There is an international commitment towards inclusion of young children with disabilities in early childhood settings and towards the inclusion of persons with disabilities in general, supported by the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD; United Nations [UN], 2008). Although inclusion as an educational model has gained significant attention and support, it is still inconsistently defined. For example, in Australian early childhood settings, the majority of children with disabilities are educated alongside their typically developing peers in mainstream settings. However, in Malaysia, the majority of children with disabilities are in early intervention centres. To better understand some of the issues and challenges involved in implementing inclusive practice in early childhood education, the profiles of three countries, Australia, Greece, and Malaysia, are examined. Each of these countries is among the 181 countries that have formally ratified the CRPD, with Australia ratifying the convention in 2008, Malaysia in 2010, and Greece in 2012. These countries were selected for their shared commitment to inclusion. At the same time, their diverse profiles in relation to inclusion legislation, policies, education, early childhood services, and levels of resources provide a context for critically analysing factors that might support or challenge inclusion.
Commitment to Principles for Inclusion in Education
In agreeing to become signatories to the CRPD and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), nations are making a voluntary commitment to enact principles of inclusion: the right to education and to equity and non-discrimination. The CRPD contains a number of important principles: that children with disabilities are afforded all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children (art. 7), and the right to education on the basis of equal opportunity to access an inclusive education system (art. 24; UN, 2008). The definition of inclusive education is further clarified in CRPD General Comment 4 (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2016). When countries ratify the CRPD, they both interpret and implement the principles in the convention.
Countries committing to inclusive education often agree to make substantial changes to their approach. Education systems in Australia, Greece, and Malaysia continue to offer students with disabilities mixed options including access to mainstream schooling, or segregated or parallel settings. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights argues that inclusive education is important in empowering children with disabilities by providing opportunities to break down discrimination and stereotypes, equipping children to express their needs and rights, and modelling the benefits of inclusion in the community (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2019).
The focus of this paper is on early childhood, the years before formal, compulsory schooling begins. Increased international recognition of the importance of high-quality early childhood education for children’s development and learning leads to a growing effort to promote inclusive practices to support the individualised learning needs of every child.
Defining Early Childhood Inclusion
Inclusion as an educational practice is inconsistently defined. For the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), inclusion in education means that ‘all children - no matter who they are - can learn together in the same school. … reaching out to all learners and removing all barriers that could limit participation and achievement’ (IIEP/UNESCO, 2020, para. 1).
Since the early 1980s, the term inclusion has replaced previous terminologies such as mainstreaming, reverse mainstreaming, and integration. More recent definitions of inclusion focus on goals including equity, participation, social relationships, and learning for every child (Barton & Smith, Reference Barton and Smith2015; Guralnick & Bruder, Reference Guralnick and Bruder2016; UNESCO, 2020).
According to the Australian Government’s Early Years Learning Framework (part of the first National Quality Framework for early childhood education and care [ECEC] services; Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2012]), inclusion involves ‘taking into account all children’s social, cultural and linguistic diversity (including learning styles, abilities, disabilities, gender, family circumstances and geographic location) in curriculum decision-making processes’ (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009, p. 48). In Greece and Malaysia, ‘inclusive education’ is regarded as part of the continuum of services available for children with disabilities (Jelas & Ali, Reference Jelas and Ali2014; Nteropoulou-Nterou & Slee, Reference Nteropoulou-Nterou and Slee2019; Pappas, Papoutsi, & Drigas, Reference Pappas, Papoutsi and Drigas2018). Inclusive education is formally recognised in Malaysia’s Special Education Regulations 2013 as ‘an education programme for students with special educational needs in which they can attend in the same classroom together with other students’ (Government of Malaysia, 2013, p. 10).
