Monika Mithans, PhD, Živa Lipovec, MA, Sabina Ograjšek Teachers’ Work with Children with Special Needs in Kindergarten Pr ejeto 03.1 1.2022 / Spr ejeto 31.03.2023 Znanstveni članek UDK 376-053.4 KLJUČNE BESEDE: otr oci s posebnimi potr ebami, vzgojitelj in pomočnik vzgojitelja, naloge, usposo- bljenost, vrtec POVZETEK – Predšolsko obdobje je za otrokov ra- zvoj še posebej občutljivo obdobje in zato je nujno, da je za svoj optimalen razvoj v tem obdobju deležen vseh potr ebnih spodbud. Še posebej to velja za otr oke s posebnimi potr ebami. V našem prispevku pr edsta- vljamo pomen vzgojitelja in pomočnika vzgojitelja pri zagotavljanju optimalnih pogojev za razvoj otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami. Izvedli smo raziskavo, v kateri je sodelovalo 148 vzgojiteljev in pomočnikov vzgoji- teljev , ki so por očali o svojem opravljanju splošnih nalog pri delu z otr oki s posebnimi potr ebami. Re- zultati pričajo o tem, da str okovni delavci sicer opra- vljajo različne naloge, povezane z otr oki s posebnimi potr ebami, pri tem tudi sodelujejo s svetovalno služ- bo, starši in zunanjimi sodelavci, a se za delo z otroki s posebnimi potr ebami ne počutijo kompetentne. Med vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev prihaja do razlik, ki govorijo v prid vzgojiteljev . Received 03.1 1.2022 / Accepted 31.03.2023 Scientific paper UDC 376-053.4 KEYWORDS: childr en with special needs, early child- hood education teacher , tasks, competence, kinder gar- ten ABSTRACT – The pr eschool period is a susceptible stage of childr en’ s development, and it is essential that childr en r eceive the necessary support for their optimal development during this period. This is especially im- portant for childr en with special educational needs. The pr esent study highlights the importance of early child- hood education teachers and teacher assistants to pr o- vide optimal conditions for the development of childr en with special educational needs. Our r esear ch includes 148 early childhood education teachers and teacher as- sistants, who completed a questionnair e about the gen- eral tasks they perform when working with childr en with special educational needs. The r esults show that while teachers perform various tasks intended for childr en with special educational needs and cooperate with the kinder garten counselling service, par ents and other pr o- fessionals, they do not feel competent to work with chil- dr en with special educational needs. Additionally , the r esults indicate that ther e ar e differ ences between early childhood education teachers and teacher assistants, as the results are more favourable for the former. 1 Introduction The number of children with special educational needs (children with SEN) is in- creasing (Resolution on the National Health Care Plan 2016-2025, 2016). The definition of children with SEN in the Slovenian Placement of Children with Special Needs Act (2011) includes nine groups of children with SEN as follows: children with intellectual disabilities, blind children or children with visual impairments, deaf children and chil- dren with hearing impairments, children with speech and language problems, children with physical disabilities, children with long-term illnesses, children with deficits in individual learning areas, children with autism, and children with emotional and behav- ioural disorders. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55707/ds-po.v38i1.7 97 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... A similar definition of developmental disabilities of children with SEN is also formed by the Kindergartens Act (2005). In contrast, the purpose of the Act Regulat- ing the Integrated Early Treatment of Preschool Children with Special Needs (2017) is to implement a definition of children with SEN in the Slovenian legal order, which would be descriptive, more inclusive and would not be focused on the division into individual developmental disorders. It is precisely this definition that often determines who and to what extent will be entitled to early treatment services (Murgel, 2019). Furthermore, scientific findings from various disciplines dictate that children with SEN must be provided with early detection, appropriate diagnosis and inclusion in education programmes as early as possible (Čas et al., 2003). The fundamental document that enables the SEN children’s inclusion in the educa- tional process is the individual educational plan (IEP). The IEP is an individualized plan of educational and counselling work. Additionally, it is a unique plan for supporting the child and is placed at the top of contemporary concepts of didactics (Težak, 2006). Literature offers various aspects and definitions of the IEP (Al-Shammari and Hornby, 2020; Daniels et al., 2003; Jurišić, 2008; Kiswarday, 2018; Koßmann, 2022; Räty et al., 2019; Vučak, 2010), however, all the definitions suggest that the IEP represents the key document for implementing the inclusion and placement decisions for children with SEN (Kiswarday, 2018; Placement of Children with Special Needs Act, 2011). The White Paper on Education (2011) defines the IEP as a plan for the educational, developmental and rehabilitative work of an individual child. It