Dr. Co rin n e Weiden th al Office of Policy an d Plan n in g Parent and Family Involvement in the Education of Children with Special Needs L P Prater, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO, USA ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The education of any child is a very complex issue, comprising interconnected internal and external relationships (Garrett and Morgan, 2002). This is especially true when the child has been identified as one with special needs, primarily because of the wide variance of those needs and abilities. Educating these children is much more than molding a piece of clay, or drawing on a blank canvas, as some would describe child socialization. There are so many variables that impact how knowledge is imparted from one human to another, even if there are no special needs identified. In fact, the phenomenon called education is rather mysterious. When does learning begin? How is knowledge gained? By definition, who is an educated person? Who is responsible for educating children? Can all children learn? These are merely a few of the questions one might ask. In attempting to respond to these questions, it must be recognized that all children are unique. There are some children who are more different than others and have been identified as having special needs, constituting a wide array of behaviors, ability, and performance levels, as well as challenges. In an effort to match the special needs of children with appropriate services, labels have been devised to facilitate this process. There are advantages and disadvantages to this strategy, especially if children are labeled inaccurately or if there are political motivations involved. For example, there are instances in which children with special needs are labeled differently depending on where they live. In more affluent areas, more children are labeled as learning disabled, rather than mentally retarded. These labels matter because they are connected to specified services, sometimes including fiscal support. For instance, there is currently much attention and grant opportunities focused on autism. The critical question could be asked, ‘‘Are there more students with autism or are more students, who would have received other labels a few years earlier, being labeled as autistic?’’ This is why teachers, service providers, and parents should be knowledgeable about the values of parent and family involvement. Children, and especially those with special needs, are educated within a societal system and not in isolation. This is a three-prong system composed of family, educators, and, collectively, other societal constituents such as social service agencies and policymakers. As with any three-legged unit, all pieces are necessary for the structure to stand. The family, in concert with educators and 788 others who impact this process, is a significant factor in educating children with special needs. The late social scientist Urie Bronfenbrenner (1977) developed a classic systems model that aligns with internal and external variables which impact family functioning. In that model, the family ecosystem is divided into subsystems of micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-levels. The family unit and school are at the micro- and meso-levels, respectively, and have regular interaction with each other. Social service agencies and policymakers are at the exo-level and attitudes, beliefs, and culture operate at the macro-level. This family systems approach should be used in educating students with exceptionalities, because these children and their families are very much interconnected with other groups. In this article, the focus is on the significant microand meso-subsystems as the systems components within which the family and school interact to accomplish the goal of educating children with special needs. Identity of Family Members In contemporary times, many forms of relationships are recognized as representative of a family. Traditionally, in some cultures, a family unit consisted of a legal union between a man and a woman and their biological children. That definition has been greatly expanded. Persons may identify themselves as family members if they are related by blood, marriage, or self-imposed affiliation. They may cooperate economically and may or may not share a common household, such as extended family members, and may not have children. If children are in the household, they may be their biological children, step-children, foster children, or adopted. In fact, the least common family structure today mirrors the traditional model. For example, in America, the fastest growing family structure is single females with children. When children with special needs are part of a single-parent household, parenting responsibilities can become overwhelming. Family structure may, in part, explain the educational outcomes of these children. There may not be time and energy for one person to work, care for the household, assist with educational programming at home, and actively participate in school functions. In addition, many of these single parents, who are mostly mothers, have parenting responsibilities with other children as well. Parent and Family Involvement in the Education of Children with Special Needs The list of ways that families of children with special needs differ is unlimited. To name a few, families differ in family size, socioeconomic status, number and educational level of parents as primary caregivers, ethnicity, and in the primary language spoken in the household. All of these factors influence the likelihood of family involvement with schools. Increasingly, schools are asked to serve these diverse families and accomplish parity of educational outcomes, regardless of the frame of reference with which the child enters. Unique Circumstances Impacting Parental Participation in Schooling It is assumed that all potential parents want the perfect child, the one who is perfectly formed, perfectly behaved, and perfectly functioning in every way. In reality, some children are born with mild, moderate, and severe congenital disabilities. Circumstances may cause children born, without these differences, to acquire physical or mentally limiting conditions. Illness or accidents are most likely the culprits in those cases. Parents may experience chronic sorrow, grief, and mourning for the loss of their ideal child (Winkler et al., 1981). These feelings can recur at transitional periods such as the child’s entrance into school or onset of puberty. Parents may become engulfed with bitterness or anger and wonder why this happened to them. Although unintentional, they may become consumed with jealousy of families with children identified as normal. Does society prepare families to parent a special needs child? No, there is no proactive socialization process to prepare parents for this situation. Possibly, this is one reason that the divorce rate is high for couples with a special-needs child. The caregiving demands are high and stressful, and can lead to increased feelings of depression, helplessness, guilt and blame, and decreased feelings of parental competence. Parenting is a tough and important role, maybe the most challenging in all of society. When this responsibility is coupled with parenting a child with special needs, involvement in discretionary school activities may be less of a priority. Other than the legislated involvement and meetings, or school contact initiated as a result of reported problems, these parents tend to be uninvolved. The time within their 24 h in a day, 7 days in a week, and 12 months in a year are occupied with the daily challenges of financing the needs of their child; managing a myriad of nonpredictable and atypical circumstances; navigating the related legal and social systems; and handling the resulting family-relationship issues. Families experience stressful situations unknown to other families. The anticipated daily family functioning of their dreams remains a fantasy. It is amazing that they function as well as they do. For 789 example, some families, who parent one of the children diagnosed with autism, have experienced financial ruin in trying to secure and finance services for their child. If it is a two-parent household, one parent may have to remain outside of the labor force to care for the child’s needs. This further reduces the family income! The possible genetic influence may cause some families to have more than one child with autism, especially if the siblings are twins. Government assistance is very specified and limited, if it exists at all for children with autism in some communities. In countries with socialized medicine programs, this may not be a problem. In the United States, there is no entitlement for universal healthcare. For some families, there may be government-subsidized care; in other situations, care is dependent upon the family’s ability to fiscally support the health needs of the child. It must also be recognized that many of these families have typically developing children to support as well. Rather than criticize these families for the low participation in school activities, educators, social agency representatives, and policymakers should be more sensitive to the inadequacy of support that is needed for these families, and contribute to advocacy initiatives to provide more assistance. The typical school day conflicts with the work schedule of many parents, including parents of special needs children. This fact is significantly a barrier for families of low income and those with inflexible positions that prohibit leave time to visit school settings. For these parents, this is a double disadvantage. They cannot afford absence from work to participate in many of the school functions and they are judged as being apathetic, uncaring, or uninterested with regard to their child’s schooling. There are fewer high-income families and, therefore, as compared to others, many of these families are within the range of poverty, which presents a multitude of circumstances which serves as a barrier to their participation in school activities. Children with special needs are members of families from all social classes. Parents at all economic levels should perceive that they have the opportunity for participation in some form of school activity, but social class is an issue. The social stratification results in many of the parents of the same income having children clustered in the same school. In schools where a large majority of the children are from families with low income, there is low parental participation. Conversely, children from families with high income, tend to attend the same schools. As their parents are more likely to have professional careers with flexibility of schedules, their participation in school events is higher. The attention that these parents give to the child and school interaction is not a signal that they love their child any more than parents with inflexible work schedules. It does signify that there is more of an opportunity for them to be involved. Being concerned about a child’s education is not a function of income level. 