The Role of Family Childcare Providers in Early Intervention

Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, October 2004 (Ó 2004) Early Childhood Special Education The Role of Family Childcare Providers in Early Intervention Ramona Freeman and Shernavaz Vakil 1,2 In family childcare, the program of services is situated within in the providers own homes. The purpose of this inquiry is to review the literature from special education in light of current practices in family childcare. In addition, key characteristics unique to the provider s care giving program will be examined in relation to the needs of children with disabilities and their families. Finally, recommendations for establishing coordinated efforts among professional support systems and providers on behalf of such children will be defended. KEY WORDS: child-care; developmentally appropriate practices; inclusion; special needs; itinerant teacher. 1 The university of Akron. 2 Correspondence should be directed to Shernavaz Vakil; e-mail: svakil@uakron.edu THE ROLE OF FAMILY CHILDCARE PROVIDERS IN EARLY INTERVENTION The field of early childhood education is known to include a variety of roles for its professionals, operating within broadly diverse programs. Education and caregiving for young children in the United States of America is clearly supported by a stratified workforce operating in primary classrooms, childcare franchises, and wrap-around care (Center for Mental Health Services) among others as well as the unique system of family childcare. In this last form of childcare delivery, the program of services is situated within in the providers own homes. Family childcare providers roles are addressed infrequently in early childhood research, unless they are examined within a wider context of other forms of care delivery. Moreover, they are plagued by the absence of well defined, publicly acknowledged characteristics and structure (Kontos, 1992). Such conditions constitute a kind of paradox for those who work as (or on behalf of) family child care providers. One example of paradox in family childcare is that it is invisible, yet available in almost every neighborhood. It is portrayed as an almost clandestine operation, poorly monitored and supported, and yet it is ubiquitous. Nonetheless, such homes constitute the childcare option of choice for many families (Mooney & Statham, 2003). The isolation that providers endure speaks of another paradox they inevitably encounter. On a practical level, family child care providers function quite independently on a daily basis, separated both psychologically and physically from adult colleagues, staff, administrators, and so on. This gulf permeates the providers work on multiple levels: they receive no support from secretaries or receptionists who might monitor the hub of communication in a child care center. They rely on no colleagues with whom to engage in problem solving as they plan for and carry out a diverse array of simultaneous tasks, for children, parents, the business they own, and their own families. Providers also maintain their businesses independently of the feedback most teachers typically receive from mentors on a regular basis. On the other hand, providers are thoroughly immersed in their relationships with their clients and their children. They are never far removed from every aspect of childcare, from responding to the questions of worried new parents to the planning of daily meals. As sole staff members of their facilities, they become at once the owners, operators, cooks, purchasing managers, enrollment officers, regulation experts, heads of marketing, and so on. Perceived by 121 1082-3301/04/1000-0121/0 Ó 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

122 Freeman and Vakil the lay public and the media as only babysitters and nothing more, they play in reality many roles for many people, and do this closely enough to hear the heartbeat of everyone involved. Providers usually set business parameters that limit the selection of clients when they establish their hours of operation, policies for full or part time enrollment, or in setting their tuition or hourly rate for fees (see Mooney & Statham, 2003). Providers must also make critical enrollment policy decisions for children of individual families. Often these caregivers must decide whether to continue after-school care as children grow older, and whether they will accept a newborn sibling in order to keep that family as a client. They become adept at recruiting children who are likely to meet certain expectations they have for their business: for example, some prefer newborns, while others seek playmates whose ages are similar to their own children. Within this fascinating portrayal of the lady next door who watches everyone s kids we are invited to consider yet another role that might become theirs: the caregiving and education of children with special needs (Malaguzzi, 1997). Family child care providers would benefit from an examination of their involvement with families of children with special needs. Therefore, the purpose of this inquiry is to review the literature from special education in light of current practices in family childcare. In addition, key characteristics unique to providers care giving programs will be examined in relation to the needs of children with disabilities and their families. Finally, recommendations for establishing coordinated efforts among professional support systems and providers on behalf of such children will be defended. POTENTIAL LINKS BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY CHILD CARE One might assume at first that family childcare providers would be unlikely candidates to care for children with disabilities if they do not hold a degree in a related field. However, changes in the law ensure that children identified with delays as early as birth are eligible for services in their natural environment under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 97 (Part B and C of IDEA). The natural