Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood

Volume 13 Number 4 2012

www.wwwords.co.uk/CIEC

Understanding Inclusive Early

Childhood Education: a capability approach

KATHRYN UNDERWOOD, ANGELA VALEO & REBECCA WOOD

School of Early Childhood Education, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT This article explores the application of current discourse in inclusive education,
particularly the capability approach and its utility in early childhood education. The article highlights
the tensions between a rights-based discourse that informs inclusive education practice and the right
for children to have early intervention. Structural approaches to supporting children with disabilities
are examined. These structural approaches are evaluated using the framework developed using the
capability approach. The article aims to ease some of the tensions that arise from differing
philosophical approaches to education for young children, and to provide a framework for addressing
the developmental and social needs of young children with disabilities.

Introduction
This article will examine the theoretical application of a capability approach to understanding
inclusive early childhood education for children with disabilities. Inclusive education, the education
of children with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers, has been advocated as the solution
to inequities in schools (UNESCO, 1994). However, for young children in early childhood settings,
inclusion is a fragmented and complex experience. To begin, it is important to understand the
relationship between inclusive education and equity. By ‘equity’ we mean that outcomes are fair
for each individual child rather than striving for outcomes that are the same for all children. From
our perspective, inclusive education is not simply about placement, but about having access to
education that optimizes each child’s potential through teaching practices, as well as fair treatment
from other children, families, staff, and community members who are part of the school.
Inclusive education within schools has been identified as the most equitable practice for
children of school age, but in the early years, inclusive practices have not been as clearly linked to
an equity discourse despite several well-known edicts. The Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (United Nations General Assembly, 2007) clearly identifies the right of all children
to ‘access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal
basis with others in the communities in which they live’(Article 24, section 2.b). This right to
inclusive education does not make reference to early childhood. The Division for Early Childhood
(DEC), of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), a US based organization, recently published
a statement that defines early childhood inclusion:
Early childhood inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of
every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad
range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The
desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their
families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and
friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential. The defining features of
inclusion that can be used to identify high quality early childhood programs and services are
access, participation, and supports. (DEC/NAEYC, 2009)

290 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.4.290
 Understanding Inclusive Early Childhood Education

However, equity for young children means more than inclusion in the same programs that are
attended by their peers (even with the appropriate supports); it may also mean access to specialized
supports, known as early intervention that can greatly influence children’s development.
Underlying this approach to equity is a tension between medical intervention to address individual
impairments and social theories of disability that focus on context.
Early intervention programs are targeted programs that aim to improve cognitive, emotional,
and physical development with the intention of preventing disability or ameliorating existing
disabilities (Odom et al, 2003; Guralnick, 2004). Early intervention programs can enhance language,
cognition, social–emotional, behavioural, mental health, and physical development. Early
intervention programs may target children who have biological or genetic risk factors, such as
diagnosed medical conditions, or they may target children who have social risk factors, such as
poverty or experiences of discrimination, both of which can result in individual differences that
manifest in disablement. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United
Nations General Assembly, 2007) states that parties to the Convention shall:
provide those health services needed by persons with disabilities specifically because of their
disabilities, including early identification and intervention as appropriate, and services designed
to minimize and prevent further disabilities, including among children and older persons [and]
provide these health services as close as possible to people’s own communities, including in rural
areas. (Article 25, sections b and c)
However, the right to have early intervention services does not easily fit within an inclusion
discourse that emphasizes the right to be in a general education setting, when these rights are
separated as in the Convention. Early intervention can be in many different settings, including
clinical health care settings, in parent and family support programs, through therapeutic
interventions, amongst others (Underwood, 2012). In order to assimilate these rights we turn to the
capability approach.
This article examines the recent applications of a capability approach in education (Terzi,
2005a, 2005b; Walker & Unterhalter, 2007; Reindal, 2010), which emphasizes that each person has
capabilities that are individually defined by that which they value. For children, capabilities are not
yet realized, and the possibility that children will achieve their capabilities is dependent on the
freedom they have to achieve. This freedom is dependent on a range of differences in each child’s
individual, social, and environmental experiences (Sen, 1999; Reindal, 2010). This article outlines
the unique characteristics of early childhood inclusion and then examines the theoretical
application of the capability approach in early childhood.

