. The Aboriginal Child at School, 1(1), 26-31.

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/early_childhood/programmes_funding/child_care_inclusion_professional_support_program.htm�

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/early_childhood/programmes_funding/child_care_inclusion_professional_support_program.htm�

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/ecsmanagement/beststart/�

241

Bibliography 241

Edmonds, B. (1979) Programs for aboriginal children. In P. Langford & P. Sebastian (Eds.), Early childhood education and care in Australia (pp.364-381). Kew: Australian International Press.

Education Queensland (2008). Gifted and talented students action plan 2008-2010. Brisbane: Author.

Education Queensland (2007a). Variation to school age entry enrolment. http://www.education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/students/smspr007 (Accessed 22 October 2008)

Education Queensland (2007b). Supplementary guidelines: Children with disabilities of prep eligible age with significant educational support needs. Brisbane: Author.

Education Queensland (2006). Educational adjustment profile. Brisbane: Author.

Education Queensland (2005a). Inclusion statement. Brisbane: Author.

Education Queensland (2005b). Literacy enhancement grants. Brisbane: Author

Education Queensland (2004). Framework for gifted education. Brisbane: Queensland Government

Education Queensland (2001a) School reform longitudinal study. http://education.qld.gov.au/public_media/reports/curriculum-framework/qsrls/index.hml (Accessed 4 December 2005)

Education Queensland. (2001b). Bandscales for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Learners for Junior Primary. http://education.qld.gov.au/students/evaluation (Accessed 3 February 2004)

Education Queensland (2001c). English as a second language grants. Brisbane: Author.

Education Queensland (2000a) Queensland state education 2010. Brisbane: Author.

Education Queensland (2000b). Partners for success. Brisbane: Author

Education Queensland (2000c). Building success together: The framework for students at educational risk. Brisbane: Author.

Edwards, S. (2006) Stop thinking of culture as geography: Early childhood educators conceptions of sociocultural theory as an informant to curriculum Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(3), 238 – 252.

Einarsdottir, J. (2003). Towards a smooth transition from preschool to primary school in Iceland. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of British Educational Research Association, Edinburgh, September 11-13.

Elkins, J. (2002). Numeracy. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 438-466). Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.

Elkins, J. (1990). Introduction to exceptionality: An overview. In S. Butler (Ed.), The exceptional child: An introduction to special education (pp. 5-27). Marrickville: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

http://www.education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/students/smspr007�

http://education.qld.gov.au/publicmedia/reports/curriculum-framework/qsrls/index.hml�

http://education.qld.gov.au/publicmedia/reports/curriculum-framework/qsrls/index.hml�

http://education.qld.gov.au/students/evaluation�

242

242 Bibliography

Emig, C. (2000). School readiness: Helping communities get children ready for school and schools ready for children. Washington: Child Trends.

Entwisle, D., & Alexander, K. (1998). Facilitating the transition to first grade: the nature of transition and research on factors affecting it. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 351-364.

Erwin, D., & Delair, H. (2004). Patterns of resistance and support among play based teachers in public schools. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(1), 35-49.

Espinosa, L. (2005). Curriculum and assessment considerations for young children from culturally, linguistically and economically diverse backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (8), 837-850.

Fabian, H. (2002a). Children starting school. London: David Fulton.

Fabian, H. (2002b). Empowering children for transitions. In H. Fabian & A-W. Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education (pp. 123-134). London: Routledge-Falmer.

Fallon, M. (2000). Evaluating early intervention programs: One model’s process and products. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(3), 26-31.

Fantuzzo, J., Tight, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367-376.

Fasoli, L. (2001). What is a community of practice and what does it mean for early childhood practitioners. Paper presented at Australian Research in Early Childhood conference, Canberra, January.

Fasoli, L., & Ford, M (2001). Indigenous early childhood educators’ narratives: Relationships, not activities. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26(3), 18-22.

Feinstein, L. (2004). Mobility in pupils’ cognitive attainment during school life. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20 (2), 213- 229.

Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Thal. D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., Pethick, S., & Reilly, J. (1991). Technical Manual for the McArthur Communicative Developmental Inventory. San Diego: San Diego State University.

Ferguson, D. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109-120.

Ferguson, P., & Frazer, B. (2004). Changes in learning environment during the transition from primary to secondary school. Learning Environments Research, 1(33), 369-383.

Fetherstone, T. (1995). Using repertory grids in classrooms: A tool to enhance understanding. Perth: Edith Cowan University.

243

Bibliography 243

Fewell, R., & Deutscher, B. (2002). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in very young children: Early signs and interventions. Infants and Young Children, 14 (3), 24-32.

Fields, B. (1997). Nature and function of rules. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22 (3), 7-12.

Fish, M., & Dane, E. (2000). The classroom systems observation scale: Development of an instrument to assess classrooms using a systems perspective. Learning Environment Research, 3, 67-92.

Fleer, M., Jane, B., & Hardy, T. (2007). Science for children: Developing a personal approach to teaching (3rd ed.) Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Fleer, M., & Williams-Kennedy, D. (2002). Building bridges: Literacy development in young Indigenous children. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Fleer, M. (1990). Maths in context: computer software programs for early childhood. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(1), 23-29.

Flewitt, R., & Nind, M. (2007). Parents choosing to combine special and inclusive early years settings: The best of both worlds? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 425-441.

Foreman, P. (2008). Setting the scene: Teachers and inclusion. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (2nd ed., pp. 2-36). South Melbourne: Thomson.

Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices: How accepting are teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43 (2), 119-133.

Forlin, C. (1995). Educators’ beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. British Journal of Special Education, 22 (4), 179-185.

Fowler, S., & Ostrosky, M. (1994). Transitions to and from preschool in early childhood special education. In P. Safford, B., Spodek & O. Saracho,(Eds.), Early childhood special education. (pp. 142-164). New York: Teachers College Press.

Freebody, P., Watters, J. J., & Lummis, S. (2003). Expanding possible futures: A review of Education Queensland’s policy on the education of gifted students in Queensland schools. Brisbane: Education Queensland.

Freiberg, H.J. (1999). Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Freiberg, H.J., & Stein, T. (1999), Measuring improving and sustaining healthy environments. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp.1-29). London: Falmer Press.

Fraser, B. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7 – 33.

