Community Action Plan: Inclusion in All Early Learning Programs

EDUC 581 Course Project: Community Action Plan
#ECEINCLUSIONMATTERS!

Assessment: What does the problem look like and what is driving it?

Addressing the lack of inclusion in early learning programs despite federal mandates and 30 years of evidence-based studies.

There are a limited number of education settings that implement inclusive practices for all children despite decades of legislation that has been enacted since the 1954 Supreme Court ruling Brown vs. The Board of Education. This legislation includes the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA/IDEA) in 1975, the Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) ruling in 1982, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004, and Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (Smith, 2022). Despite these mandates, inclusionary practices and enrollment are still not widespread in early learning, care, and general education environments. I have dedicated my career to working with other agencies to change that.

According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), early childhood inclusion refers to allowing infants and young children and their families to participate fully in various activities and environments, regardless of ability, cultural background, language, race, gender, or economic status (NAEYC 2009). Lack of inclusive early learning is a widespread issue in the US, from small private programs to large federally and state funded organizations, and it disproportionately affects marginalized communities—particularly Black and Brown children—by limiting equitable access to quality early education (Wong, 2025).

Frequently, programs mandated to serve all children, such as public schools, assign children with significant disabilities or accommodation needs to specialized and separate settings—including Special Education (SpEd), Least Restrictive Classroom (LRC), or Resource rooms—where integration into general education and care environments is often limited. Such placements may not constitute the least restrictive environment (LRE), as established in Oberti v. Board of Education (1992), for these students. Disabled and neurodiverse children, along with their families, caregivers, and educators, are affected by this very systemic issue. When these children and families belong to marginalized groups and face socioeconomic challenges, they have an increased likelihood of lacking access to inclusive and high-quality care and education (Teachers.Institute, 2023) without inclusion mandates resulting in greater instances of social isolation as well as ongoing difficulties in obtaining support, resources, and required services. These circumstances can reduce protective factors such as parental resiliency, social-emotional competence, social connections (Center for Disease Control, 2025) and this creates additional barriers. This situation may impact a child's development and further complicate the ability of families to provide adequate support in the future.

With limited access to, and availability of, high-quality inclusive early learning and care settings, children and their families experience fewer protective factors and encounter more adverse experiences than their typically developing peers (CDC, 2025). This dynamic directly affects their sense of belonging and self-worth, both of which are essential components in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943), a psychological theory that continues to be broadly accepted within the fields of psychology and education and is believed to be the foundation that all further development and learning is built upon.

In our nation’s broader community, the effects of limited inclusion have been evident across multiple generations. In many public environments, disabled and neurodiverse individuals are not commonly represented or supported. As a result, these adults are often underrepresented in the workforce and are lacking specific programs and services needed to be successful. Many disabled and neurodiverse children and adults consequently experience isolation and lack access to the supports and services necessary to enable full participation in community and societal life (CDC, 2025).

Capacity: What do you have to work with and who can help?

The implementation of inclusion in general education and care settings is progressing gradually across all levels, but that progression varies widely without oversight. Independent small programs regularly enroll and serve children and families with disabilities on a case-by-case basis, while larger public-school systems in Washington State are being required to implement inclusive practices by the fall of 2025 (Richards, 2024). Prominent nationwide non-profit organizations such as NAEYC have consistently demonstrated their commitment to inclusionary practices since issuing their position statement in 2009. An excellent resource is the joint "Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs" from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, updated in November 2023, which provides a comprehensive list of resources to support inclusion state and federal levels.
On all levels we still need to accelerate inclusion efforts, as many children and families remain underserved due to limited programs and insufficient awareness of the legislative mandates.

There are currently insufficient services and supports for both caregivers and parents of disabled children, as well as for many disabled children themselves, should they need treatment for mental health, substance abuse, or trauma experienced. Many individuals need specialized treatment and care that may not be provided by general professionals. This situation can result in additional challenges and even trauma during already difficult circumstances. Disabled and neurodiverse children and adults may be misunderstood or improperly treated by law enforcement and medical personnel due to limited awareness and understanding. Without the presence of a specialised caregiver or advocate, these children may face an increased risk of mistreatment, neglect, or abuse. Addressing this issue will require greater social understanding, professional development, systemic change, and greater oversight/incentives.

In effort to bring about understanding and change over several decades, there have been many public awareness campaigns for inclusion, sometimes coupled with disability awareness, done around the world over the course of many years. Locally, information about inclusive practices and behavior is included in public school curriculum through anti-bullying and disability awareness campaigns as well as social-emotional curriculums like Second Step. A quick Google search turned up the recent Accessibility and Inclusion for All. This video is a great example and raises some very solid points about the importance of inclusion and the negative impact when it is not a consistent part of societal systems.