Context
This article presents a theoretical explanation of inclusive early childhood practices, and it is
intended to provide some insights that are relevant to the experiences of young children in broad
contexts. However, the examples come from the authors’ experiences in Ontario, Canada. In
Ontario, early childhood education and intervention services are fragmented. They are offered
through health care, education, such as preschool and childcare facilities, and through social service
agencies. These services may be funded through government funding, private funding, or a mix of
both. The fragmentation of services in our jurisdiction is part of the challenge in understanding
inclusive practice in early childhood. For a complete review of early intervention services in
Ontario, see Underwood (2012). Much of the literature we use to support this article comes from
outside of Canada, which is also challenging because each country (and even regions within
countries) has a unique approach to early childhood services. The capability approach has been
lauded for its international applicability, which is part of the appeal for this article. The literature on
early intervention used in this article comes primarily from the United States of America (USA),
which has a large body of literature in this area, in part due to federal legislation and funding
attached to that legislation which has focused attention on early intervention. While we do not
have the same legislative or funding context in Canada, policy and practice are influenced by US
research.

291
Kathryn Underwood et al

Capability Approach and Inclusive Education

Recently there has been a growing interest in the application of a capability approach in education
in general (Saito, 2003; Walker & Unterhalter, 2007), and for children with disabilities in particular
(Terzi, 2005a, 2005b; Reindal, 2009, 2010). The capability approach has three key concepts that are
important to our discussion: capabilities, functionings, and difference. The capability approach defines
‘capabilities’ as those actions or states of being that are valued by an individual. Capabilities may be
potential or realized, but each individual has a set of capabilities. ‘Functionings’ can be described as
those capabilities that have been realized, or the actions and states of being that a person has the
freedom to achieve or become. According to Sen (1999) the ‘differences’, described above, account
for the freedom that an individual has to achieve their capabilities and convert them into
functionings (Reindal, 2010).
Sen’s capability approach begins with an assumption of difference (Sen, 1992). Both Reindal
(2010) and Sen (1999) argue that all types of diversity are experienced in different ways depending
on the degree of freedom experienced by the individual within the society. Differences are evident
in our natural and social environments, as well as in our personal characteristics.
Acknowledgement of the range of experiences and individual characteristics of children with
disabilities is an important starting point to understanding inclusive education.
Reindal (2010) deconstructs disability theories, which situate disablement either wholly as a
pathological or individual experience, or wholly as a social construction that is rooted in
experiences of discrimination and lack of systemic opportunities, and describes three prominent
rationales for inclusion. These include: (1) ethical or sociopolitical arguments, which focus on
democracy, equity and rights; (2) ontological arguments, which focus on defining impairment and
disability; and (3) epistemological arguments, which focus on breaking down the demarcation
between those with disabilities and those without. Reindal rejects these theoretical approaches
because of the postmodern underpinnings that either ignore the ontological reality of impairment
as too positivist, or overlook the experiences of stigma, oppression and discrimination. Instead,
Reindal argues that the capability approach allows for ethical and sociopolitical and ontological
perspectives, and focuses on acknowledgment of difference as a first principle of equality. Equality,
however, is not just understood in terms of differences; equality is manifested in how differences
influence an individual’s capabilities and functionings.
There is a challenge in defining each individual’s capabilities. In education, we aim to support
all children achieving their capabilities, but each individual’s set of capabilities are also influenced
by their differences, and what each individual values, will also be influenced by their differences. As
an example, a child who lives in a community where written literature is rarely seen, and who
intends to work in her family business from a young age, may not value learning to read classical
literature. Whereas a child who lives in a society where classical literature is central to the cultural
norms, may value the capability of reading classical literature, and employ her freedom to achieve
this functioning. The literature on the capability approach includes several attempts at identifying
common capabilities that are valued by all individuals in educational settings (Nussbaum, 2002;
Biggeri, 2007). We prefer to adopt Sen’s theoretical stance that we cannot account for all
differences and, therefore, individual capabilities remain a theoretical construct until each one is
achieved or becomes an individual functioning (Sen, 1999). This stance means that we do not know
the individual capabilities of children in school until they are realized. In practice, then, we should
be cautious not to make assumptions about the capabilities of individual children, while ensuring
that each child has the freedom to achieve his or her capabilities.
If we define ‘disablement’ as ‘the outcome or result of a complex relationship between an
individual’s health condition and personal factors, and of the external factors that represent the
circumstances in which the individual lives’, (WHO, 2001, section 4.3), then we can understand
that both biology and experience are part of disablement. This dichotomous definition of disability
combines a medical model and a social model understanding of disability, which does not account
for the many types of differences experienced by individual children and the influence of freedom
on experience. In order to achieve true inclusion, in which children are educated alongside their
peers in their communities, but also have the freedom to achieve their capabilities, the literature
acknowledges that educators must ensure both placement and instruction meet the needs of the
student (Hehir, 2002).

