Inclusive Early Childhood Education

(IECE)
Project Insights and Contributions
Overview of presentation
• The Agency
• The Inclusive Early Childhood Education project overview
o Project activities
o Project practical work
o Project outcomes and outputs
The Agency
• An independent organisation that acts as a platform for collaboration for the
ministries of education in member countries
• Our mission is to help member countries improve their inclusive education policy
and practice for all learners
• Our work is in line with and directly supports international and European Union
policy initiatives on education, equity, equal opportunities and rights for all learners
• Co-funded by the member countries’ ministries of education and the
European Commission’s Erasmus+ Programme
Position on Inclusive Education Systems
Vision for inclusive education systems…

...all learners of any age are provided with meaningful, high-

quality educational opportunities in their local community,
alongside their friends and peers
Currently
• 31 member countries: Austria, Belgium (Flemish and
French speaking communities), Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and
United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)

• Secretariat in Odense, Denmark

• European Liaison office in Brussels, Belgium
Key activities

• Provide information for member countries on their progress and developments

with regards to inclusion
• Thematic projects focusing on priority topics identified by member countries
• Data collection and statistics
• Information dissemination
• Organisation of special events (European Hearings, conferences, thematic
seminars, workshops and meetings)
Inclusive Early Childhood Education (IECE)
(2015-2017)
The IECE Project
Aims: “To identify, analyse and subsequently promote the main characteristics
of quality inclusive early childhood education for all children from three years
of age to the start of primary education.”
Target group: Preschool education for children from 3 years to primary
education.
Participants:
•28 countries/64 experts (a practitioner and researcher)
•Project Advisory Group
•In co-operation with: EU Commission, Eurydice, OECD, UNESCO, International
Society on Early Intervention
Project Activities – Data collected
• A literature and policy review
• Descriptions of example IECE settings (32 from 28 countries)
• Case study visits to 8 examples in different countries
• Country questionnaire on national policy and practice
• The development of a Self-Reflection Tool for review of IECE settings
• The adaptation of an Ecosystem Model of IECE for planning, implementing,
and reviewing IECE provision.
• A project web area on the Agency’s website: www.european-
agency.org/agency-projects/inclusive-early-childhood-education
Added Value of IECE Project based on
new conceptualisaton of Quality in IECE
Project developed a new way of framing the definition of quality in IECE
through the combination of three existing quality frameworks:
•Structure-process-outcome framework (e.g. OECD, 2009; European
Commission, 2014);
•Ecological systems framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Odom et al.,
2004).
•Inclusive education framework (European Agency, 2015).
Structure-process-outcome framework
• Structures: conditions in IECE setting, surrounding community, region and
country, that influence the quality of children’s experiences (e.g. staff
qualifications)
• Processes: all interactions of children with the staff, peers and the physical
environment of the IECE that have a direct impact on their wellbeing,
engagement and learning.
• Outcomes: the impact that the structures and processes have on the
children’s wellbeing, engagement and learning.
Ecological systems framework
Considers complex evolving influences on children arising from their
interactions and interrelations between them and all the surrounding
systems
•in the IECE setting/home (Micro-systems)
•community (Meso-systems) and
•region/country (Macro-systems).
Inclusive Education framework
The project also assumed that quality early childhood provision needs to be
characterised as an inclusive system as described in the Agency position
paper:
The ultimate vision for inclusive education systems is to ensure that all
learners of any age are provided with meaningful, high‐quality
educational opportunities in their local community, alongside their
friends and peers (European Agency, 2015, p. 1).
Main Project Value Added Outcomes/Contributions
towards the improvement of quality IECE
1. Demonstrated how an inclusive vision can ensure high-quality early childhood
education services that benefit all children through enabling each child’s
belongingness, engagement and learning.
2. Adapted an Ecosystem Model of Inclusive Early Childhood Education to
support collaborative policy, research and practice in the planning,
implementation, and review of IECE provision.
3. Developed a Self-Reflection Tool to support practitioners to review their
service’s quality in terms of the inclusiveness of the physical, social and other
learning environments it offers to children and families.
Ecosystem Model of Quality IECE

• Inspired by combination of three frameworks:

• Structure-process-outcome framework (e.g. OECD, 2009).
• Ecological systems framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Odom et al., 2004).
• Inclusive education framework (European Agency, 2015).
• Grounded in the project data.
• Sets out the key factors of quality IECE in five dimensions within three ecological
system levels.
• Enables collaboration among policy makers, researchers and practitioners.
Dimension 1: Inclusion OUTCOMES

IECE practitioners worked towards the goal

of enabling each child to belong – be a
valued member of the group, to be engaged
in regular activities, and to acquire relevant Child
learning. Belongingness
Engagement &
Learning
Dimension 1: Inclusion Outcomes Child
Belongingness
Engagement &

(cont …)
Learning

Practitioners underlined that children differ in many ways. It is essential

to attend to each child’s progress, rather than the absolute levels of
competence achieved by any individual.
Examples welcome and value each child within a creative, supportive
learning community, where everyone belongs and enjoys positive
relationships with both the staff and peers.
 Child

Dimension 1: Inclusion outcomes (cont…) Belongingness

Engagement &
Learning

All children are invited and enabled to:

•use their strengths;
•exercise their curiosity and self-direction;
•make choices, particularly in play;
•express interests and goals and engage in problem-solving accordingly;
•be motivated for and engage in valued activities alongside and in interaction
with their peer group, with guidance and relevant support as necessary.
Dimension 2:
Processes within the setting Positive
Social
Interaction

Children are directly

involved in these five Accommodation/ Involvement in
processes that enable them Adaptations and Child
Daily Activities
Support
to belong, to be engaged Belongingness
Engagement &
and to learn Learning