790 Education of Children with Special Needs Family members of children with special needs, like everyone else, are impacted by past experiences. Memories of the school experiences of family members influence their attitudes and perceptions about school. Those with positive experiences tend to be more open to school interaction, than family members with memories of negative events during their own school years. Similar to any other situation, persons tend to avoid unpleasant situations and embrace positive ones. There are parents, especially those with less education than school officials, who feel intimidated by school personnel. Insecurity, inferiority, and embarrassment are emotions they feel when in the presence of teachers or school administrators. Their response to avoiding these feelings is merely to limit school visits to mandated appearances. Overall, parental involvement is a result of the family’s perceived skills and abilities, their employment and other obligations, and opportunities provided by the school. Family Participation in Schooling Children with Special Needs A primary responsibility of schools is to educate students, but students are connected to some part of a family unit, in which most of their time is spent. Family members are actually the first teachers. Collectively, considering the child’s total being of time and influence, school is dwarfed by home and family impacts. There is a role in educating students that is occupied only by family members and cannot be replaced by school faculty, administrators and staff, school board members, or legislators. School personnel and others making important decisions about schooling may have degrees from the best colleges and universities, but lack crucial information known only to family members. The school needs to take the lead on whether the parent will be afforded only a passive role, or encouraged to assume an active role. The participation has to go beyond the traditional model of parent–teacher association (PTA), established in 1924, and the school climate must be welcoming and encouraging of parental involvement. To accommodate this involvement, schools can structure opportunities for parents to participate in schooling (Epstein, 1986). There are some situations in magnet schools in which family members are required to volunteer a specified number of hours at the school. As mentioned earlier, some level of involvement is mandated for parents of children with special needs. In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, Public Law 101-476 provided the opportunity for the parents of children with special needs to influence the education of their children. Parents of children in special-education programs are legally required to participate in the child’s individualized educational plan. Public Law 101-476 and its 1997 amended version, especially addressed parents and educational resources for minority children (Prater and Ivarie, 1999). For many parents, they are invited to the school to assist the teacher in the classroom, raise funds, chaperone field trips, or possibly help coach a ball team. For parents of special-needs children, the involvement tends to be more focused. The educational process can be a 7-daysa-week, 24-hours-a-day process, depending on the nature of the birth or acquired differences. The parent and teacher partnership is much more significant than baking cookies for a class party. Of course, parents often help with homework, but parental assistance with homework for a special-needs child is more intense, more focused, and more than likely, more time consuming. Parents who can navigate the political and educational system are empowered to get the best services for their children. Schools that seek to empower parents assume that parents are capable of influencing the outcome of their child’s educational process. However, sometimes there is a disconnect between families and school personnel. Society is becoming more diverse, not less diverse. Considering that families reside within a global society, this diversity includes racial, ethnic, language, and cultural differences, but must also include differences in cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning. When there were more homogeneous school populations and neighborhood schools, empowerment of parents did not seem to be a concern. The incidence of children in need of special education was not much of an issue, because children with special needs were not sent to school. They were mostly kept at home and shielded from public view. Family involvement is a certainty for parents of children in special-education programs, if only indicated by parents signing a consent form, rather than actively participating in policymaking. This formal, one-way communication, from school to home is limiting and does not empower parents. When families are empowered, they feel that their views have value. When families are not empowered, there is a feeling of powerlessness, followed by intimidation that prohibits them from asking important questions on their child’s behalf. To empower parents, parental involvement should include roles such as advocates and policymakers. School personnel must view each child and family within a framework that encompasses the entire political, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual experiences that shape the identity and behavior of the families and children with special needs. For more than any other population of school-age children, the one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate, which is exactly why the individualized educational program emerged. For these children and families, there are endless variances. Parent and Family Involvement in the Education of Children with Special Needs Teachers, like everyone else, may tend to avoid situations in which they perceive rejection as the outcome. Sensing negative reactions from parents, there could be instances in which teachers are more passive in seeking parental involvement because they fear an unsuccessful result. Some of this fear could be based on biased prejudgments, myths, or stereotypes couched within Urie Bronfenbrenner’s macro-level inclusive of attitudes, beliefs, and cultures. In these circumstances, parents can sense the feelings of teachers and reciprocate with feelings of isolation, alienation, and disengagement. In establishing a support system for parent involvement, school personnel should become familiar with the child’s uniqueness, the family, and the school’s community to determine those activities that are more likely to solicit the desired outcome of parental involvement. As parents are afforded a greater role in defining involvement, they will gain greater confidence leading to increased participation in educational decision making focused on their child with special needs. Aside from meetings to discuss the individualized educational plan, family members have few avenues by which they can challenge curriculum choices, instructional strategies, or additional educational resources for their child. In too many situations, educators continue to exclude families, devalue their suggestions, primarily use the ideas of experts, and value more the opinions of those who have possibly never even met the students. Prater and Tanner (1995) completed a case study report that detailed the tragedy of such practices, and the subsequent result of sabotaging parental aspirations and curtailing educational opportunities for youth in special-education programs. It is a mistake to rely solely on the ideas of experts and ignore the real people most knowledgeable about the child, the families. It is vital that parents are empowered and parental involvement is integrated into the instructional plans for students in special education, beginning with early childhood special education and continuing throughout the educational process. Creating a School Environment to Empower Families There is a mistaken notion that involvement and empowerment are synonymous terms. Involvement may merely imply some form of contact, but empowerment is more of a reciprocal partnership that includes decision making and influences outcomes. In order for parents to be empowered in special-education programs, they must assume roles as assessors, presenters of reports, policymakers, advocates, and peer supporters. Educators will not be a vehicle for empowering parents unless they respect the fact that parents are themselves empowered 791 with an understanding of the system within which families of children with special needs exist and function. Coupled with educators’ need to understand, is the need to avoid stereotyping families based on a presumption of uniformity of experience, culture, and knowledge. Often, there is cultural and educational dissonance between school governance professionals and the families they serve. If there are no deliberate attempts to eliminate, or at least bridge these poles, a barrier develops that will cause families to avoid school participation. This cultural divide is very evident in America, where school-governing bodies tend to be male, White, and middle class. By contrast, minorities comprise the majority of children enrolled in