is the basic guideline to be followed by teachers and parents in order to meet the child’s basic needs. The IEP is adjusted to meet the needs of an individual child and is thus as important for the child as the Kindergarten Curriculum (1999). For preschool children with SEN, the IEP primar- ily aims to define adjustments related to cognitive development and social competence. Furthermore, the IEP is an overview of children’s strengths, needs, interests and expectations related to their learning and performance that differ from the requirements of the programme in which they participate. The IEP ensures continuity in the fields of diagnostics, planning, implementing, and evaluating the child’s development, learning and work (Končar, 2003). According to Vučak (2010), the IEP should be clear, achiev- able, measurable and focused on the child’s development and progress. However, it should also allow room for adjustments and, most importantly, it should be designed for each child individually. The IEP is prepared and monitored by a group of experts, who will be involved in its implementation. Additionally, both parents and children with SEN should be actively involved in the preparation and monitoring of the IEP, wherein the children’s level of in- volvement depends on their age and maturity (Placement of Children with Special Needs Act, 2011). It is important that the ECE teacher and ECE teacher assistant actively work with the parents of a child with SEN (Alzahrani, 2020; Sheppard and Moran, 2022), as it is the parents who know the child’s strengths as well as weaknesses and can therefore make a decisive contribution to improving the IEP. It is also important to work together with the kindergarten counselling service and external professionals who can help the ECE teacher and ECE teacher assistant to understand the children, and inform them about their special educational needs which may not be observed in their daily practice. 98 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) Furthermore, it is precisely the group of experts that provides the support network needed for the children’s holistic and optimal development (Težak, 2006). In early childhood, the ECE teacher and the ECE teacher assistant are also members of the ex- pert group. When performing the IEP tasks, the ECE teacher and ECE teacher assistant should cooperate, which requires a certain kind of knowledge, experience and personal engagement. In cooperation with other experts, ECE teachers and ECE teacher assis- tants adjust the programme to the specific educational needs of each child, implement individual parts of the IEP, and continuously monitor the progress of the child with SEN. Additionally, they coordinate the work in the department and the needs of the individual child. By responding to individual children and situations, they must create a safe atmosphere in the classroom that enables optimal development for all children. One of their tasks is also to create a suitable climate for the acceptance of the child with SEN into the group, which can be achieved by setting their own example. As members of the expert group, they actively participate in the exchange of information about the child, identify problems, and suggest possible solutions (Čas et al., 2003). Since children are constantly developing, they need constant and close monitoring by the expert group, which should identify and highlight the child’s essential needs that are dictated by their deficits and disorders. The experts should also pay attention to their abilities, interests and strengths. Child support should be planned flexibly, as when the child acquires certain necessary strategies and skills, the amount of support to the child decreases, thus enabling the development of independence (Kiswarday, 2018). The IEP is therefore not merely a document that needs to be prepared and evaluated, but a pro- cess that is constantly changing (Končar, 2003). The White Paper on Education (2011) highlights that regardless of the legal provisions, there are no guidelines or instructions on how kindergartens should prepare the IEP, what it should consist of, or how they should implement the legal provisions. The above-mentioned drawbacks are partially responsible for why professionals, both in school and in kindergarten, are often faced with the challenge of how to design an IEP that will be useful and will, with the appropriate adjustments, enable optimal development for the child (Težak, 2006). Consequently, pedagogical practice is often faced with issues regarding the implementation of appropriate adjustments for children with SEN both in school and in kindergarten, which ultimately result in an inadequate implementation of the IEP itself (Rovšek, 2009; Schmidt and Čagran, 2014; Schmidt and Vrhovnik, 2015; Topolovec and Schmidt, 2015). According to Bratož (2004), ECE teachers often refuse to accept a child with SEN into their group due to a lack of information and knowledge about such children, which certainly also applies to the ECE teacher assistants. Moreover, their concerns often in- clude inadequate training, incompetence or not receiving sufficient support from man- agement and other professionals. They also fear the mental strain, the increased work- load, and the possible deprivation of other children. The study aimed to investigate the ECE teachers’ performance of general tasks when working with children with SEN, their knowledge about the corresponding leg- islation, their cooperation with others involved in the SEN children’s education, and whether they consider themselves competent to work with children with SEN. Addi- tionally, we were interested to find whether there are differences between ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants. 99 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... 