UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION 1.

Running Head: UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
1
Understanding and Supporting Inclusion
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
2
Understanding and Supporting Inclusion
Traditionally, the term ‘inclusion’ is alluded to when referring to the process where
children with disabilities are integrated into a regular setting instead of housing them in special
amenities. This concept generally opposes the earlier practices and beliefs of integrating children
with additional needs into segregated institutions or services, or anticipating them to align with
normal programs that can supposedly fix their ‘differences’ so that they can attain ‘normalcy.’
There exist complex theoretical reasoning and sociocultural aspects revolving around inclusion,
diversity, and disability which, in one way or another, have diverse implications on the lives of
both the disabled child and their immediate family members who are tasked with the
responsibility of caring for them. Through the social and medical model, this essay will attempt
to explore how different beliefs on disability can impact the successful inclusion of disabled
children. Additionally, the implications of additional needs on both the child and their family
members are outlined, with a keen focus on the educational needs, financial impacts, physical
demands, funding, and social interactions. In the presence of contemporary practices and policies
including, but not limited to, Melbourne Declaration, National Quality Framework (NQF), and
Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), there have been far-reaching changes in regards to
treatment of the disabled children in early childhood environments. Notably, there is a need to
unravel some of the profound challenges faced by early childhood professionals when attempting
to implement and advocate for inclusion practices and policies.
Implications of Different Perspectives on Effective Inclusion
The Medical Model

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
3
The prominence of the medical model began to pick momentum in the mid-1800s,
wherein it slowly began to replace the religious model amid major advancements in medical
science. The medical model generally views disability as a medical condition residing in a
person, or more precisely a failure of a person’s body, and, as such, the person is deemed to be
intrinsically pathological and abnormal. At times, the medical model also bears the title ‘personal
tragedy’ model, meaning that it essentially perceives disability in a negative light. According to
the model, disability is objectively bad, and a pitiful situation which echoes personal danger for
both the child and his or her family. Disability should be prevented and, where possible, treated
(Carlson, 2010). Carlson (2010) notes that such negative perceptions regarding the disabled
compel medical practitioners to issue questionable treatments on the disabled individuals, such
as, but not limited to, euthanasia and involuntary sterilisation. Often, terms such as ‘cripple’,
‘retarded’, ‘handicapped’, among others, are all embodiments of the medical model (Creamer,
2009). Such a way of approaching disability only serves to cultivate the impression that children
with disabilities cannot be comparable to their ‘normal’ counterparts. Those medical
practitioners who align with the medical model, therefore, will view children with disabilities as
puzzles in need of a solution, meaning that they will ignore the broader picture of the child’s life.
In cases where the medical practitioners align with the medical model, children with disabilities
ought to act the ‘sick role’ for the purpose of ensuring continuous support and help.
The Social Model
The social model was developed to counter the drawbacks of the medical model
(D’Alessio, 2012). The model generally assumes that it is the society that “disables people with
impairments, and therefore any meaningful solution must be directed at societal change rather

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
4
than individual adjustment and rehabilitation’ (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare, 2010; Williams,
(2013). In essence, this model significantly influences the manner in which society understands
additional needs in modern times. The model continues to play an instrumental role in dictating
social policies in relation to the children living with disabilities, which is not only notable in the
national sphere but also in the global sphere. Although a section of society views the
embodiments of this model as therapeutic, Adam (2014) unravels some of the prominent
critiques that have over the years been levelled against the social model. One of these critiques,
that certainly impacts the effective inclusion of children with disability, is that the social model
does not take into account the painful nature of impairment, meaning the childhood professionals
who are inclined to this model will undoubtedly overlook some factors when trying the integrate
the disabled children. Secondly, although many children contend that they are indeed impaired,
they often do not like the term ‘disabled’ being used to refer to them, and this also has a great
impact when implementing contemporary practices and policies relating to the disabled children.
Impact of Additional Needs on the Child and their Family
Disabled children will often add a burden or a new set of challenges to their respective
families, with some of these challenges and demands lasting for an extended period of time. In
essence, these demands traverse across the types of disabilities, the child’s age, and the structure
of the child’s family (Benn, Akiva, Arel & Roeser, 2012). There exists the financial burden of
settling social service, education, and health bills. Such expenses include purchase or hiring of
devices, accommodating the child, special food for the child, medications, and cost of
transportation. While much of the aforementioned expenses are covered by public programs or
insurance companies in instances where the family is eligible, manoeuvring through the