292
 Understanding Inclusive Early Childhood Education

A Capability Approach in Early Childhood Education

The capability approach is a useful tool to evaluate early childhood education, the principles of
inclusion in early childhood education, and the equity of these practices. A capability approach has
in recent years been applied to the experience of children in educational settings, particularly
children with disabilities, by several educational theorists (Saito, 2003; Terzi, 2005a, 2005b).

Capabilities
Saito (2003) and Terzi (2005a, 2005b) both note that most capabilities are not yet realized or even
defined for children in the early years. Biggeri and colleagues have been working to identify a
universal index of capabilities for children and youth, but as noted above, trying to define universal
capabilities is limiting given the range of differences that contribute to that which an individual
values (Biggeri et al, 2006; Biggeri, 2007). Further, children may not yet have enough experience to
define what they value, which is why parents are often asked to speak for their children, an
approach that also has inherent limitations. Terzi (2008) points out that Sen (1992) has identified a
group of ‘basic’ capabilities that are critical to well-being and include the capability to be educated.
These basic capabilities can be understood to contribute to other more general capabilities. For
children, there are some capabilities that are part of an education, for example literacy. However,
literacy is just one of the many potential capabilities that are realized in an educational setting.
Early childhood educators are tasked with preparing children for later educational
experiences or enhancing their developmental trajectory. For children with disabilities, early
childhood education settings are also expected to meet a rehabilitative and/or preventative
function with regard to impairment. Early childhood education is expected to influence the
realization of capabilities for all children, but for children with disabilities, these goals may also
decrease freedom to achieve capabilities by not acknowledging fundamental differences in children.
Herein lies the tension in implementing early childhood education programs that meet the needs of
diverse children.

Difference
Fundamental to the application of the capability approach in understanding early childhood
inclusion is the concept of difference. As Reindal (2010) has described, the experience of difference
in the form of impairment is dependent not just on personal differences, such as through
impairments, but on all types of difference. The five areas of diversity inherent in Sen’s model
(1999) – the personal, environmental, social, relational, and familial – are all variables affecting the
experience of inclusion.
The right to early intervention and the right to inclusive early childhood education is a clear
illustration of the tension identified through the capability approach. Most early intervention
programs are built on a medical model of disability, which identifies pathological traits of children
and then intervenes to change the characteristics of the child to improve their achievements. For
example, Powell et al (2006) describe a cascade model of services where development of positive
family and community relationships and prevention practices are the first step. The second step is
targeted learning strategies, and the last step on the continuum is intensive individualized
interventions. Cascade models have been criticized because they assume that children with the
most ‘severe’ conditions require intensive one-on-one programs that are often not delivered in
inclusive settings, alongside their peers. This can detract from the freedoms of the child and their
family to participate in community-based and early childhood education settings. This model does
not account for the structural barriers experienced by the child who has the most severe condition.
If a capability approach is applied, then there should be an assumption of difference from the
outset, as well as an analysis of the ways in which the surrounding structures create inequalities and
undermine ethical considerations resulting from that difference. That is, children will have
individual differences, such as biological or genetic factors, as well as environmental differences
(e.g. exposure to toxins in utero), social differences (e.g. access to social supports such as post-natal
programming, cultural differences), relational differences (e.g. language minority or economic
status), and finally, family differences (e.g. differential treatment by family members).

