International and European organisations and scholars in the field place emphasis on inclusion as a process of systemic change of the community systems to provide quality care and education to all children and their families (e.g., European Commission, 2019; Spandagou et al., 2020). Support in early years is approached through early childhood intervention (ECI) which is a societal strategy for mobilising a grid of interconnected health, social, and educational services and agencies which are available in the community for every child and his or her family who need it to promote their well-being and help them thrive (Meisels & Shonkoff, 2000). Such a provision is built on the dynamic interplay between assessment (identification), planning, intervention, and monitoring of the quality of services (Eurlyaid-The European Association on Early Childhood Intervention [EAECI], 2019). The type of services required are dependent on the priorities, strengths, support needs, and satisfaction of the child and their family. They are designed with the aim to be initially infused in the family’s home routines (McWilliam, 2010; Odom & Wolery, 2003). Longitudinally, an ECI system should cover the smooth transitions of the child in the milieu of the childcare setting and kindergarten followed by the transition in the elementary school up to third grade (Movahedazarhouligh & Banerjee, 2020; Spandagou et al., 2020) and facilitate their full inclusion and school success (Franco et al., 2017). 

To ensure a constructive impact with long benefits for children and their families, it is necessary to take a ‘family-centered’ (Dunst, 2002) and a ‘justice-driven inclusive’ approach (Love & Beneke, 2021) to ECI. The idea of family-centeredness has been developed on the premises of help-giving and empowerment theories which view children as members of their families and place emphasis on considering the family context for service delivery to enhance superior child and family outcomes (Dempsey & Keen, 2008). Importantly, research has shown that professionals in health care, therapy services, and early childhood and elementary education, if efficiently and effectively trained, can adopt and advocate for family-centered models and approaches (Dempsey & Keen, 2008; Movahedazarhouligh, 2019). Additionally, a justice-driven approach to ECI calls for policies, research, and practice that recognise and act upon minimising the dominant ableist and racist discourses, expectations, and processes that contribute to the exclusion of children and their families. This means that policy makers, researchers, medical personnel, social workers, therapists, psychologists and other specialists as well as educators, involved in all early childhood learning environments (childcare and kindergartens) till the third grade of elementary school, should critically reflect on (a) deficit beliefs about dis/ability, (b) the othering of children because of race, disability, socio-economic status, and other characteristics, and (c) the recycle of perceptions, policies, and practices constructed in early childhood services and institutions which adhere to normalcy without recognising and valuing difference (Love & Beneke, 2021). 

In this paper, we implement such a critical approach in recording, understanding, and comparing the existing policies surrounding ECI and its associations with inclusion in the community and education and care settings in three countries (Greece, Cyprus, and Australia). Guiding questions that support our main research aim are the following: Do recent ECI policy initiatives address the link between the timely identification of children and families at risk of exclusion and the need for collaborative planning and support that leads to children’s inclusion and well-being? Do the similarities and differences between the countries affect the way ECI is understood and legitimised at policy level in the areas of education, social care, and health? Do other factors play a role in the way current ECI policies are conceived, and if yes, which are these factors?

This study takes a comparative approach to examine the current policy initiatives in relation to ECI in Greece, Cyprus, and Australia (the three countries that we reside and work as researchers) and the extent to which they support the inclusion of children and their families in their local communities and educational and care settings. The value of the study lies in the recognition that despite the similarities and differences among the counties (in their history, organisation of systems of provision of education, social care, and health, demographics, etc.), policy makers ‘continue to look across borders for inspiration, guidance, or practices as they push reforms of education and science to sustain or increase their competitiveness without understanding the complexity and path dependence of system development’ (Powell. 2020, p. 69). This comparative study seeks to understand whether the three countries consider both their national contexts and history in policy making for ECI, and whether the complexity of ECI related issues is considered in existing policies which may include or exclude young children and their families. Key policy documents were selected from the three countries, covering the period 2020-2025. The documents include legislation and regulations linked to ECI (both generic legislation developed in different sectors, e.g., education, social care, health, and ECI specific legislation), national strategic plans linked to ECI, and annual national reports and circulars of Ministries/Deputy Ministries involved in the provision of ECI services (e.g., Ministries of Education, Social Care, and Health). The analysis was twofold. The first level involved constructing ‘snapshots’ of recent ECI policy developments in the three countries and interpreting them within the local context. The second level of analysis entailed understanding these ‘snapshots’ within the broader context of global and international developments, and making sense of how the priorities of supranational organisations, global trends and crises (in health, the economy, etc.), contradictory rhetoric (i.e., rhetoric on equality, and non-discrimination vs ableist, racist and discriminatory rhetoric), and competitiveness among countries influenced the nature of these developments.

