How Much Failure Should A Child Experience?

A
Case for Early Intervention

Introduction
In the complex and often controversial area of learning disabilities,
professionals unite around a belief in doing what is best for the child. Indeed,
there are few who would dispute that the heart of all decision making where
children are concerned, whether it is placement, instructional or otherwise, is
what will be in the childs best interest. Yet, beyond this deeply rooted belief,
there is not always agreement among professionals regarding what
constitutes best for the child or the process to follow in order to achieve it.
The concept of early intervention is no exception. Extensive research reveals
the overwhelmingly positive impact that early intervention services can have
for children and their families (Bruder, 2010; Carpenter, 2006; Hallahan et
al., 2005; McGill & Yaldei, 2006; NJLDC, 2007). Early comprehensive and
intensive intervention attempts to address developing problems with the
goal of alleviating or managing these difficulties by teaching skills and
strategies that will enhance a childs ability and promote improvement in
many developmental areas (Hallahan et al., 2005; Lerner, 2000; McGill &
Yaldei, 2006). Such intervention not only improves a childs chance of
success but can preclude the development of secondary problems and
lessens the need for services later in life (Emmons, 2005; Lerner, 2000,
McGill & Yaldei, 2006). Early intervention services provide necessary support
systems for families, enhancing understanding of their childs special needs,
equipping them with the skills necessary to advocate for their child and
teaching strategies to assist their child learn, develop and experience
success (Raspsa et al., 2010).
Though substantial research supports early intervention, a frequent
point of controversy remains: How early is too early? Should screening begin
during the preschool years? While much literature points to the benefits of
preschool screenings and intervention for the developmental and educational
gains, others warn of the damaging consequences of premature labelling and
false identifications, proposing rather, quality preschool for all and screening
upon the commencement of formal schooling. This leads to the larger
question: How much failure should a child experience? How long should we
wait before we provide needed services to children and their families? What
1

follows is a brief background of early intervention: characteristics, benefits,

effective service delivery and challenges. Current literature is reviewed,
including trends and best practices for the purpose of investigating the
question: Should early intervention occur prior to the commencement of
formal schooling?

What is Early intervention? : Descriptors and Benefits

Early intervention is a broad term referring to the range of services that are
available to children, birth to age 5, who exhibit signs of learning difficulties
or who have been identified as at risk for a learning disability. (McGill &
Yaldei, 2006; Carpenter, 2007; NJLDC, 2007) The signs of possible learning
difficulties are varied, complex and somewhat elusive, particularly in young
children. While identification typically relies on a childs attainment of
developmental milestones, there can be a dramatic variation between the
typical and the actual age at which a milestone is reached (Hallahan et al.,
2005; Lerner, 2000). This often, is further complicated by the characteristic
inattentiveness, distractibility and inconsistent behaviour of preschool
children (Emmons, 2005).
Despite the obvious challenges in identification, there is a general consensus
among professionals on signs that typically predict learning difficulties. As
mentioned above, some children may be identified as at risk for
developing learning problems during infancy or prior to preschool. These
children have been exposed to one or any number of ...environmental,
biological, genetic and (or) peri-natal condition (that) may be associated with
adverse developmental outcomes... (NJCLD, 2007, p.65). For example,
family history of learning difficulties, limited exposure to language and/or
typical learning experiences, and poverty are factors that would place a child
at risk for future difficulties (Hallahan et al., 2005; NJCLD, 2007). Other
children may appear to be developing typically and are not identified until
the preschool years. Research has identified a number of signs that are
considered indicators of learning disabilities. Though a child may display
difficulties in only one area, research has shown that this is rare (Hallahan,
2005 ). Children with learning disabilities typically struggle in many of the
following areas (Hallahan, 2005; Lerner,2000):

Visual processing, mainly the discrimination of letters and words and

difficulty with visual memory.

Auditory processing, specifically phonological awareness, auditory

discrimination, sequencing and memory.
Gross motor development: typified by awkward and clumsy
movements, poor hand-eye coordination and directionality problems.