293
Kathryn Underwood et al

The Relationship between Capabilities and Difference: functionings

Many families advocate for targeted programs, or programs that congregate children on the basis
of a disability. To illustrate the interaction of experiences of difference, we can consider an
example. A child with an intellectual disability is in an intensive cognitive therapy program, which
his parents have seen is improving his cognitive functioning. In order to receive this program, the
child cannot attend a kindergarten class in his local school because the two programs run at the
same time. Missing kindergarten will mean that he enters his neighbourhood peer group two years
later than the other children. The parents may decide that it is worth this risk because of the
significant cognitive gains that they see for their son. However, the freedom to make this choice,
and the consequences of this choice, will be dependent on a number of other factors. Some of these
factors include: the family’s capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of the two programs; the social
networks of the family; the neighbourhood the family lives in which can affect the likelihood of
other disabling conditions; or if the family has sufficient social status that they feel the child will be
able to gain acceptance in a peer group. Finally, family characteristics will affect the decisions made
by the family. For example, the family’s experience and education can affect whether they can offer
their child similar experiences to those taught in kindergarten or whether the family can afford the
costs associated with some intervention programs. One child might achieve functionings as a result
of participation in an intensive intervention program if their family has sufficient freedoms, while
another child might be set on an educational trajectory that keeps them from realizing their
capabilities.
There are two important components of implementing inclusive instruction which contribute
to the realization of capabilities in practice. A universal design for learning strategy assumes the
programs will be designed with consideration of the unique needs of all students in mind (Rose &
Meyer, 2000). Universal design then begins with the principle that all children experience
difference, and rather than grouping children into those who need differential supports and those
who do not, universal early childhood experiences should be integrated with early intervention
practices. Universal design should be done in conjunction with differentiated approaches,
approaches that are designed to meet specific needs of individual children (Tomlinson, 1999). In
order to access the intensity of intervention and supports needed in inclusive settings, explicit
planning in the form of universal design for intentional and embedded differentiated instruction is
needed.

Principles of Inclusive Early Childhood Education

In the international literature on early intervention programs, inclusion is repeatedly described as
one of the critical components of quality programming for young children with disabilities. In this
section we describe the findings of several international reviews on inclusive early childhood
intervention and education, and relate these findings to a capability approach. Three common
principles of inclusive practice are identified in the early childhood literature: (1) instruction must
be individualized for each child in all settings; (2) services must be delivered in inclusive settings,
including at home; and (3) there must be systemic support for inclusive practice through policy and
professional relationships (Booth et al, 2006; Guralnick, 2008; Lero, 2010; Frankel & Underwood,
2012). We consider these key principles in relation to programs that support equity for young
children with disabilities.

Individualized Instruction
Guralnick (2008) identifies several principles that can be described as instructional practices
specifically carried out by frontline staff – developmentally appropriate individualized
programming, partnering with families, and using evidence-based practice. These instructional
strategies are echoed in Frankel et al’s (2010) international review of principles of inclusive early
intervention. Frankel et al found that in Canada, the USA and Guyana it was critical that early
intervention strategies be embedded within existing early childhood programs, and that services
reflect the cultural beliefs and attitudes of the families and community (see also Frankel and
Underwood, 2012). Community-based programs, such as childcare settings or family homes, have