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
5
bureaucracy, often repeatedly, to ascertain one’s eligibility remains an uphill task for the
families. Different care providers such as physicians, social workers, teachers, dieticians, among
others, also make coordination of services difficult for the child and the family. This is precisely
because these professionals operate on their own and are in the dark regarding how the others are
operating, which means that discrepancies will be recorded in regards to information provided to
the families. Although case management or coordination of care is certainly one of the evident
objectives of service initiatives, its implementation is often plagued with a multitude of flaws.
Lack of proper coordination is one of the significant burdens experienced by families.
The families of disabled children strain on a daily basis due to the continuous provision
of assistance and care to the child. Fatigue and exhaustion become the order of the day, draining
a great deal of the family members’ emotional and physical energy. A multitude of factors
engineer emotional strain, such as uncertainty, worry, anger, and ambiguity about what could
have caused the disability, what the future holds, implications to their family members, and
whether or not the family is offering the needed care. The family experiences periods of grief at
the very start of loss of functionality, and this will often repeat itself as the child grows. There
begins to be profound alterations in both the child and their family. Some family members will
abandon their careers to render support to the child, and this is especially the case for female
members who will either choose to switch jobs or even totally stop working. This is mostly the
case because the male members earn more and bring the money back home. In the face of the
additional financial burden created by the disability, this becomes one of the most efficient
methods to divide roles among the family members. Additionally, the onset of a disability in the
family comes with new loyalties and alliances, wherein some members feel exceedingly drawn

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
6
in whereas others feel left out. For instance, the primary caregiver, often a female member,
becomes overly attached to the disabled child. This often occurs in families where mothers are
the primary caregivers. Fathers will often get over attached to leisure activities or their work and,
at the same time, get detached to their disabled children. In such cases, it becomes
straightforward that there will be a myriad of marital conflicts, but evidence suggests that there
are no extreme cases of divorce in such families (Freedman, Kalb, Zablotsky & Stuart, 2012;
Harper, Dyches, Harper, Roper & South, 2013; Bluth, Roberson, Billen & Sams, 2013). Where
marital tensions are more extreme, however, divorces may occur.
Contemporary Policies and Practices driving Changes
The National Quality Framework (NQF) is one of the nationwide mandated educational
reforms imposed recently to ensure that all children, irrespective of whether they are disabled or
not, have access to quality education in their early years (Stamopoulos, 2012). Implemented in
2012, the NQF fights for better integration of the disabled children (ACECQA, 2011). Its main
concern is facilitation certain ideals of inclusion that could go a long way towards supporting the
educators in their endeavours. This is done through the Early Years Learning Framework
(EYLF) and National Quality Standard (NQS). In essence, NQF has NQS as one of its
embodiments, and it lays out a domestic standard that the Australian ECEC structure should
abide to (ACECQA, 2014). It generally envisions seven zones of quality which, according to
(ACECQA, 2011), include “Educational Program and Practice; Children’s Health and Safety;
Physical Environment; Staffing Arrangements; Relationships with Children; Collaborative
Partnerships with Families and Communities; and Leadership and Service Management.” All of
the aforementioned aspects of quality embody standards which are instrumental in the

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
7
assessment of ECEC settings and give feedback on the areas that require improvement
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2013). Excellent feedback signals proper progress in regards to
quality of care. Created in line with the 1992 Disability Discrimination Act, the Disability
Standards for Education 2005 highlights the roles of education and provider training, while also
seeking to foster participation and access to education for the disabled children as their ‘well of’
counterparts (Cumming & Dickson, 2013). Generally, the standards tasks the educators with the
obligation of ensuring the children are integrated into a fair playground that enables them to
compete fairly with the able children.
The EYLF, or more categorically the initial national ECEC curriculum in Australian
history, details the introduction of the country’s five ECEC programs outlined in the early
childhood setting (Cologon, 2014). ECEC educators were recently issued with a document
entitled Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia,
which is generally an EYLF document that comes in handy in enabling them to interact with and
take care of the children properly (DEEWR, 2012). The prime interlinked embodiments of this
document are learning outcomes, practice, and principle, all of which direct the educator on the
way forward regarding such issues as implementation of the curriculum and educator pedagogy.
Likewise, the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on the Educational Goals for Young Australians
sought to push the educational sector and the Australian government to endeavour in making the
needed improvements and adjustments in an attempt to ensure excellence and equity (Harris &
Ammermann, 2016). Besides that, the declaration was tailored to build successful Australian
learners, who are creative, informed, and confident citizens. The Commonwealth Minister, along
with the Minister of Education, appended their signatures on the declaration. To achieve the