Fine motor development: characterized, for example, by significant

difficulty or inability to button, zip, complete puzzles, hold scissors and
illegible and laborious printing.

Speech/Language: Difficulty acquiring speech and language skills and

may involve a delay with both receptive and expressive language. It
can present as delayed speech or an inability to produce certain
speech sounds; difficulty understanding others, listening and
responding to instructions, maintaining conversation and explaining.

Attention: Children with attention issues are often observed as fidgety,

impulsive and easily distracted.
Though difficulties in these areas may indicate potential learning issues, they
do not guarantee the presence of a problem; rather they indicate that further
investigation would be a prudent next step.
The process in identifying children who may be eligible for intervention
involves screening, examination of risk factors, systematic observations and
a comprehensive evaluation (NJLCD, 2007). Screening is defined as brief,
global, relatively low-cost procedures used to obtain preliminary information
about a wide range of behaviours for large groups of children (Emmons,
2005, p.112). The main goal of the screening process is to distinguish
between those children who are at risk for learning disabilities and those
who are not. Children who are identified during the screening process as
requiring possible learning supports are subsequently systematically
observed for the purpose of collecting further data regarding the childs
unique learning profile. Systematic observations by relevant professionals
occur overtime with multiple, informal observations in a variety of contexts
to ensure reliability and validity (NJLDC, 2007). Useful tools for the screening
of young children might include the Battelle Developmental Inventory
Screening Test, the Brigance, and the Pediatric Symptom Check (McGill &
Yaldei, 2006).
When the observation process confirms the findings of the original screening,
a comprehensive evaluation of the child is the next step. The purpose of this
3

evaluation is to examine the childs abilities and deficits and to identify

applicable resources and strategies that will support the child on a go
forward basis (NJLDC, 2007). Areas that are evaluated include cognition,
communication, emergent literacy, motor functions, sensory functions and
social/emotional adjustment (NJLDC, 2007).A variety of assessments can be
used in this process: norm referenced tests, criterion referenced tests,
teacher and parent rating scales and developmental checklists (Hallahan et
al. 2005; Lerner, 2000; Thorndike, 2005; NJCLD, 2007).
The benefits of early intervention have been well documented in the
research. Identification of issues that may impede development followed by
appropriate intervention has proven to enhance cognitive and social
development, reduce behaviour problems and result in less retention (Lerner,
2000; McGill & Yaldei, 2006). Early intervention services can also reduce
dependence on special education and rehabilitation services later in the
childs life and can prevent the development of secondary disabilities
(Lerner, 2000; McGill & Yaldei, 2006).
Families also benefit significantly from early intervention. The process of
involving the family in the intervention aids in their recognition and
understanding of their childs disability and empowers parents to become
advocates for their child, developing support networks that can help in
meeting the needs of their child in the home environment (Raspa et al.,
2010; NJCLD, 2007; Lerner, 2000). Without the services provided by early
intervention, families must guess how best to meet their childs needs and to
seek out supports and services independently.
Furthermore, society as a whole can benefit from early intervention. Early
Intervention Canada reports that with accurate early diagnosis, effective
interventions and adequate supports, the lifetime cost savings can range
between 50 to 75% (McGill & Yaldei, 2006).