244

244 Bibliography

Freisen, D., Finney, S., & Krenta, C. (1999). Together against all odds: Towards understanding the identities of teachers of at risk students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 923-932.

French, K., & Cain, H. (2006). Including a young child with spina bifida. Young Children, 61(3), 78-84.

Frigo, T., & Adams, I. (2002). Diversity and learning in the early years of school. Paper presented at AARE conference, Brisbane, December.

Fry, J. (1971). Three lectures on pre-school education. Lismore: University of New England.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as responsiveness to intervention: A scripted protocol to identify young at-risk readers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 58-63.

Gabel, S. (2005), Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method. New York: Peter Lang.

Gallagher, D. (2004). Moving the conversation forward: Empiricism versus relativism reconsidered. In D. Gallagher, L. Heshusius, R. Iano, & T. Skrtic. (Eds.), Challenging orthodoxy in special education: Dissenting voices (pp. 366- 375). Denver: Love.

Gallahue, D. (1996). Developmental physical education for today’s children. Madison: Brown & Benchmark.

Galper, A. (1998). Transitions in early childhood. In C. Seefeldt & A. Galper, (Eds.), Continuing issues in early childhood education (pp.104-118). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gargiulo, R., & Kilgo, J. (2000). Young children with special needs. Albany: Delmar.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. (2005). Beyond special education: Towards a quality system for all students. In L. Katzman, A. Gandhi, W. Harbour, & J. La Rock, (Eds.), Special education for a new century. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.

Gavidia-Payne, S., & Jobling, A. (2005). The early years of education. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (2nd ed., pp. 281-315). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Gerber, S, (1994). Difficulties involved with the assessment of bilingual preschool children: The Australian context. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19 (2), 16-21.

Gerstein, R., Baker, S., Haager, D., & Graves, A. (2005). Exploring the role of teacher quality in predicting reading outcomes for first-grade English learners. Remedial and Special Education, 26(4), 197-206.

245

Bibliography 245

Giangreco, M., & Broer, S. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10-26.

Gill, S., Winters, D., & Friedman, D. (2006). Educators’ views of pre-kindergarten and kindergarten readiness and transition practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(3), 213-227.

Gillies, R., & Carrington, S. (2004). Inclusion: culture, politics and practice: A Queensland Perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 24(2), 117-128.

Gilles, R. (2002). Programs that support inclusive education. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 349-384). Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.

Gipps, C., & MacGilchrist, B. (1999) Primary school learners. In P. Mortimore (Ed.) Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp.46-65). London: Sage

Giroux, H. (2006). The Giroux reader. Boulder: Paradigm.

Giroux, H. (2003a). Critical theory and educational practice. In A. Darder, M. Balodano, & R. Torres, R. (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 27-56) New York: Routledge Falmer

Giroux, H. (2003b). Pedagogy of the depressed: Beyond the new politics of cynicism. In M. Peters, C. Lankshear, & M. Olssen (Eds.), Critical theory and the human condition: Founders and praxis (pp. 143-168). New York: Peter Lang.

Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossing: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

Giroux, H. (1998). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. Massachusetts: Garvey.

Glover, A. (1994). Moving into the system: Early childhood programs as a bridge to school for Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal Child at School, 22(2), 12-21.

Goodman, P. (1999). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. http://youthinmind.net (Accessed 6 February 2004)

Gow, L. (1990). Integration in Australia: Overview. In S. Butler (Ed.), The exceptional child: An introduction to special education (pp. 31-52). Marrickville: Harcourt Brace

Guralnick, M. (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Graham, L. (2007). Done in by discourse… or the problem/s with labelling. In M. Keefe, & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity (2nd ed., pp.46-53). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Graham, L. (2006). Caught in the Net: A Foucaultian interrogation of the incidental effects of limited notions of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(1), 3-25.

http://youthinmind.net/�

246

246 Bibliography

Graue, E.(2008). Teaching and learning in a post-DAP world. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 441-447.

Graue, E. (2006). The answer is readiness- now what is the question? Early Education and Development, 17(1), 43-56.

Graue, E., Kroeger, J., & Brown, C. (2002). Living the ‘gift of time’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,3 (3), 338-353.

Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (2004). A sociocultural approach to learning. In Many pathways to literacy (pp. 6-20). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Gregory, E. (1997). One child, many languages. Early learning in multicultural communities. London: David Fulton.

Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2002). Co-constructing transition into kindergarten and school by children, parents and teachers. In H. Fabian & A-W. Dunlop, (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education (pp. 64-75). London: Routledge-Falmer.

Grieshaber S. (2008). Interrupting stereotypes: Teaching and the education of young children, Early Education and Development, 19(3), 505-518.

Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary mathematics curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3(1), 1-49.

Grounds, A. (1972). The hyperkinetic child. Melbourne: SPELD Victoria.

Gunn, A., Child, G., Madden, B., Purdue, K., Surtees, N., Thurlow, B., & Todd, P. (2004). Building inclusive communities in early chldhood education: Diverse perspectives from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(3), 293-308.

Guralnick, M. (2001). A framework for change in early childhood inclusion. In Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp.3-38). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hall, D., & Hall, I. (1996). Practical social research: Project work in the community. London: Macmillan.

Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In R. Pianta, M. Cox, & K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 49-83). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hamston, J., & Scull, J. (2007). Extreme(s) makeover: Countering false dichotomies in literacy education in the Australian context. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 1-18.

Hanson, M., Beckman, P., Horn, E., Marquart, J. et al., (2000). Entering preschool: Family and professional experiences in this transition process. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(4), 279-93.

247

Bibliography 247

Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale: Revised edition. New York: Teacher College Press.

Harris, J. (1990). Counting: What we can learn from white myths about aboriginal numbers? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(1), 30-36.

Harrison, C. (1999). Giftedness in early childhood, Sydney: Inscript Publishing.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-389.

Hart, P., Wearing, A., Conn, M., Carter, N., & Dingle, R. (2000). Development of the School Organisational Health Questionnaire: A measure for assessing teacher morale and school organisational climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 211-228.

Hattie, J., (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Auckland: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Hatton, E. (1994). Rural schooling and educational disadvantage: A case study. Proceedings of International conference of Rural Educational Research and Development Branch, Townsville, July.

