As I put my 6-year-old, who has special needs, on the bus every day for her first-grade class in a school very much like Sandy Hook Elementary School, I know like others, I will never forget Friday, December 14, 2012. In Connecticut, where I live, the reality of that day is very much present: in our communities, in our schools, in our classrooms, and in our early childhood intervention (ECI) profession. As was disclosed by their families, of the 20 children who lost their lives that day, two had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and had received early childhood invention. Four of the six adults who were killed in the school that day were involved with special education services: the school principal, the school psychologist, a paraprofessional, and a graduate student who was receiving advanced training on working with young children with ASD. In addition, a vulnerable mother and her son with mental health issues (presumed, but not documented) also lost their lives. While 27 families bore the brunt of the horror of that day, our state and country were forever affected. In Connecticut, many of us had a personal connection to Sandy Hook and those who died.

Since that tragic Friday, many have called for both state and national legislative measures aimed at two issues that were in evidence that day: guns and mental health. These issues are complex and require thoughtful reform if we are to create a safer society for all of us, especially our children. In response to the violence that occurred that day, as well as the violence that has occurred through mass shootings over the past 10 years, a number of position statements have been issued from many local, state, and national groups. One such group, the Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence, is comprised of nine prominent researchers and practitioners from multiple fields of study who have worked in the area of school safety since the 1980s. In the days that followed the shooting, they issued the Connecticut School Shooting Position Statement, which is a call to action to all of us. The purpose of the statement is to communicate scientifically informed principles and recommendations for practitioners, policy makers, and the public at large. The goal of the statement is to help build consensus on a course of meaningful action. The position statement and a complete list of organizations endorsing it are located at: http://curry.virginia.edu/articles/sandyhookshooting. The statement has been endorsed by 183 organizations and more than 200 prevention scholars and practitioners (excerpts follow).

The statement is guided by four key elements: Balance, Communication, Connectedness, and Support. These elements were described along with other actions to be taken such as strengthened attention to mental health needs in communities, structured threat assessment protocols for schools and communities, revised policies on youth exposure to violent media, and increased efforts to limit inappropriate access to guns, especially assault-type weapons.

Of the first four elements, Balance implies well-integrated programs that make sense and are effective. Communication refers to improved communication within a school and community about threat assessment and how to take reasonable steps to resolve the problems and conflicts revealed through a threat investigation. Connectedness suggests that schools should reach out to build positive connections to marginalized students, by showing concern and fostering avenues of meaningful involvement in both the school and the community at large. Support reflects the need for all individuals to feel supported. Every school should create environments where students and adults feel emotionally safe and have the capacity to support one another. Schools must also have the resources to maintain evidence-based programs designed to address bullying and other forms of student conflict. Finally, the statement asks that our political leaders and all concerned citizens take responsibility to work together toward the common goal of keeping our schools and communities safe.

I cannot close without asking all of you to reflect on the lives of the 20 young children who were lost on December 14, 2012, and the families left to cope with the eternal grief of losing a child. I also ask you to reflect on the six school faculty members who lost their lives that day, a number of whom died covering the bodies of the children in their classrooms. They collectively represent the interdisciplinary and tiered range of staff that we hope benefit from the articles in Infants & Young Children (IYC). On that day, an administrator, a psychologist, three teachers, a special education paraprofessional, and a student in training lost their lives. Together, they represent the best of our field. Let us continue to use IYC positively to impact and enhance the lives of children such as those who died that day.

CURRENT ISSUE

Our first article in this issue concludes our international perspectives on the Developmental Systems Approach (DSA) (Guralnick, 2001). We are grateful to Hanan Sukkar for submitting such a strong description of the DSA to ECI services in Australia. This article presents an in-depth overview of ECI services in Australia, as well as including future recommendations for a national policy and practice framework specifically developed for ECI, and more specific recommendations for improvements in services for both children and families. This article, as have the other international descriptions of ECI from around the world, has proven informative and encouraging. I am so pleased that the DSA has provided a framework from which to examine the similarities and differences in early intervention across countries, cultures, and systems for vulnerable infants and young children and their families.