Effective Service Delivery Models

Once a child has been identified with possible learning difficulties via the
process of screening, observation and comprehensive evaluation, a team of
professionals in coordination with the family, meet to establish a plan for the
child. In the case of a child who is not yet preschool age, an Individual Family
Services Plan (IFSP) is created. If the child is preschool age or older, an
Individual Education Plan (IEP) is created (Bruder, 2010). Both the IFSP and
the IEP outline the individualized services that the child will receive.
The delivery of services can vary in intensity depending upon the needs of
the child as determined by the team. The continuum of support moves from
least intensive to intensive. The intensity of support required will determine
the structure and setting of the intervention. For example, a child that
requires the least amount of support may have their needs met within a wellstructured and reputable preschool program (NJCLD, 2007). Further on the
continuum, the same preschool program in addition to parent-led at-home
support and /or the aid of a professional may be required. Service delivery
that is most intensive would involve more frequent and in-depth professional
supports in and outside the home. Yet, on all points of the continuum,
maintaining the child in the least restrictive environment is legally mandated
(Hallahan et al., 2005).
While variation exists in the way early intervention programs are
implemented, research has found that there are certain characteristics that
are common to successful programs (Bruder, 1993, 2010; Haring et al.,
1992; Kienapple et al., 2007; McGill & Yaldei, 2006; NJCLD, 2007; Raspa et
al., 2010). Effective service delivery models are highly structured. This
structure is based on an individualized program with clearly identified goals
connected to specialized learning strategies, designed to maximize the
childs development and functioning. Effective structure is sensitive to
biological, environmental and cultural factors that play a role in the
development of the child (NJLDC, 2001; Haring et al., 1992). Additionally,
high structure incorporates the regular monitoring and modification of
instruction (Hallahan et al., 2005).
Another common trait of effective service delivery is interdisciplinary
collaboration (Bruder, 2010; Haring et al., 1992; McGill & Yaldei, 2006).
A team approach, involving the family and applicable professionals working
and planning together to develop a specialized program for the child has
proven successful in delivering positive results for children and families
5

(Bruder, 2010; Haring et al., 1992; McGill & Yaldei, 2006). Relevant
professionals might include audiologists, pediatricians, psychologists, speech
pathologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists or early childhood
educators. The 2004 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, outlines
goals for optimal team functioning (Bruder, 2010). It suggests that effective
teams consult with parents and other service providers as necessary to
facilitate coordination of services, educate parents and train them as
necessary to support their child at home, perform relevant and timely
assessments of the child and develop specific, attainable goals as part of the
IFSP or IEP. Bruder, while supportive of the team approach, describes the
efficiency of the Transdisciplinary model. Intervention designed using this
service delivery model incorporates professional collaboration across
disciplines, however one service provider is responsible for the delivery itself.
Bruder suggests that this integrates expertise while maintaining efficiency
(Bruder, 2010).
In addition to high structure and interdisciplinary collaboration, much current
research in the area of early intervention has focused on the importance of
family involvement in the service delivery process (Bruder, 2010; Carpenter,
2006; Hallahan et al., 2005; McGill & Yaldei, 2006; NJLDC, 2006; Raspa et al.,
2010
). Parents are a childs first teacher and significant learning
takes place with the family prior to any type of formal education. With young
children spending the majority of their time with family members, it is
imperative that the needs of the child be addressed with the family context
in mind (Raspa et al., 2010). Research has shown that effective early
intervention utilizes a family-centered model where parents are involved in
the planning and implementation of their childs specialized program (Boyd
et al., 2010; Bruder, 1993, 2010; McGill & Yaldei, 2006; NJCLD, 2007; Raspa
et al., 2010). Data reveals that programs using a family-centered approach
resulted in children who made more progress over time than was originally
expected and families who report higher levels of support overall (Raspa et
al., 2010). Furthermore, family support throughout the early intervention
process translates into sable, long term progress for the child (Haring et al.,
1992; Keinapple et al., 2007).

The Problems & Challenges of Early Intervention

While the benefits of early intervention, through effective service delivery,
has much support within the professional community it is not without
controversy. Two areas from which the controversy stems are lack of funding
and inconsistencies in regulation. Currently, Canadian provinces vary
6