Hay, I., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2006).Enhancing the early literacy development of children at risk for reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11 (3), 117-124.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit.

Hehir, T. (2005). Eliminating abelism in education. In L. Katzman, A. Gandhi, W. Harbour, & J. La Rock, (Eds.), Special education for a new century. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.

Hemmeter, M., Maxwell, K., Ault, M., & Schuster, J. (2001). Assessment of practices in early elementary classrooms APEEC. New York: Teachers College Press.

Henderson, R (2004). Educational issues for the children of itinerant seasonal farm workers: a case study in an Australian context. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 (3), 293-310.

Herbert, E. (1998). Included from the start? Managing inclusive early years settings for all. In P. Clough (Ed.), Managing inclusive education: From policy to experience (pp. 93-113). London: Sage.

Hertzog, N. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 530-563.

Hill, S., Comber, B., Louden, W., Rivalland, J., & Reid, J. (1998). 100 children go to school. Canberra: DETYA.

Hinchcliffe, A. (2007). Children with cerebral palsy: A manual for therapists, parents and community workers. London: Sage.

248

248 Bibliography

Holloway, J. (2003). When children aren’t ready for kindergarten, Educational Leadership, 60(7), 89-91.

Hooper, S., & Umansky, W. (2009). Young children with special needs 5th ed., Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Hopps, K. (2004). Teacher-parent communication across the preschool-school boundary. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(1), 8-13.

Horne, P., & Timmons, V. (2007). Making it work: teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-14.

Howard, V., Williams, B., & Lepper, C. (2005) Very young children with special needs. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Howell, D. (2002). Statistical method for psychology. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

Hoy, W., & Tarter, C. J. (1992). Measuring the health of the school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 74-79.

Hudson, A. (1997). Classroom instruction for children with ADHD. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(4), 24-28.

Huffman, L., & Speer, P. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 167-184.

Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2000). Consensus, dissensus or community: The politics of parent involvement in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(3), 241-258.

Hyun, E. (2007). Cultural complexity in early childhood: Images of contemporary young children from a critical perspective. Childhood Education, 83(5), 261-266.

Jackson, D. (2006). Playgroups as protective environments for refugee children at risk of trauma. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(2), 1-5.

Jobling, A., & Gavida-Payne, S. (2002). Early schooling for infants and children with diverse abilities. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 114-159). Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.

Johansson, I. (2007). Horizontal transition: What can it mean for children in the early years of school? In A-W. Dunlop, & H. Fabian, H. (Eds.), Informing transitions in the early years: Research, policy and practice (pp. 33- 44). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Johansson, I. (2002). Parents’ views of transition to school and their influence on the process. In H. Fabian & A-W. Dunlop (Eds.),, Transitions in the early years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education (pp. 76-86). London: Routledge-Falmer.

Johnson, M., & Parkinson, G. (2002). Epilepsy: A practical guide. London: David Fulton.

249

Bibliography 249

Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. (2001). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the School Level Environment Questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 4. 325-344.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D., & Byrd, 2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 569-572.

Jones, P. (2005). Inclusion in the early years: Stories of good practice. London: David Fulton.

Jones, C. (2004). Supporting inclusion in the early years. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Jones, S. (2005). The invisibility of the underachieving girl. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(3), 269-286.

Jones, S. (2003). The effect of all day kindergarten on student cognitive growth: A meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11-A), pp. 38-60.

Jordan, A., Kircaali-Iftar, G., & Diamond, C. (1993). Who has a problem, the student or the teacher? Differences in teachers’ beliefs about their work with at-risk and integrated exceptional children. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 40, 45-62.

Kagan, S., Carroll, J., Comer, J., & Scott-Little, C.(2006). Alignment-A missing link in early childhood transition? Young Children, 61(5), 26-31.

Kagan, S., & Neuman, M. (1998). Lessons from three decades of transition research. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 365-379.

Kagan, S., & Neville, P. (1996). Combining endogenous and exogenous factors in the shift years: The transition to school, In A. Sameroff & M. Haith (Eds.), The five to seven year shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 387-406). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kakvoulis, A. (1994). Continuity in early childhood education: Transition from preschool to school. International Journal of Early Years Education, 2(1), 41-51.

Karmel, P. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee of the Australian Schools Commission (Karmel Report). Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.

Keeffe, M. (2007). The inclusive society, In M. Keefe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity. (2nd ed., pp.17-30). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Keinig, A. (2002). The importance of social adjustment for future success. In H. Fabian & A-W. Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating progression and continuity for children in early education (pp. 23-37). London: Routledge-Falmer.

250

250 Bibliography

Kilderry, A. (2004). Critical pedagogy: A useful framework for thinking about early childhood curriculum. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(4), 33-37.

Kilgallon, P., & Maloney, C. (2003). Early childhood teachers’ knowledge of teaching children with disabilities. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(4), 9-13.

Kincheloe, J. (2004) Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Peter Lang.

King, N., Tonge, B., Hayne, D., Tinney, L., & Pritchard, M. (1994). School refusal: Early identification and treatment. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19(2), 22- 26.

King, P., & Boardman, M. (2006). What personal/social skills are important for young children commencing kindergarten? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 15-21.

Kochhar-Bryant, C. (2008). Collaboration and system coordination for students with special needs: From early childhood to the post- secondary years (pp. 190-199). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Krathwohl, D. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman.

Kuklinski, M., & Weinstein, R. (2000). Classroom and grade level differences in the stability of teacher expectations and perceived differential teacher treatment. Learning Environments Research, 3, 1-34.

Ladd, G. (1996). Shifting ecologies during the 5 to 7 year shift period: Predicting children’s adjustment during the transition to school. In A. Sameroff & M. Haith, The five to seven year shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 363-386). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

La Paro, K., Pianta, R., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scoring system: Findings from the pre-kindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409-426.

La Paro, K., Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (2000). Kindergarten teachers’ reported use of kindergarten to first grade transition practices. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 63-78.

Larsson, Y. (1990). Giftedness. In S. Butler (Ed.), The exceptional child: An introduction to special education (pp. 519-534). Marrickville: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Ledger, E., Smith, A., & Rich, P. (2000). Friendships over the transition from early childhood centre into school. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(1), 57.