In an important development, two national professional associations responsible for supporting early childhood inclusion in the United States, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), published a joint position statement on early childhood inclusion (DEC/NAEYC, 2009). This statement specifies that the desired goals of inclusion involve ‘a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning’ for every child (p. 2). The position statement also specifies three defining features of high-quality inclusion: access, participation, and supports. Access refers to increasing learning opportunities, eliminating structural barriers, and improving inclusive environments for all children. Participation refers to supporting children’s active engagement in everyday activities and learning; and supports refers to providing an infrastructure and systems for supporting quality inclusion, such as effective professional development through coaching and support for collaborative teaming (Barton & Smith, Reference Barton and Smith2015; DEC/NAEYC, 2009). This position statement provided a significant opportunity for development of shared understanding of desired outcomes of inclusion and defining features that support implementation.
Two professional associations in Australia followed the example of the United States when Early Childhood Australia and Early Childhood Intervention Australia produced a joint position statement on inclusion. It states, ‘Every child is entitled to access and participate in ECEC programs which recognise them as active agents in their own lives and learning, respond to them as individuals, respect their families as partners and engage with their diverse backgrounds and cultures’ (Early Childhood Australia and Early Childhood Intervention Australia, 2012, p. 2). These position statements are important as specific references to inclusion in early childhood and relate to desired outcomes for children and families. The statements are an agreement between the practitioners and professional organisations that implement inclusion rather than a government policy.
Research to Practice
A common defining feature of inclusive practice across many current conceptualisations of inclusion is the use of specific instructional practices that have research support for responding to individualised developmental and learning needs. The current focus on practices that result in learning for every child demonstrates an increasingly shared understanding that placement in an early childhood setting is not sufficient to enable active participation, development of social relationships, and learning outcomes for all children (Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, Reference Odom, Buysse and Soukakou2011). Enrolment does not automatically equal inclusion.
One of the key research themes emerging from international reviews on inclusion is that specialised instruction, interventions, and supports are key components of high-quality inclusion (National Professional Development Center on Inclusion, 2009; Odom et al., Reference Odom, Buysse and Soukakou2011). Current research has identified a wide range of effective instructional practices to support inclusion (DEC, 2014; Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, Reference Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith and McLean2005). Examples of specialised instructional practices used in inclusive settings to support children’s participation and learning include naturalistic intervention approaches, such as embedded instruction (Horn & Banerjee, Reference Horn and Banerjee2009), activity-based intervention (Özen & Ergenekon, Reference Özen and Ergenekon2011), universal design for learning (Katz & Sokal, Reference Katz and Sokal2016), and peer-mediated intervention (Robertson, Green, Alper, Schloss, & Kohler, Reference Robertson, Green, Alper, Schloss and Kohler2003). An additional focus of current research on effective inclusive practices has been the development of valid and reliable measures for assessing implementation of inclusive practices and supporting quality improvement efforts (Soukakou, Reference Soukakou2016; Soukakou, Winton, West, Sideris, & Rucker, Reference Soukakou, Winton, West, Sideris and Rucker2014).
There has also been growing research support for tiered models of intervention in early childhood settings. Tiered approaches to intervention rely on high-quality, evidence-based programs, beginning with Tier 1 for all children; Tier 2, providing small-group programs for those children who need more support; and Tier 3 being individually implemented programs for those children with the highest level of need (Prasse et al., Reference Prasse, Breunlin, Giroux, Hunt, Morrison and Their2012). Response to intervention, the Pyramid Model (Hemmeter, Snyder, Fox, & Algina Reference Hemmeter, Snyder, Fox and Algina2016), and Building Blocks (Sandall, Schwartz, Joseph, & Gauvreau, Reference Sandall, Schwartz, Joseph and Gauvreau2019) are examples of tiered interventions. These models focus on supporting early childhood practitioners to gather information on children’s learning, implement instructional practices, and target specific interventions to support children’s individual learning and social-emotional needs (Odom et al., Reference Odom, Buysse and Soukakou2011).
Collaboration between early childhood professionals, families, and program leaders is another key component of high-quality inclusion. Some important characteristics of effective collaboration involve practices such as joint participation in planning, shared philosophies, shared responsibility for all children, communication, defined professional roles, stability of relationships, and administrative support (Odom et al., Reference Odom, Buysse and Soukakou2011).
