Early Intervention for Special Needs Children Essay

The development and implementation of beforehand(predicate) preventative fargonivities for new-fashioned electric s involverren who take away a delay or who be at risk for future delays are relatively recent phenomena in the United States. Early discussion as an applied and academic sphere has developed primarily within the exceptionalty subject of azoic childishness special education (ECSE), a field comprised of professionals from umteen disciplines. The genesis of ECSE in the United States may be traced to the formation, in 1968, of the Handicapped Childrens Early Education Program (HCEEP) branch within the United States Department of Education.Although other work had occurred in primal intervention prior to this time, the establishment of HCEEP provided national recognition and federal funds to address aboriginal intervention issues. Since 1968, rapid changes have occurred in the field of early intervention. The nigh significant event affecting on early interve ntion was the pass eld of Public Law 99-457 (P. L. hereafter) in 1986. This law mandates education for handicapped children timed three to five years and provides both impetus and funding for early intervention for children teenageer than age three.From the viewpoint of an outside observer, the passage of only eighteen years from the establishment of a specialty area to that specialty area demonstrating efficacy such that its tenets become law is admir adequate. However, these tenets, and the practices derived from them, are handbagd on question that has recently received disconfirming reviews. It is clear that ECSE has done well, but many ch anyenges remain to be met. disappointment to conquer these ch onlyenges could result in a loss of valuable ground that many have worked ponderous to achieve. Early Evidence for Early InterventionAs the fields of special education and early childhood education evolved, evidence were accumulating that early intervention could be effective. In a classic study, Skeels (1966) examined the set up of environmental stimulation on two comparable groupings of infants. Mentally retarded females acted as surrogate mothers for one group (n = 13), providing these children with attention and stimulation. Twelve infants with average IQs remained in a nonstimulating orphanage environment. Eighteen months later, the stimulated infants gained an average 27. 5 IQ points while the control group dropped 26.2 points. Twenty-one years later, Skeels (1966) continued to find differences amidst those who were placed in the enriched environment and those who were not. Of those in the experimental group, all were found to be self-supporting as adults. Four of these adults had completed college and, as a group, had a median value high-school education. Of those in the control group, four adults had been institutionalized. The median education for these adults was at the third-grade level. Additional evidence came from the work of Kirk (1965 ), who studied handicapped preschoolers.He compared institutionalized mentally handicapped preschoolers who received a preschool program with a comparable group who remained on the wards and received no intervention services. Children in the experimental program showed significant gains on intellectual measures. Six of the fifteen-experimental group children were able to leave the institution by age eight, while none of the children in the control group go away the institution. Works researched provided additional evidence for the value of early intervention.Based upon these studies, the consensus emerged that childrens cognitive skills develop early in life and very rapidly, and that early enrichment can have profound influences on a childs future functioning. Although this consensus is no longer accepted without question, this philosophy, nevertheless, played a major(ip) role in the acceptance of early intervention and helped to create a social climate for legislating favoring h andicapped children. legislative Activities Both research and societal factors converged to provide momentum for the early intervention movement in the 1960s.The changing social climate in the United States in the 1960s led to the passage of favorable formula for several groups. Litigative and legislative activities occurred in the areas of civil rights, rights for the disadvantaged, and rights for the handicapped. A breakthrough for early intervention, focusing on disadvantaged children, was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Part of this act was directed at the establishment of Project fountainhead Start. This program was designed to provide early intervention for disadvantaged preschool children in the research found that these IQ gains disappeared after the children entered school.Based on societal and political pressures, Head Start continued despite the negative research findings. Arguments by researchers who questioned the findings and suggested that unmeasurable gains were being do bolstered the pro-Head Start forces. The results of a nineteen-year longitudinal study on children who participated in Head Start (the Perry Pre-school Project) found a human activity of substantiative results. These benefits included (a) less carry for special education, (b) more substantiating school attitudes, (c) less arrests, (d) less teen pregnancy, and (e) better employment histories. another(prenominal) research has supported these findings. As an early intervention program, Head Start is the most well-known in the United States and has served over eight million preschoolers. Additionally, Head Start has had a major impact on early intervention for children with handicaps. The Economic Opportunity Acts Amendments of 1972 mandated that at least 10% of the total population served by Head Start be children with handicaps, giving Head Start the status of the first mandated, mainstreamed early intervention program in the United States.This occurred well before the concept of mainstreaming became popular in special education. One of the most important pieces of legislation regarding young children with handicaps was the Handicapped Childrens Early Education helper Act of 1968. This act established the Handicapped Childrens Early Education Program of the Department of Education, which has been obligated for funding the majority of innovative service projects in early intervention that occurred in the United States. This legislation may be viewed as the formal beginning of the field of early intervention for the handicapped.HCEEP programs will be discussed more fully later in this chapter in the section on current practices. The next major legislation to affect early intervention activities was an act that impacted significantly on educational practices for all handicapped childrenthe Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P. L. 94-142). P. L. 94-142 provided for a publish, appropriate public education with link up services to all children with handicaps mingled with the ages of three and twenty-one years. This act has been called the Bill of Rights for children with handicaps.The overall impact of this act on educational practice