environment is defined as the place in which, to the maximum extent possible, children with disabilities would participate with children without disabilities (IDEA, 1997, Sec. 632 (4) (G)). Theoretically, providers are well-qualified to offer such an environment; they do not need to prepare the setting to be more homelike it is already a home. It would be reasonable to predict that parents would invariably prefer to leave family childcare providers who are unlikely to have had formal training in special education. Yet there is scant empirical evidence to indicate whether or not family childcare providers are able to deal with the myriad responsibilities associated with helping the family of a child with special needs. Mulvihill, Shearer, and Van Horn (2002) found that attitudes and perceptions of providers are critical to acceptance of inclusion as best practice regardless of program (p. 208). The natural environment for young children with disabilities includes both the home and community, depending on the family life style. As the number of two-income families and single parent families grows, families are increasingly looking for options outside the home in which to place their children. Because one of the options of childcare used most often by families of typical children is the family childcare system (Blasco, 2001), this option should also be available for consideration to families of children with disabilities. With information and support, family childcare providers can be in a position to serve families of children with disabilities in a manner that is fulfilling to child, parent, and provider. If the child has not been diagnosed, what role would family childcare providers play in accumulating evidence of such a child s risks for delays? Family childcare providers are in a unique position to identify possible developmental delays in young children. They often have an understanding of child development through their own experience at parenting, and they rely on informal knowledge and practical wisdom in caring for them. A distinct advantage for providers is their opportunities to observe, for extended periods of time, children in their natural environment with peers of a similar age. They are the sole caregivers for the child for a number of years, thereby giving them the opportunity to know the child intimately, and recognize nuances that develop over time. This provides family childcare givers with a basis upon which to compare the performances of children in their home, and identify possible delays in their development (Allen & Schwartz, 2001). Unfortunately, however, family childcare providers may feel isolated and reluctant to voice their opinion. Because they are not likely to have credentials identifying them as experts in the field of special education, they may feel ill-prepared

Family Childcare Providers and Early Intervention 123 to suggest that a client s child may need attention. Given the difficulties associated with being the bearer of such news, providers might very well be hesitant to offer advice. CHILD FIND AND THE LAW One of the responsibilities detailed under the law is the practice of child-find. States and schools are required to locate and identify children with delays or disabilities (Smith, 2001). Recognizing that effective child find strategies depend on public awareness, IDEA stresses the importance of disseminating information about services available through agencies that serve young children and public announcements (Allen & Schwartz, 2001). Family childcare providers, along with preschool teachers (private or public), daycare providers, health care personnel, and other professionals in the field of early childhood need to be made aware of the law and responsibility of the state towards child-find. Once identified by family childcare providers as having possible delays, children are assessed for early childhood intervention under the law. If eligible for early intervention services, the state is then responsible for planning and providing appropriate services to children within the natural environment (Lerner, Lowenthal, & Egan, 2003). THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT VITAL TO ALL CHILDREN The natural environment implies more than simply placing children in a setting such as a childcare program or home: it is an environment that embodies the learning opportunities available to enhance development. Being engaged in a natural environment is a process by which service providers inform, support, and encourage the family to use typically occurring routines and opportunities to help their child be successful (Mullis, 2002). It includes parks, grocery stores, libraries, preschools and family childcare providers homes. Young children s learning occurs through a combination of activities that are planned and unplanned, structured and unstructured, and intentional or incidental (Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab, & Bruder, 2000; Dunst, Herter, Shields, & Bennis, 2001). Children s interactions with the environment may be considered as transactions with the community that are dynamic and ongoing. These transactional experiences may be positive or negative, and a result of intentional or incidental practices (Allen & Schwartz, 2001). Research supports the significance of incidental learning. Incidental learning provides for teachable moments, which are often child initiated and child directed, through materials and instruction that are developmentally appropriate (Allen & Schwartz, 2001; Lerner et al., 2003). Family child care providers are apt to use this strategy as a matter of course. As a natural outgrowth of experiencing the daily routine of home life, children freely explore kitchen cupboards and then ask to bake, gather backyard pinecones so the lawn can be mowed, or offer to pack the car in hopes of a trip to the library. In other words, ideal providers practices are authentic because implicit in their routine are the teachable moments that are integral to incidental