Early Learning Project
Illinois Early Learning (IEL) staff asked Jeanette McCollum (JM) to reflect on her work in early childhood special education and changes in the field that she has observed during her professional career in Illinois. In this interview, she gives her perspective on recent changes in the closely related fields of early childhood education (ECE), early intervention (EI), and early childhood special education (ECSE).
IEL:
How did your professional interest in special education begin?
JM:
I started out my professional career teaching preschool and first grade in two small towns in south Texas. In my first job, I worked with a small class of preschoolers who were all Spanish speakers. At the second school, where I taught first grade, the primary special education teacher in my school retired after my first year. There were no applicants for the position, so I agreed to take it on. That new position led me back to school to complete a master's and then a doctorate degree in special education. Working with preschool children was my first love, so my graduate studies included an emphasis in early childhood. I really liked working with the younger children who had special needs. Many of the children in my first primary special classroom also were Spanish speakers. So I guess I felt more at home there than in the first-grade classroom. I moved to Illinois in 1976 to take a faculty position at the University of Illinois.
IEL:
What changes have you seen in the field of early childhood education (ECE), early intervention (EI), and early childhood special education (ECSE) in Illinois over the course of your professional career?
JM:
The histories of the three fields—ECE, ECSE, and EI—are very different, with each having different roots. The two that I know best are ECSE and EI. ECSE emerged out of special education and then joined together with regular ECE at the national and state levels as more ECE programs were developed in the schools. Although ECSE is now viewed as part of ECE, there is still a kind of tug of war. There has always been a dilemma about how to combine the two fields in a way that makes sense to such a wide range of children and families. Initially, training programs treated ECSE certification as a kind of “add on” to ECE or special education preparation, as opposed to a genuine integration with ECSE embedded into each course of the ECE training program. Over time, some higher education training programs managed to integrate ECE and ECSE in effective ways, but this has not been easy, nor have higher education programs always been rewarded for doing so.
EI for birth to 3-year-olds with disabilities in Illinois was initially housed in community programs, which tended to be attached to adult programs for individuals with disabilities. EI efforts varied in quality across the state. All programs had to do a lot of fund-raising and combining of state funds to stay afloat. When EI became a federal priority, many states, including Illinois, took another look at their delivery systems and subsequently adopted a fee-for-service model. The current structure today for EI professionals in Illinois is that most EI Child Development Specialists and other associated EI disciplines work individually, and billing is centralized. The downside to this approach is that many of the early quality trends in EI such as family-centered practice and interdisciplinary teaming are difficult to achieve because the centralized billing structure does not facilitate collaboration. Few of our higher education programs, whether they are special education or ECE, are adequately addressing the specific personnel needs of those who work with birth to 3-year-olds with disabilities—how to conduct home visits, how to work effectively with parents, how to recognize stages of infant and toddler development, how to understand the impact of a disability on children’s development. Once again, some individual training programs in the state have established their own curricula for EI personnel in response to the demands for a different set of knowledge and skills, but they have been the exception rather than the rule.
I came to Illinois in 1976. At that time, Illinois was considered a leader in the field of ECSE. We were one of the first states to have requirements for ECSE teachers. Later, Illinois also led the way by developing standards for EI personnel. I have served on many task forces in the 34 years since coming to Illinois. Sadly—but perhaps not surprisingly—some of the task forces I have served on revisited the same tasks that were completed years earlier. For example, the personnel standards that were developed for EI personnel were set aside because they were considered too difficult to implement and some felt that they might increase personnel shortages. Parents were concerned when the standards were eliminated and have continued to voice their concerns. Gradually higher personnel standards are being reintroduced.
IEL:
What has been exciting, surprising, or disappointing as you reflect on your work in ECE, ECSE, and EI in Illinois?
JM:
The way we structure our systems of ECE, ECSE, and EI at the state and federal levels have made progress difficult. Despite my reflections about these disappointments, there are also many examples of exciting and encouraging outcomes within ECE, ECSE, and EI in our state.
Many teachers and educators in the field have addressed the need for better teacher preparation and for a common language between ECE and ECSE. As a result of their efforts—and I am talking about many hours spent by many people over many years—there is much better understanding between ECE and ECSE professionals across the state. Those who came from ECSE are generally speaking more aware of child development and what that means for how young children learn, a strength of ECE preparation. Those who came from ECE are generally speaking more knowledgeable about intentional instruction with children, a strength of ECSE preparation. ECE and ECSE have learned from one another, and that has been a positive development.
Another exciting outcome is the great promise of EI. When children receive EI, they can progress to a higher level of functioning, sometimes achieving normal development by the time they start kindergarten; in effect, EI helps children overcome or at least lessen the potential effect of disabilities on children’s development. For example, it used to be that young children who were deaf or hard of hearing remained academically delayed throughout their schooling. New technologies allow us to screen children for hearing problems much earlier, and nearly 100% of children are screened at birth. If children are identified early enough and perhaps fitted with cochlear implants (also a relatively new technological advancement), or provided with other technological supports, they can often function on par with their non-hearing-delayed peers by kindergarten. This raises a challenge, however, which is how to provide EI personnel with the training they need so they can effectively support these children in early language learning. This is an example of how technology can outpace personnel preparation.
Another encouraging development in Illinois is the motivation among teachers and others to work together across disciplines despite the obstacles that are often in place as a result of funding streams, bureaucratic structures, and sometimes contradictory mandates that are not in the best interest of children and families. People’s willingness to continue to come together to work on yet another task force provides ample evidence of this.
As I reflect on my involvement in ECE, ECSE, and EI in Illinois over the past three and half decades, it has been these grassroots efforts that have had the greatest impact on the field. Countless parents, teachers, and agency staff have been willing to lobby at the state and federal levels to effect necessary changes to benefit ECE, ECSE, and EI. Higher education faculty have been willing to create high-quality training programs without being asked to do so or, in some cases, setting aside their own professional advancement to do so. I’ve seen many instances where these individual, grassroots efforts at local levels percolate up and get implemented statewide. Gateways to Opportunity is a good example of a system that started at the grassroots level and is now having a positive statewide impact on professional preparation.
I will close by encouraging those in ECE, ECSE, and EI to continue working within their programs and communities to bring the disciplines together and to work closely with families so staff are well prepared to work with all the children in their programs.
Disclaimer
The opinions, resources, and referrals provided on the IEL Web site are intended for informational purposes only and are not intended to take the place of medical or legal advice, or of other appropriate services. We encourage you to seek direct local assistance from a qualified professional if necessary before taking action.
The content of the IEL Web site does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Illinois Early Learning Project, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, or the Illinois State Board of Education; nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the Illinois Early Learning Project, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, or the Illinois State Board of Education.