has been discussed in other places. While this act documented acceptance of the motivating for early intervention by the federal government, it also provided individual supposes with the option not to serve these young children. Unfortunately, this was an option many states adopted. In 1985, only twenty-four of the fifty states had mandated services for handicapped children under age five and only eight states had mandated services for handicapped children under age three. Although P. L.94-142 had a major impact on such intervention, supporters of early intervention were aware of the implementation problems involved in serving young children. As a result of successes with preschool early intervention, the need for services for even younger children was being heralded. int ercourse responded to these calls for early intervention in 1983 by passing the Amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act (P. L. 98-199). These amendments provided financial incentives for states to acquit early intervention service levels down to birth.Unfortunately, funding remained dependent upon the number of children served between the ages of three and five, and the act, in effect, diluted the funding available for the three- to five-year-old children. Also, incentives built into these amendments to encourage individual state participation were weak and ineffectual. Lobbying groups for early intervention continued their activities to push through a law mandating early intervention for all young children with handicaps. In 1986, Congress responded by passing P. L.99-457, (Amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act). P. L. 99-457 mandated that all preschool-aged children with handicaps receive a free and appropriate education by 1991. This law provided penaltie s for states that did not conform to the law. In addition, P. L. 99-457 created a new state grant program for infants and toddlers with handicaps. The passage of P. L. 99-457 has signaled a new era for early intervention. The federal government has acknowledge the need for early intervention (at least at the preschool level) and has provided funds to support it.P. L. 99-457 is also significant in other ways. Children need not be classified into narrowly defined categories to receive services. The importance of the family in development has been heavily emphasized, especially for those children under age three years. For infants and toddlers, the definition of what constitutes intervention services has been broadened. For all children, a wide variety of possible intervention options has been acknowledged. It is clear that the passage of P. L. 99-457 is not the final moderate for advocates of early intervention.Concerns regarding how states will implement preschool services and how service policies will be defined remain. Questions regarding services for infants and toddlers are just beginning to be addressed. Many problems still exist, but Public Law 99-457 represents a major accomplishment for advocates of early intervention and a benefit for the children and families who will receive services. Problems in the Present Currently, early intervention activities regarding the development of and research on best practices are occurring.However, there is a growing aptness to question some of what has been accomplished by early intervention. Questions have arisen concerning the research on which early intervention activities are based and on the data from which costs have been obtained. These particular areasresearch and costshave traditionally provided a foundation for early intervention. This report briefly reviews concerns regarding knowledge of costs and the research base of early intervention. Early Intervention ResearchIn a review of reviews, White, Bush, an d Casto (1985-86) found overwhelming promise that early intervention is effective (94% of fifty-two studies). Unfortunately, they also found that a number of these reviews based this self-reliance primarily or solely on studies done with disadvantaged children. The benefits of early intervention for disadvantaged children are not a major issue of contention. Controversy ensues when these findings are over generalized to children with handicaps. A number of well-conducted reviews of early intervention for handicapped children has been completed.These reviews have been cautious with their conclusions, but overall the findings have been kind of negative, particularly regarding the validity of the studies. Dunst, Snyder, and Mankinen (1987) found that 71% of the forty-nine studies they reviewed used methods that made the results scientifically uninterpretable. Other researchers essentially agreed with the Dunst, Snyder, and Mankinen findings. They then attempted to argue that the la ck of effectiveness found for early intervention programs was a result of the nature of studies in early intervention.Researchers used meta-analytic techniques to examine a number of common assumptions made regarding early intervention programs and found little empirical support for those assumptions. An extremely comprehensive review by Dunst, Snyder, and Mankinen ( 1987), which examined 105 studies by degree of causality and by type of child served, was no more positive for the early intervention movement. These authors stated that any conclusions regarding the efficacy of early intervention must be considered conditional and conditional.They noted that there is insufficient evidence at this time to conclude that there are cause-effect relationships between the interventions and outcomes observed. Dunst and associates further stated, in agreement with Casto and Mastropieri (1986), that children in early intervention programs do make positive developmental and behavioral changes a cross time but that the extent to which the interventions are responsible for observed effects is difficult to ascertain (p. 285 ). Some researchers have been critical of reviews of early intervention because they tend to exclude single-subject methodological analysis research.Many of the problems in reviewing this literature base are related to the subjective nature of comparing this research, as no standard metric is employed across studies. Reviews of the single-subject literature in early intervention have been conducted and are favorable but have not significantly refuted other reviews. Single-subject studies do show muscular evidence for a functional relationship between dependent and independent variables. These single-subject studies usually focus on a narrow, well-defined objective.Although this is useful for demonstrating functional relationships, it represents only parts of the whole of an early intervention program. Also, these studies are usually conducted under rigoro us investigative control, a feature not available in most early intervention programs. Successful programs frequently have problems when disseminated for use by a wider audience. Also, many single-subject studies do not sufficiently address generalization and maintenance issues. Researchers provide suggestions for single-subject research in early intervention, many of which are identical to those that need to be addressed by group research.