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
8
aforementioned objectives, it was unanimously decided that the Australian government should
collaborate with the educational sector to ensure that all Australian children gain access to
quality educational opportunities and that there should be no discrimination based on factors
such as race, gender, disability, and so forth.
Conclusions
In summary, this paper has outlined some of the profound challenges faced by early
childhood professionals when attempting to implement and advocate for inclusion practices and
policies. The medical and social models of disability outline how medicine and society view
disability, respectively. Typically, each of these models has implications in regards to how a
disabled child is integrated. While the medical model views the disabled as puzzles that need a
solution, the social model does not take into account the painful nature of a disability, meaning
that the broader context of the disability will often be overlooked when attending to the disabled
child. Moreover, the onset of a disability will often be characterized by additional burdens,
ranging from financial, to social, to physical ones. A continuous attendance to a disabled child
will not only cause emotional drain for the primary caregiver but also cause extreme fatigue and
exhaustion. In light of this, policies and practices have been imposed over the years to facilitate
the needed changes in regards to how disabled children ought to be treated in the early childhood
years. The Melbourne Declaration, the NQF, and the EYLF, all aim at ensuring that fairness and
quality are regarded as key elements when dispensing educational services to children, regardless
of whether they have additional needs or not.

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
9
References
Adam, M. (2014). Our only hope. James Clarke, Havertown, PA.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2011). Guide to the
national quality standard. Retrieved from http://acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-
framework/the-national-quality-standard.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2014). Qualifications.
Retrieved from http://acecqa.gov.au/educators-and-providers1/qualifications.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G. & Shakespeare, T. (2010). ‘The social model of disability’, in A. Giddens
& P. Sutton (eds.), Sociology: Introductory readings, 3rd edn., pp. 161–166, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Benn, R., Akiva, T., Arel, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2012). Mindfulness training effects for parents
and educators of children with special needs. Developmental psychology, 48(5), 1476.
Bluth, K., Roberson, P. N., Billen, R. M., & Sams, J. M. (2013). A stress model for couples
parenting children with autism spectrum disorders and the introduction of a mindfulness
intervention. Journal of family theory & review, 5(3), 194-213.
Carlson, L. (2009). The faces of intellectual disability: Philosophical reflections. Indiana
University Press.
Cologon, K. (2014). Inclusive education in the early years: Right from the start.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning
framework. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Creamer, D. B. (2009). Disability and Christian theology: Embodied limits and constructive
possibilities. OUP USA.

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING INCLUSION
10
Cumming, J. J., & Dickson, E. (2013). Educational accountability tests, social and legal
inclusion approaches to discrimination for students with disability: A national case study
from Australia. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 221-239.
D’Alessio, S. (2012). Inclusive education in Italy (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]. (2012). Belonging,
being & becoming. The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Freedman, B. H., Kalb, L. G., Zablotsky, B., & Stuart, E. A. (2012). Relationship status among
parents of children with autism spectrum disorders: A population-based study. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(4), 539-548.
Harper, A., Dyches, T. T., Harper, J., Roper, S. O., & South, M. (2013). Respite care, marital
quality, and stress in parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of
autism and developmental disorders, 43(11), 2604-2616.
Harris, A., & Ammermann, M. (2016). The changing face of creativity in Australian
education. Teaching Education, 27(1), 103-113.
Stamopoulos, E. (2012). Reframing early childhood leadership. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 37(2), 42-48.
Williams, J. (2013). Music and the social model: an occupational therapist's approach to music
with people labelled as having learning disabilities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.