special-education programs. The school environment can facilitate or impede successful relationships between the school and families. Perceptions based on gender, sexism, and social stratification can reinforce dissonance between parents and teachers, causing some educators to view parents as the cause of problems with schooling their children. These perceptions marginalize parents and inhibit parental empowerment, and discourage involvement. There must be trust between families and school personnel. Without trust, little will be accomplished. To benefit the educational goals for the child, this trust must be mutual and must be earned to be acquired. One might ask, How can educators earn this trust? For parents to trust school personnel, there must be a consistent pattern of positive experiences, resulting in a strong foundation of credibility rooted in honesty and practices targeted to the sincere well-being of the child. For whatever the reason, this does not always occur. If a child is misdiagnosed, misplaced, mislabeled, or miseducated, trust is compromised. If there are unanswered questions as to why certain groups are overrepresented in remedial programs and rarely in gifted programs, it may be difficult to accomplish a comfortable level of trust. One might assume that because a child is assigned to a specialeducation classroom that he or she is appropriately placed. This might not necessarily be the situation. As described previously in Bronfenbrenner’s systems model, the macrolevel comprises attitudes and beliefs. Despite their academic credentials, educators have personal biases which serve to influence behavior in their professional activities. Benefits of Family and School Partnerships Regardless of the challenges, schools must seek to engage parents. There are positive outcomes involved in reaching out to parents. By any measure, students in specialeducation programs benefit from the partnership. The academic outcome is more positive and the availability of the joint resources provides additional assistance. Time and 792 Education of Children with Special Needs energy lost in disruptions between the family and school are costly, with the child being the biggest loser. With the help of school personnel, parents who can navigate the political, educational, and social systems are empowered to get the best services for their children. Unfortunately, some parents do not even know their rights. When parents know the laws and have political expertise, they can create happenings. For example, in one mid-Western town in the United States, parents lobbied state legislators to get millions of state money allocated to serve children with autism in their district. This occurrence would not have happened without parental collaboration and intervention. for its students. Students, parents, educators, employers, lawmakers, and other community entities must be totally focused on an integrated goal of educating all of the students with special needs. See also: Child Rearing and Early Education: Parents and Professionals: Theoretical and Historical Influences; Educating Students with Special Needs: An Overview; Parent Support in Early Childhood – Approaches and Outcomes. Bibliography Summary An effective relationship between family and school impacts school adjustment and progress. As there are so many variables in the education of children with special needs, all opportunities must be explored to create and sustain effective partnerships between families and the schools, even those options that have never been used before, or may seem atypical. To address the fact that families are different, there should be more development of projects targeted to specific groups, such as grandparents raising grandchildren, single fathers, foster parents, and other groups of identifiable populations parenting children with special needs. Institutions preparing teachers must include sensitivity to the role of parents in their teacher-training curriculum, because current and future educators must empower parents. This sensitivity must include knowledge of multicultural factors. Otherwise, it may be assumed that a culture different from the educator implies a lower status of cognitive functioning and educational deficits for the children and families. Currently, school professionals are not prepared for these diverse families. If parents are not empowered, they cannot and will not advocate for the child. Intimidation may prohibit them from asking important questions or seeking social service support. More importantly, a systemic network of negative attitudes will serve to victimize parents and retard the likelihood of parents establishing a partnership in the education of their children. Empowered parents ask questions and insist on accountability. The model used by schools for involving parents is outdated. It has not changed, but the family structures and lifestyles have changed. Rather than expecting parents and the child to modify their behavior, it is imperative that educators modify their behavior and attitudes toward students in special education and their families. The complexity of family functioning must be considered in order for families to be repositioned as active, equal partners in schooling. Educational systems nurturing special-education programs must establish a web of support Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32, 513–531. Epstein, J. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal 86, 277–294. Garrett, J. E. and Morgan, D. E. (2002). Celebrating diversity by educating all students: Elementary teacher and principal collaboration. Education 123, 268. Prater, L. and Ivarie, J. (1999). Empowering culturally diverse parents in special education programs. In Obiakor, F. E., Schwenn, J. O., and Rotatori, A. F. (eds.) Advances in Special Education: Multicultural Education for Learners with Exceptionalities, pp 149–166. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Prater, L. P. and Tanner, M. P. (1995). Collaboration with families: An imperative for managing problem behaviors. In Obiakor, F. E. and Algozzine, B. (eds.) Managing Problem Behaviors: Perspectives for General and Special Educators, pp 178–206. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt. Winkler, L., Wasow, M., and Hatfield, E. (1981). Chronic sorrow revisited: Parent vs. professional depiction of the adjustment of parents to mentally retarded children. Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51, 63–70. Further Reading Acock, A. C. and Kiecolt, J. K. (1989). Is it family structure or socioeconomic status? Family structure during adolescence and social adjustment. Social Forces 68, 553–571. Becker, H. and Epstein, J. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. Elementary School Journal 83, 86–102. Bianchi, S. M. (1995). The changing demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of single parent families. Marriage and Family Review 20, 71–97. Bracey, G. W. (2001). School involvement and the working poor. Phi Delta Kappan 82(10), 795–797. Bright, J. A. (1996). Partners: An urban black community’s perspective on the school and home working together. New Schools, New Communities 12, 32–37. Bristol, M. M., Gallagher, J. J., and Schopler, E. (1988). Mothers and fathers of young developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: Adaptation and spousal support. Developmental Psychology 60(3), 441–451. Dunst, J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education 36(3), 139–147. Epstein, J. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers’ practices of parent involvement. In Silvern, S. (ed.) Literacy through Family, Community and School Interaction, pp 24–36. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Friedrich, W., Wilturner, L., and Cohen, D. (1985). Coping resources and parenting mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 90, 130–139. Parent and Family Involvement in the Education of Children with Special Needs Gartland, D. and Strosnider, R. (2007). Learning disabilities and young children: Identification and intervention. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities Quarterly 30, 63–72. Gavin, K. M. and Greenfield, D. B. (1998). A comparison of levels of involvement for parents with at-risk African American kindergarten children in classrooms with high versus low teacher encouragement. Journal of Black Psychology 24, 403–417. Harry, B. (1992). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents in special education. Exceptional Children 59, 123–131. Harry, B., Allen, N., and McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African-American parents’ involvement in special education. Exceptional Children 61, 364–377. Henderson, A., Marburger, C., and Ooms, T. (1986). Beyond the Bake Sale: An Educator’s Guide to Working with Parents. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education (ED 270 508). Kirk, S. A. and Gallagher, J. J. (1986). Educating Exceptional Children. Boston, MO: Houghton Miffin. Mulkey, L. M., Crain, R. L., and Harrington, A. J. (1992). One-parent households and achievement: Economic and behavioral explanations of a small effect. Sociology of Education 65, 48–65. Muller, C. (1993). Parent involvement and academic achievement: An analysis of family resources available to the child. In Schneider, B. 793 and Coleman, J. S. (eds.) Parents, Their Children, and Schools, pp 77–114. Boulder, CO: Westview. Obiakor, F. E. (1994). The Eight-Step Multicultural Approach: Learning and Teaching with a Smile. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M., and Best, A. M. (1999). Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables. Journal of Special Education 32, 194–206. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effect on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 7, 441–462. Spann, S. J., Kohler, F. W., and Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents’ involvement in and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a parent support group. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 18(4), 228–237. Taylor, A. R. and Machida, S. (1994). The contribution of parent and peer support to head start children’s early adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 9, 387–405. Townsend, B. L. and Patton, J. M. (2000). Reflecting on ethics, power, and privilege. Teacher Education and Special Education 23, 32–33. Turnbull, A. P. and Turnbull, H. R. (1997). Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality: A Special Partnership, 3rd edn. Columbus, OH: Merrill. bs_bs_banner RECORDING SEN A tool to record and support the early development of children including those with special educational needs or disabilities SILVANA E. MENGONI and JOHN OATES Early intervention is key for children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND), and therefore early assessment is crucial. Information from parents about children’s current ability and their developmental history can make valid and useful contributions to developmental assessments. Parental input is also important in early education for children with and without SEND. In England, recent changes to statutory guidance for early education highlight partnership working with parents, progress checks and continuous observation. The Early Years Developmental Journal (EYDJ), an Early Support tool primarily aimed at families, aims to support early identification and assessment for children with SEND and early education for all children. The article describes Early Support to provide a backdrop and then outlines the purpose, structure and rigorous development process of the EYDJ. Use of the EYDJ to support parents, early years education practitioners, health visitors, developmental assessments and the forthcoming English special educational needs (SEN) reforms is also described. Key words: special needs, disability, early childhood, early education, early intervention. © 2015 NASEN DOI: 10.1111/1467-9604.12068 Introduction The Early Support Developmental Journals are a series of resources intended to help families of children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) and the practitioners working with them to observe, record and celebrate progress, and to identify areas where extra help may be needed. In this article we outline the rigorous research, development and evaluation processes that contributed to one such developmental journal, the Early Years Developmental Journal (EYDJ), which was developed by the authors for Early Support. To provide a contextual backdrop, we outline research concerning the need for early identification, assessment and intervention for children with SEND. We also set out the current political and educational context within England, particularly focusing on partnership working between practitioners and parents and the need for progress checks at two years of age. A brief history of Early Support will be provided, followed by a summary of existing evaluations of Early Support and the developmental journals. The EYDJ will then be explained in detail, along with its development process, and we will outline how it can be used in practice and how it can help practitioners to meet the principles of good early assessment. Early assessment and SEND There are approximately two million children and young people with SEND in England (DfE, 2011). Early assessment is fundamental for these children because it paves the way for early intervention; a principle reflected in the current policy reforms in England. Early intervention can help change negative developmental trajectories and prevent secondary difficulties arising (Goswami, 2008; Guralnick, 2005). In a report prepared for the UK government, Allen (2011) discusses early intervention, which is defined as the general approaches and specific programmes aimed at helping children aged 0–3 to develop strong social and emotional foundations and equipping older children with the skills of good parenting for the future. The stated benefits of early intervention include better educational attainment, prevention of anti-social behaviour and cost-saving. The specific recommendations in this report include regular childhood assessment between 340 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN birth and 5 years focusing on social and emotional development, consistent and timely help in the early years rather than at school entry and a joined-up approach between health and education to provide integrated information. It is clear there is a need for early assessment in order to identify children’s strengths and weaknesses and intervene accordingly. So the question then arises of how best to assess children’s ability. In a recent article, Bellman et al. (2013) outlined four main domains of development: gross and fine motor skills; speech and language; social and personal and activities of daily living; and performance and cognition. Importantly, they also highlight that skill acquisition tends to occur in a relatively constant sequence from child to child, although the rate of development may differ even in typical development. Indeed, empirical studies have observed a wide range of variability regarding when early milestones are reached, particularly in the domain of language and communication (Fenson et al. 1994). Advice on assessment principles for clinicians advocates information-gathering from a variety of sources (Bellman et al., 2013; Bolton 2001). Bellman et al. (2013) emphasise the importance of parental views and observation of the child in the clinic, at home and in nursery. When taking a history of a child’s development, information from parents along with evidence such as video recordings and their personal child health record (PCHR or ‘red book’; Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2009) are highlighted as helpful resources. Continuous observation and monitoring is important for understanding development, especially for those children with SEND. If children’s developmental level is considered solely at a single point in time then this may provide an unreliable picture of their abilities, for many different reasons: they may be having an ‘off day’, they may prefer to do a different activity or they may be ill or tired. Rather, assessment should be seen as a dynamic process and utilise multiple methods, sessions and environments (Oates, 2013b; Romanczyk et al., 2005). Therefore having an ongoing record of development can help provide a more holistic picture of a child. In the early years, children often spend much of their time with their family, placing parents and other caregivers in a unique position to record small but significant steps of progress on a fairly regular basis. If a child is receiving support or intervention, this may be one way in which families can be involved with and supplement the work of the practitioner. © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 341 Gathering information from parents Early intervention specialists and early years practitioners highlight the importance of involving parents in early childhood assessments (Brink, 2002; McCollum, 2002; Whiteley et al., 2005). Involving parents can help validate if, when and how often skills are demonstrated and thus can provide a unique perspective on the assessment process. This also has practical uses for local or national screening projects (Luinge et al. 2006) and for researchers studying cognitive development, as it is more efficient and economical than assessing children in person (Saudino et al., 1998). If parental reporting is to be useful for practitioners, then it is important to know whether it is reliable and valid. Fenson et al. (1994) highlighted that parents may often assume their child’s understanding, and thus overestimate their receptive language level. However other studies, which are summarised below, have found positive relationships between parent judgements and psychometric and clinical assessments. Saudino et al. (1998) developed a parent-based measure to assess the cognitive abilities of 2-year-olds. The measure had a parent-report section which involved questions such as ‘can your child put a simple piece, such as a square or animal, into the correct piece on a puzzle board?’. A second section involved parentdelivered assessments such as block building, copying drawings and copying actions. The measure was significantly correlated with the Mental Scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (r=.52), an extensively used psychometric test for infant development. Tervo (2005) reported a study in which 180 parents of children assessed at a neurodevelopmental clinic were surveyed about their child’s difficulties. The most common concerns were language and speech, followed by motor difficulties, a pattern that has also been reported in other studies (Chung et al., 2011). Parental reporting of language difficulties predicted developmental status, i.e. whether children were considered to have a developmental delay or not. However, it appears that concerns about language may not actually signify specific language difficulties; Chung et al. (2011) found that parents of children with cognitive delays were more likely to express their concerns about language development. This highlights the need for a trained professional to interpret the concerns of parents. 