From the Editor

In the past 9 months, I, like many in my country, have painfully watched policies, practices, and funding for children and adults with disabilities undergo scrutiny by our federal government. In many cases, the results have been devastating. Many state and federal programs that comprise the service delivery infrastructure for this broad population are being dismantled, and the federal workforce that supports these programs is being terminated from public service. The center I direct is one of 68 University Centers for Excellence in Development Disabilities (UCEDDs) that are scheduled to be eliminated in 2026. These centers were founded by President Kennedy and have expanded to every state and territory to provide research, training, and services to improve the lives of those with disabilities. In the past year, UCEDDs have provided education to 4,300 trainees in more than 47 disciplines such as audiology, physical therapy, social work, dentistry, child development, and early intervention, among others. Approximately 1,478,000 people and organizations have received technical assistance or continuing education from these centers, and 177,000 families received services for their children with disabilities through the centers. The Individuals with Disabilities Act is also being dismantled. Funding for students with disabilities will be sent to states in block grants, and part of the law (Part D) that provides funding for research, training, technical assistance, and applied demonstrations is being subsumed into the state block grant for service delivery, albeit with a reduction of funds. Over the past 4 years, these discretionary funds have provided training to 417 doctoral scholars in early intervention, special education, or a related service who will become faculty, researchers, and administrators. Additionally, 6,916 scholars have graduated with a bachelor’s, certificate, master’s, educational specialist, or clinical doctoral degree in early intervention, special education, or a related service to enter the field to provide services and instruction for children with disabilities and their families. Significant reductions in the federal Medicaid program will also impact individuals with disabilities and their families. The proposed funding cuts will affect community living options for adults with disabilities, home care services for families with medically fragile children (many of whom have disabilities), and health care coverage for many people. Nearly half of the national cost of the Part C (of IDEA) early intervention program is funded through Medicaid, and these funds may become unavailable. I have tried to address my despair about what is happening by (1) exercising my responsibility as a citizen and advocating to my elected officials about what will happen to individuals with disabilities and the programs that support them, and (2) adopting the attitude of gratitude as a means of maintaining perspective, resilience, and optimism. Gratitude is defined as the act of recognizing and acknowledging the good things that happen, resulting in a state of appreciation. We must not forget that there are many reasons to be grateful. Personally, I am grateful for those in the field of early childhood intervention (ECI) and the families and children we are privileged to serve. I am grateful for those who read and review articles for Infants and Young Children (IYC). I am also grateful for those who will be presenting their work at the 8th World Conference of the International Society of Early Intervention (ISEI) held in conjunction with Eurlyaid in Lisbon, Portugal, September 2–5, 2025. The conference theme, Advancing Comprehensive Early Childhood Intervention: What parents, professionals, science, and national systems can tell us, will feature the authors and co-authors of 379 workshops, symposia, papers, and poster presentations. I am grateful for the over 700 attendees (at the time of this issue) representing over 50 countries and 6 continents who will be participating in the conference. And I am grateful to the many colleagues who contributed to the conference by reviewing submissions and managing logistics. I am most grateful to Mike Guralnick, who pursued his vision to develop a forum for professionals from around the world to communicate about advances in the field of ECI. This forum became the ISEI organization almost 25 years ago, with a mission to facilitate the expansion of ECI for infants and young children with disabilities and delays and their families throughout the world. It is because of Mike’s work over his 50-year career that he will be receiving the ISEI Founder’s Award at the ECI conference in Lisbon. His efforts to advance the field of ECI throughout the world and foster links between interdisciplinary collaborations, basic science, applied research, and practice have shaped current ECI policy, research, and practice, and will continue to do so for many years to come. I am most grateful for the work he has continued to do to advance inclusive practices and programs in ECI. Both Mike and I have a long history with inclusion, beginning in the late 1970s; through his research (see Guralnick, 1978), and my work as a practitioner (see Bruder, 2000). In an article we wrote almost 10 years ago for a prior IYC issue on inclusion, we challenged the field of ECI to adopt a systems approach that would ensure access, participation, and result in valued developmental and