Implementing Inclusive Practice
Historically, initiatives in education were introduced for social and political reasons and their continuation was not tied to scientific evaluations of what they were achieving. Evidence has emerged that changes are most effective when they target specific and practical initiatives, supported by local facilitation and leadership (Nordstrum, LeMahieu, & Berrena, Reference Nordstrum, LeMahieu and Berrena2017).
One of the things that became evident when comparing the experiences of the three countries was the absence of clear implementation frameworks. Although all three countries have committed to implementing the principles in the CRPD and have introduced national laws that prohibit discrimination, there has been a lack of clarity about positive actions emerging from these laws. Implementation science provides a framework for thinking about implementation.
Implementation science has a variety of models and definitions, including the study of methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of an intervention (Powell et al., Reference Powell, Waltz, Chinman, Damschroder, Smith, Matthieu and Kirchner2015). For the fields of early childhood and special education, the work of the National Implementation Research Network has been important in establishing an understanding of factors influencing effective implementation of innovative programs and interventions (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, Reference Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman and Wallace2005), and what contributes to achieving desired outcomes for young children and their families. Fixsen, Blase, Metz, and Van Dyke (Reference Fixsen, Blase, Metz and Van Dyke2013) proposed the following formula:
$${\rm{Effective}}\;{\rm{Innovations}}\times{\rm{Effective}}\;{\rm{Implementation}}\times{\rm{Enabling}}\;{\rm{Contexts}} = {\rm{Positive}}\;{\rm{Outcomes}}$$
In the case of educational practice, this formula suggests that three distinct components are necessary to ensure that any educational innovation (e.g., an educational intervention or practice) can result in desired outcomes for children and their families. For early childhood inclusion, we must identify effective inclusive practices that have research support for meeting the developmental and learning needs of young children (Effective Innovations). The successful application of effective practices also requires implementation drivers, including supports for building knowledge and capacity of the early childhood workforce to apply inclusive practices effectively and assessment systems to monitor the implementation process (Effective Implementation). Third, implementation requires a context that enables the innovation (i.e., inclusive practice) to be implemented (Enabling Contexts). This component includes laws, policies, funding, and governance. An essential part of the formula is the crucial nature of each factor. As in any multiplication formula, if any factor is zero, the product is zero (National Implementation Research Network, 2016).
Inclusive Practice in Australia, Greece, and Malaysia
For the purpose of our analysis, we propose the implementation science formula presented above in reverse as a model for change, as follows:
$${\rm{Improved}}\;{\rm{Outcomes}} = {\rm{Enabling}}\;{\rm{Contexts}}\times{\rm{Effective}}\;{\rm{Practices}}\times{\rm{Effective}}\;{\rm{Implementations}}$$
In this conceptual analysis, implementation of inclusion in early childhood settings will require three components: the support of enabling contexts; the development of effective, inclusive practices; and systematic implementation supports. Inclusion in early childhood settings across Australia, Greece, and Malaysia is examined in relation to these three components.
Enabling Contexts
Given the relatively early stages of implementing the principles of the CRPD by Australia, Greece, and Malaysia, the contexts for inclusion are considered from two perspectives: the legal structures and the nature of early childhood settings.
Legal structures
All three countries have introduced legislation to support the inclusion of children with disabilities, although there are limitations in the implementation of the legislation. In Australia, the key national legislation is the Disability Discrimination Act (Australian Government, 1992) and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Australian Government, 2005). The Disability Discrimination Act made it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of disability. This Act required all early childhood settings to make reasonable adjustments to include children with disabilities. The Disability Standards for Education 2005 addressed the question of reasonable adjustments in greater detail, noting the need to balance the interests of all parties affected, but only applies to preschool settings (for children from 3 to 5 years). Nonetheless, in child care there is a national Inclusion Support Program that is designed to
[assist] education and care services to provide and embed quality inclusive practices into their delivery of early learning programs to all children, to address access and participation barriers and to support the inclusion of children with additional needs, with their typically developing peers. ( Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2020 , para. 1)
Although there is a national approach to education in Australia, there are variations in state legislation, and while these laws support the intention of inclusion, at a formal school level there continues to be the provision of segregated educational services specifically for children with disabilities, in special classes, special schools, or not at school (de Bruin, Reference de Bruin2019). This is, in part, a consequence of Australia’s position that, despite the CRPD approach to inclusion, parental choice is recognised as more significant than a generalised notion of inclusion.
