Asia-Pacific Regional Perspectives on Inclusion and ECCE/ECD

The Asia-Pacific Regional Network for Early Childhood (ARNEC) held its first e-discussion on “inclusion in the context of early child care and education (ECCE)/early childhood development (ECD)” from June 7-18 2010. During this discussion, 18 experts and professionals from 13 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as two co-moderators, participated. This document is a synopsis.

The discussion centred on “inclusion in ECCE/ECD” from the following four aspects: 1) definition of “inclusion”; 2) specific issues on inclusion; 3) challenges in realising inclusive ECCE/ECD; and 4) practices to ensure an inclusive ECCE/ECD.

As reported here, the meaning of “inclusion” was the most discussed topic. There was agreement that all children should be receive benefit of the ECCE/ECD focus irrespective of physical, social, intellectual, emotional, or other specificities, with special attention to children who are marginalised or vulnerable, as well as those with special needs or from lower castes. Second, each child should be entitled the right to have a learning opportunity that supports his or her all-around development and helps create a sense of belonging. Third, inclusion should be the responsibility of all, not only teachers and schools. Pre-service exposure and training for inclusion may help build awareness. Collaborative team approaches in classrooms are recommended. Specialised knowledge to address needs, such as sign language, should be available.

Parent involvement is thought to be a major component in bridging the home-school partnership as well as spreading inclusion to a wider society. Issues to address include the extra support necessary for marginalised children and their families and some resistance to inclusion from parents of the non-marginalised.

Barriers to inclusion include:

• Political barriers such as lack of policy and uniformity in policy implementation, lack of financial support from the government, lack of adequate information at policy levels, and policy splits along administrative lines, e.g. education versus social welfare departments.
• Social barriers such as: segregation; lack of physical access for all to buildings; lack of community acceptance; pressure to conform (socio-culturally); and social standards or norms that deny access, lead to misconceptions and labelling, and result in lack of collaboration with families.
• Inexperience or Lack of Capability
• Cultural Barriers
• Geographical Barriers

The following are among suggested actions:

• Encouraging Family and Parental Involvement
  
• Promoting the Concept of Inclusion and Practice: promotion through organisational partnerships; parental skill and awareness-building as part of government outreach; training and pre-service sessions on inclusion; monitoring and assessing of ECCE/ECD for inclusion; and more individualised educational practices.
  
• Improving Policy Initiatives and Governance: policy formation and advocacy; grass-roots inclusion by government bodies; reinforcement of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC); and school policy, standards, and curriculum development for inclusion.
  
• Improving Social Acceptance: increased social interactions to break down barriers; exposure to inclusion early; appreciation of the local culture and teachers’ and parents’ views; exposure to each other’s needs and way of life; and clear communication channels between various levels of society.

Examples of inclusive educational practices and policies are listed by country. The document concludes with an analysis of the e-discussion process. It was observed that higher participation would be valuable, perhaps prohibited by language barriers. Moderator comment could then be decreased. Two weeks was thought to be an appropriate discussion period, as long as pre-discussion announcements and reminders are given. A list of probes and questions sent in advance was described as giving useful guidelines for discussion.