The findings indicate that policy developments in all three countries do not view ECI as a process that entails synergies between public services of education, social care, and health to provide multi-level support for children and families; rather they are closer to an understanding of ECI as a process that identifies ‘the problem’ within the child and offers one-dimensional solutions. Thus, the inclusion in the community and education and care settings of young children and their families is not ensured, as exclusion takes place early in the children’s lives. The findings are discussed with reference to the similarities and differences of the countries compared. For example, the discussion draws the link between a deficit-focused approach to ECI with the fact that all three countries have a long tradition of special education systems that run parallel to mainstream education systems, serving exclusion in different forms (e.g., special schooling, segregating structures of individualised support within the mainstream school). Furthermore, it is discussed the extent to which all three countries, as recipients of United Nations policies on inclusive education, have made efforts to align policy initiatives and legislation with the principle of anti-discrimination in national policy making on ECI. The links with European Union policies and funding reaching Cyprus and Greece to promote inclusion are also drawn. The differences in the governance (centralized vs decentralised systems) and the demographics of the three countries is also an issue that is taken forward to discuss whether these characteristics influence policy making for ECI or not. In an era where governments feel part of a competitive world (e.g., rankings, benchmarking), while they are also part of supranational organisations and networks exchanging policy ideas and practices (Powell, 2020), the complexity of developing family-centred ECI policies to serve the best interests of children and families is pointed out.

Dempsey, I., & Keen, D. (2008). A review of processes and outcomes in family-centered services for children with a disability. Topics in early childhood special education, 28(1), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030601. Dunst, C.J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 141-149. Eurlyaid - The European Association on Early Childhood Intervention (EAECI). (2019). Recommended practices in early childhood intervention: A guidebook for professionals. Eurlyaid - EAECI. https://www.eurlyaid.eu/eciguidebook/ European Commission. (2021). Toolkit for inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC): Providing high quality education and care to all young children. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4c526047-6f3c-11eb-aeb5-01aa75ed71a1/language-en Franco, V., Melo, M., Santos, G., Apolónio, A., & Amaral, L. (2017). A national early intervention system as a strategy to promote inclusion and academic achievement in Portugal. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1137. Love, H. R., & Beneke, M. R. (2021). Pursuing justice-driven education research: Disability critical race theory (DisCrit) in early childhood. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121421990833. McWilliam, R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention. Supporting Young Children and Their Families. Baltimore: Brookes. Meisels, S. J., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). Early childhood intervention: A continuing evaluation. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 3-31). Cambridge University Press. Movahedazarhouligh, S., & Banerjee, R. (2020). Leadership in implementation of quality family-centered services in early childhood: An exploration of administrators’ perceptions, needs and realities. Early Child Development and Care, 190(6), 948-962. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1503256. Odom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of practice in early intervention/early childhood special education: Evidence-based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030601. Powell, J. J. W. (2020). Comparative education in an age of competition and collaboration. Comparative Education, 56(1), 57-78. https://doi.org/110.1080/03050068.2019.1701248 Spandagou, I., Little, C., Evans, D., & Bonati, M. L. (2020). Inclusive education in schools and early childhood settings. Springer.