2 Methodology Resear ch sample The research was conducted with a convenience sample of 148 ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants, who were employed in Slovenian public kindergartens during the school year 2020/2021. The differences in the sample include gender, age, working experiences, professional title and position of employment. Our research focused pri- marily on the differences in the position of employment, which are presented in more detail in Table 1. More ECE teachers (63.5 %) than ECE teacher assistants (36.5 %) participated in the research. Table 1 The structur e of the ECE teacher and ECE teacher assistant r esear ch sample Position of employment f f % ECE teacher 94 63.5 ECE teacher assistant 54 36.5 Total 148 100.0 Since the condition of random sampling was not met, the findings cannot be gener- alized to the entire Slovenian population of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants. Data collection and analysis pr ocedur e The data for the research were obtained with the help of an online questionnaire. ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants completed the questionnaire in March 2021. The link to the questionnaire was sent via e-mail to kindergartens in Slovenia. E-mail addresses were obtained from the kindergarten websites. The obtained data were processed and analysed with the SPSS programme. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to process the data. First, we used de- scriptive statistical methods for data processing. Before further processing, the Kol- mogorov-Smirnov test was performed, which showed that the variables deviate from the normal distribution, as a statistically significant difference of p < 0.05 was detected everywhere. Consequently, we performed the nonparametric Mann-Whitney and the Chi-squared tests to compare two independent samples. Measuring instrument The research is based on a questionnaire that was designed specifically for this sur- vey. The questionnaire consists of close-ended questions and includes questions about the general tasks of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants while working with chil- 100 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) dren with SEN, their cooperation with other professionals involved in teaching children with SEN, and their qualifications to work with children with SEN. ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants answered the questions on a scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. One question could be answered with yes and no answers. 3 Results Knowledge of general tasks when working with childr en with SEN Table 2 ECE teachers’ and ECE teacher assistants’ r esponses to statements about performing general tasks and following legal r equir ements when working with childr en with SEN Performing general tasks when working with childr en with SEN N M Level of agreement strongly disagree disagree neither agree nor disagree agree strongly agree % % % % % I monitor the SEN children’s progress and development 148 4.34 2.0 2.7 7.4 35.1 52.7 I participate in the preparation of the IEP for children with SEN 148 4.30 4.7 3.4 6.8 27.7 57.4 I participate in the preparation of evaluation reports for children with SEN 148 4.15 5.4 4.1 8.1 34.5 48.0 I am familiar with the placement process for children with SEN 148 3.97 1.4 8.1 13.5 46.6 30.4 I plan adjustments for the child with SEN on a daily basis 148 3.64 4.7 11.5 19.6 43.2 20.9 I am familiar with the content of the Act Regulating the Integrated Early Treatment of Preschool Children with Special Needs 148 3.46 8.1 14.2 17.6 43.9 16.2 I am familiar with the content of the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act 148 3.42 10.1 12.2 18.2 44.6 14.9 We find that the majority of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants perform gen- eral tasks, such as monitoring the progress and development of the children with SEN, participating in the preparation of the IEP and evaluation reports, and planning adjust- ments. Furthermore, the majority are familiar with the placement process for children with SEN and the content of both the Act Regulating the Integrated Early Treatment 101 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... of Preschool Children with Special Needs and the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act. Table 3 Result of the Mann-Whitney test of differ ences in performing general tasks when working with childr en with SEN accor ding to the position of employment Performing general tasks when working with childr en with SEN Position of employment N R Mann-Whitney test U p I monitor the SEN children’s progress and development ECE teacher 94 86.53 1407.