Professional development (PD), which includes coaching, has demonstrated the capacity to affect preschool teachers’ use of evidence-based practices. The present study explored how coaches facilitated conversations within practice-based coaching (PBC) partnerships. A direct behavioral observation coding system was developed to investigate (a) the proportion of time spent in different conversational foci, including who initiated the conversation; (b) coach verbal behaviors; and (c) whether the conversation foci, initiations, and coach verbal behavior changed across three occasions for seven coach–teacher dyads. Results from the present study indicate coaches spent the largest proportion of time engaging in conversations with teachers focused on reflection and feedback, followed by goal setting and action planning. The coaches used verbal behaviors (supportive and constructive feedback, clarifying questions) as required by the coaching protocol across all sampled occasions. Variation in conversation foci, initiations, and coach verbal behavior across three sampled occasions was evident.

We conducted a randomized controlled potential efficacy trial to examine effects of two variants of the Tools for Teachers (TfT) professional development (PD) intervention on preschool teachers' implementation of embedded instruction practices and children's developmental and learning outcomes. Thirty-six preschool teachers recruited from three school districts were randomly assigned within each district to one of three PD conditions. Preschool children with disabilities (N = 106) from enrolled teachers' classrooms participated in the study. Results showed that, compared with business-as-usual PD teachers, teachers who received either PD intervention wrote higher-quality learning targets for study children. Teachers who received the PD intervention that included on-site coaching implemented more embedded instruction learning trials compared to teachers in the other two conditions. Compared with children whose teachers participated in BAU PD, children whose teachers received either PD intervention had greater developmental and learning gains as measured by standardized assessments.

Naturalistic instructional approaches are used to provide intentional and systematic instruction to young children with disabilities during typically occurring activities. Several naturalistic instructional approaches have been described in the extant literature, although different terms have been used to refer to these approaches (e.g., activity-based intervention, embedded instruction). The purpose of this systematic review was to identify, examine, and summarize the empirical literature focused on naturalistic instructional approaches for preschool children with disabilities when instruction was delivered in classroom settings. Forty-three studies that met established inclusion criteria were reviewed and coded using systematic procedures. Studies were coded to permit within- and across-approach comparisons as well as with respect to quality indicators for study design features and relationships to reported outcomes. Findings suggest a need to specify clearly the contextual and procedural components of naturalistic instructional approaches to advance understanding about this evidence-based practice and the functional relationships between implementation of the approaches and child learning outcomes.

Now at middle age, the field of Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) and its professionals have demonstrated a unique capacity to develop their own practice-based evidence (PBE) and professional standards to forge solutions to challenging professional practice dilemmas. This innovative capacity is no more evident than in designing and implementing individualized linkages among assessment/instruction/progress evaluation for all children, particularly those with delays and disabilities. In this article, the authors advocate for the overarching purpose of assessment in ECI-to identify instructional targets and to plan beneficial programs for young children with special needs in inclusive, natural environments. The authors highlight major developments that have changed their professional practices since the passage of PL 99-457; PBE that supports and promotes these practices and the linkage among assessment, instruction, and progress evaluation; and critical issues for future policy, practice, and research.

significant challenge in the field ~ of early childhood special education is providing qualified personnel to serve young children with special needs and their families (Winton, McCollum, & Catlett, 1997). Attracting and retaining a diverse workforce and preparing personnel in developing crosscultural competence within the context of an interdisciplinary model are recommended practices (Division for Early Childhood [DEC], 2004; Sandall, McLean, & Smith, 2000; Stayton, Miller, & Dinnebeil, 2003) that have received attention as our nation’s

A pressing need exists within the field of early intervention and early childhood special education to identify and measure outcomes for young children and their families as a result of participating in publicly funded services. This article identifies critical issues for state administrators, providers, families, and researchers to consider when designing state-level accountability systems. The article explains the complexities of multiple federal accountability initiatives, confusion over terms used in various accountability initiatives (e.g. standards versus outcomes), multiple levels and types of accountability initiatives, and challenges faced in identifying and measuring standards and outcomes. Specific information is provided to facilitate the design of accountability systems that support the inclusion of young children with disabilities.

Results are reported from the field survey of the DEC Recommended Practices as one part of a national effort by the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) to develop evidence-based practices for Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education (EIlECSE). Surveys were received from 388 respondents consisting of practitioners, parents, and administration or higher education personnel. The respondents supported all of the practices as recommended practice. Additional information was obtained from the respondents about the extent of current use of the practices.

Results are reported from an analysis of the research literature involving children with disabilities (age birth through 5), their families, personnel who serve them, and policies and systems change strategies related to the Provision of services. The work reported in this article was part of a national effort by the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and several participating universities to develop a set of evidence-based recommended practices for the field. We reviewed research articles appearing in 48 peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 1998. Analyses of the literature review database reveal trends in research methods used for studying particular topics and information about populations and settings studied during this time period.