Due to the developmental needs of their children and required accommodations, caregivers value the existence of inclusive programs and early intervention support. Their participation is often Education Program (IEP) developed within a deficit-based framework (Marchman & Weisleder, 2013) rather than a multi-tiered support model. Disparities in access to high-quality, inclusive childcare as well as healthcare exist based on income, insurance status, and marginalized identities, both locally and nationally. Socioeconomic Status (SES) matters (Education Eureka, 2021). Many providers limit care to those who can pay, particularly affecting low- and middle-income groups, BIPOC families, disabled individuals, and LGBTQIA+ households. Programs often decline certain insurance types or claim their state insurance slots are full. Insurance may deny coverage for out-of-network or secondary plans. Language, technology barriers, and time constraints further complicate navigation since programs operate independently.

As leaders in the field of early learning, it’s our responsibility to establish and maintain the highest possible quality in early learning programs, given the constraints families may face in their available choices. Various organizations are committed to narrowing the widening disparities. Programs such as Puget Sound ESD, a grantee supporting many of our Head Start, Early Head Start, and ECEAP (inclusive) programs in King County. ARC of King County, which provides complimentary support and educational resources for adults with disabilities and families of children with disabilities. Locally in the child care sector we have BrightSpark, offering free resources and training to families and providers in early childhood education and care, exemplify the existing support landscape. And nationally we have NAEYC, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, whose mission is to “promote high-quality early learning for each and every child, birth through age 8, by connecting practice, policy, and research. (They) advance a diverse, dynamic early childhood profession and support all who care for, educate, and work on behalf of young children.” (NAEYC, 2024)

Greater collaboration between programs, rather than operating in isolation, could significantly reduce the time and effort required by families, minimize overlap, and streamline both support services and timelines. Although collaborative forums within the nonprofit early childhood education sector, involving DCYF, CCAWA, and the City of Seattle Early Learning, have made progress, further work remains. Establishing a community liaison role dedicated to fostering and sustaining partnerships would be an excellent initial step. Such a position would help cultivate responsive programs and communities, ensuring that services are both desired and necessary, and accessible to those most in need.
Long-standing inclusive public early learning programs and non-profits, like Head Start, Early Head Start, ECEAP, and ESIT programs, provide high-quality early learning and care, but demand far exceeds available slots—even if every ECE program in King County were fully inclusive and open to all.

Implementing more inclusive early learning programs, investing in prevention of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and promoting early protective factors, enacting policy reform to match the science, and providing low- or no-cost access to high-quality early learning, care, and intervention programs for all—along with universal healthcare and nutrition services—would establish a strong foundation for success of our youngest members of society. This long-term approach would entail substantial initial investment but is projected to yield significant short-term rewards and pay for itself within ten years (California Newsreel, 2015).


Planning: What are you going to do about it?

Fig. 1 - Outcome Map (See infographic attached)

Fig. 2 - Logic Model (Wright & Jaffe, 2014) - See infographic attached

Assumptions & External Factors:

My objective is to see inclusion in all early learning and care environments, beginning with those that are publicly funded, like the ECEAP program I work for in the Issaquah School District.

The objectives could change over time depending on the focus of the early learning department, needs of each child and family, as well as staff commitment to inclusive placement, practices, and what is written in the individualized education plans.

Issaquah School District has made a commitment to high-quality, inclusive practices and most of the teaching staff are already knowledgeable about the need for and benefit of inclusion. This will allow them to help educate administrative staff and the public, who are decision-makers, so that budget, policy and procedures are being created around inclusion as part of our high-quality early learning programming for all ECE students, not just ECEAP.

External factors include budget, staffing, and current political climate. Lack of oversight, ongoing training, and program alignment could also derail movement forward. Support and oversight from the top down, documenting the advantages of inclusion and how it is positively impacting child and program outcomes matters in the success of this advocacy work towards inclusion in all publicly funded early learning programs.

Key Stakeholders
• Issaquah School District (ISD) – the overarching host program
• ISD Early Learning Programs: ECE, ECEAP, ISD PreK, Transitional Kindergarten (TK)
• PSESD as the grantee and oversight program
• ISD Staff
• ISD families and students
• ISD School Board
• ISD SPED PTA
• ISD Foundation

Implementation: Do it! + Evaluation: Did it work?