Lee, L. (2002). Young gifted boys and girls: Perspectives through the eyes of gender. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 383-399.

Llewellyn, G., Thompson, K., & Fante, M. (2002). Inclusion in early childhood: Ongoing challenges. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 18-23.

251

Bibliography 251

Lillie, T., & Vakil, S. (2002). Transitions in early childhood for students with disabilities: Law and best practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (1), 53-58.

Lindholm, K. (1990). Bilingual immersion education: Educational equity for language minority students. In A. Barona & E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and other issues of educational equity (pp. 77- 89). Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.

Lingard, B. (2003). Where to in gender policy in education after recuperative masculinity politics? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(1), 33-56.

Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., & Chant, D. (2001). Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Brisbane: Education Queensland.

Lockwood, M., & Fleet, A.(1999). Attitudes towards the notion of preparing children for school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), 18-24.

Lombardi, J. (1992). Beyond transition: Ensuring continuity in early childhood services. Washington: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Love, J., Logue, M., Trudeau, J., & Thayer, K. (1992). Transition to kindergarten in American schools: Final report of the National Transition Study. Washington: Office of Policy and Planning.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.

Luke, A., Ladwig, J., Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (1999). Queensland school reform longitudinal study. St Lucia: University of Queensland.

MacNaughton, G., Hughes, P., & Smith, K. (2007) Rethinking approaches to working with children who challenge: Action learning for emancipatory practice. International Journal of Early Childhood, 39, 39-57.

Mangione, P., & Speth, T. (1998). The transition to elementary school: A framework for creating early childhood continuity through home, school, and community partnerships. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 381-397.

Manning, M. L., & Baruth, L. (1995). Students at risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Mahoney, G., & Wheatley, A. (1994). Reconceptualizing the Individual Educational Program: A constructivist approach to educational practice for young children with disabilities. In P. Safford, B. Spodek, & O. Saracho (Eds.), Early childhood special education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Margetts, K. (2007). Preparing children for school – benefits and privileges. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(2), 43-50.

Margetts, K. (2003). Does adjustment at preschool predict adjustment in the first year of schooling?. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(2), 13-25.

Margetts, K. (2002). Transition to school: Complexity and diversity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10(2), 103-114.

252

252 Bibliography

Margetts, K. (2000). Indicators of children’s adjustment to the first year of school. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(1), 20-30.

Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2005). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

McCay, L. O., & Keyes, D. W. (2001). Developing social competences in the inclusive primary classroom, Career and Technical Education, 78 (2), 70 -78.

McConnichie, K., & Russell, A. (1982). Early childhood services for Aboriginal children. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

McCrea, D., Ainsworth, C., Cummings, J., Hughes, P., Mackay, T., & Price, C. (2000). What works? Explorations in improving outcomes for Indigenous students. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Association.

McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of learning disabilities. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 12-17.

McIntyre, L. (2003). The transition to school: Adaptation in young children with and without developmental delays. Doctoral thesis accessed November 2005 from ProQuest document 764735141.

McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Balodano, & R. Torres, R. (Eds.) The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 69- 96). New York: Routledge Falmer

McLaughlin, B. (1990). Development of bilingualism: Myth and reality. In A. Barona, & E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: poverty, minority status, and other issues of educational equity (pp. 65-75). Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.

McLean, M., Wolery, W., & Bailey, D. (2004). Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162- 168.

McMillan, J. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston: Pearson.

McNaughton, S. (2001). Co-constructing expertise: The development of parents’ and teachers’ ideas about literacy practices and the transition to school. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 19(1), 40-58.

McNicholl, M. (2002), A voice for children in the outback. Every Child, 8 (2), 6-7.

McWilliam, R., de Kruif, R., & Zulli, R. (2002). The observed construction of teaching: Four contexts. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16 (2), 148-161.

Meadmore, D, Hatcher, C., & McWilliam, E. (2000). Getting tense about genealogy. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 463-476.

Meehan, M., Cowley, K., Schumacher, D., Hause, B., & Croom, N. (2003). Classroom environment, instructional resources and teaching differences in

253

Bibliography 253

high-performing Kentucky schools with achievement gaps. Paper presented at Annual CREATE National Institute, Louisville, July.

Miesels, S., & Shonkoff, J. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of early childhood intervention. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Meisels, S. (1994). Designing meaningful measurements for early childhood. In B. Mallory, & R. New, Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 202-218). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mellor, E., & Chan, L. (2002). Conclusion: Contexts, issues, developments, trends and challenges. In L. Chan, & E. Mellor (Eds.), International developments in early childhood services. New York: Peter Lang.

Mellor, E. (1990). Stepping stones: Development of early childhood services in Australia. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Meredith, H., Perry, B., Borg, T., & Dockett, S. (1999). Changes in parent’s perceptions of their children’s transition to school: First child and later children. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 6 (2), 228-239.

Merry, M. (2008). Educational justice and the gifted. Theory and Research in Education, 6(1), 47-70.

Ministrial Council on Emloyment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2005). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. http://www.myceetya.edu.au/adeldec.htm (Accessed 2 August 2006)

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs Taskforce (2001). Effective early learning issues for Indigenous children aged 0-8. Canberra: Author.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs Taskforce (2000). National statement of principles and standards for more culturally inclusive schooling in the 21st century. Canberra: Author.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (1996). National strategy for the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 1996-2002: Early childhood education. Canberra: AGPS.

Moffitt, P., Nurcombe, B., Passmore, M., & McNeilly, A. (1973). Intervention in cultural deprivation. In G. Kearney, P. de Lacey, & G. Davidson (Eds.), The psychology of Aboriginal Australians (pp. 137-146). Sydney: John Wiley.

Mohay, H., & Reid, E. (2006). The inclusion of children with a disability in child care: The influence of experience, training and attitudes of childcare staff. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 35- 42.

More, C. (2008). Digital social stories: Targeting social skills for children with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 (3), 168-177).

Morrow, L. (2001). Literacy development and young children. In S. Golbeck (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on early childhood education: Reframing dilemmas in research and practice (pp. 253-279). Marwah: Erlbaum.

http://www.myceetya.edu.au/adeldec.htm�

254

254 Bibliography

Nakagawa, K. (2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14(4), 443-372.

