Küçük Çocuklara Gelişimsel Gerilik Etiketi Vermekle İlgili Sorunlar: Kimin Sorumluluğu?

Year 2013, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 187 - 199, 01.06.2013

Azar Hadadian Kourtland R. Koch

https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.107932

Abstract

1997'de yasalaşan Engelli Bireyler Eğitim Yasası, 0-9 yaş arası çocuklardan 1) gelişimsel geriliği olanlara ya da 2) geriliğe neden olabilecek koşullara sahip olanlara ya da 3) gelişimsel gerilik riski olanlara eyaletlerin kapsamlı, eş güdümlü ve aile merkezli özel eğitim hizmetleri sağlamalarını gerektirmektedir. 2004'te genişletilen IDEIA ile eyaletler a) tanımda büyük farklılıklar, b) aşırı tanılama, c) ailevi ve kültürel farklılıklar, d) norm temelli ölçme araçlarının uygunlukları, e) hizmetleri sağlama ile ilgili ücretler gibi bir çok engelle karşılaşmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı "gelişimsel yetersizlik" terimini tanımlamayla ilgili farklılıkları vurgulamak ve Bölüm C'den Bölüm B'ye geçiş sürecini tartışmaktır.

Keywords

Erken müdahale, gelişimsel gerilik, erken çocukluk eğitimi, özel eğitim

Issues in Labeling Young Children with Developmental Delay: Whose Responsibility is It?

Abstract

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 required states to provide comprehensive, coordinated, family-centered special education services to children from birth to age 9 after being identified as 1) being developmentally delayed, or 2) having conditions that could lead to delay, or 3) at risk for developmental delay. Within the provisions of IDEIA 2004, states have been encountering a number of obstacles including: a) wide variation in definition, b) over-identification, c) family and cultural diversity, d) appropriateness of norm-referenced tools, and e) cost involved in providing services. The purpose of this article is to highlight issues pertaining to the discrepancies in defining the term "developmental delay" and further discuss the transition process from Part C to Part B.

Keywords

Early intervention, developmental delays, early childhood education, special education

References

• Aylward, G. P. (1997). Infant and early childhood neuropsychology. New York: Pelnum Press.
• Bowe, F. (2007). Early childhood special education birth to eight. (4 ed., pp. 39-51). New York, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
• Brassard, M. R. & Boehm, A. E. (2007). Preschool assessment: Principles and practices. New York: Guilford Press.
• Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. National Association for the Education of Young children Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-36, 42 U.S.C. § 5106 (2003).
• Danaher, J. (2011). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA. (NECTAC Notes No. 27). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
• Derrington, T. M., & Lippitt, J. A. (2008). State-level impact of mandated referrals from child welfare to Part C early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 90-98.
• Division for Early Childhood. (2008). Developmental delay as an eligibility category. Division for Early Childhood, Concept Paper.
• Dooley, C. B. (2010). Assessment and intervention with children with developmental delays. In D. C. Miller (Ed.), Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention (pp. 329-358). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Hebbeler, K., Barton, L., & Mallik, S. (2008). Assessment and accountability for programs serving young children with disabilities. Exceptionality, 16, 48-63.
• Hooper, S., & Umansky, W. (2004). Young children with special needs. (4 ed., pp. 313). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Howard, V., Williams, B., & Lepper, C. (2010). Very young children with special needs. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 632, 118 Stat. 2744 (2004).
• Miller, D. C. (2007). Essentials of school neurpsychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Nuttall, E. V., Nuttall-Vasquez, K., & Hampel, A. (1999). Assessing and screening preschoolers (pp. 1-8). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Rosenberg, S., Zhang, D., & Robinson, C., (2008). Prevalence of developmental delays and participation in early intervention services for young children. Pediatrics, 121, 1503-1509.
• Sameroff, A. J. (1993). Models of development and developmental risk. In. C. H. Zeanah, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 3-13). New York: Guilford Press.
• Shackelford, J. (2006). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA (NECTAC Notes No. 21). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, and National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
• United States Government (1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 Public Law 94-142. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• United States Government (1986). The Education For All Handicapped Act Amendments of 19 Public Law 99-457. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.