294
 Understanding Inclusive Early Childhood Education

been described as more natural settings than clinical settings (Dunst et al, 2000; Rantala et al, 2009).
However, within these settings it is critical that children have access to quality instruction in the
form of differentiated approaches to learning. Educators who differentiate, ‘use time flexibility, call
upon a range of instructional strategies, and become partners with their students so that both what
is learned and the learning environment are shaped to the learner’ (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 2).
Differentiated instruction is evident in quality early childhood settings using an emergent
curriculum that includes play as an instructional practice. Differentiation comes from the
philosophy of inclusive practice and is different from traditional approaches to intervention, that
are part of a medical tradition of diagnosis, rehabilitation and cure.
In order to ensure that differentiated instruction does not shift to traditional intervention, the
principles of universal design are critical in early childhood settings. Darragh describes Universal
Design for Early Childhood Education (UDECE) as an ‘ecological approach to supporting high
quality early childhood education for all children’ (2007, p. 168). UDECE involves examining all
aspects of early childhood education practice, including curriculum, physical spaces, social
interactions, staffing, etc., with the view each should be designed from the outset with all
stakeholders in mind.
Checklists designed to assess early childhood inclusion are available and list some common
features. SpeciaLink, a Canadian centre for inclusive child care, has published the SpeciaLink Child
Care Inclusion: practices profile and principles scale designed to be used as a tool to assess early
childhood inclusion (Lero, 2010). The SpeciaLink profile of practices indicates that quality inclusive
early childhood settings include adaptations in the physical environment and equipment and
materials, as well as Individual Program Plans (IPPs), involvement of all children, therapeutic
supports offered within the program, and well-trained and supportive staff. This tool for evaluating
early childhood inclusion principles and practices indicates that there are three dimensions of
quality inclusive practice that are similar to those listed in the Index for Inclusion (early years and
childcare edition) – individualized attention to supporting children with a range of abilities, written
policy supporting full inclusion practice, and active leadership supporting and mentoring inclusive
practice from the supervisor of the early childhood setting and/or the Board of Directors (Booth et
al, 2006).
In summary, individualized or differentiated instruction is described as best practice within
inclusive early childhood education. This approach is consistent with a capability approach, which
indicates that each individual has a unique set of capabilities and that relational interactions and
structural interactions in the social environment affect the achievement of these capabilities.

Inclusive Settings
Based on the Index for Inclusion (Booth et al, 2006) and the SpeciaLink Child Care Inclusion: practices
profile and principles scale (Lero, 2010), it seems that there is a clear mandate for inclusion through
explicit policy at both the program level and the systems level. According to Frankel and
Underwood (2012), early intervention practices are increasingly being provided within community
settings, such as childcare, education, and family support settings. Yet, programming approaches
for young children with disabilities range from intensive disability specific programs in clinical
settings, to supports that focus on social participation of children in their communities.
There are many programs that are designed to support children with particular conditions,
and many of these programs are considered to be extremely effective at improving developmental
outcomes for young children with disabilities (Guralnick, 1997). In a comparative study of Finnish
and US data, that made use of the Families in Natural Environments Scale of Service Evaluation
(FINESSE) scale for quality early intervention (McWilliam, 2000), Rantala et al (2009) found that
early intervention professionals in both countries valued family-centered practice in natural settings
over clinical practice despite the many differences in the early intervention systems that are in place
in the two countries. These findings are consistent with the principle that families are central to
inclusive practice described in other studies (Guralnick, 2011).
It is worth clarifying how families relate to the discussion of individual rights of children. Sen
(1999) does not specifically refer to how freedom applies to children, since children have not yet
had opportunity to exercise freedom and achieve functionality. Saito (2003), however, has outlined