Inclusion policy in Greece is defined by the currently applicable Law 3699/2008, which was adopted in 2008 to describe the education of students with disabilities. The law commits to ensure equal opportunities for full participation in society — independent living — with full protection of their rights to education and to social and occupational inclusion for all citizens with disabilities and recognised special educational needs (Law 3699/2008, art. 1). Based on the current law, inclusion is practised through access to in-class support by a support staff member (a model termed ‘parallel support’) in the classroom or in a separate classroom within the same setting where a small group of children with identified disabilities receive differentiated instruction for some hours during the day (or through full-time participation). The more recent legislation enacted in 2016 through Law 4368/2016 provided guidance on the purpose of inclusive classrooms, suggesting that the desired outcome for children with identified disabilities is their full inclusion in the school community. The law also emphasised the important role of support staff to support the learning needs of students with disabilities in the general classroom through collaboration with the general education teacher, differentiated instruction, and appropriate accommodations (Law 4368/2016, art. 82, para. 5). Current legislation does not make any specific mention about the in-class support model for children during the compulsory 2-year preschool education period (starting at 4 years of age).
In Malaysia, the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (Government of Malaysia, 2008) states that children with disabilities should not be excluded from the general education system, and should be provided with reasonable accommodations, but does not protect individuals with disabilities against discrimination and mistreatment. The Ministry of Education (MOE) drafted the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (MOE, 2013), which aims to increase the enrolment of children with disabilities in national mainstream schools by 75% by 2023. However, the definition of inclusive education stated in the Special Education Regulations 2013 — the legislative document describing education for children with disabilities — reflects more of an integrated model rather than inclusion. The same document also states that children with disabilities need to undergo a 3-month probation period to determine their ‘suitability’ to attend educational programs, including inclusive education programs, the outcome of which is determined by a panel that does not include the child and parents (Government of Malaysia, 2013). The MOE in 2019 began to implement a zero reject policy, but it only applies to government-run preschools and schools. The lack of consistency and clarity regarding the desired outcomes for children with disabilities across legislative policies has led to the uneven implementation of inclusion across Malaysia.
Although each country has a legislative framework that supports inclusion, inclusion of children with disabilities in settings with the general population of children is not always presented as the primary option. Unfortunately, while Article 24 in CRPD clearly states that the rights of persons with disabilities in education will be recognised within an inclusive education system, there is a continuum of inclusion in early childhood across all three countries. Children with disabilities may attend a range of settings, including fully inclusive programs, satellite services, or classes, services attached to a setting for the general population, or segregated or special settings only for children with disabilities. This is reflective of the nature of early childhood settings, which is described as follows.
The nature of early childhood settings
Early childhood settings vary according to the priority and capacity of a country to invest in the early years. The level of investment countries make to supporting young children in general and making services available to the general population determines what type of service a child with a disability might attend. Internationally, there is much variation in the provision of early childhood settings with respect to enrolments, service providers, governance and regulations, finance, and quality of teachers.
In Australia, early childhood education is non-compulsory, with compulsory schooling starting at 6 years. In 2014, 22% of children under the age of 2 years, 54% of 2–3-year-olds, and 42% of 4-year-olds attended an ECEC service (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2018). Services are provided by both for-profit and non-profit providers. For-profit providers range from small providers that operate one setting to large corporations. Non-profit providers include community-based settings, municipal services, school-based services, services run by churches and other welfare-based groups, and other organisations.
In Greece, early childhood education is non-compulsory for children below 4 years, while compulsory 2-year preschool education starts at 4 years (Eurydice, 2019). In 2016–2017, there were 151,804 4–6-year-olds attending preschool settings, with approximately 90.5% in public and 9.5% in private services (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2019). No official data is available for children under 4 years of age. There are both public and private preschool and childcare settings. The government agencies involved include the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, municipalities, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, and the Ministry of Interior. The non-profit providers include private organisations (non-profit), churches, and welfare-based groups. Private for-profit providers range from the small to franchised preschool programs and large corporations.