social outcomes for all infants and young children and their families. This issue of IYC examines inclusion globally and features articles contributed by colleagues who have worked on inclusion initiatives in their respective countries. I am very grateful that they agreed to write about their passion and share their insights with IYC. This issue presents the first 5 country descriptions on inclusion, and additional countries will be presented in the next IYC issue. CURRENT ISSUE In our first article, Michael Guralnick and Mary Beth Bruder present an expansion of the Developmental Systems Approach (DSA). The DSA was introduced over 25 years ago to provide a theoretical and programmatic framework to guide ECI. In this article, components of the DSA are revisited, described, illustrated, and applied to inclusive community-based ECI programs. Guralnick and Bruder explain how features of the DSA should be foundational for the implementation of inclusive practices and programs in ECI, particularly the assessment of family patterns of interaction and family resources. These two foundational areas contribute to the development of a comprehensive intervention plan to implement in an inclusive ECI program. In addition, the authors describe the responsibilities of early childhood special educators to facilitate inclusion using the DSA, and the need for personnel training and professional development to support the implementation of inclusive practices and programs. The article concludes with future directions to advance inclusive early childhood systems. In the next article, Carmen Dionne and co-authors discuss the variability of early childhood inclusion practices across Canada, noting significant differences both within and between provinces. They present research findings to illustrate this diversity and then examine inclusive policies and practices in Quebec. Countrywide challenges include inconsistent data collection, the absence of national indicators to guide inclusive programs, and varying terminology used in inclusion legislation. The article ends with recommendations for improving inclusion in Canada, such as adopting an evaluation framework, using reliable tools to assess the implementation of inclusive programs, increasing financial support, and expanding the training of providers to effectively implement inclusion. Next, Alessandra Landini and Marisa Macy outline the history and status of ECI and inclusion in Italy. They reference international laws like the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Italian legislation that has promoted inclusion, noting significant developments since the 1970s. The authors present research data on attitudes toward inclusion and family support in ECI and identify barriers to the adoption of ECI inclusive programs. These barriers include restrictive national policies, micro-exclusions, labeling, challenges in research, and quality assurance monitoring. Lastly, the authors provide recommendations for advancing ECI inclusion in Italy. Daniel Fobi, Alexander Gariba, Francis Kwame Anku, and Jennifer Arthur present the next article about Ghana’s progress towards inclusive ECI. They began by reviewing relevant policies in Ghana, such as the 2004 Early Childhood Care and Development framework and the 2015 Inclusive Education Policy. They then highlight country-wide challenges to ECI inclusion, which include a limited research base, cultural stigmas for disability, and systemic inequities in programs and services. The authors provide recommendations to advance inclusion in Ghana such as a call for clearer implementation guidelines, the provision of sufficient resources, broader ECI service access for children, greater family and community engagement, and stronger cross-sector collaborations. In the next article, Elena Soukakou, Vassiliki Beloyianni, and Anna K. Touloumakos examine the history, culture, and socio-political background of ECI in Greece. They outline key international milestones influencing Greek inclusion, which include the 1960s human and disability rights movements and the 1994 UNESCO Salamanca Statement. They also review Greece’s initial inclusion efforts, legislative developments, and related research. Current challenges to inclusion are discussed, and these include the lack of a unified inclusion framework, limited access to early intervention for children and families, an insufficient research base for inclusion, and a lack of funding. Lastly, the authors provide an eight-step proposal to advance inclusion in Greece. Ibrahim Diken, Gözde Tomris, Seçil Çelik Demirtaş, and Özlem Diken review early childhood inclusion in Turkey by first highlighting the history, policies, research, and practices in ECI. Currently, there isn’t a national ECI system in Turkey. Services are provided by universities, hospitals, and nongovernmental organizations under the auspices of the Ministries of Education and Health. The authors identify key legal milestones in ECI and review recent progress in the implementation of inclusive ECI. They note barriers to inclusion such as limited access to inclusive programs for children, variations in early childhood program quality, an absence of a conceptual framework to guide inclusive programs, and inadequate governmental and legal oversight of inclusive ECI programs. As always, I thank the authors for submitting their work to IYC. —Mary Beth Bruder, PhDEditor

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.