Natriello, G., McDill, E., & Pallas, A. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.

Neuman, M. (2001). Hand in hand: improving the links between ECEC and schools in OECD countries. In Early childhood education and care: International perspectives. The report of a consultative meeting, New York, May 11-12.

New, R. (1998). Diversity and early childhood education: Making room for everyone. In C. Seefeldt, & A. Galper (Eds.), Continuing issues in early childhood education (pp. 238-259). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

New South Wales Department of Education (1989). Basics in education: Learning difficulties package for pre-school teachers. Parramatta: Author.

Newman, L. (1996). Building the bridges: Early intervention to school. Paper presented at First Years of School conference, Hobart, January.

Newman, W.L. (1997). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ng, R. (2003). Towards an integrative approach to equity in education. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 206-219). New York, Routledge Falmer

Niesel, R., & Griebel, W. (2007). Enhancing the competence of transition systems through co-construction. In A-W. Dunlop, & H. Fabian, H. (Eds.), Informing transitions in the early years: Research, policy and practice (pp. 21-32). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Nind, M. (2005). Introduction: Models and practice in inclusive curricula. In M. Nind, J. Rix, K., Sheehy, & K. Simmons (Eds.), Curriculum and pedagogy in inclusive education: Values into practice (pp. 1-10). Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.

Nind, M. Simmons, K., Sheehey, K. & Rix, J. (2003). Introduction. In M. Nind. K. Sheehey & K. Simmons (Eds.), Inclusive education: Learners and learning contexts (pp. 1-8). London: David Fulton.

Nind, M., & Cochrane, S. (2002). Inclusive curricula? Pupils on the margins of special schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6 (2), 185-198.

Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193-211.

Norlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of all students in your classroom. Lanham: Scarecrow.

North, J., & Carruthers, A. (2008). Inclusion in early childhood. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (pp. 64-94). South Melbourne: Thomson.

255

Bibliography 255

Nutbrown, C., & Clough, P. (2006). Inclusion in the early years: Critical analyses and enabling narratives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Nyland, B. (2002). Language, literacy and participation rights: Factors influencing educational outcomes for Australian boys. Paper presented at the AARE conference, Perth, December.

O’Brien, M. (1991), Promoting successful transition into school: A review of current intervention practices. Paper presented at New Directions in Child and Family Research, Arlington, June.

Odom, S. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What do we know and where do we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 (1), 20-27.

Odom, S., Favazza, P., Brown, W., & Horn, E. (2000). Approaches to understanding the ecology of early childhood environments for children with disabilities. In T. Thompson, D. Felce & F. Symons (Eds.), Behavioural observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 193-214). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Office for Standards in Education (2000). Inclusion. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/docs00/incluson.pdf (Accessed 5 November 2003)

O’Gorman, L., Broughton, B., Lennox, S., & Thorpe, K. (2003). Early and emergent literacy assessment. Unpublished manuscript, QUT, Brisbane.

Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2001). The specific professional nature of early years education and styles of adult-child interaction. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 9(1), 57-68.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006), Starting strong 11. Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.

Osbourne, M. (2001). Balancing individuals and the group: A dilemma for a constructivist teacher. In J. Collins, K. Insley, & J. Soler (Eds.), Developing pedagogy: Researching practice (pp. 68-80). London: Paul Chapman.

Osgood, R. (2005). The history of inclusion in the United States. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

Overton, T. (2004). Promoting academic success through environmental assessment. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(3), 147-153.

Paatsch, L. (2000). Assessing and teaching spoken language to school age students who are deaf and hearing impaired. North Rocks: Renwick College.

Page, J., Neinhuys, T., Kapsalakis, A., & Morda, R. ( 2001). Parents’ perceptions of kindergarten programs in Victoria. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26(3), 43-50.

Palmer, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary school. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 115-126.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/docs00/incluson.pdf�

256

256 Bibliography

Palmer, A. (1998). Young children with additional needs. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Pardington, G. (1998). Perspectives on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. Katoomba: Social Science Press.

Patterson, L., & Fleet, A. (1999). Multiple realities: Change in the first years of school. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 6(1), 85-97.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Yazejian, N., Culkin, M., Zelazo,J., Howes, C., Byler, P., Kagan, S., & Rustici, J. (1999). The children of the Cost, Quality and Outcomes study go to school. Technical report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Pelusi, P. (1994). Can I play too? A handbook on access for all children in school age care programs. Toombul: Department of Human Services and Health.

Pendagast, D., Chadbourne, R., & Danby, S. (2009). Early and middle years of schooling. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins, (2009). Education for inclusion and diversity (pp. 271-304 ). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Perry, B., Dockett, S. & Howard, P. (2000). Starting school: Issues for children , parents and teachers. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(1), 41-53.

Perry, R. (1999). Teachers are reconceptualisers too. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 6(1), 98-108.

Peter, M. (1992). Curriculum for all: a hard task for some. In T. Booth, W. Swan, M. Masterton, & P. Potts (Eds.), Policies for diversity in education. London: Routledge.

Peters, S. (2002). Teachers’ perspectives of transition. In H. Fabian & W, Dunlop (Eds.), Transitions in the early years: Debating continuity and progression for children in early education (pp. 87-97). London: Routledge Falmer.

Peters, S. (2000). Multiple perspectives on continuity in early learning and transition to school. Paper presented at EECERA conference, London, August-September.

Petriwskyj, A. (2007). Early intervention and diversity education. In J. Ailwood(Ed.), Early childhood in Australia: Historical and comparative contexts (pp. 35-50). Frenchs Forest:Pearson

Petriwskyj, A. (2005a). Pedagogical issues in transition to school. In J-B. Son & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Enhancing teaching and learning: Pedagogy, technology and language (pp. 67-82). Flaxton: Post Pressed.

Petriwskyj, A. (2005b). Transition to school: Early years teachers’ roles. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 12(2), 39-50.

Petriwskyj, A. (2005c). Teacher aide allocation for effective early years education: Issues in resource provision for preparatory and other early years classes in Queensland state schools. Report for Queensland Association of State School Principals, May.

257

Bibliography 257

Petriwskyj, A. (1992). Integrating children with special needs into early childhood centres. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. (2005c). Trends in construction of transition to school in three Western regions 1990-2004. International Journal of Early Years Education. 13(1), 55-69.