learning. In this sense learning is, in the spirit of Dewey, embedded in the practical (1902). It is necessary, negotiated, and unique. Including children with a disability into the home does not come without difficulties. One important issue to address is the necessity of a formal agreement that has become fundamental to special education in the schools. Goals and objectives/ benchmarks clarified in the IFSP (Individualized Family Service Plan)/IEP (Individualized Education Program) are tailored to the diverse needs of an individual child. The function of family child care providers to including children with a disability in their homes is embedding predetermined objectives/ benchmarks of the IFSP/IEP into the routine and learning experiences available to all children. Family childcare providers need to become aware of their role in preparing naturally occurring opportunities in the environment to promote embedded learning as well (Allen & Schwartz, 2001; Sadler, 2001). THE RELATIONSHIPS OF ITINERANT TEACHERS TO FAMILY CHILDCARE PROVIDERS The itinerant special education teacher is a valuable resource for family childcare providers. Similar definitions of itinerant teacher exist throughout the United States; for example, the state of Ohio has defined itinerant early childhood special education services (1995) as Services provided by preschool special education teachers or related services personnel which occur in the setting where the child or the child and parent(s) is located as opposed to providing services at a centralized location (Dinnebeil, McInerney, Roth, & Ramaswamy, 2001). The itinerant special

124 Freeman and Vakil education teacher is responsible for providing special education services in the early childhood setting in the community. The role of the itinerant service provider goes beyond that of direct instruction in which learning is structured around predetermined objectives, to one of collaboration in which the itinerant teacher and other professionals make support and strategies available to early childhood providers to ensure an inclusive environment (Dinnebeil et al., 2001). It is interesting to consider this role with regard to family childcare providers. It is not likely that a child with special needs would become isolated from the center of activity, nor relegated to a private alcove on his own. But the itinerant teacher would act as the catalyst for more well-defined experiences and for making explicit the underlying rationale for goals of the IFSP/IEP by embedding such practices into the daily routine. For example rather than the itinerant teacher working only one-on-one with W questions (statements beginning with what, where, when who and why), she would advise family child care providers to also integrate this objective into the daily activities of the child. This not only makes the objective relevant, it allows the child to generalize learning in a meaningful manner. The responsibilities of family childcare providers increase when a young child with a disability enters the home. In order to more effectively serve young children with disabilities in family childcare settings, providers must access the services of an itinerant early childhood special education teacher. Such a relationship would also have more implicit effects, in sharing power with providers by helping them respond effectively to the needs of the family whose child has a disability. There are other secondary benefits as well in that through their interactions with the itinerant teacher they will move away from acting as sole decision makers into collaborative roles between professionals. Rather than perceiving their role as one of mothering and supporting families in much the same way as one would with members of extended family, they might view themselves as professionals who form a valuable part of the intervention team. INCREASED ROLE OF FAMILY CHILDCARE PROVIDERS IN AN INCLUSIVE SETTING Collaborative School Consultation No one person can be responsible for a child with a disability in an inclusive setting. Family childcare providers should have access to collaboration and consultation with itinerant early childhood special education teachers in order to include the child with a disability. Part of family childcare providers roles will then be in the context of collaborative school consultation and will shift to a more public realm, where itinerant early childhood special education teachers and family childcare providers and families will unite to plan and implement academic, social, and behavioral needs of children with disabilities. Itinerant early childhood special education teachers contribute their expertise to family childcare providers who are responsible for implementing direct services using that expertise. Both the itinerant early childhood special education teachers and family childcare providers, however, are equally responsible for identifying the problems and solutions (Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999). Communication The itinerant early childhood special education teacher usually visits the child once or twice a week. Family childcare providers see the child every day. Therefore, in order to create a meaningful partnership between the two adults there must be communication, written or oral. The key to effective communication is to ensure that information between family childcare providers and itinerant early childhood special education teachers is communicated on a regular basis. This requires providers to document a child s progress through an organized log, diary or journal. In this age of the electronic communication, providers and itinerant early childhood special education teachers may also use the internet to share ideas and concerns through email. Providers and itinerant early childhood special education teachers must also plan for a meeting time (if possible once a week) on a regular basis to prepare for the child s learning. Providers can share their curriculum for the week, and the itinerant early childhood special education teachers will then embed goals and objectives of the IFSP/IEP into the plan (Chalmers & Faliede, 1996). The IFSP/IEP Team As family childcare providers are largely responsible for providing direct services to the young child with a disability, they are valuable members of the IFSP/IEP team. The IFSP/IEP is the link between the multi-factored evaluation process and the services provided. Based on the multi-factored evaluation, the IFSP/IEP team individualizes instruction to meet the unique needs of the child. Input from providers is

