Of Helping and Measuring for Early Childhood Intervention: Reflections on Issues and School Psychology's Role

The current issue of School Psychology Review is devoted to the topic of early identification and intervention to accelerate learning for young children. Simply, it is about helping, measuring, and measuring the helping for young children at risk. This topic, aimed at school psychology practice, is timely and important given the intersecting national movements for high-quality early childhood care and education, and for accountability in child outcomes. As the included articles allude, however, this topic is not simply about the practices of measurement and intervention with young children; rather, the undercurrents reveal critical issues far more complex and broad. These undercurrents reflect not only contradictions in the early childhood fields themselves, but also fundamental differences among traditional school psychology perspectives and practices and the unique philosophy and recommended practice standards for early childhood professionals. Even the constructs of early identification, intervention, acceleration, and directive learning clash when applied to early childhood care and education. The contributed articles in this issue present approaches that are forward-looking, creative, and promising, yet they require a different worldview to realize their promises. For a clearer understanding of the challenges and needed changes, I believe it is instructive to highlight some recurrent themes in this special issue of School Psychology Review. Four central themes--issues, really--which require resolution, emerge about early childhood care and education and school psychology: (a) systems integration and funding for universal early care, education, and services; (b) developmentally appropriate practices, school readiness, and response to intervention; (c) sensible measurement to document program impact and child progress and outcomes; and (d) questions about the role and benefits of school psychology for early care and education. Universal System for Early Care, Not Unsystem No field of early childhood exists, let alone a system. Despite state and federal encouragement to expand both early care and education options and support services, the vast majority of young children at developmental risk in the United States are not enrolled in comprehensive, high-quality programs. Most children participate in relative or neighbor care options of, at best, undetermined quality. Unlike schools, no central government agency, department, or fiscal entity is responsible for the operation of preschool programs. Despite some state and regional differences, the various early childhood fields are unintegrated and operate parallel programs with differing philosophies, regulations, eligibility requirements, and restrictive funding streams. Public and private early care and education programs often operate under department of public welfare regulations and receive funding from state stipends based on parents' income, neglecting many needy children. Head Start programs have federal income requirements but do provide a full range of services and supports for children and families, including some integration with early intervention, yet do so inconsistently. Part C early intervention programs base eligibility and funding on an archaic and nonhumanistic approach in which eligibility for our most vulnerable young children is premised not on need for services but rather severity of developmental deficit, with changing criteria determined by the whims of state and national economic outlooks. Enlightened societies provide universal care and education options for all their youngest children according to parent preferences. A menu of services and supports are available to all based on sensible needs and expected social outcomes (e.g., becoming able to adapt and function in typical routines with peers) and provided within the context of a recognized network of inclusive and high-quality options: family child care, centers, and play groups. …