Eight faculty members from five different campuses across the state of Wisconsin collaboratively taught a seminar course in early childhood special education through distance education technologies. A description of the course development and implementation is provided followed by summaries of the qualitative and quantitative analyses of student and faculty data. While the initial purpose for the course was program improvement through shared faculty expertise, comfort and skill in using distance education technologies also grew as a result of the course for both students and faculty. Students positively rated their acquisition of content as a result of the on-line and in-class activities.

Descriptive information about the qualitative research studies reviewed as part of the Division for Early Childhood Recommended Practices project is provided. Seventy-four articles that met our criteria were reviewed. These studies were more likely to address issues of families, policy, interdisciplinary models, and personnel preparation than other topic areas in early interventionlearly childhood special education. Most of the studies provided sufficient detail in terms of describing the conceptual framework, research strategies and methods, and findings. Limitations of the review as well as suggestions for future directions are offered.

Results are reported from an analysis of the research literature involving children with disabilities (age birth through 5), their families, personnel who serve them, and policies and systems change strategies related to the provision of services. The work reported in this article was part of a national effort by the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and several participating universities to develop a set of evidence-based recommended practices for the field. We reviewed research articles appearing in 48 peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 1998. Analyses of the literature review database reveal trends in research methods used for studying particular topics and information about populations and settings studied during this time period.

Findings are reported related to the research methods and statistical techniques used in the 450 group quantitative studies examined as part of the literature review portion of the Division for Early Childhood Recommended Practices project. Twelve trained coders used an investigator-developed coding form to analyze studies across seven major dimensions: (a) sampling procedures, (b) variable selection, (c) variable definition, (d) measurement integrity, (e) treatment fidelity, (f) statistical analyses, and (g) magnitude-of-effect reporting. Results suggested that the methodological integrity of the quantitative research used to inform recommended practices was not uniformly convincing and compelling. Implications are offered related to the strength of empirical support for recommended practices and the conduct and reporting of future research.

.~ oping child can either t~~M be planned or can haptj~~M pen serendipitously. N~~~ Formally planned learn~~~~~ ing opportunities have BN!!tj been the foundation of early intervention and early childhood special education (e.g., Guralnick, 1997). Recent legislation and research suggest an expanded perspective on natural learning environments that uses everyday family and community life as sources of children’s learn-

In their article on forms of inclusion, Odom et al. describe and categorize the diversity that exists among preschool center-based programs identified as inclusive. The authors correctly identify the confusion over terminology that has existed for some 25 years. The field needs this information because it establishes a baseline for understanding the state of current practice. Likewise, the authors clearly describe a variety of organizational and service delivery models available for establishing inclusive classrooms. If common terminology is adopted, it will facilitate communication and comparisons of models of service delivery. This, we believe, is an important contribution to our understanding of this aspect of inclusive programs. The information presented in this article, however, left us wanting more. Looking for the "last chapter of the book", we wanted to know what characteristics of these inclusive program models lead to positive outcomes for children. Confusion is still likely to exist in the field, even with common terminology, if we have no guidelines for distinguishing effective from less effective forms of inclusion. Recognizing the complexities involved in this area of research, however, we see this article as the beginning analysis of what is clearly a substantial set of data. We would like to point out what we consider to be noteworthy omissions that we hope the authors will address in future work. This article excludes discussion of environments other than classrooms. The authors acknowledge this as a limitation of the study and indicate that issues related to community inclusion are addressed in other papers. Omitting community inclusion actually may, however, increase the possibility of further confusion over terminology. The misperception that home-based services or services in family day care settings (Kontos, 1988) are not forms of inclusion is implicit by this omission. An even more unfortunate misperception might be that home-based services or services in family day care settings are not an option for special education services for preschool children. In keeping with the ecological systems framework proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), it would seem that these other kinds of inclusive settings should not have been excluded from the comparative analysis presented in this paper. Including home settings and family day care settings as a form of inclusion for preschoolers is in keeping with the Division for Early Childhood position on inclusion, which is based on the concept of providing services in natural settings. Natural settings are defined as "settings in which the child would spend time had he or she not had a disability"

The population of children and families in the United States who receive early childhood education or early childhood special education services is becoming increasingly diverse (Children's Defense Fund, 1989). It has been estimated that by the year 2000, there will be 5.2 million preschoolers from other than English speaking homes (Kagan & Garcia, 1991). The evaluation and assessment of young children who are culturally and linguistically diverse presents significant challenges to early childhood professionals. When the outcome of assessment is determination of eligibility for special education services, the cost of error is greatly increased. The fact that the number of children in special education who are culturally and linguistically diverse is higher than expected may be reflective of the potential for error in the assessment process (Yansen & Shulman, 1996). It is also possible, however, for children who need early intervention services to go unserved because of the difficulty of distinguishing between cultural and linguistic differences and the presence of a disability. Screening and assessment practices must be carefully evaluated in terms of cultural or language biases that could cause either over- or underrepresentation of children from various cultural and linguistic groups.