significantly when it comes to support of early intervention programming

(McGill & Yaldei, 2006). Both the Early Childhood Development Agreement
(2000) and the Early Learning and Childcare Agreement (2003) have
provided support to the provinces in the way of funding with the goal of
improving services for children and their families making early learning and
childcare programs more affordable (McGill & Yaldei, 2006 ). However, there
are still improvements to be made if early intervention programs are to be
easily accessible for all. Lack of sustainable and long term committed
funding....effects the number of children and families served, the access to
timely service, the quality and scope of service, working conditions and staff
recruitment (Kienapple et al., 2007, p.5). Thus, financial constraints have a
significant impact on the quality of services that can be provided.
Inconsistencies in programming and regulation of early intervention
programs have also been criticized for a lack of coordination and consensus
around what constitutes best practices. Haring et al. suggest that ...until
we have a consensus on what best practices in early intervention are, we will
continue to waste precious resources conducting research on mediocre early
intervention programs, to produce equivocal results. (Haring et al., 1992,
p.168) Additionally, there is little systematic examination of new programs,
the implementation or outcomes at the provincial or national level (Kienapple
et al., 2007). Kienapple points out that essential information has yet to be
systematically obtained, such as:

Who provides early intervention services in Canada?

Who utilizes these services?
What types of services are provided?
What are the objectives of the services?
What are the outcomes of the services?

Without his information, evaluating the effectiveness of programs and

developing future policies in the area of early intervention is all but
impossible. This is a promising area for future research. As Kineapple points
out,
Intervention services need to operate within policy formulated at the
provincial and federal levels, based on best practices and directed to
supporting early childhood development. The adoption of policy at a
provincial and federal level is an indication of significance and an
assurance of support, financial and otherwise. (Kienapple et al., 2007,
p.7)
7

Other problems related to early intervention stem from the complexities

associated with definitional aspects of learning disabilities in combination
with the variation in childrens development during the critical preschool
years. Progression in the areas of language and communication,
social/emotional development, hearing and speech, visual development and
gross and fine motor skills are part of the learning associated with reaching
significant developmental milestones from birth (McGill & Yaldei, 2006).
Though milestones exist as a guideline of normal development, there is
variation in the rate of development, with some children reaching milestones
before most children the same age and others reaching those milestones
later than other children the same age. This variance is somewhat expected
as children typically do not mature and develop at the same rate (Hallahan
et al., 2005).Complexities associated with developmental variation are
compounded by the lack of clarity and agreement among professionals about
the criteria that defines learning disabilities. Mainly, many definitions of
learning disabilities include difficulty in academic tasks or lack of
academic progress in school as a component of the overall definition
(Kienapple et al., 2007; Hallahan et al., 2005). As preschoolers have yet to
begin formal schooling, this criteria is not yet applicable. Thus, testing of this
age group involves the measurement of preacademic skills which research
has found to be a reasonable predictor of future academic success (Hallahan
et al., 2005).
Many critics of early intervention point to problems related to false
identifications and the stigma of labelling. The purpose of screening is to
identify those children who may require supports. It does not serve to
diagnose learning disabilities rather, it aids in determining if further
assessment is needed (Boyd et al., 2010). Screening is an efficient and time
effective way of assessing groups of children to determine who may require
specialized services (Emmons, 2005). Critics argue that the screening of
preschool children for learning difficulties, due to its broad and highly
sensitive approach, results in classification errors. Mainly, screening results
in the false identification of children who do not have learning issues
(Emmons, 2005; Ritchey & Speece, 2004). As Ritchey and Speece point out,
classification errors are part of the screening process and are largely
unavoidable. These errors do not only occur in the form of false positives but
also in the form of false negatives. False negatives refer to students who are
not identified as at risk during the screening process but are later diagnosed
8

with a learning disability (Ritchey & Speece, 2004). While the goal of early
identification is to have high sensitivity and specificity and low false positive
and false negative rates, it may be unrealistic to have no errors (Ritchey &
Speece, 2004, p.14). Despite this fact, other forms of testing, such as
Intelligence tests, to determine those children who may have learning
difficulties are not appropriate for use with preschoolers. This age group is
typically distractible and inattentive thus the difficulty of completing testing
compounded with inconsistent performance inevitably leads to unstable
results (Hallahan et al., 2005).
Further complicating accurate identification is the fact that discrepancies in
ability are sometimes temporary and can be resolved during the course of
development (Haring et al., 1992). As NJCLD points out, currently,
professionals are not able to distinguish between children who will have
lasting, life-long difficulties and those that will improve with time (NJCLD,
2007).
Critics of early intervention also point to the consequences that can result
with the labelling of young children. Children who are labelled with a learning
disability often carry this label with them throughout their school career and
must cope with the possible stigma associated with it (Haring et al., 1992).
The formality of a label can impact the child in a variety of ways, few of them
positive. Teachers may lower their expectations for the child (Haring et al.,
1992). This is particularly troublesome as student motivation is often
associated with teacher expectation. Specifically, students typically aim to
meet the expectations of their teachers. If expectations are low, student
performance will be low (Haring et al., 1992). Years of repeated failure can
also take an emotional toll on a child, particularly as the child becomes
increasingly aware of their achievement in comparison to classmates (Haring
et al., 1992; Ritchey, 2004). As an increasing number of children have access
to intervention programs, tracking the effects of labelling would prove an
interesting area of research.

Discussion
While the weaknesses of early intervention are noted in the research, it
becomes a matter of determining if the strengths of early intervention
outweigh these weaknesses. Ideally, a definition of learning disabilities would
be clear and universally agreed upon, diagnosis would be straightforward
and uncomplicated, the screening process would be precise, without the
dilemma of false identifications and there would not be a stigma associated
9

with the label of learning disability. Regrettably, this is not reality. Early
intervention will likely always be the subject of some controversy. Yet, it
would be unwise to conclude that the presence of challenges indicates that
the intervention process is not worthwhile.
Despite these weaknesses and challenges, the research is overwhelming in
support of early identification and intervention as a concept. The debate
stems, not from whether early intervention is valuable in itself, but whether
identification and intervention should occur prior to when a child enters
formal schooling.
There is data to suggest that the younger the child is at the beginning of the
intervention process, the greater chance that the child will make
developmental gains and experience success ( Bruder, 1993, 2010; NJLDC ,
2007; McGill & Yaldei, 2006). Learning does not begin with the
commencement of formal schooling. Development is rapid in the preschool
years and therefore, despite the discrepancies in the rate of learning,
screening and intervention should begin as early as possible in order to
maximize a childs potential through teaching strategies and effective
support. Early Intervention Canada reports that program success directly
depends on the age of the child at the beginning of the intervention as well
as the intensity and amount of service (McGill & Yaldei, 2006). NJLDC
recommends that all preschool children be screened to assess early
language and reading skill development just as they are for vision and
hearing (NJLDC, 2007). Earlier identification will allow children to receive an
earlier diagnosis and more timely access to early intervention services
(Boyd et al., 2010, p.78).
Despite NJLDCs recommendation of preschool screening, they also advise
that professionals take precautions against the premature identification or
labelling of a learning disability (NJLDC, 2004). This cautionary advice stems
from the variability in the learning and development of preschoolers and the
inherent difficulty in the precise prediction of learning disabilities in this age
group. As highlighted in Hallahan et al., ...provide(ing) special services to
children with special needs without any label at all...is a puzzle not likely to
be solved ( Hallahan et al., 2005, p.152). Though critics claim that the
stigma associated with the label of a learning disability can be damaging to a
childs self-esteem, it could be argued that early identification, prior to formal
schooling, could be beneficial in terms of a childs self image. Early
identification establishes supports for the child that, hopefully, will equip the
child with strategies that will allow them to be successful in the regular
10

