Transitioning Work of Families

Abstract

This study examines transitions to school from the standpoint of the work of families. We identify systemic differences constructed through state responses to childhood disability. Based on data from a longitudinal institutional ethnography conducted in Ontario, Canada, these differences illuminate the ways in which ability and disability are constructed in early childhood, and how these constructs are reinforced through procedures, policies, and documentation. Ultimately, we identify five key phenomena in the study: implicit messages of exclusion, the work of families, the supremacy of labels, a fallacy of choice, and the flexibility of institutions to adapt for children. These findings are taken up in the context of broader discourses of school readiness and transition to school with the intention of expanding our conversation about transitions. Researchers and advocates in early childhood education, care, and intervention have long held that positive child outcomes require that services for young children and families be comprehensive, inclusive, integrated, and family-centered (Bricker, Xie, & Bohjanen, 2018). Yet, many early childhood and kindergarten programs are excluding children from important sites of social, cultural, and community participation. Of particular interest to researchers has been the transition from early years services into school kindergarten programs. Transitions into kindergarten happen at an important developmental time in Underwood, Frankel, Parekh, & Janus 136 Exceptionality Education International, 2019, Vol. 29, No. 3 children’s lives, and research shows that children’s development at school entry can be directly linked to later school outcomes (Brownell et al., 2016; Caspe, Lopez, & Chattrabhuti, 2015; Janus, Labonté, Kirkpatrick, Davies, & Duku, 2017). This research is translating into international interest in early years programs and the potential to impact inequality through early intervention and inclusive early childhood services (Lombardi, 2018; The Lancet, 2016; Wertlieb, 2018; World Health Organisation, 2018). We hypothesize that the transition to school provides an opportunity to understand the power that institutions hold over children and their families, particularly for children who are perceived to have development outside of what is conceived as a normal or typical developmental trajectory. This article presents findings about transitions to kindergarten, gleaned from the Inclusive Early Childhood Service System (IECSS) project, a Canadian longitudinal investigation, which seeks to understand broader social responses to disability through mapping institutional interactions from the standpoint of families. In this article, we examine institutional practice in early childhood and kindergarten programs and the transitions between these two state-organized stages of life. We argue that these institutional procedures illuminate important sites of power and dominant ways of thinking about disability that ultimately impact the degree to which families are managed and included through the transition process. Transitions to School Research on transitions typically focuses on two key areas. The first is the transition activities that educators implement, and second are the skills or capabilities that will make children successful in and beyond the transition into school. Educator transition activities commonly include information sharing through orientation events or sending information home, and sometimes home visits (Little, Cohen-Vogel, & Chris Curran, 2016). However, higher intensity activities such as visiting a child at home or extended visits to the classroom in advance are less common (Little et al., 2016). Kindergarten transition is of particular concern for families whose children had special needs (note this term is widely used in institutions to describe disabled children and those who are receiving atypical services; McIntyre, Eckert, Fiese, DiGennaro Reed, & Wildenger, 2010). In these cases, higher intensity transition activities may be of particular importance to families who have participated in early intervention services, partly because their expectations have been set through longer histories with professionals, and because the relationships with professionals in the early years are often more welcoming to families than those in schools (Janus, Cameron, Lefort, & Kopechanski, 2007). The research links transition activities to better outcomes that are typically defined in terms of academic achievement (Schulting, Malone, & Dodge, 2005) or social skills (Wildenger Welchons & McIntyre, 2015a, 2015b). Current research into what are considered best practices around transition activities is scant. Any implementation of transition-related activities appears to be of benefit, particularly from the perspective of parent satisfaction (Kang, 2010; McIntyre et al., 2010). However, in one study, schools described as under-resourced were found to engage in fewer transition activities (Little et al., 2016). Further, McIntyre et al. (2010) found more transition concerns for families whose children were identified with special needs. In addition, McIntyre et al. found Transitioning Work of Families Exceptionality Education International, 2019, Vol. 29, No. 3 137 these families were more likely to be racialized and to have lower education and lower incomes, raising concerns about the intersectional nature of relationships for families with disabled children at the point of transition. In addition to research on educator activities, there is a body of literature on the skills that children, families, and educators may need for successful transition into school. For children, these skills are often described as school readiness, a concept that is widely critiqued but that includes social and developmental competencies, understanding of rules, and behavioural dispositions (Dockett & Perry, 2001). Criticism of the school readiness discourses raises concern that it does not “recognize difference and diversity as positive aspects of educational communities” (Evans, 2013, p. 172). For example, research has linked school readiness to familyand child-level characteristics including sex, age, and socio-economic status (e.g., Janus & Duku, 2007). In early primary programs, individual characteristics, particularly children’s behaviour, are better predictors of school success than school transition practices (McIntyre, Blacher, & Baker, 2006). Parents also raise worries about children making friends, following directions, and making their needs known (McIntyre et al., 2010). In addition to the international literature on transitions, Canadian researchers have begun to examine the structural considerations that might lead to more complex thinking about early childhood disability experiences. For children who have experienced disability in their early years, and their families, the transition into kindergarten can be fraught with anxiety, contradiction, and uncertainty. Janus et al. (2007) noted that little is known about the process of complex transitions into kindergarten for these children. Literature informs us that systemic, administrative, and individual barriers exacerbate the challenges faced by families during these transitions (Janus et al., 2007; Siddiqua & Janus, 2017). Parents of young children identified with developmental disabilities and delays state that the lack of information and communication they experienced at transition into kindergarten forced them into advocacy roles (Villeneuve et al., 2013). These parents note that after an initial interprofessional meeting to plan the transition prior to school entry they had little contact from the school to follow up on planned decisions, and they did not know which professional in the school to contact to facilitate these plans. Parents also hold concerns around scheduling and staff openness (Kang, 2010). Finally, while transitions are a time of immense change for all children and families, parents of disabled children report more concerns with the transition than families of nondisabled children (McIntyre et al., 2010). Parents’ satisfaction with relationship and quality of services are also tied to transition services (Siddiqua & Janus, 2017). What may be most challenging, however, is that these families who are likely to have had much more interaction with professionals (as noted above) are in the position of having to relearn what is expected of them in their new role, a key part of transitions (Hirst, Jervis, Visagie, Sojo, & Cavanagh, 2011; McIntyre et al., 2010). Authentic collaboration between schools and families is considered crucial for smooth transitions, but this may be a mechanism for assimilation into school routines and practices rather than for collaboration and partnership (Hirst et al., 2011). Underwood, Frankel, Parekh, & Janus 138 Exceptionality Education International, 2019, Vol. 29, No. 3 The Context The full-day kindergarten program in Ontario is relatively new. The implementation of the program for 4and 5-year-olds was rolled out in a limited number of schools, in 2010. Full implementation was complete in 2016. Early intervention services in Ontario are delivered in a range of settings, which has led to concern that services are fragmented (Pascal, 2009). A number of reports and strategies have aimed to address this concern, including a recently developed coordinated care strategy (Government of Ontario, 2017). In the 2010 plan for full-day kindergarten, inclusive early childhood education and care was also to be enacted within child and family centres. The plan was intended to expand access to services for children with special needs (such as early intervention, speech and language, and other developmental services), as well as to integrate services across childcare, family support, early intervention, and kindergarten (Pascal, 2009). Unfortunately, when full-day kindergarten was implemented, no