342 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN Early years education Given the importance of the early years to lifelong skills, abilities and progress, the nature of early education is important for all children. In England, 96% of 3–4-year-olds attend some form of early education (DfE, 2012a) and the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) is the statutory framework that early years providers must follow. In a report on the EYFS in 2011, Dame Clare Tickell made a number of recommendations; particularly relevant here are her recommendations to increase partnership working with parents, involving them more fully in their child’s learning, and introducing a progress check when children are 2 years old. The principles behind these recommendations and their subsequent application in practice are also relevant to contexts outside England. In the revised EYFS produced in 2012 after the Tickell report, the importance of involving parents in their child’s learning is highlighted (DfE, 2012b). This principle is corroborated by findings from research studies; in a report from the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project, Sylva et al. (2004) found that the best early years settings had good communication links with parents. This included practitioners and parents sharing information with each other and parents being involved in decision-making about their child’s education. In 2012, a two-year progress check was introduced in the EYFS. The aim of this is to provide parents with a short summary of children’s development in the areas of personal, social and emotional development, communication and language and physical development. In the EYFS, emphasis is also placed on ongoing assessment based on observations. In 2015, a single integrated review will be implemented in England incorporating the EYFS progress check and the two-year check currently carried out by health visitors as part of the Healthy Child Programme (DfE/DoH, 2011). There is also currently an assessment point for children at the end of the EYFS, i.e. the school year in which they turn five years of age. The EYFS profile summarises and describes children’s attainment and, in line with good assessment practice outlined above, it should reflect ongoing observation and discussions with parents. It is pertinent to note here that in 2012, 68% of pupils without SEN achieved a ‘good’ level of development on the EYFS profile, but for children with SEN this figure was much lower, at 23% (DfE, 2012c). One of the four guiding principles of the EYFS is that ‘children develop and learn in different ways and at different rates’ (DfE, 2012b, p. 3), and this includes © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 343 children with SEND. Where practitioners think a child has SEND, they should help families access relevant services and support. For a child with a diagnosed SEND or significant emerging concerns, a plan to support future learning and development should also be developed as part of the two-year check. Producing information for families Mitchell and Sloper (2002) argue that families of children with disabilities have unmet needs for information and discuss the optimum way of addressing this. From conducting focus groups with families, they suggest that information should: • • • • • Be delivered both in written form and as verbal advice; Be delivered to families with the support of a key worker; Be targeted at key points, e.g. diagnosis, transition into schooling; Provide comprehensive and up-to-date information from a range of professionals and about a range of different services; Provide everyday advice and explanations. Mitchell and Sloper (2002) concluded that information provision should have a three-strand approach including concise directories of local services and support, a range of detailed booklets and key working support. These principles are also advocated by Davies and Hall (2005), who highlight that parents’ sense of control and empowerment can be aided by treating them as equal partners and respecting their knowledge and desire to gather more information, whilst acknowledging the difficulties they may face. Young et al. (2005) report the evaluation of an information resource by National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) for Early Support during the development process. Focus groups with families highlighted the importance of using written information in the context of intervention from practitioners to help parents apply and use the information they receive. Some issues depended on personal preferences – for example, some parents wanted information focusing on technical and practical aspects whereas others wanted acknowledgement of the emotions they may experience, with a middle-ground approach perhaps being the compromise. There was also an issue surrounding the realism of the resources; parents wanted common controversial or debated issues to be included and case studies focusing on realistic rather than ideal practice. 344 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN Early Support At the time of writing, there are major reforms underway in SEND policy in England. These draft reforms have an emphasis on placing children and families at the centre of the system, integrating education, health and social care and improving early identification and intervention (DfE, 2013a). Early Support is a way of working that aims to improve delivery of services for children and young people with SEND and is a core delivery partner for these policy revisions. Early Support enables services to better co-ordinate their activity and provides families with a single point of contact and continuity through key working. Early Support has also produced a range of resources and delivers training to enable an approach that empowers families, supports multidisciplinary and integrated working and promotes family-centred service delivery. At the centre of Early Support is a key working approach that aims to ensure that the provision of services meets the individual requirements and aspirations of a child or young person and their family. Key working can be fulfilled by a wide range of practitioners, from health, education, social care, the community or the voluntary sector, or by parents or young people themselves. This means it becomes a way of working rather than an additional service. The main functions of key working are: • • • • Providing emotional and practical support to the child or young person and family; Being a single point of regular and consistent contact, and co-ordinating services and practitioners around the child or young person and family; Supporting a single planning and joint assessment process; Providing information and advice and facilitating support. Early Support was originally targeted at the 0–3 age range, and was subsequently extended to five years and since to adulthood. In the most recent phase of Early Support, priority has been placed on capacity building via key working training, embedding the approach across all regions of England and extending the resources through to school-leaving age. In 2006, Early Support was evaluated (Young et al., 2006, 2008). At this point, Early Support was only aimed at the 0–3 age range, and offered fewer resources than at present. Although Early Support has expanded since this evaluation, the © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 345 approach and underlying principles remain the same; therefore the results can inform our current view of Early Support. The evaluation concluded that Early Support was considered successful by parents and professionals; it was judged to have positive effects on multiagency working and service provision, the wellbeing of families and ensuring appropriate support for children. However, it was noted that the presence of Early Support varied greatly in different areas, with the nature and availability of support and resources differing. The results of the evaluation align with studies showing that generally the provision of family-centred practices is linked with a decrease in stress and an increase in well-being and empowerment among parents of children with disabilities (Canary, 2008). Indeed, Nachshen and Minnes (2005) found that family-centred services, along with a network of social support, are critical to a sense of empowerment for families of children both with and without developmental disabilities. Developmental journals: a brief history In 2004, Early Support produced the first developmental journal: the Monitoring Protocol for Deaf Babies and Children (Early Support 2004). In 2006, two further journals were published: the Developmental Journal for Babies and Children with Visual Impairment (Early Support 2006b) and the Developmental Journal for Babies and Children with Down Syndrome (Early Support 2006a). In 2008, the generic Developmental Journal was produced (Early Support 2008). This was designed to address the needs of children with a wide range of difficulties, rather than continuing to produce further condition-specific journals. The generic Developmental Journal was linked to EYFS Development Matters (a non-statutory guidance document for early years education; DCSF, 2008) and categorised development into the same areas of learning and development, which were: personal, social and emotional development; communication, language and literacy; problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy; knowledge and understanding of the world; physical development; and creative development. In total, 25,000 hard copies of the Journal were distributed, in the form of a free ringbinder. Although parents were envisaged as the primary users, the Journal was also used by practitioners in early years settings. The generic Developmental Journal was also used as the basis for a computerised national assessment, monitoring and record-keeping system in the Hungarian Biztos Kezdet (Sure Start) programme, linked with adoption of the EYFS as the framework for the programme curriculum. 