classroom. In addition, research advocates intervention within the childs

natural environment (Bruder, 2010). It is plausible, depending on the type
and intensity of the intervention, that awareness is limited to immediate
family members and the intervention team, decreasing the chances that the
child has to deal with the stigma of a label. Alternatively, it seems somewhat
cruel to subscribe to the wait and fail method (Lerner, 2000), whereby
students are identified during their formal schooling years and must face the
stigma associated with failure at an age where there may be increased
awareness and embarrassment.
There is no doubt that the screening and identification process is a difficult
one. It is not an exact science and there is no crystal ball. Professionals are
asked to identify young children, whose rate of development is characterized
by vast discrepancies, against criteria that is usually able to predict learning
problems that will likely inhibit future academic and social success. The risk
of false identifications and the stigma of labelling are possible consequences
of early identification and intervention that will likely be present whether
screening occurs in the preschool years or the early years of formal
schooling. With evidence to support the benefits of intervention during the
pivotal preschool years why then, would we wait to intervene? Are the
challenges of early identification and intervention and the fear of false
identification and labelling worth abandoning early intervention? The answer
must be no, if we value a positive and proactive approach to supporting
children and families. False identifications are a consequence of the process
and are necessary if the aim is to act preventatively. Hallahan et al. suggest
that averting failure requires anticipation of it (Hallahan et al., 2005,
p.151). If the anticipation of failure leads to services and supports that
overtime lessens, or at best prevents future failure, then how can we not be
in favour.

11

Resources
Boyd, B.A., Odom, S., Humphreys, B.P. & Sam, A.M. (2010). Infants and
Toddlers
with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Early Identification and Early
Intervention.
Journal of Early Intervention, Vol. 32, No.3, 75-98.
Bruder, Beth. (2010). Early Childhood Intervention: A Promise to Children and
Families for Their Future. Exceptional Children, Spring 2010; 76, 3;
ProQuest Educational Journals, 339-355.
Bruder, Beth. (1993). The Provision of Early Intervention and Early Childhood
Special Education Within Community Early Childhood Programs:
Characteristics of Effective Service Delivery. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 13:19, 19-37.
Carpenter, B. (2007).The Impetus for Family-Centered Early Childhood
Intervention. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33,6, 664-669.
Emmons, M.R & Alfonso V.C. (2005) A Critical Review of the Technical
Characteristics of Current Preschool Screening Batteries. Journal of
Psycoeducational Assessment, 23, 111-127.
Hallahan, D.P., Lloyd J.W., Kauffman, J.M., Weiss, M.P, Martinez, E.A. (2005)
Learning Disabilities: Foundations, Characteristics and Effective
Teaching, 3rd ed. Pearson Education Inc.
Haring, Kathryn A., Lovett, David L., Hanley, Kay F., et al. (1992). Labelling
Preschoolers as Learning Disabled: A Cautionary Position. Topics in
Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 12, 151-173.
Kelly, J.F; Zuckerman T.;& Rosenblatt, S. Promoting First Relationships: A
Relationship
Focused Early Intervention Approach. Infants &
Young
Children, Vol.21, No.4, 285-295.
Kienapple, K., Lyon M., & McSorley, A. (2007). Provision of Early Intervention:
A
Case Study of One Canadian Province. International Journal of Early
Childhood, Vol 39, Iss.1, 59-68.
Lerner, J. (2000). Learning Disabilities: Theories, Diagnosis, and Teaching
Strategies, 8th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company.

12

McGill University and Yaldei Development Center. (2006). Creating a

Paradigm Shift in Early Intervention Policy and Practice. Retrieved July 21,
2010 from www.earlyinterventioncanada.com.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). Learning
Disabilities and Young Children: Identification and Intervention. Learning
Disability Quarterly, Winter 2007, Vol.30, Iss.1, 63-72.
Raspa, M., Simpson, M.E., Bailey, D., et al. (2010). Measuring Family
Outcomes in
Early Intervention: Findings from a Large-Scale
Assessment. Exceptional
Children, Summer 2; 76, 4; ProQuest
Educational Journals, 496-510.
Ritchey, Kristen D., & Speece, Deborah L. (2004). Early Identification of
Reading
Disabilities: Current Status and New Directions. Assessment for
Effective
Intervention, 29:13-24. http://aei.sagepub.com/content/29/4/13.

13