Dr. Lynn Ang Ling-Yin
Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Studies
University of East London, UK
One of the ‘burning’ issues of early childhood education is inclusion. With the international convention initiated by UNESCO in 1994, which called for an inclusive provision for all children with special educational needs, the issue of inclusion has been put at the forefront of the educational agenda in many countries around the world, and this has served to encourage discussion surrounding the term and its implications for early years practice. Some of the questions that arise revolve around asking what inclusion actually means, and how can early years educators ensure an inclusive curriculum while balancing at the same time the expectations of parents and the state in educating children who ‘achieve’. Also, if inclusion means more than just recognising the diverse needs of children with their different disabilities and abilities, then how can the early years practitioner promote this in the classroom, and is this enough?
More recently, the issue of inclusion is also discussed in a larger theoretical framework of social justice, participation and advocacy; concepts which all share a common ground in suggesting that education must be more equitable and just for children, especially for those who have historically been disadvantaged. The view underpinning these issues is that economic and cultural inequalities need to be addressed if individuals are to participate equally in society. Within this framework, the aim of inclusion is to therefore provide an environment that is inclusive and equally accessible to all children, and yet responsive to individual needs. However, in practice, inclusion in the early years is problematic, because of the diversity of early childhood provision. In Singapore, for instance, this diversity is evident through the range and levels of professional training, the diversity of the children themselves who come from many different economic and socio-cultural environments, and the number and types of settings in which early childhood educators work (there are at least four different types of early years settings which include the PCF kindergartens, NTUC childcare, private preschools, day care centres, and religious-based kindergartens, and they all differ in provision and the curriculum). These differences and disparities make the issue of inclusion a complex one.
The use of the term ‘inclusion’ is also problematic. The meaning of the term is varied and ambiguous. The term inclusion, as it is used in the context of children with special needs or disabilities, suggests including children with disabilities within the mainstream education system. It is based on the belief that all children have a right to learn, grow and participate in the community and in an environment that allows them to achieve their highest potential. Yet, as Doris Bergen (2003) suggests, while educators agree that all children should be included and be in environments that maximize their potential, they
Dr. Lynn Ang 1

differ about what that environment should be like and how it can be achieved (Bergen
2003, p.48). Supporters of ‘full inclusion’ believe that all children with special needs should participate in mainstream education, with both special and regular educators sharing the responsibility of adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of the children. At the other end of the spectrum, opponents of full inclusion assert that a special education setting or programme would be more appropriate in meeting the needs of children with disabilities. And those who fall between the two spectrums of the debate, favour a model of partial or optional inclusion, which allows educators the responsibility of including children in a mainstream curriculum if and when appropriate to their competences and needs.
1 To compound the complexity of the issue, the notion of inclusion is also founded on the use of problematic terminology, where, for instance, cumbersome terms such as
‘disability’ and ‘ability’ suggest a polarised and fictitious way of categorising individuals – all of whom have some abilities and disabilities.
As such, the challenges that early years educators face with the issue of inclusion are numerous, especially when working with different stakeholders such as parents, policy makers and the government. Early Years teachers are often subject to external pressures to help children meet academic goals, even at a preschool level. They may also face parental pressures on getting their children to meet a level of academic performance, regardless of their children’s’ special needs or learning modalities. In dayto-day practice, educators face difficult decisions in an inclusive classroom, to provide some children special assistance, or to make adaptations to the curriculum that may result in the compromising of academic achievements. The dilemmas educators face is therefore an educational and practical one, and they must resolve these concerns and have the support of the education system in order to implement an effective inclusive provision. In Singapore, the challenge for practitioners is also a historical one, as until recently, there was little focus on inclusion and special education except for children with severe motor or cognitive disabilities. However, recent developments in early years provision have seen a timely shift in this focus and as Nomanbhoy, Lim and Vasudev observe, there has been a slow but growing trend towards the integration of children with disabilities within mainstream schools (Nomanbhoy, Lim and Vasudev, 2000). The publication of the new curriculum framework for kindergartens in 2003 by the MOE lends support to an integrative education system that includes all children with their many differences and education needs, and MCYS has also been encouraging child care centres to integrate children with mild disabilities. Such centres are called Integrated
Childcare Centres (ICCs). The provision of support services like the TEACH ME
(Therapy and Educational Assistance for Children in Mainstream Education) service encourages an integration programnme by providing therapy and educational support for
1 Guralnick (2001) outlines five major models of inclusion for preschool-age children. These include:
1. Full – with all children in the same class
2. Cluster – grafting a special education class onto a regular education class
3. Reverse – adding a group of typically developing children to a special education class
4. Social – with all children interacting during playtime and other less academic parts of the day
5. Dual - with children integrated part of the day in each class
Guralnick offers a useful starting point in understanding inclusion and the framework suggested provides insightful reading. There are debates over the appropriateness of each model and my suggestion to readers is that they read as widely as possible about the challenges and issues that educators face when dealing with issues of inclusion.
Dr. Lynn Ang 2

children with special needs in regular settings beginning at the preschool level.
2 Practical training for preschool teachers is available through the AECES/YWCA SCUBI
(Supporting Children Upon Being Included) programme, which equips them with the skills needed to support children with mild special needs in mainstream childcare or kindergarten settings. Other initiatives include the YWCA multi-professional educational support unit (ESU) that provides services to children and families in integrated child care centres and kindergartens. These developments suggest a promising start in the journey towards an inclusive education system in Singapore, albeit one that can also be fraught and bumpy.
Ultimately, to provide an inclusive education for children requires conviction and commitment. This short article has raised more questions than answers, but it has done so in the hope that the questions illustrate the complex challenges and debates that surround the issue of inclusion. If inclusion is to become a reality, these issues have to be brought to the fore and engaged with, and early years educators, parents, and policy makers need to work together to meet the challenges as they arise.
References
Guralnick M.J. (2001), ‘A Framework for change in early childhood inclusion’ in
Guralnick M.J. (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change , Baltimore: Brookes.
Bergen D. (2003), ‘Perspectives on inclusion in Early Childhood Education’ in Isenberg
J.P. and Jalongo M.R. (Eds.), Major Trends and Issues in Early Childhood Education ,
New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Nomanbhoy D, Lim L. and Vasudev R. (2000), ‘Promoting quality care and education for p reschoolers with disabilities in mainstream settings: The TEACH ME services’ in Tan-
Niam C. and Quah M. L. (Eds.), Investing in Our Future: The Early Years , Singapore:
McGraw-Hill Book.
D r .
.
Lynn Ang Ling-Yin is Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of East
London (UEL). She lectures on Early Childhood Studies and is Programme Leader for the MA programme. Her interests include the Early Years Curriculum and the Curriculum across cultures.
Dr. Ang has worked in different early years and primary education settings in Singapore, Scotland and now England. She has also recently developed a collaborative MA in Early Childhood
Studies programme in Singapore, jointly delivered by UEL and Advent Links-SAUC. The subject of inclusion and the early years is one of many topics covered on the programme.
2 More about TEACH ME can be found in Nomanbhoy D, Lim L and Vasudev R (2000),
‘Promoting quality care and education for preschoolers with disabilities in mainstream settings:
The TEACH ME services’ in Tan-Niam C. and Quah M. L. (Eds.), Investing in Our Future: The
Early Years , Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book, pp.200-211.
Dr. Lynn Ang 3