The next article in this issue continues our international perspectives by providing an examination of services for young children with ASD in China. Xueyun Su, Toby Long, Lianjun Chen, and Junming Fang conducted a survey with 156 parents of children with a diagnosis of ASD who lived in Shanghai, Beijing, and Shandong. While the majority of parents reported their children had symptoms of ASD prior to age 3, these children were not enrolled in ECI at that time. The authors attribute this delay in service provision to a number of issues; including the lack of resources available to families in China, as well as a lack of appropriate intervention services available for these children. The families also reported having a high degree of stress attributed to a lack of monetary resources needed to provide intervention for their children, and the lack of societal and family acceptance of their children. The authors conclude with recommendations for the evolution of the Chinese ECI system.

Dana Childress, Sharon Raver, Anne Michalek, and Corrine Wilson provide an article about an important component of early intervention under Part C of IDEA: service coordination. Although service coordination is a required component under Part C, there are still many concerns about the implementation and quality of this service. The authors provide a description of a service coordination training package that is required of all early intervention service coordinators in the state of Virginia. Past research has suggested that minimal preparation is provided to service coordinators, which is why this article should be helpful to the field. The authors present the results of their training as measured through knowledge indices and report increases in knowledge among all who participated in the training. The authors conclude with recommendations to enhance service coordination for all families under Part C.

Our next article continues in the area of professional development with application to speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The author, Lena Caesar, surveyed SLPs in the state of Michigan who were asked to assess their perception of their preservice academic and clinical preparation for providing early intervention services to culturally and linguistically diverse populations (CLP). One hundred eighty-nine SLPs responded, and more than half reported that their graduate education was less than adequate. Surprisingly, more than two thirds of these SLPs indicated that they felt qualified and confident to provide speech-language pathology services to culturally diverse service populations. University personnel were also surveyed about what they offered in their training programs to prepare graduate students to serve CLP infants and toddlers and families. The majority of them reported having felt that they had adequately prepared their students for serving this population. The author concludes with recommendations for resolving this discrepancy in perception of preparation among those who prepare SLPs and those SLPs who are prepared to serve in early intervention.

Paraskevi Giagazoglou from Greece provides an article that describes a study that examined gender and socioeconomic status (SES) of preschool-aged children in relation to their overall development as measured by the six scales of the Griffiths test. Two hundred fifty-five preschoolers (125 boys and 130 girls) were randomly selected from daycare centers and kindergartens in Northern Greece to participate in the study. The sample was divided into three SES groups (75 children coming from high-SES, 110 mid-SES, and 70 low-SES families) according to parental education, occupational status, and family income. Effects found in relation to the SES of these children, as follows: Children coming from high-SES families had better scores on all domains of development than children coming from other SES groups. There were no gender differences, however. The author summarizes this study with implications for the use of the Griffiths scales.

We conclude this issue of IYC with another contribution from Australia. Jenny Ziviani, Yvonne Darlington, Rachel Feeney, Sylvia Rodger, and Pauline Watter present a qualitative study conducted with early intervention staff who provide services to children with physical disabilities and their families. Ten staff members participated in interviews about service delivery quality and issues around the provision of services. Themes that emerged included the importance of family-centered practice, flexible service delivery and structure, and teamwork in interagency coordination. There were also a number of unmet service needs that were identified including the growing and high demand for services in relation to inadequate funding and staffing. These challenges are universal, and the authors conclude with implications for the field of ECI.

I thank the authors of these articles who chose to submit to their work to IYC, and also the group of reviewers who helped prepare these articles for publication. I am pleased that this issue, as always, contains work from international authors, authors from the AUCD network, and authors new to publishing. Happy Spring!

-Mary Beth Bruder, PhD

Editor

REFERENCE