Personalised
Child-Centered
Assessment for
Approach
Learning
Dimension 3: Structures within the setting
Family Involvement

Inclusive Welcome for

Leadership Positive Social
Each Child
Interaction
Collaboration
 
Accommodations/ Involvement in
Adaptations and Daily Activities
Child
Support
Belongingness Holistic
Engagement & Curriculum for All
Learning
Cultural
Responsiveness
Environment for All
Children
Personalised
Child-Centered
Assessment for
Approach
Learning

Appropriate
Staff Qualification
Dimension 4: Structures within the community
Family
Involvement Relevant
Smooth
Inclusive In-Service
Transitions Training
Leadership Welcome for
Positive Social Each Child  
Interaction
Collaboration
 
Accommodations/A Involvement in
daptations and Child Daily Activities
Support Belongingness
Engagement &
Holistic
Curriculum for All
Learning
Cultural
Responsiveness
Inter- Environment for
Disciplinary/ Personalised All Children
Inter-Agency Child-Centered Community
Assessment for
Co-operation Learning
Approach Commitment

Appropriate Staff
Qualification
Dimension 5: Structures at regional/national level
Rights-Based
Approach
Research  
on IECE

Family Mainstream
Involvement Access for All

Monitoring Inclusive Positive Welcome for

Leadership Social Each Child
and
Evaluation Collaboration   Interaction  

Accommodations Involvement
Adaptations Child in Daily Relevant
Smooth
and Support Belongingness, Activities In-Service
Transitions
  Engagement   Holistic Training
and Learning Curriculum for All  
Cultural  
 
Responsiveness
Personalised Child-
Assessment Centred Child- Environment For
Personalised All Children
for Learning
Assessment Approach
Centred National
  Approach  
Good for Learning Curriculum
Governance   Standards
and Funding Inter-Disciplinary/  
Community
Inter-Agency Appropriate Commitment
Co-operation
Staff Qualification

Initial Teacher Education

for IECE
 
Recommendations within the model

e.g.
To ensure that children’s active participation and learning in IECE becomes a
main goal of IECE provisions, policy-makers should:
1. Support local IECE providers to reach out pro-actively to children and
families and listen to their voices.
2. Create the conditions for IECE settings to secure not only children’s
attendance, but also their engagement once they are there.
Model links micro provisions to macro policy
E.g. Access issues: ‘Rights-based approach’ essential for regional/national
policy-makers (outer circle) to legislate and fund entitlement of all learners to
access mainstream provision; but also highlights that same attitude is
essential for leadership and practitioners at IECE setting level to ensure
‘Welcome’ and accommodation for all children and families in the community.
Staff quality: Initial teacher education for IECE may be primarily a regional/
national responsibility (outer circle in the Figure). On the other hand, the
employment of qualified staff and their continuing up-skilling is more closely
linked to the responsibilities of IECE settings (inner circle in the Figure).
Model clarifies different types and levels of
family involvement
• Examples of enhancing children’s engagement in meaningful learning
by involving parents within the IECE outdoor and indoor setting (in
the first circle).
• In addition, examples worked with families in the community (second
circle).
Development of a Self-Reflection Tool
• Early in the project, there was a need for a tool that all professionals and
staff could use to reflect on their setting’s inclusiveness.
• Inspiration for the observation tool from well-established instruments on
inclusion in early childhood education environment.
• Aimed to provide a snapshot of the environment from the perspective of
the IECE project’s key question: “What are the main characteristics of
quality inclusive early childhood education settings for all children?”
• Used during site-visits in inclusive early childhood education settings in
eight countries.
Focus of the Self-Reflection Tool
• The focus of this self-reflection tool is on increasing the capacity of inclusive
early childhood education environments to enable the participation of all
children, in the sense of attending and being actively engaged in activities and
interaction.
• Engagement is defined as being actively involved in everyday activities of the
setting, and is the core of inclusion. It is closely related to learning and to the
interaction between the child and the social and physical environment.
Content of the Self-Reflection Tool
Eight aspects are addressed in the tool:

• Overall welcoming atmosphere • Materials for all children

• Inclusive social environment • Opportunities for communication for all
• Child-centered approach • Inclusive teaching and learning environment
• Child-friendly physical environment • Family friendly environment

Each aspect is covered by a set of questions that require a qualitative response.

Validation of the Self-Reflection Tool
A validation process was performed in three steps:
•An expert panel (25 European experts in IECE) used and reflected on the
observation tool (OT)at the final site visit.
•Focus groups to validate the Self-Reflection Tool as appropriate and useful
for the review of IECE environments were conducted by researchers and
graduate students in three European Universities.
•Individual cognitive interviews to explore the extent to which practitioners,
leaders of pre-schools, parents, academic staff consider the tool
comprehensive and culturally appropriate.
Uses of the tool
The self-reflection tool may be used for a number of purposes:
(a)to provide a picture of the state of inclusiveness in the setting;
(b)to serve as a basis for discussions about inclusion;
(c)to describe, formulate and prioritise areas for improvement in inclusive practice.

The tool can be used flexibly, is being published in all EU languages, and is expected
to be used by IECE settings across Europe.
Project Outputs
Publications:
•Agency summary of literature on inclusive early childhood education
•Inclusive Early Childhood Education: An analysis of 32 European examples
•Inclusive Early Childhood Education Project: Final Summary Report
•Inclusive Early Childhood Education Environment Self-Reflection Tool
Other electronic documents
•8 separate Case study visit reports
•32 separate Country Reports on national policy and practice in IECE
Contact
www.european-agency.org

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education

Østre Stationsvej 33, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark

secretariat@european-agency.org
Tel: +45 64 41 00 20