Pianta, R. (2007). Early education in transition. In R. Pianta, M. Cox., & K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and transition to kindergarten in the era of accountabilty (pp.3 -10). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Pianta, R. (2003). Classroom quality, teacher and student behaviours. University of Virginia: NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.

Pianta, R., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Successful kindergarten transition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Pianta, R., La Paro, K., Payne, C., Cox, M., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225-238.

Pianta, R., Kraft-Sayre, M., Rimm-Kaufmann, S., Gercke, N., & Higgins, T. (2001). Collaboration in building partnerships between families and schools: The national centre for early development and learning’s kindergarten transition intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 117-132.

Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (1999). The changing nature of transition to school. In R. Pianta, & M. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 363-379). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Pianta, R., Cox, M., Taylor, L., & Early, D. (1999). Kindergarten teachers’ practices related to the transition to school: Results of a national survey. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 71-86.

Pianta, R., & Walsh, M. (1996). High risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.

Pieterse, M., & Bochner, S.(1990). Early intervention and diagnosis. In S. Butler (Ed.), The exceptional child: An introduction to special education (pp. 569-596). Marrickville: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Pieterse. M., Bochner, S., & Bettison, S. (1988). Early intervention for children with disabilities: The Australian experience. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Pirola-Merlo, S. (2003). Relationship management in the primary school classroom: Strategies in the legal and social context. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Plummer, S. (Ed), (1986). A handbook on early intervention. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Podmore, V., Sauvao, L., & Mapa, L. (2003). Socio-cultural perspectives on transition to school from Pacific Islands early childhood centres. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 33-42.

258

258 Bibliography

Pogoloff, S. M. (2004). Facilitate positive relationships between parents and professionals. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40 (2), 116 – 119.

Pollard, A. (2001).Towards a new perspective on children’s learning. In J. Collins, K. Insley, & J. Soler (Eds.), Developing pedagogy: Researching practice (pp.4-10) London: Paul Chapman.

Pollard-Durodola, S. (2003). Wesley Elementary: A beacon of hope for at-risk students. Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 94-117.

Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents (2nd ed.). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Porter, L. (1999). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Porter, L. (1997). Young gifted children: Meeting their needs. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Potter, G., & Briggs, F. (2003). Children talk about their early experiences at school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(3), 44-49.

Powell, D. (1995). Enabling young children to succeed in school. Washington: American Educational Research Association.

Powell, D., & Batsche, C. (1997). A strength-based approach in support of multi-risk families: Principles and issues. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17(1), 1-17.

Power, K., & Roberts, D. (1999). Successful early childhood Indigenous leadership. Paper presented at Australian Research in Early Childhood Education conference, Canberra, January.

Press, F., & Hayes, A. (2000). OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care policy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Price, K. (2007) Planning effective instruction: Diversity responsive methods and management. Southbank: Thomson.

Queensland Department of Education (2001). Queensland school reform longitudinal study: Teachers’ summary. Brisbane: Author.

Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet (2002) Education and training reforms for the future. Brisbane: Author.

Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet (2000). Multicultural affairs- Australian South Sea Islander training package. http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/maq/assi/index.hm (Accessed 5 November 2008)

Queensland Studies Authority (2006). Early years curriculum guidelines Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Queensland Studies Authority (2003). Years 1 to 10 science syllabus. Brisbane: Author.

http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/maq/assi/index.hm�

259

Bibliography 259

Queensland Studies Authority (2003). Introducing the draft early years curriculum. Paper presented at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Sept.

Quintero, E. (2007).Critical pedagogy and qualitative inquiry: Lesson from working with refugee families. In A. Hatch, (Ed.), Early childhood qualitative research (pp. 109-127). New York: Routledge.

Raban, B., Nolan, A., Waniganayake, M., Ure, C., Deans, J., & Brown, R. (2005). Empowering practitioners to critically examine their current practice. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 12(2), 1-16.

Raban, B., Griffiths, P., Coates, H., & Fleer, M.(2002). Profiling preschool literacy: Evidence of Indigenous children’s capabilities. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 9(1), 74-85.

Raban, B. (2001). Learning, progression and development: Principles for pedagogy and curriculum design. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26(2), 31-35.

Raban, B., & Ure, C. (2000). Continuity for socially disadvantaged school entrants: Perspectives of parents and teachers. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7 (1), 54-65.

Ramey, S., & Ramey, C. (1999). Beginning school for children at risk. In R. Pianta, & M. Cox, (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 217-251). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Ramey, S., & Ramey, C. (1998). The transition to school: Opportunities and challenges for children, families, educators and communities. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 293-295.

Reid, K., & Knight, M. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority student: A critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18-23.

Reitveld, C. (2008). Contextual factors affecting inclusion during children’s transitions from preschool to school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33 (3), 1-9.

Reitveld, C. (2005). Classroom learning experience of mathematics by new entrant children with Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 30(3), 127-138.

Rhedding-Jones, J. (2005). Questioning diversity. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 131-145). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Richardson, L. (1997). Review of transition from home to school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22 (1), 18-22.

Rimm-Kaufmann, S., & Pianta, R. (2000). An ecological perspective ion the transition to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 491-511.

260

260 Bibliography

Rimm-Kaufmann, S., Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147-166.

Ritchie, J. (1996). The bicultural imperative within the New Zealand draft curriculum guidelines for early education Te Whariki. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(3), 28-32.

Robinson, G., & Dally, K. (2008). Understanding literacy and numeracy. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (2nd ed. pp. 246 -301). South Melbourne: Thomson.

Robles de Melendes, M., & Beck, V. (2007). Teaching young children in multicultural classrooms: Issues, concepts and strategies (2nd ed.). Clifton Park: Thomson.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Rosenshine, B.(1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educaitonal Research, 88, 262-8.

Ryan, S., & Goffin, S. (2008). Missing in action: Teaching in early care and education. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 385-395.