295
Kathryn Underwood et al

a framework for using a capability approach with children. Saito (2003) says that education
supports children’s capability to exercise freedom and achieve functionality in the future. The
principles of early childhood inclusion indicate that children’s capabilities are connected to their
parents’ capabilities and freedoms. This is evident in the freedoms parents have to make choices on
behalf of their children. It should be noted that Sen’s model focuses on the individual and this
conception of the interrelated freedoms and capabilities of family members extends beyond a
capability approach.
Parents are an important developmental influence on the biological characteristics of
children, but so are experiences of a range of differences as described by Reindal (2010).
Additionally, all children do not develop at the same pace, particularly when they have some forms
of disablement. While the research on early development has highlighted the importance of the
early years, many children with neurological impairments will not meet the milestones of ‘school
readiness’ despite early intervention practices. The very concept of ‘school readiness’, it could be
argued, is incompatible with an inclusive philosophy and may lead to programs that do not account
for development after entry into school, and that do not recognize the differential pace of child
development, particularly for children with disabilities. Finally, some disabilities are a product of
experience, including poverty, discrimination, and poor quality early childhood experiences
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Peisner-Feinberger et al, 2001). Understanding the larger context of
child development is therefore critical in developing quality early childhood programs that respond
to a full range of differences. These programs should consider the supports that will prevent
impairment, but caution must be taken not to cause further impairment by socially isolating the
child or their family.

Systemic Support through Policy and Professional Relationships

Quality inclusive early childhood settings require supportive leadership from within the program
settings, as well as at the systemic level (Guralnick, 2008; Frankel & Underwood, 2012). This
understanding of inclusion is consistent with Sen’s (1999) description of difference, which includes
differences in access to support systems depending on where someone lives. This means that
responsibility for inclusion lies not only with supervisors in early childhood programs, but also with
policy makers. Frankel and Underwood (2012) describe several policies that promote inclusive
practices. These include: a commitment to enrolment that will include a proportion of children
with disabilities that is reflective of prevalence rates in the population; the creation of intentional
relationships that are designed to advance inclusion, including inter-agency collaboration and
communication; and a dedication to transdisciplinary team approaches. Leaders in the organization
and system must support staff development that focuses on individualized program planning,
program adaptations, and evaluation. These systemic contributors to inclusive programs are key to
inclusive practice (Guralnick, 2008; Frankel & Underwood, 2012). For example, Guralnick (2008)
describes the importance of integrated service systems across health, education, childcare, and
social services, and integration of the mechanisms for early identification and delivery of early
intervention.
A capability approach asserts that individuals experience a range of differences. These
multiple differences interact and affect the possibility that the individual will have the freedom to
turn capacity into functionality. There is real potential to meet the core principles of early
childhood education that are defined in the literature as individualized instruction, inclusive
practice, and systemic support for inclusion (Odom et al, 2004; Buysse & Hollingsworth, 2009). The
challenge is in ensuring that the fundamental principles of inclusion and difference are translated
into practice.
Guralnick (2008) notes that ‘a professional orientation toward children rather than families’
(p. 93) is a barrier to inclusive practice. He explains that programs that aim to ameliorate specific
developmental delays are problematic:
The tendency to want a ‘quick fix’ is also of concern. The quick-fix mentality (often meaning
seeking immediate and rapid progress) is in some ways understandable; as professionals and
parents all hope that much can be accomplished quickly through early intervention. Yet the
reality is that in most instances, many potential stressors exist and any developmental advances

296
 Understanding Inclusive Early Childhood Education

are most likely to result from the cumulative impact involving a longer term process. (2008,
p. 93)
One of the most important principles of systemic support for inclusion is transdisciplinary (Frankel
& Underwood, 2012), integrated, coordinated (Guralnick, 2008), and collaborative systems (Odom
et al, 2004) that work across disciplines and organizations. The many professionals working in early
intervention can support early childhood educators to meet the needs of children who experience
the range of differences described by Sen (1999). However, it is critical that early intervention is
part of universal early childhood programs in order to ensure children are not missing the complex
experiences that come from being part of a community. The relationships between individual and
social and structural differences can only be responded to with a flexible system that provides
universal responsibility for early childhood education. This system needs the capacity to provide
targeted programs that support developments to foster cultural identity, parental competence, and
individual success, and in turn, freedom to achieve capabilities as described by Sen (1999). Further,
if the universal programs have as an underlying purpose the requirement to meet the needs of all
children, then families and their children will have far more freedom in terms of achieving their
capabilities.

Conclusion
This article has examined the tensions that exist in meeting the needs of young children with
disabilities. This discussion has relied on research from countries in which there are a significant
number of social structures through which early childhood education is delivered. The experience
in countries where there are fewer structures through which to deliver these services, such as
public health organizations, space in elementary schools, trained professionals, and sufficient
resources, will dramatically change the freedoms experienced by children and their families. Early
childhood experiences are critical for development regardless of geographic or social location, but
may be even more important where these differences disadvantage children, particularly children
with disabilities. Quality early childhood education experiences that support all children have the
potential to influence the degree to which children experience freedom and greater social justice.
At the same time, as social justice is achieved in the community, there will be greater freedom to
focus on learning and supporting children with disabilities in early childhood settings.
Amartya Sen’s capability approach is an examination of community development through
economic and political activity (1992, 1999). We can understand community development to be
undertaken when we engage in activities to promote human development, such as early childhood
education and early intervention. The real issue is about deconstructing and dismantling the artifice
that has been created between inclusive practices and intervention approaches (an artifice which
springs from different perspectives, i.e. sociopolitical arguments versus ontological and
epistemological arguments), and integrating intervention, wholly and completely, within practices
of inclusion. The importance of access to education is remarked in the words of Sen:
The creation of social opportunities makes a direct contribution to the expansion of human
capabilities and the quality of life ... A country that guarantees health care and education to all
can actually achieve remarkable results. (1999, p. 144)

References
Biggeri, M. (2007) Children’s Valued Capabilities, in M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds) Amartya Sen’s
Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education, pp. 197-214. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., Mariani, S. & Menchini, L. (2006) Children Conceptualizing Their Capabilities:
results of a survey conducted during the first children’s world congress on child labour, Journal of Human
Development, 7, 59-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649880500501179
Booth, T., Ainscow, M. & Kingston D. (2006) Index for Inclusion: developing play, learning and participation in
early years and childcare. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

