66 Janice K. Lee, Jaclyn Joseph, Phillip Strain and Glen Dunlap
Another common feature is that all three of the models are aligned with a
behavioral-educational orientation. That is, the emphasis of all three programs is on
systematic instruction in order to build social skills and positive peer interactions.
It is important to emphasize, however, that the instruction is embedded within the
overall context of high-quality early childhood education programs designed to
benefit all of the participating children, regardless of whether or not the child has a
disability. Furthermore, the instruction that is provided for the children with ASD
is generally delivered in a manner that is consistent with the procedures used for
all of the children. Although based on behavioral principles and aligned with the
discipline of applied behavior analysis, the instruction is naturalistic and delivered
in the ongoing context of group activities.
Even though instruction and support for the children with ASD is delivered in
the ongoing classroom context, the interventions are individualized. Children with
ASD in all three programs have individualized plans for instruction in all relevant
areas and, in particular, in social and communication development. Teachers meet to
design, monitor, and refine individualized instructional strategies on a regular basis.
An associated feature is that data are collected and summarized on the key target
behaviors for each child. Progress is assessed frequently and instructional programs
are modified if the data indicate that anticipated gains are not occurring at a desired
rate. All three programs rely on data collection and data-based decision making.
Aside from these shared characteristics, there is perhaps one overriding feature
that may be considered to be necessary for an effective, inclusive classroom model.
That feature would be a concerted dedication to achieve a fully inclusive and fully
participatory educational experience for all children, with a focus on the develop-
ment of positive peer relationships. All three models share this kind of commitment,
and it is this common mission that is the foundation of successful inclusion for
children with disabilities.
Conclusion and future directions
The provision of inclusive services for young children with ASD has made great
strides over the last 30 years. Services are available and fidelity instruments have been
developed along with coaching protocols and outcome data published. Building on
these accomplishments, we envision three priorities for future work. First, there is
a pressing need to study, disseminate, and implement strategies that result in the
expansion of quality inclusive services. Enrollment of children with ASD in these
high-quality settings is still a rare event (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and U.S. Department of Education, 2015). This work will demand efforts
at the public policy level and at the level of pre-service and in-service training and
support, as well as bold leadership by administrators who currently operate systems
with few, if any, high-quality inclusion options (Barton and Smith, 2015).
Second, we see a pressing need to address, in a data-based fashion, the many
myths that preclude inclusive options for children with ASD. These myths include
the notion that children need to be “behaviorally ready” to benefit from inclusive