In Malaysia, early childhood education is non-compulsory, and compulsory schooling begins at age 7. In 2016, 3.4% of children under 4 years old attended registered childcare settings (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2017). In 2019, 74.2% of children between 4 and 6 years attended preschool (70% private, 4.2% government funded; Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2019). Government-funded early childhood settings involve the MOE, Department of National Unity and Integration, Department of Social Welfare, and Department of Rural and Regional Development. Private services include non-profit religious-based providers and for-profit providers that range across small to franchised preschool programs.
Accountability and regulatory systems
The diversity of organisations involved in providing early childhood settings is complicated by the role of multiple regulators. Australia has made significant progress towards a more cohesive approach, with the responsibility for early childhood shared between both state and federal governments. Each state/territory in Australia has its own regulatory authority. ACECQA oversees the quality of services as the national authority established to administer a National Quality Framework to ensure continuous improvement in quality and national consistency across Australia. This system, introduced in 2012, replaced each state having its own unrelated system. Under current arrangements, each individual setting is assessed and rated, and these ratings are publicly available. Despite this consistent approach to quality, there is still a significant variation, with some services rated as ‘significant improvement required’ through to those rated as ‘excellent’, as well as variation within each of those ratings.
In Greece, child care is provided for children aged 4 years and below through municipalities, the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, and the Ministry of Interior. Preschool education is provided to children 4–6 years of age and is organised through municipalities and the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs. Evaluation of the quality of early childhood education practice, or assessment of children’s progress for children below the age of 6 years, is not provided for by law. A more recent law (Law 4547/2018, art. 47) describes guidance for preschool settings to engage in self-evaluation through a process that is monitored by the Institute of Educational Policy, as authorised by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs.
In Malaysia, child care for children aged 4 and below is organised through the Department of Social Welfare and regulated by the same agency based on the Child Care Centre Act 1984 (Government of Malaysia, 1984). Meanwhile, preschool education for children aged 5–6 years is under the jurisdiction of the MOE and preschools are required by law to follow MOE’s National Preschool Standards-Based Curriculum. There is no systematic evaluation of the quality of childcare centres and preschools in Malaysia (Majzub, Reference Majzub2013).
Effective Practices
Improved legislation and stronger support for early childhood settings have created the opportunity for inclusion. Realising these opportunities requires systematic attempts to develop research-based, national, or local models that promote the development and learning of children with disabilities in early childhood settings. This is yet to occur systematically, as is evident in the lack of recommended practices or investments in professional development to assist educators to work with children with disabilities. Instead, progress seems to have stalled at the first stages of providing physical access and a level of social inclusion.
In Australia, there is a two-tiered approach to ECEC services, with early learning (child care) supported nationally through the Australian Government, and services for 3–5-year-old children organised by state and territory governments. In child care, the national Inclusion Support Program (ISP) supports children with disabilities, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and children with serious medical conditions, language and speech delays, or disruptive behaviours. The majority of funding subsidises additional educators to support a child with a disability or high support needs, interpreting services, or a bilingual worker. Another component, the Inclusion Support Agency, supports a service to develop a Strategic Inclusion Plan, which identifies the need for modifications, training, or additional resources, including specialist equipment. Inclusion Support Agency staff can visit the service to provide advice (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2020).
In the State of Victoria, for example, a kindergarten ISP also provides funding for short- and long-term additional staffing and has some capacity to provide advice (Department of Education and Training, 2016). Inclusion programs mainly focus on the employment of additional staff with minimal qualifications to care for children with disabilities. The Early Years Learning Framework, which guides ECEC services, has a broad definition of inclusion, which includes children’s social, cultural, and linguistic diversity, their learning styles, abilities, disabilities, gender, family circumstances, and geographic location (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009), but has not developed from principles to practice.
In Greece, based on the current legal context, early childhood inclusion is implemented predominantly through in-class support by early childhood support staff. Qualifications of early childhood support staff range from certain hours of professional development training on inclusion to a postgraduate degree in early childhood or special education (Law 3699/2008, art. 20). Currently, at a national or at a local level, there is a lack of an agreed-upon, evidence-based framework for implementing inclusion, such as published recommended inclusive practices and/or specific guidance for supporting implementation. As a result, within the fields of early childhood and early childhood special education, there are different perceptions about how inclusion ought to be implemented, with inclusive practice often perceived as a model of ‘integrating’ students with disabilities in the general classroom (Fyssa, Vlachou, & Avramidis, Reference Fyssa, Vlachou and Avramidis2014). The lack of an agreed-upon framework for defining and guiding the implementation of inclusive practices is also reflected in educators’ perceptions of their roles, with many general education teachers considering special education teachers and support staff as responsible for supporting the developmental and learning needs of children with disabilities in the general classroom (Vlachou & Fyssa, Reference Vlachou and Fyssa2016).
In Malaysia, although the government recognises inclusive education as important, concerted effort to integrate it with mainstream education programs is yet to be implemented. National initiatives for children with disabilities are largely focused on specialist education in segregated settings and formal schooling (Jelas & Ali, Reference Jelas and Ali2014). Children with disabilities mainly receive early childhood education from early intervention centres, special education preschools, and separate classrooms within preschool settings. Inclusion is still largely dependent on leadership at every early childhood or school setting (Sukumaran, Loveridge, & Green, Reference Sukumaran, Loveridge and Green2015).
Systematic Implementation Supports
Effective implementation builds on the preparation of the early childhood workforce. Initial preparation, as well as systems for continuous professional development and for assessing and monitoring implementation, become important once implementation practices have been identified. These all influence the capacity of early childhood educators to implement inclusive practices.
In Australia, there are three different levels of training for staff working directly with children in early childhood settings. An early childhood teacher has a bachelor’s degree from a tertiary institution. Early childhood educators have a diploma or certificate in early childhood education from a registered training organisation. Although some early childhood settings do employ special education teachers or therapists to support the inclusion of children with disabilities, this is not commonplace. There is a significant inconsistency between the support in one setting and another. The need for additional training and continual professional development for educators is a common theme throughout studies on inclusion in early childhood settings in Australia. Warren, Vialle, and Dixon (Reference Warren, Vialle and Dixon2016) noted that ‘training was overwhelmingly identified as being an essential characteristic of including a child with disabilities [in a] service’ (p. 24). Kemp (Reference Kemp2016) identified that ECEC personnel often doubt their capacity to include children with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities. There is no framework for monitoring the quality of the inclusive experiences of children with disabilities in ECEC in Australia.
In Greece, early childhood teachers are graduates of departments of preschool education from a tertiary institution (Eurydice, 2020). Teacher preparation is provided by the respective pedagogical departments of preschool and primary education within higher education. Inclusive and special preschool education programs are staffed by teachers who have completed units of study in special education, or who have master’s or PhD degrees in special education or educational psychology. However, preparation of the early childhood workforce is challenged by limitations in relation to training in models of collaboration between early childhood educators and special education staff, evidence-based inclusive practices, and instructional supports that promote inclusive experiences for every child. With respect to assessing and monitoring the implementation of inclusion, the country does not have a local or a national framework for assessing, monitoring, and improving the quality of inclusive services. In 2020, the government made public a National Action Plan for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Ministry of State, 2020), based on the principles of the CRPD (UN, 2008). It is a promising policy development, as it proposed the amendment of current legislation relating to inclusive education and emphasised the importance of high-quality inclusive education for all students across all grade levels and age groups (Ministry of State, 2020).
In Malaysia, preschool educators are diploma or degree graduates in early childhood education from tertiary institutions, while childcare providers are only required to complete a 144-hour childcare course recognised by the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia (2016). Although the preparation courses offered by tertiary institutions include introductory modules on understanding children with disabilities, they lack training on evidence-based inclusive practices (Sukumaran et al., Reference Sukumaran, Loveridge and Green2015). Preparation of in-service early childhood educators to implement inclusive practices is challenged by the lack of a structured continuous professional development pathway (Foong, Veloo, Dhamotharan, & Loh, Reference Foong, Veloo and Dhamotharan2018) and the lack of clear guidance and guidelines on inclusive education. The lack of regulation of the quality of early childhood settings also adds another barrier to the effective implementation of inclusive education in Malaysia.
Although there are indications that all countries are moving slowly towards increasing inclusive options, none currently have a clear implementation strategy. Indeed, each of the three countries is moving to make access to mainstream services easier for children with disabilities rather than implementing specific strategies to ensure that inclusion is a success.
Challenges to Inclusive Practice
One of the challenges for Australia, Greece, and Malaysia in achieving the goals of the CRPD is the limited investment to either identify effective practices or build the capacity of the general education field to support the inclusion of children with disabilities. The lack of such investments influences the confidence and skills of both specialists and mainstream educators to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in general settings.
The Challenge for Australia
In Australia, there is no agreement about the definition of either ‘special’ or ‘inclusive’ education and no uniform provision of special education services for students with disabilities. Each state or territory decides how it will allocate resources within its system, the nature of special or inclusive education services, and the options made available to children. Within this mosaic, there are no professional standards that describe the specific skills and knowledge expected of teachers whose role is focused on supporting children with disabilities (Dally et al., Reference Dally, Ralston, Strnadová, Dempsey, Chambers, Foggett and Duncan2019). The lack of suitably qualified personnel providing services to children with disabilities has been identified as a key challenge to achieving effective programs (Kemp, Reference Kemp2016). This situation is undermined by the employment of unqualified staff and the limited, and potentially declining, number of appropriate university-level qualifications for early childhood special educators (Stephenson & Carter, Reference Stephenson and Carter2014).
There is strong evidence of the relationship between staff training and successful inclusion. Positive attitudes arose when preservice teachers completed a module on inclusive education (Hoskin, Boyle, & Anderson, Reference Hoskin, Boyle and Anderson2015). Educators undertaking courses in how to work with children with disabilities (Mohay & Reid, Reference Mohay and Reid2006) and the confidence gained by postgraduate students who undertook a course in supporting children’s behaviours and sensory impairments (Cologon, Reference Cologon2012) were found to be important.
Australian early childhood settings also rely on collaborations between visiting allied health therapists and educators. Although offering significant potential benefits, to be sustainable over time this type of relationship requires considerable input, including leadership, governance, planning, and the allocation of time and resources (Wong & Press, Reference Wong and Press2017). This capacity building is the most desirable approach within the early childhood sector in Australia, supported by the national ISP (ACECQA, 2020).
The Challenge for Greece
The situation in Greece is significantly different. Although the main law initially authorised in 2008 for the education of students with disabilities describes the right of every young child with a disability to be educated in the general early childhood classroom, the country lacks an agreed-upon framework for defining and implementing inclusive services and practices. The absence of a shared recognition of what practices support children’s inclusive experiences, and how program leaders and professionals within the early childhood and early childhood special education fields can work together to support the learning and developmental needs of all children, remains a significant challenge to implementing high-quality inclusion. In 2013, a law was passed that made it possible for families to appoint and pay a teacher assistant to provide support to students with disabilities either in their classroom or in a separate classroom within the same school setting (Law 4186/2013, art. 28; see also Disability Observatory of the National Confederation of Persons with Disabilities, 2019). The policy enabled families to take on the role of employer where it was financially possible. However, without a research-based model for supporting the implementation of inclusive practices in the classroom, these teachers often became separated from the educational community, effectively further excluding the child from opportunities to access supportive learning experiences that meet their individualised needs. On the other hand, competition to gain employment in public education has led to an increase in teachers seeking additional qualifications, leading to 15 additional postgraduate programs in special education being created between 2013 and 2018 (Nteropoulou-Nterou & Slee, Reference Nteropoulou-Nterou and Slee2019).