346 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN The main body of each developmental journal is a series of milestones sequenced into Developmental Steps. These milestones are behaviours or skills that parents or practitioners can observe in children, and they are designed to represent small but significant steps in development. Each milestone also has the space for parents to note development within that particular skill – for example, when it is ‘emerging’, ‘developing’ and ‘achieved’. The Developmental Steps are accompanied by descriptions of development and space for parents to make notes, record special events and write questions for practitioners. In an evaluation of the Developmental Journal for Babies and Children with Visual Impairment, Jennings (2008) reported a number of benefits for parents and practitioners. The key positive aspects for parents included an improved understanding of developmental milestones, greater awareness of progress, better understanding of their child’s needs, the inclusion of ideas for activities and being able to use the Journal as a source of evidence with practitioners. The key benefits according to practitioners were improved parental confidence and knowledge, enabling partnership-working with parents, promoting a holistic view of the child and aiding planning. Jennings concluded that the Journal boosted the knowledge and confidence of parents and provided a focus for working in partnership. An evaluation of the Early Support resources in 2013 was conducted through an electronic survey, which was completed by 127 individuals and 8 groups; 68 professionals and 51 parents/carers were among the respondents. As this was a survey covering all of Early Support’s resources, the developmental journals were not focused on in detail and were treated as a group, rather than the individual titles. Of the survey respondents, 65 had used a developmental journal and 50 respondents stated they would recommend the Journals. Website analytics showed the landing page for the Developmental Journals on Early Support’s website had been accessed 16,356 times. These results suggest widespread awareness of, and access to, the developmental journals and a high level of satisfaction. Early Years Developmental Journal As part of the most recent phase of Early Support, the generic Developmental Journal was revised and the Early Years Developmental Journal (EYDJ; Oates and Mengoni, 2013) can now be downloaded free of charge as a pdf document © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 347 from Early Support’s website. The EYDJ aims to meet the principles of good information sources for parents outlined by Mitchell and Sloper (2002) when delivered in the context of Early Support. The EYDJ is best used in conjunction with a practitioner who can offer advice and explain how to use the Journal most effectively. The EYDJ provides accessible information and guidance about different aspects of a child’s development in the context of their everyday life – for example, going to nursery or transitioning into school. The EYDJ consists of milestones categorised into four Areas of Development, sequenced into 14 Developmental Steps: • • • • Personal, social and emotional; Communication; Physical; Thinking. The first three areas map onto the prime areas of the revised EYFS (DfE, 2012b); the area of Thinking was added to represent cognitive development. The areas of development also correspond to those listed in the draft SEN Code of Practice (DfE, 2013a) which accompanies the Children and Families Bill and the four main domains outlined for assessment in Bellman et al. (2013). The 14 Developmental Steps represent typical development between birth and 5 years, therefore for children with SEND the EYDJ may be applicable beyond the age of 5 years. Each Step represents a period of time in development during which most typically developing children master the milestones listed. Development tends to occur in a relatively consistent sequential manner (Bellman et al., 2013) even in children with SEND, although the speed of development may differ and there may be differences in skill level across the four areas of development. The steps cover relatively narrow age ranges in the early stages, which get broader with age – for example, Step 1 covers the birth to 3 months age range whereas Step 10 covers the 24–31 months age range (Mengoni and Oates, 2013). This represents the variability seen in development. In order to show an up-to-date summary of children’s development, the EYDJ contains a Developmental Profile that shows which step the child is currently working at for each Area of Development. The EYDJ also incorporates a chart of key indicators. This highlights one milestone for each Area of Development in each Developmental Step as particularly important for development. This results in an abbreviated table of items, which can help parents and practitioners select an 348 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN appropriate starting point for their child. Both the Key Indicators and the Developmental Profile can make the Journal feel more manageable and less daunting, which was an issue highlighted by parents and practitioners with regard to the Developmental Journal for Babies and Children with Visual Impairment (Jennings, 2008). Accompanying each Developmental Step and the milestones are accessible narrative descriptions of developmental processes. These also include guidance for each Area of Development about ways to support children’s development, as this is an aspect both parents and practitioners rate as particularly useful in the developmental journals (Jennings, 2008). A key concept behind the EYDJ is that parents feel ownership of it. For each step, there are pages for parents to include extra information about special achievements and events and to note down any questions they have. Development of the EYDJ A key factor driving the development of the EYDJ was the change to the EYFS in 2012, which included new areas of development and learning. Therefore, as a starting point the items from the generic Developmental Journal were reassigned to the four new Areas of Development, which correspond to the EYFS’ three prime areas of learning and development and include the additional area of Thinking. The items from the generic Journal’s areas of personal, social and emotional development; communication; language and literacy; and physical development were mostly placed in the corresponding area in the EYDJ. The remaining three areas of problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy, knowledge and understanding of the world and creative development were reassigned, mostly placed under Thinking or, if this was not applicable, omitted from the EYDJ. Given that the majority of items in the EYDJ are based on the generic Developmental Journal, it is relevant to outline how the generic Journal was constructed. A range of developmental assessment instruments were consulted, including Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 2006), Denver Developmental Screening Test (Frankenburg and Dodds, 1968), the Griffiths Scales (Griffiths, 1967), Ages and Stages Questionnaires 2nd edition (ASQ; Bricker and Squires, © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 349 1999) and the EYFS Development Matters framework (DCSF, 2008). From this analysis, milestones were devised and placed in the appropriate Developmental Step. When constructing the EYDJ, the Bayley scales were re-consulted and other sources were also used; these included the popular and well-respected book From Birth to Five Years by Mary Sheridan (2008), the Developmental Rainbow (Mahoney and Perales, 1996), the NHS (n.d.) online timeline ‘From Birth to Five’, the third edition of the ASQ (Squires and Bricker, 2009) and the information about development in the revised EYFS Development Matters, specifically the ‘A Unique Child’ section (Early Education, 2012). Where a milestone appeared in both the EYDJ and the source(s), it was ensured that this was under the same age period. Where this was difficult to reconcile, specific sources such as relevant academic papers were checked. This process was followed to ensure that the information provided in the EYDJ was reliable and valid, and that practitioners and parents could have full confidence in it. Practitioners, parents and academics also contributed to the development of the generic Developmental Journal and the EYDJ. It was considered important to have a range of views on the Journal and to have the input of end users. This, along with building on important research and practice in the field, helps the EYDJ to bridge the gap between research and practice and provides practitioners with access to reliable information, principles highlighted in Allen’s (2011) report on early intervention. In partnership with the National Portage Association, there was a national consultation on the generic Developmental Journal in December 2007. This consisted of a feedback form being distributed to practitioners, who were asked for their views and the views of the families they worked with. Practitioners were mostly but not exclusively Portage practitioners: for example, a vision impairment specialist also replied. Two practitioners replied on behalf of themselves and five practitioners replied on behalf of their service. Views of 28 families were also received, both from the parents directly and through their Portage practitioners. The consultation was extensive across geographical locations, age of child, diagnosis, severity of condition and family socioeconomic status. The replies were largely very positive. All comments were analysed and compiled into action points which were taken forward into the final version of the Journal. Some representative quotes include: 350 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN If I think back over the last 18 months with my son, if the Journal had been available in this time I feel that it would also have helped me to understand not only his actual developmental needs at each stage, but it would have provided a benchmark of his development against his peer group and shown me whether the gap was narrowing or widening and importantly, at which stage. (Family with a child with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder) Small developments may seem insignificant to anyone else but are really important to you as the parent. It is a positive record of where and when something happened especially if it is something you have been working on for a long time. (Mother of a child with Down’s syndrome) It would be good to see and look back on the developments of their child and will help with making attainable goals without ‘pushing’ the child too far. (Portage home visitor) It will help by promoting partnership working with families and all agencies . . . supporting target-setting . . . promoting and acknowledging parental skills and expertise . . . linking EYFS to home-based working . . . celebrating success and progress. (Portage practitioner in consultation with six families) Once a draft of the EYDJ had been produced, it was circulated widely for feedback. As the primary purpose of the revision of the generic Developmental Journal was to incorporate changes to the EYFS, the recipients of this consultation were primarily professionals who worked