Evaluation Questions
• Is Inclusion happening in every early learning classroom in our publicly funded school (and beyond)?
• How?
• What more is needed?
• What can be changed?
• Who else can support this work?
• What, if any, specific feedback is there from staff, families, administrators?

Evaluation Method
• Evaluations will happen every time a classroom is enrolling with a student body at the beginning of each school year, during individual child placement/enrollment throughout the school year, and at Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings for all early learning programs within Issaquah School District.
• Informal evaluations will be done at quarterly ECEAP interdisciplinary meetings, monthly early learning meetings, and weekly staff check-ins, in addition to email and informal confidential conversations.
• Regular formal and informal observations inform ongoing child assessments in the classroom and are shared at informal and formal meetings between staff and families, particularly conferences held every 2 months and yearly IEP meetings.
• Future addition of staff and family surveys would be a great way to see how folks are feeling about their experience with inclusion in our early learning programs.

Data Collection Methods
• IEP’s, Emails, formal and informal observations and meetings.

Budget

The budget is currently not a significant consideration as this Inclusion Matters work is being done concurrently with day-to-day program work on micro and mezzo levels. Advocacy work done around Inclusion on a macro level will be done on a voluntary basis with cost being out-of-pocket relating to time, gas, and advocacy materials as needed.

References

Smith, L. (2022, December 28). Inclusive Education Timeline: A Journey Towards Equality. NAASIN.org. Retrieved September 28, 2025, from https://naasln.org/history-of-inclusive-education-timeline/

DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the division of 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.

Wong, A. (2023, May 25). How to Cover Disparities in Early Childhood Education Systems. EWA.org. Retrieved October 20, 2025, from https://ewa.org/data-research-tips/why-theres-inequitable-access-to-early-childhood-education

Teachers.Insitute (2023, November 2). Creating an Inclusive School Understanding Social Exclusion and Inclusion: Impact on Education and Society. Teachers.Institute. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://teachers.institute/creating-an-inclusive-school/social-exclusion-inclusion-impact-education-society/#google_vignette

Center for Disease Control (2025, April 3). Disability Barriers to Inclusion. Www.cdc.gov. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.cdc.gov/disability-inclusion/barriers/index.html

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. In Psychological Review, 50 (4), 430-437.

Richards, M. T. (2024, May 2). Washington State Implements New Inclusive Learning Law: What You Need to Know. Www.kpq.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://kpq.com/washington-state-implements-new-inclusive-learning-law-what-you-need-to-know/

US department of Education & US department of Health and Human Services (2023, November 28). Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs. ED Blogs US Department of Education. Retrieved September 28, 2025, from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/policy-statement-on-inclusion-11-28-2023.pdf

Upshur, C.C., Heyan, M., & Wenz-Gross, M. (2017) Efficacy trial of the Second Step Early Learning (SSEL) curriculum: Preliminary outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 50, 15-25.

[World Economic Forum]. (2019) Accessibility and Inclusion for All [Video]. You Tube. https://www.bing.com/search?q=public+awareness+campaign+for+inclusion&form=ANNTH1&refig=68d8cc43c65e4ec4b076bbf61c56ba09&pc=HCTS

Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2), pp234–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12019

Education Eureka (2025). Creating an Inclusive School Understanding Social Exclusion and Inclusion: Impact on Education and Society. EducationEureka.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://educationeureka.com/socioeconomic-status-and-access-to-quality-education-bridging-the-opportunity-gap/

PSESD (n.d.). Www.Psesd.org. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.psesd.org/

ARC of King County (n.d.). Www.Arcofkingcounty.org. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://arcofkingcounty.org/

BrightSpark (n.d.). Www.Brightspark.org. Retrieved October 12, 2025, from https://www.brightspark.org/

California Newsreel, & Vital Pictures (Producers), & . (2015). Are We Crazy About Our Kids?: The Cost/Benefit Equation. [Video/DVD] California Newsreel. https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/are-we-crazy-about-our-kids-the-cost-benefit-equation

Wright, A. C., & Jaffe, K. J. (2014). Step 6—reinforcing successful advocacy outcomes. In Step 6—Reinforcing successful advocacy outcomes (pp. 165-181). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387888.n9

Wright, A. C., & Jaffe, K. J. (2014). Step 5—conducting strategic follow-up. In Step 5—Conducting strategic follow-up (pp. 149-164). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387888.n8

(2024). Logic Model Development Guide. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. file:///C:/Users/nanny/Downloads/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf

Graduate Student Kris Jones (2025, September 28). Advocacy Journal. MEd in ECE. Retrieved October 26, 2025, from https://www.eceinclusionmatters.org/