Ryan, S., Oschner, M., & Genishi, C. (2001) Miss Nelson is missing! Teacher sightings in research on teaching. In S. Grieshaber & G. Cannella (Eds.), Embracing identities in early childhood education: Diversity and possibilities (pp. 45-59). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Barreau, S., & Grabbe, Y. (2008). The influence of school and teaching quality on children’s progress in primary school. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Elliot, K., & Marsh, A. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project Technical paper 11-Report on the continuing effects of preschool education at age 7. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Sammons, P., Smees, R., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Elliot, K. (2002). Early years transition and special educational needs (EYTSEN) project: Technical paper 1: Special educational needs across the preschool period. London: University of London.

Sangavarapu, P., & Perry, B. (2005). Concerns and expectations of Bangladeshi parents as their children start school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(3), 45-51.

Sapon-Shevin, M.(1995) Why gifted students belong in inclusive schools. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 64-68.

Sarra, C. (2007). Young, black and deadly: Strategies for improving outcomes for Indigenous students. In M. Keeffe, & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity (2nd ed., pp. 74-88). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

261

Bibliography 261

Saunders, R. (2002. Fragile X syndrome: A guide for teachers. London: David Fulton.

Sauvao, M. (2002). Transition of Samoan children from Aoga Amata to primary school: Case study in the Wellington region. ERIC database ED473456.

Sauvao, L, Mapa, L., & Podmore, V. (2000). Transition to school from Pacific Island early childhood services. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Sawyer, A. (2000). Preschool teachers in primary schools: Stories from the field. Contemporary Issues In Early Childhood, 1(3), 329-343.

Schrenko, L. (1996). Structuring a learner centred school. Hawker Brownlow.

Schroeder, J. (2007). Full-day kindergarten offsets negative effects of poverty of state tests. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(3), 427-439.

Schurch, P., & Waterford, S. (1979). Sharing our differences: Developing a multi-cultural program. Watson: Australian Pre-School Association.

Schweinhart, L.,& Weikart, D. (1998). Why curriculum matters in early childhood education. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 57-60.

Sheets, R. (2005). Diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the teaching-learning process. Boston: Pearson.

Sheppard, M. (1972). A teacher’s school entry screening test. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education.

Shiu, S. (2004). Maintaining the thread: Including young children with chronic illness in the primary classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(1), 33-38.

Sims, M. (2002). Making values matter: Training in difference and diversity. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 9(1), 96-112.

Sims, M., Hayden, J., Palmer, G., & Hutchins, T. (2000). Working in early childhood settings with children who have experienced refuge or war-related trauma. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(4), 41-46.

Sims, M. (1995). Accreditation and quality care for children with special needs. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(4), 5-10.

Sims, M., & Hutchins, T. (1999). Positive transitions. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), 12-16.

Singh, P., & Tayler, S.(2007). A new equity deal for schools: A case study of policy-making in Queensland, Australia. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28 (3), 301-315.

Singh, P. (2000). Local and official forms of symbolic control: an Australian case study of the pedagogic work of para-educational personnel. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(1), 3-21.

262

262 Bibliography

Sink, C., Edwards, C., Weir, S. (2007). Helping children transition from kindergarten to first grade. Professional School Counseling, 10 (3), 3-14.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2006). Diversity, inclusion and learning in the early years, In G. Pugh, & B. Duffy (Eds.), Contemporary issues in early years education, (pp. 107-118). London: Sage.

Skinner, D., Bryant, D, Coffman, J., & Campbell, F.(1998). Creating risk and promise: children’s and teachers’ co-constructions in the cultural world of kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 98(4), 297-310.

Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and changing directions in educational research: The case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5, 167-177.

Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class and gender. Hokoben: Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Smart, D., Sanson, A., Baxter, J., Edwards, B., & Hayes, A. (2008). Home to school transitions for financially disadvantaged children. Sydney: The Smith Family.

Smith, N. (2002). Transition to the school playground: an intervention programme for nursery children. Early Years, 22(2), 129-145.

Smith, B., & Rapport, M. (2001). Public policy in early childhood inclusion: necessary but not sufficient In M. Guralnick, (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 49-68) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Smith, P. (1999). Drawing new maps: A radical cartography of developmental disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 117-144.

Smutny, J., & Von Fremd, S. (2004). Differentiating for the young child: Teaching strategies across the content areas (K-3). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Solomon, G, (2002). Digital equity: It’s not just about access any more. Technology & Learning, 22(9), 18-24

Spearitt, P. (1979). Childcare and kindergartens in Australia 1890-1975. In P. Langford & P. Sebastian (Eds.), Early childhood education and care in Australia (pp. 10-38). Kew: Australian International Press.

Spedding, S. (2008). The role of teachers in successful inclusion In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (2nd ed., pp. 390-426). South Melbourne: Thomson.

Stables, A. (2003). Education for diversity: making differences. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Stamopoulos, E. (2001). The professional background and perceptions of principals on their leadership role in pre-primary. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(2), 20-25.

Stewart, J. (2002). The relevance of the learning styles debate for Australian Indigenous students in mainstream education. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 30(2), 13-19.

Stipek, D., & Bylar, P. (2001). Academic and social behaviour associated with age of entry to kindergarten. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 175-189.

263

Bibliography 263

Strain, P., Smith, B., & McWilliam, R.(1996). The widespread adoption of service delivery recommendations: A systems change perspective. In S. Odom, & M. McLean (Eds.), Early intervention/early special education: Recommended practices (pp. 101-124). Austin: Pro-Ed.

Stringfield, S. (1999). The phoenix rises from its ashes … doesn’t it? In H.J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 208-218). London: Falmer Press.

Swadener, E., & Lubeck, S. (1995). Children and families at promise: Deconstructing the discourse of risk. In E. Swadener, & S. Lubeck (Eds.), Children and families at promise: Deconstructing the discourse of risk (pp. 17-49). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Swanson, M. (1991). At-risk students in elementary education: Effective schools for disadvantaged learners. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Sy, S. (2003). Parent involvement and children’s transition to school in Asian American and European American families, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol 63 (7-B), February, pp. 34-99.

Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B.(2003). Assessing quality in the early years: Early childhood environment rating scale extension ECERS-E. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.

Talay-Ongan, A. (2004). Early development, risk and disability: Relational contexts. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Tamboukou, M., & Ball, S. (2003). Genealogy and ethnography: Fruitful encounters or dangerous liaisons? In M. Tamboukou & S. Ball (Eds.), Dangerous encounters: Genealogy and ethnography (pp. 1-36). New York: Peter Lang.