in the early years as practitioners or academics or in the charity sector. Consultation with colleagues and families was encouraged. Feedback was compiled and suggestions for improvements were incorporated into the final version. As can be seen from the quotes below, generally the changes were welcomed: Having the four key indicators [one for each area of development] is great – it allows practitioners to focus [on] these areas. (Local authority early intervention team) This will be very helpful to many who are looking for material to complement Development Matters – to both share with parents and help make judgements together about development, especially where concerns are emerging. (Charity sector professional) © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 351 [The] four areas of learning are very clear to understand, intuitive and nicely pared down for simplicity. (Academic) Using the EYDJ in practice The EYDJ was designed to support a key working approach and promote partnership working by valuing what everyone knows about the child, including families, the child or young person themselves and the different practitioners involved. Children and young people with SEND often receive support from a number of different services – for example, Portage, speech and language therapy and physiotherapy. The EYDJ is particularly useful because it encourages everyone involved with a child to use the same language and provides one set of information that can be shared and used by the team around the child. Using the Journal with a practitioner means that families can ask questions and get advice; studies with family focus groups have shown that receiving information in context with the support of a practitioner is the ideal practice (Mitchell and Sloper, 2002; Young et al., 2005). The EYDJ can provide a rich source of information when a practitioner meets a family for the first time. The Developmental Profile depicts a child’s overall progress at a glance and looking through the Developmental Steps gives a detailed account of children’s development and their current level of ability. The Key Indicator chart may also be useful, as this is an abridged version of the items within the Journal and can provide information as to whether children have reached key developmental milestones. For these reasons, the Journal is useful for review meetings with practitioners to help explain children’s progress. Practitioners may also be able to contribute observations about the child that can be added into the Journal. The EYDJ was developed with reference to the EYFS Development Matters and the PCHR, both tools commonly used by practitioners working with young children in England. The milestones that correspond to the EYFS Development Matters are indicated with an icon in the Journal, as are milestones that map onto the PCHR. The milestones corresponding to the EYFS Development Matters also map on to Early Years Outcomes, non-statutory guidance for practitioners and OFSTED inspectors that aims to inform understanding of early child development (DfE, 2013b). Early Support has also produced useful information about using the 352 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN EYDJ with the EYFS, Early Years Outcomes, the PCHR and other tools (Mengoni and Oates, 2013), and this will be summarised here. Oates (2013a) outlines how the EYDJ can be used to supplement the PCHR and benefit health professionals. The EYDJ has clear links to the PCHR marked on specific items, but also goes beyond the PCHR and provides further information about child development which is relevant for children with and without SEND. For health visitors, this can support the two-year health check and where there is concern, the EYDJ can be used as a tool to examine this further in collaboration with families and other professionals. In the EYFS there is great emphasis and importance placed on working in partnership with parents. Indeed, each child’s key person is expected to support parents in fostering their child’s development and to help them seek additional support where appropriate. This way of working is similar to that taken by Early Support, which guided the development of the EYDJ. More generally, key working is an important way of working and the provision of key working for families of children with SEN as good practice is included in the draft SEN Code of Practice. As described above, the practice of continuous observation and gathering information from parents is recommended in early years settings, when conducting the two-year EYFS progress check and more widely. Oates (2013b) highlights that using the EYDJ to track progress helps practitioners to consider a child’s ability in different areas of development, their needs and their previous developmental trajectory as part of a continuous process of supporting development, rather than at a single snapshot in time. Guidance on conducting the two-year check published by the National Children’s Bureau (2012) recommends Early Support materials when working with a child with SEND, and specifically highlights the use of the EYDJ. The Department for Education and the Department of Health in England commissioned a report into the problem of information-sharing between and within different early years services (Gross, 2013). The report highlights that information exchange between staff working in early years settings, health services and children centres prevents duplication, is more efficient and helps practitioners provide the right type of support at the right time. The parents interviewed for this report were positive about the concept of a parent-held record to help with partnership working and information sharing. Importantly, parents emphasised © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 353 that they needed a dynamic, continuously updated resource and stated a preference for Early Support Developmental Journals over other resources and processes for this reason. The report cites the use of Early Support resources and methods, including the developmental journals, as examples of good practice. Indeed, a recommendation from this report is that the PCHR should include a parent-held record of children’s development and support they may have received. As a parent-held tool that links with both the PCHR and EYFS, the EYDJ is uniquely placed to do this. The overview narrative sections about the different steps within the Journal, along with the detailed description of development provided by the milestones, provide a useful source of information about how children develop. One of the recommendations from the EPPE project is that early years staff should have thorough knowledge and understanding of child development (Sylva et al., 2004). Using the EYDJ can help early years settings meet this aim, as well as providing parents with useful information. When children enter formal schooling, the National Curriculum is the statutory framework in all maintained primary and secondary schools. For children and young people who are working below level 1 of the National Curriculum, P scales are used to assess and track progress. For children with SEND who may be working at P scales in one or more subject, the EYDJ may be useful as the Developmental Steps have been mapped across to P scales (Mengoni and Oates, 2013). Use of the Journal to observe and record children’s development provides complementary information that can contribute to assessment and target-setting using P scales in both mainstream and special schools. Summary In this article, we have presented the EYDJ and outlined the evidence-based rationale behind such a resource in terms of encouraging parental input into developmental assessments, fostering links between parents and practitioners, enabling keyworking, supporting early years practitioners and promoting parental empowerment and knowledge. A logical consequence from more valid and holistic assessments, higher quality early years support and more informed and confident parents is a better outcome for children. As part of Early Support, the Developmental Journals’ original grounding was in the domain of childhood disability, and indeed the EYDJ remains a powerful and 354 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN useful tool for children with SEND and embodies many of the principles in the current SEND reforms in England. As the EYDJ is based on the sequence of development in typical development, it is also highly applicable to children without SEND. Coupled with the alignment to the revised EYFS, this resource is of great use to parents of babies, toddlers and pre-school children, early years practitioners and health professionals. In particular, it is a tool that can be used to support the current two-year checks in education and health, along with the upcoming single integrated review. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the current and past members of the Developmental Journal Working Group, the Developmental Journal Advisory Group and the Early Support Consortium. We also wish to thank those who have taken the time to comment and feedback on the Developmental Journals. This work was supported by funding from the Department of Education to the Early Support Consortium. References ALLEN, G. (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps. London: Cabinet Office. BAYLEY, N. (2006) Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (third edition). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education. BELLMAN, M., BYRNE, O. and SEGE, R. (2013) Developmental assessment of children. British Medical Journal, 346, e8687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8687. BOLTON, P. (2001) Developmental assessment. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 32–42. doi: 10.1192/apt.7.1.32. BRICKER, D. and SQUIRES, J. (1999) Ages and Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-completed Child Monitoring System (second edition). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing. BRINK, M. B. (2002) Involving parents in early childhood assessment: perspectives from an early intervention instructor. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 4, 251–257. doi: 10.1023/ A:1015185708531. CANARY, H. E. (2008) Creating supportive connections: a decade of research on support for families of children with disabilities. Health Communication, 23, 5, 413–426. doi: 10.1080/ 10410230802342085. CHUNG, C-Y., LIU, W-Y., CHANG, C-J., CHEN, C-L. TANG, S. F-T. and WONG, A. M-K. (2011) The relationship between parental concerns and final diagnosis in children with developmental delay. Journal of Child Neurology, 26, 413–419. doi: 10.1177/0883073810381922. DAVIES, S. and HALL, D. (2005) Contact a family: professionals and parents in partnership. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90, 1053–1057. doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.070706. © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 355 DCSF (DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES) (2008) Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage Nottingham: DCSF. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) (2011) Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability. [Online at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ 20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/ cm%208027] Accessed 24/01/12. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) (2012a) Provision for children under five years in England: January 2012 (SFR 13/2012). [Online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ provision-for-children-under-5-years-of-age-in-england-january-2012] Accessed 10/09/13. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) (2012b) Statutory framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. [Online at http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/statutory/g00213120/eyfs -statutory-framework] Accessed 09/08/12. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) (2012c) Early Years Foundation Stage profile attainment by pupil characteristics, England 2011/12 (SFR 30/2012). [Online at https://www.gov .uk/government/publications/eyfsp-attainment-by-pupil-characteristics-in-england-academic-year -2011-to-2012] Accessed 16/08/13. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) (2013a) Draft Special Educational needs (SEN) Code of Practice: for 0 to 25 years [Online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/special -educational-needs-sen-code-of-practice-and-regulations] Accessed 07/10/13. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) (2013b) Early years outcomes. [Online at https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-outcomes] Accessed 11/09/13. DFE (DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION) AND DOH (DEPARTMENT FOR HEALTH) (2011) Supporting Families in the Foundation Years. London: Department for Education. EARLY EDUCATION (2012) Development matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. [Online at http://www.early-education.org.uk/publications-and-resources/1435] Accessed 09/08/12. EARLY SUPPORT (2004) Monitoring Protocol for Deaf Babies and Children Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. EARLY SUPPORT (2006a) Developmental Journal for Babies and Children with Down Syndrome Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. EARLY SUPPORT (2006b) Developmental Journal for Babies and Children with Visual Impairment. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. EARLY SUPPORT (2008) Developmental Journal. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families. FENSON, L., DALE, P. S., REZNICK, J. S., BATES, E., THAL, D. J., PETHICK, S. J., TOMASELLO, M., MERVIS, C. B. and STILES, J. (1994) Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59, 5, 1–185. FRANKENBURG, W. K. and DODDS, J. B. (1968) The Denver Developmental Screening Test – manual Denver: University of Colorado Press. GOSWAMI, U. (2008) Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project. Learning difficulties: future challenges London: The Government Office for Science. GRIFFITHS, R. (1967) The Abilities of Babies. London: University of London Press, UK. GROSS, J. (2013) Information sharing in the foundation years: A report from the task and finish group. [Online at http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/information-sharing/] Accessed 06/12/13. GURALNICK, M. J. (2005) Early intervention for children with intellectual disabilities: Current knowledge and future prospects. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 313–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2005.00270.x 356 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN JENNINGS, J. (2008) Working with the Early Support Developmental Journal for babies and children with visual impairment: practitioner approaches that lead to better outcomes for children and families. [Online at http://www.rnib.org.uk/aboutus/research/reports/education/pages/early _support_journal.aspx] Accessed 17/12/12. LUINGE, M. R., POST, W. J., WIT, H. P. and GOORHUIS-BROUWER, S. M. (2006) The ordering of milestones in language development for children aged 1–6 years of age. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49, 923–940. doi: 092-4388/06/4905-0923 MAHONEY, G. and PERALES, F. (1996) Developmental rainbow: early childhood development profile Ohio: Responsive Teaching. MCCOLLUM, J. A. (2002) Influencing the development of young children with disabilities: current themes in early intervention. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 7, 4–9. doi: 10.1111/14753588.00003 MENGONI, S. and OATES, J. (2013) Practice guide to the Early Years Developmental Journal. [Online at http://www.ncb.org.uk/early-support/resources/developmental-journals/early-years -developmental-journal] Accessed 05/12/13. MITCHELL, W. and SLOPER, P. (2002) Information that informs rather than alienates families with disabled children: developing a model of good practice. Health and Social Care in the Community, 10, 2, 74–81. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00344.x NACHSHEN, J. S. and MINNES, P. (2005) Empowerment in parents of school-aged children with and without developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 12, 889– 904. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00721.x NATIONAL CHILDREN’S BUREAU (2012) A know-how guide: The EYFS progress check at age two. [Online at http://www.ncb.org.uk/areas-of-activity/early-childhood/resources/publications/ progress-check-at-two] Accessed 04/02/13. NHS (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE) (n.d.) Birth to five development timeline. [Online at http:// www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/birthtofive.aspx#close] Accessed 04/02/13. OATES, J. (2013a) Beyond the ‘red book’: the Early Years Developmental Journal. Journal of Health Visiting, 1, 5, 2–4. OATES, J. (2013b) The two-year-old challenge. Early Years Educator, 14, 12, 6. OATES, J. and MENGONI, S. (2013) Early Years Developmental Journal. [Online at http:// www.ncb.org.uk/early-support/resources/developmental-journals/early-years-developmental -journal] Accessed 01/02/13. ROMANCZYK, R. G., GILLIS, J. M., NOYES-GROSSER, D. M., HOLLAND, J. P., HOLLAND, C. L. and LYONS, D. (2005) Clinical clues, developmental milestones and early identification/ assessment of children with disabilities. Practical applications and conceptual considerations. Infants & Young Children, 18, 3, 212–221. doi: 10.1097/00001163-200507000-00005. ROYAL COLLEGE OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH (2009) Personal Child Health Record. http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/PCHR Accessed 24/08/12. SAUDINO, K. J., DALE P. S., OLIVER B., PETRILL S. A., RICHARDSON V., RUTTER M., SIMONOFF E., STEVENSON J., PLOMIN R. (1998) The validity of parent-based assessment of the cognitive abilities of 2-year olds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 349–363. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1998.tb00757.x. SHERIDAN, M. D. (2008) From Birth to Five Years: Children’s Developmental Progress (third edition) Oxon: Routledge. SQUIRES, J. and BRICKER, D. (2009) Ages and Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-completed Child Monitoring System (third edition). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing. © 2015 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 357 SYLVA, K., MELHUISH, E., SAMMONS, P., SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD, I. and TAGGART, B. (2004) The Final Report: Effective Pre-school Education London: Institute of Education. TERVO, R. C. (2005) Parent’s reports predict their child’s developmental problems. Clinical Pediatrics, 44, 601–611. doi: 10.1177/000992280504400708 TICKELL, C. (2011) The early years: foundations for life, health and learning. [Online at https:// www.gov.uk/government/collections/tickell-review-reports] Accessed 20/12/12. WHITELEY, H. E., SMITH, C. D. and HUTCHINSON, J. (2005) Empowering early years workers to identify and target areas of difficulty in pre-school children. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 25, 155–166. doi: 10.1080/09575140500128137. YOUNG, A., JONES, D., STARMER, C. and SUTHERLAND, H. (2005) Issues and dilemmas in the production of standard information for parents of young deaf children – parents’ views. Deafness and Education International, 7, 2, 63–76. doi: 10.1179/146431505790560400. YOUNG, A., TEMPLE, B., DAVIES, L., PARKINSON, G. and BOLTON, J. (2008) Disabled children (0–3 years) and integrated services – the impact of Early Support. Health and Social Care in the Community, 16, 3, 222–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00765.x YOUNG, A., TEMPLE, B., DAVIES, L., PARKINSON, G., BOLTON, J., MILBORROW, W., HUTCHESON, G. and DAVIES, A. (2006) Early Support: an evaluation of phase 3 of Early Support. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. Correspondence Silvana Mengoni Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research (CLiCIR) Department of Psychology School of Life and Medical Sciences University of Hertfordshire College Lane Campus Hatfield AL10 9AB Email: s.mengoni@herts.ac.uk 358 Support for Learning · Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 © 2015 NASEN Copyright of Support for Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment