1. Inclusive Childhoods: A systems analysis of disability in early childhood Friday, April 1, 2016 Global Summit on Childhood San José, Costa Rica This meeting is funded by the County of Wellington Children’s Services and SSHRC/CRSH Partnership Development Grant #890-2014-0096

2. Project purpose  Objective 1: To understand the experience of disability in early childhood and family interactions with early childhood education and care services within communities.  Objective 2: To identify the capacity of an (integrated) early childhood education and care system to meet the needs of children with disabilities and their families.  Objective 3: To develop a theoretical model, grounded in the experience of families, that articulates the interaction between children/families and the early childhood education and care system.

4. Summary of Participant Demographics

5. Institutional ethnography  Ruling relations  Focus on setting, language, and text  Standpoint informants  Values people’s practice rather than theories of their practice

9. Rural

10. Remote

11. Urban Aboriginal

12. Findings  The importance of standpoint  Which language is valued?  Organizing of services becomes organizing of families  Who is making the decisions?  Processing interchanges  Who sets the menu?  How does the system function?  What is the work being done and how is it embedded in the system?  Conflicting values between families and systems

13. Recommendations for practice: Think about documentation and process interchanges and how they function Expect competency from children Value staff in community programs (ECEs) Know that therapy is not more important than community participation

14. References Bisaillon, L. & Rankin, J. M. (2013). Navigating the politics of fieldwork using Institutional Ethnography: Strategies for practice. FQS, 14(1), Art. 14. http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1829/3473http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1829/3473 Smith, D. E. (2009). Categories are not enough. Gender & Society, 23(1), 76-80.