Family Childcare Providers and Early Intervention 125 crucial in planning the modifications and accommodations for the child, as most services will be delivered by them in their homes (Allen & Schwartz, 2001). Developing an Inclusive Family Childcare Program A developmentally appropriate curriculum implies holistic learning experiences for the young child. It must include the content to be learned, the process through which children learn, and the role of the family childcare provider in assisting the curriculum and the context in which learning occurs (Litman, 1999). The child often initiates activities and interactions that may occur on any given day. Ideal family child care providers inherently follow many of the developmentally appropriate practices recommended by experts. The young child with developmental delays does not need a different curriculum for him or her to be included in this environment. Rather, adaptations and modifications must be made to the existing curriculum to allow for meaningful participation (Lerner et al., 2003). FUTURE IMPLICATIONS Meeting the needs of children with special needs and their families has exciting potential in light of family childcare. The literature suggests several natural environments for young children with delays, yet few intervention teams have tapped into what family child care providers have to offer. Their programs are well-suited to offering services to the young child within the immediate community. Also, the flexibility, convenience, long-term relationships, and continuity between homes and the providers are beneficial. However, placing children with delays in providers homes requires careful consideration to ensure a good fit. Providers attitudes to inclusion and willingness to cooperate and learn with other professionals involved with the families are key to the success of the partnership. Several questions emerge that would be helpful to explore. Who determines the extent of providers responsibilities, and how do their relationships with parents of children with special needs develop? What is the quality of care for the child? How does this experience compare to that of children with special needs enrolled in center care? What are the implications for state and national policies regarding family childcare providers? Perhaps, the most significant impact is the change in family childcare providers perceptions of themselves as professionals. No longer do they view themselves as surrogate mothers while the parents are away, but as valued teachers contributing to the success of the children in their family child care settings. REFERENCES Allen, K. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2001). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood education. Albany, NY: Delmar. Blasco, P. M. (2001). Early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and their families. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chalmers, L., & Faliede, T. (1996). Successful inclusion of students with mild/moderate disabilities in rural school settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29, 22 25. Dettmer, P., Dyck, N., & Thurston, L. P. (1999). Consultation, collaboration and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dinnebeil, L. A., McInerney, W. F., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001). Itinerant early childhood special education services: Service delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 35 44. Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Bruder, M. B. (2000). Everyday family and community life and children s naturally occurring learning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 151 164. Dunst, P. J., Herter, S., Shields, H., & Bennis, L. (2001). Mapping community-based natural learning opportunities. Young Exceptional Children, 4, 16 25. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA). Public Law 105 17, 20 United States Code 1400 et seq. Kontos, S. (1992). Family day care: Out of the shadows and into the limelight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Lerner, J. W., Lowenthal, B., & Egan, R. W. (2003). Preschool children with special needs: Children at risk and children with disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Litman, M. (1999). Curriculum comes from the child! A Head Start family child care program. Young Children, 54, 4 9. Mooney, A., & Statham, J. (Eds.). (2003). Family day care: International perspectives on policy, practice and quality. London: Athenaeum Press. Mullis, L. (2002). Natural environments: A letter from a mother to friends, families and professionals. Young Exceptional Children, 5, 21 24. Mulvihill, B. A., Shearer, D., & Van Horn, M. L. (2002). Training, experience, and childcare providers perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 197 215. Sadler, F. H. (2001). The itinerant teacher hits the road: A map for instruction in youngchildren s social skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 60 66. Smith, D. D. (2001). Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of opportunity. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. United States Department of Health and Human Services: Substance abuse and mental health administration. (n.d.). The center for mental health services: Child, adolescent & family executive summary, 4. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http:// www.mentalhealth.org/cmhs/childrenscampaign/1998execsum4. asp