Since the formation of extrafamilial care centres the relationship between kindergarten and family has been subject of discussions. On the one hand, Early Years education should enable parents’ employment. On the other hand, they are an educational facility and compensatory roles are attributed to them (cf. Thon et. al., 2018; cf. Betz, 2015). Induced by the results of international benchmark studies, several education policy activities were initiated (cf. Diehm & Kuhn, 2015). Among these is the differentiation of the Early Years sector e.g. by activating cooperation with help systems in early education via interorganisational networking. With the concomitantly instigated discussions – partly caused by the ‘PISA-shock’ as well as by the educational mandate rooted in the Kinder- und Jugendhilfegestez (KJHG) (German version of the Child and Youth Services Act) – attention is increasingly drawn to the topic of educational justice. At the same time, the task of networking is being re-thought in order to meet the aim of ‘early detection’ (cf. Machold & Diehm, 2017: 311 ff.). Therefore, professionals have to draft so called ‘risk biographies’ so that they can take preventive action (cf. Bollig 2013).

In this context, empirical findings point to elementary educational orientation, which will here be taken into account analogously to the output orientation in school. So initially, by definition the Early Years have a family-supplementary status. According to this definition the processes of learning are conceptualised via age-heterogeneous groups but at the same time they are orientated towards developmental norms which are influenced by the pedagogical environment. So, complementary to the attainment norm in schools, a developmental norm which describes a benchmark for pedagogical actions is ubiquitous in Early Years (cf. Machold & Diehm 2017; Rabenstein et al. 2013). Notions of normality are constructed along these and can then be used as a standard to measure the child’s development.

The successful collaboration and networking in the Early Years sector are embedded herein. Meanwhile, the cooperation of actors from Early Years and from early intervention teams is seen as centrally meaningful for a successful, inclusive practice. This, however – in the light of orientation towards developmental norms – brings ambivalences both among the professionals themselves and for the collaboration with parents and leads to insecurities. In short: In order to activate early intervention, children have to be labelled as ‘conspicuous’ alongside a description of deficits which can be described as extremely tension-filled in the practical field.

Hence, a reconstructive approach and a microanalytic perspective will be used within the frame of the research project »Cooperation Early Years and early intervention« (»Kooperation Kita und Frühförderung«) in order to verge on the acting agents’ collective orientational knowledge. Specific measures which aim at the fairness of participation will specifically be followed scientifically in this cooperation. Thus, the following question arises: How can inclusive education as well as participation be ensured via the approach of networking between the Early Years and early intervention and how can this be embedded in the cooperation with parents? In a three-step survey, online-questionnaires, focussed observations, group discussions and guided interviews were conducted. The sample of the research project consists of Early Years specialists, early intervention specialists and the respective leaders as well as parents or carers of the children. This contribution will focus on both, results of the group discussions and the interviews of the eight selected Early Years providers as well as the early intervention providers. The group discussions were qualitatively analysed with the documentary method by Bohnsack (2010) and the interviews were analysed using the qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2010).

First results of our research project show that early and (multi)professionally interconnected assistances, which – with reference to the future – relate to individual children, may lead to the reinforcement of discrimination processes. This, however is only the case if the assistances are set in the context of politically motivated tendencies aiming to “avert danger” (cf. critically on this Bröckling 2012) in the sense of a preventive approach that is widely used. Because, Preventative Semantics and action patterns are ubiquitary (ibid., 93). Structurally it appears that a child has to be labelled as “suspicious” in preventative measures in order to legitimise integra-tion services or early intervention. In Early Years, this sometimes rests on observations linked to the images of a ‘good childhood’ as well as observation and test procedures which are based on the notion of a ‘normal childhood’ (Cloos et. al. 2011). Thereby, a cooperation orientated towards inclusion calls for a reflective process, which questions the shared orientations and value systems. In the light of structural requirements this process becomes inevitable.

Betz, T. (2015). Das Ideal der Bildungs- und Erziehungspartnerschaft. Kritische Fragen an eine verstärkte Zusammenarbeit zwischen Kindertageseinrichtungen, Grundschulen und Familien. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Diehm, I. & Kuhn, M. (2015). Zwischen Adressierung und Inszenierung – Zur professionellen Kooperation von ErzieherInnen und LerherInnen in Sprachstandserhebungsverfahren. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, Bildung im Elementar- und Primarbereich (ZfG) 1(2015), 136-150. Machold, C. & Diehm, I. (2017): (Elementar-)Pädagogische Ordnungen - ihre Organisationsspezifik und Ungleichheitsrelevanz. In: Budde, J./ Dlugosch, A./ Strum, T. (2017): (Re-)Konstruktive Inklusionsforschung. Differenzlinien Handlungsfelder Empirische Zugänge. Berlin & Toronto: Barbara Budrich. Rabenstein, K./ Reh, S./ Ricken, N. & Idel, T.-S. (2013): Ethnographie pädagogischer Differenzordnungen. Methodologische Probleme einer ethnographischen Erforschung der sozial selektiven Herstellung von Schulerfolg im Unterricht. In: Zeitschrift für Pädago-gik, 59. Jg., H. 5 , S. 668-690. Thon, C., Menz, M., Mai, M., & Abdessadok, L. (Eds.). (2018). Kinder, Kindheiten und Kindheitsforschung. Bd. 17: Kindheiten zwischen Familie und Kindertagesstätte: Differenzdiskurse und Positionierungen von Eltern und pädagogischen Fachkräften. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.