The Challenge for Malaysia
In Malaysia, the lack of collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers is a barrier to increasing inclusive education for children with disabilities. A survey of teachers reported that the special education teachers only interacted with the general education teachers during recess or in the school grounds. The two groups did not discuss how children with disabilities could participate in integrated academic, social, and community activities. There was also limited interaction about individual programs or learning activities for children with disabilities (Khairuddin, Dally, & Foggett, Reference Khairuddin, Dally and Foggett2016).
Further education for teachers has also been identified as necessary. For example, teachers in one study reported that their preservice training did not provide adequate information about the characteristics of autism or appropriate teaching strategies and that they had not had adequate direct experience with children with autism or collaborating with parents and other professionals. It was suggested that autism special education teacher training programs include more in-depth topics on autism and opportunities for direct experience so teachers can transfer theory into practice (Toran, Westover, Sazlina, Suziyani, & Mohd Hanafi, Reference Toran, Westover, Sazlina, Suziyani and Mohd Hanafi2016).
Nasir and Efendi (Reference Nasir and Efendi2016) found that special education teachers in Malaysia were limited by available resources, including poor facilities that lacked universal design principles, a lack of interpreter services, teachers who did not have sufficient skill in sign language, and contradictory teaching practices for children with hearing impairment. Contributing to this situation was a lack of appropriate teaching materials in both the classroom and in the content of courses for teacher trainees.
Conclusion
The three countries we have examined have made a significant commitment to becoming more inclusive of children with disabilities through becoming signatories to the CRPD. However, to date, their laws and policies lack clarity about the outcomes of inclusion for children and their families, guidelines on how to achieve inclusion targets, or standards for measuring the success of inclusive practices (Anderson & Boyle, Reference Anderson and Boyle2015). The laws and policies do not explicitly address inequity or barriers to education that are faced by children with disabilities, or include an explicit ‘no-rejection clause’, which guarantees admission into mainstream schools (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2019).
Over the past decade, international research has highlighted the importance of every child, including children with disabilities, accessing opportunities for development and learning, belonging, and membership, and experiencing positive social relationships and friendships (Barton & Smith, Reference Barton and Smith2015; DEC, 2014). The development of national research that supports such outcomes, in each country’s own context, might be a first key step for Australia, Greece, and Malaysia in their journey towards a deeper understanding of inclusion.
Such a focus requires a systematic approach to identifying effective and research-informed practices that support children’s active participation and individualised developmental and learning needs. An example is the DEC Recommended Practices (DEC, 2014) for early childhood developed in the United States. Its synthesis of research-informed instructional strategies and supports that nurture children’s inclusive experiences serve as a road map for other countries to identify those practices that match their population characteristics and needs.
As the challenges faced by the three countries indicate, also identified by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2019), professional development for the early childhood workforce to support children with varying abilities is essential, including introducing all teachers to contemporary understandings of the benefits of inclusion and the capacity of children with disabilities to learn. The components of effective professional development have been identified as a focus on practices that are explicitly defined and observable, job-embedded opportunities for teachers to reflect upon, new practices and explicit feedback implemented, and information linking improvements of program quality to student learning outcomes (Winton, Snyder, & Goffin, Reference Winton, Snyder, Goffin, Couse and Recchia2016). Efforts to support inclusion need to be underpinned by effective data collection systems for identifying gaps and monitoring implementation.
Finally, realising effective and innovative inclusive practices for the three countries will need significant investment in financial and human resources, a core feature stated in the CRPD. Although it is acknowledged that transitioning from established special education systems to inclusive education systems takes time, and requires additional costs in the short term, the Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities continues to recommend that states reallocate budget and resources currently available for separate special education to building inclusive education systems in line with the CRPD’s human rights approach (de Beco, Reference de Beco2014).
The three countries have made steps towards inclusive education. To achieve the aspirations of the CPRD, a deeper understanding of processes that support implementation and a willingness to engage with and enrich research into inclusive practices are required. There are considerable opportunities that arise from countries both actively adopting and implementing an agenda for change and sharing experiences and learning.