297
Kathryn Underwood et al

Buysse, V. & Hollingsworth, H.L. (2009) Program Quality and Early Childhood Inclusion: recommendations
for professional development, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 119-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121409332233
Darragh, J. (2007) Universal Design for Early Childhood Education: ensuring access and equity for all, Early
Childhood Education Journal, 35, 167-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0177-4
DEC/NAEYC (2009) Early Childhood Inclusion: a joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC)
and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10538151000230030501
Frankel, E. & Underwood, K. (2012). Early Intervention for Young Children, in I. Brown & M. Percy (Eds)
Developmental Disabilities in Ontario, 3rd edn. Toronto: OADD.
Frankel, E., Gold, S. & Ajodhia-Andrews, A. (2010) International Preschool Inclusion: bridging the gap
between vision and practice, Young Exceptional Children, 13(5), 2-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096250610379983
Guralnick, M. (Ed.) (1997) The Effectiveness of Early Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Guralnick, M. (2004) Effectiveness of Early Intervention for Vulnerable Children: a developmental
perspective, in M.A. Feldman (Ed.) Early Intervention: the essential reader, pp. 9-50. Oxford: Blackwell.
Guralnick, M. (2008) International Perspectives on Early Intervention, Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 90-101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053815107313483
Guralnick, M. (2011) Why Early Intervention Works: a systems perspective, Infants & Young Children, 24,
6-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e3182002cfe
Hehir, T. (2002) Eliminating Ableism in Education, Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1-32.
Lero, D. (2010) Assessing Inclusion Quality in Early Learning and Child Care in Canada with the SpeciaLink
Child Care Inclusion Practices Profile and Principles Scale. A Report Prepared for the Canadian Council
on Learning. Winnipeg, MB: SpeciaLink.
McWilliam, R.A. (2000) Families in Natural Environments Scale of Service Evaluation (FINESSE). University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/birthto3/finesse.pdf (accessed
September 10, 2010).
Nussbaum, M. (2002) Education for Citizenship in an Era of Global Connection, Studies in Philosophy of
Education, 21, 289-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019837105053
Odom, S., Hanson, M., Blackman, J. & S. Kaul, S. (Eds) (2003) Early Intervention Practices around the World.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Odom, S.L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., et al (2004) Preschool Inclusion in the United States: a review of
research from an ecological systems perspective, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4, 17-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00016.x
Powell, D., Dunlap, G. & Fox, L. (2006) Prevention and Intervention for the Challenging Behaviors of
Toddlers and Preschoolers, Infants & Young Children, 19, 25-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200601000-00004
Rantala, A., Uotinen, S. & McWilliams, R.A. (2009) Providing Early Intervention within Natural
Environments: a cross-cultural comparison, Infants & Young Children, 22, 119-131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181a02f98
Reindal, S.M. (2009) Disability, Capability, and Special Education: towards a capability-based theory, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, 155-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250902793610
Reindal, S.M. (2010) What is the Purpose? Reflections on Inclusion and Special Education from a Capability
Perspective, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 1-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250903450806
Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2000) Universal Design for Individual Differences, Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.
Saito, M. (2003) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach to Education: a critical exploration, Journal of Philosophy
of Education, 37(1), 17-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.3701002
Sen, A. (1992) Inequality Reexamined. New York: Russell Sage.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shonkoff, J.P. & Phillips, D.A. (Eds) (2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods. Washington DC: National
Academy Press.

298
 Understanding Inclusive Early Childhood Education

Terzi, L. (2005a) Beyond the Dilemma of Difference: the capability approach to disability and special
education needs, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39, 443-459.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2005.00447.x
Terzi, L. (2005b) A Capability Perspective on Impairment, Disability and Special Needs: towards social justice
in education, Theory and Research in Education, 3, 197-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878505053301
Terzi, L. (2008) Justice and Equality in Education: a capability perspective on disability and special educational needs.
New York: Continuum.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999) The Differentiated Classroom: responding to the needs of all learners. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill Education/ASCD.
Underwood, K. (2012) Mapping the Early Intervention System in Ontario, Canada, International Journal of
Special Education, 27(2), 125-134. http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/issues.cfm
UNESCO, World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality (June, 1994) The Salamanca
Statement and Framework for Action on special needs education. Salamanca, Spain.
United Nations General Assembly (2007) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [A/RES/61/106].
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f973632.html (accessed February 25, 2011).
Walker, M. & Unterhalter, E. (Eds) (2007) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230604810
World Health Organization (WHO) (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health
(ICF). Geneva: WHO.

KATHRYN UNDERWOOD* is an associate professor in the School of Early Childhood Studies,

Ryerson University, Canada. Her research is informed by an interest in human rights and education
practice, particularly with regard to disability rights and inclusive education. She has conducted
research in the areas of family–school relationships, special education policy and early intervention,
and effective teaching. Correspondence: kunderwood@ryerson.ca

ANGELA VALEO is an associate professor with the School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson
University, Canada. She has many years of elementary school teaching experience with the
Toronto Catholic District School Board. Areas of specialization and research concern the inclusion
of students with disabilities in pre-schools and elementary school classrooms. Correspondence:
avaleo@ryerson.ca

REBECCA WOOD holds a Masters in Early Childhood Studies from Ryerson University, Canada
and a Masters in Women and Gender Studies from the University of Toronto, Canada. Her main
areas of research apply a disability studies framework to consider the intersections
between language used in Early Childhood inclusion policies and constructions of Disability.
Her current work examines the history of care theory and its significance within Early Childhood
Education. Correspondence: becca.j.wood@gmail.com

*Contact author

299