Inclusive Educational Practices in Childcare Settings: Perspective of Parents of Children with Special Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. While the benefits of including children with special needs in an educational childcare program are widely recognized for the children, their peers and their parents or caregivers, the approach calls for flexibility. It is also essential to consider the parents' perspective and involve them in their child's inclusion. However, there is little published information on parents' view of childcare, especially as regards children with special needs. The present article helps correct this information gap by documenting parents' perspective on the inclusive educational practices implemented by the educational childcare program in Quebec. Method. For purposes of this study, relevant information was collected from 76 parents of children with special needs based on a large-scale online Quebec survey. Three research objectives aimed to determine if parents: 1) approved of the adaptation measures implemented in the childcare setting; 2) agreed with the identification of their children’s developmental needs; and 3) agreed that their children’s inclusion experience was a positive one. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify responses. Results. Seventy-four percent of parents agreed or strongly agreed that their children’s developmental needs had been correctly identified. Sixty percent or more acknowledged that available materials, instructions and individual interventions were adequate, confirming that the childcare setting implemented diverse adaptation measures to meet the specific needs of their children. Finally, parents’ responses indicated that they are involved in their children’s inclusion, with 75% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the inclusion experience in the childcare setting was a positive one. Conclusion. Although preliminary, this study paints a portrait of certain educational practices in childcare settings attended by children with disabilities. Our findings highlight the importance of individualized practices and parental involvement to improve the inclusion experience for children with special needs in Quebec childcare settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".