Tayler, C. (2003). Australian early childhood milieu: Teacher challenges in promoting children’s language and literacy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 9(1), 41-55.

Tayler, C. (1999). Transition in early childhood education. In F. Briggs & G. Potter (Eds.), The early years of school: Teaching and learning (pp. 65-92). South Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.

Taylor J. (2006). Life changes: Including the children’s view. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 31-39.

Taylor, S., & Henry, M. (2003). Social justice in a global context: Education Queensland’s 2010 strategy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(4), 337-355.

Terzi, L. (2005). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(3), 443-459.

264

264 Bibliography

Thamirajah, M., Grandison, K., & De-Hayes, L. (2008). Understanding school refusal: A handbook for professionals in education, health and social care. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Thorpe, K., Tayler, C., Bridgstock, R., Grieshaber, S., Skoien, P., Danby, S., & Petriwskyj, A. (2004) Preparing for school: Report of the Queensland preparing for school trials 2003/2004. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Timperley, H., McNaughton, S., Howie, L., & Robinson, V. (2003). Transitioning children from early childhood education to school: Teacher beliefs and transition practices. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 32-38.

Tomlinson, C. (2005) How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Tomlinson, D. (1995). Gifted learners too: A possible dream? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 68-69.

Town, D., & Serpell, Z. (2004). Successes and challenges in triangulating methodologies in evaluations of exemplary urban schools. New Directions for Evaluation, 101, 49-62.

Trifonas, P. (2003). Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change. London: Routledge Falmer.

UNICEF (1989) Conventions on the rights of the child. Accessed at http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf (Accessed 15 December 2008 )

Van den Oord, E., & Rossem, R. (2002). Differences in first graders’ school adjustment: The role of classroom characteristics and social structure of the group. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 371-394.

Van Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J. (2009). Literacies and numeracy. In A. Ashman, & J. Elkins (Eds.), Education for inclusion and diversity (pp. 235-270). Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Van Kraayenoord, C. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood Education, 83(6), 390-394.

Van Kraayenoord, C. (2002). Focus on literacy. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 388-248). Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall.

Van Manen, M. (1999). The tone of teaching. Althouse Press.

Vogler, P., Crivello, G., & Woodhead, M. (2008). Early childhood transitions research: A review of concepts, theory and practice. Working paper No 48. The Hague: Van Leer Foundation.

Vuckovic, A. (2008). Making the multicultural learning environment flourish: The importance of the child-teacher relationship in educating young children about diversity. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 9-16.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf�

265

Bibliography 265

Waters, J., & Cooper, J. (1978). A place in the procession. Canberra: Australian Preschool Association.

Watts, B., Elkins, J., Conrad, L., Andrews, R., Apelt, W., Hayes, A., Calder, J., Coulston, A., & Wills, M. (1981). Early intervention programs for young handicapped children in Australia 1979-1980. St Lucia: Schonell Educational Research Centre.

Waxman, H., & Huang, S. (1998). Classroom learning environments in urban elementary, middle and high schools. Learning Environments Research, 1, 95-113.

Wedell, K. (2005). Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 3-11

Weiberger, J, Pickstone C., & Hannon, P. (2005). Learning from Sure Start: Working with young children and their families. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Weihen, L. (2001). Exploring early childhood. Port Melbourne: Reed Books.

Westcott, K., Perry, B., Jones, K. & Dockett, S. (2003). Parents’ transition to school. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 19(2), 26-38

Westwood, P. (2001) Differentiation as a strategy for inclusive classroom practice. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 5-11.

Whitington, V. (2004). Independence and interdependence in early childhood services. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(1), 14-21.

Whitton, D. (2005). Transition to school for gifted children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(3), 27-31.

Williams, R., de Kruif, R., & Zulli, R. (2002). The observed construction of teaching: Four contexts. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16 (2), 148- 161.

Winter, S., & Kelley, M. (2008). Forty years of readiness research: What have we learned? Childhood Education, 84(5), 260-266.

Winter, S. (2005). Inclusive early childhood education: A collaborative approach. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Wise, S., Da Silva, L., Webster, E., & Sanson, A. (2005). The efficacy of early childhood interventions. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Wolery, M. (1999). Children with disabilities in early elementary school. In R. Pianta, & M. Cox, (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 253-280). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Woodhead, M. (2006). Changing perspectives on early childhood: Theory, research and practice. UNESCO Strong Foundations background paper http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001474/147499e.pdf (Accessed 28 November, 2008)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001474/147499e.pdf�

266

266 Bibliography

Wortham, S. (1997). Assessing and reporting young children’s progress: A review of the issues. In J. Isenberg & M. Jalongo, (Eds.), Major trends and issues in early childhood education: Challenges, controversies and insights (pp. 104-122). New York: Teachers College Press.

Yeboah, D. (2003). Enhancing transition from early childhood phase to primary education: Evidence from the research literature, Early Years, 22(1), 51 –67.

Yeom, J-S. (1998). Children’s transition experiences from kindergarten to grade one. Canadian Children, 23(1), 25-33.

Zambo, D. (2008). Looking at ADHD through multiple lenses: Identifying girls with the inattentive type. Intervention in School and Clinic. 44(1), 34-40.

Zill, N. (1999). Promoting education quality and excellence in kindergarten. In R. Pianta, & M. Cox, (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 67-108). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

267

APPENDICES 267

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Summary of Impact Factors and ERA Rating of Journals

Paper Journal Reason for Selection Impact Factor

ERA Rating

Paper 1 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood

Publishes innovative methodologies; critical theory in early education; re-conceptualisation of early education

Not currently available

A

Paper 2 International Journal of Early Years Education

Publishes comparative education in early childhood; has early years international audience


B

Paper 3 International Journal of Inclusive Education

Publishes on critical theory in education, and on innovations in educational inclusion


A

Paper 4 Journal of Early Intervention

Publishes on early intervention across wide age range; readership includes practitioners as well as academics

0.821(2008) 0.529 (2007) 1.088 (2006)

B

Paper 5 Exceptional Children

High ranking journal in education of diverse groups

1.712 (2008) 2.528 (2007) 3.226 (2006)

A

268

268 APPENDICES

transition to school of iverse...

Documents