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 53.56 I participate in the preparation of the IEP for children with SEN ECE teacher 94 85.56 1498.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 55.25 I participate in the preparation of evaluation reports for children with SEN ECE teacher 94 88.99 1175.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 49.27 I am familiar with the placement process for children with SEN ECE teacher 94 84.43 1604.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 57.21 I plan adjustments for the child with SEN on a daily basis ECE teacher 94 83.44 1697.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 58.94 I am familiar with the content of the Act Regulating the Integrated Early Treatment of Preschool Children with Special Needs ECE teacher 94 85.16 1536.00 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 55.94 I am familiar with the content of the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act ECE teacher 94 85.11 1540.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 56.03 The Mann-Whitney test shows statistically significant differences between ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants when it comes to performing and being familiar with the general tasks and legal requirements. We find that all differences indicate more favourable results for ECE teachers. In contrast to ECE teacher assistants, ECE teach- ers had a higher rate of agreement with the following statements: “I regularly monitor the SEN children’s progress and development”, “I participate in the preparation of the IEP for children with SEN”, “I participate in the preparation of evaluation reports for children with SEN”, “I am familiar with the placement process for children with SEN”, “I plan adjustments for the child with SEN on a daily basis”, “I am familiar with the content of the Act Regulating the Integrated Early Treatment of Preschool Children with Special Needs”, and “I am familiar with the content of the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act”. 102 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) Cooperation with par ents and other pr ofessionals involved with the child with SEN Table 4 ECE teachers’ and ECE teacher assistants’ r esponses to statements r elating to cooperation with par ents and other pr ofessionals involved with the child with SEN Cooperation N M Level of agreement strongly disagree disagree neither agree nor disagree agree strongly agree % % % % % I cooperate with the SEN children’s parents. 148 4.09 0.7 5.4 14.9 42.6 36.5 When working with chil- dren with SEN, I coope- rate with the kindergarten counselling service. 148 4.05 4.7 4.1 11.5 41.2 38.5 When working with chil- dren with SEN, I cooperate with other professionals, such as speech and langua- ge therapists, SEN teachers and inclusion pedagogues. 148 3.97 3.4 8.1 9.5 46.6 32.4 The majority of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants reported that they coop- erate with the SEN children’s parents, the kindergarten counselling service and other professionals, while a minority of respondents claimed that they do not seek help from others when working with children with SEN. Table 5 Results of the Mann-Whitney test of differ ences in ECE teachers’ and ECE teacher assistants’ self-evaluation of their cooperation with others involved in working with childr en with SEN Cooperation Position of employment N R Mann-Whitney test U p I cooperate with the SEN children’s parents. ECE teacher 94 76.59 2341.50 0.402 ECE teacher assistant 54 70.86 When working with children with SEN, I cooperate with the kindergarten counselling service. ECE teacher 94 83.95 1649.50 < 0.001 ECE teacher assistant 54 58.05 When working with children with SEN, I cooperate with other professionals, such as speech and language therapists, SEN tea- chers and inclusion pedagogues. ECE teacher 94 81.39 1890.00 0.005 ECE teacher assistant 54 62.50 103 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... The Mann-Whitney test shows statistically significant differences among ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants when it comes to cooperation with the counselling service and other professionals when working with children with SEN. As the results of our research suggest, cooperation with the counselling service and external profes- sionals is more typical for ECE teachers than for ECE teacher assistants. No statistically significant differences were found between ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants regarding cooperation with parents. Qualifications for working with childr en with SEN Table 6 ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants’ r esponses to statements about being qualified for working with childr en with SEN I am qualified for working with childr en with SEN f f % Yes 31 20.9 No 117 79.1 Total 148 100.0 The majority of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants claim not to be qualified for working with children with SEN. Approximately one in five ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants from our research consider themselves qualified for working with children with SEN. Table 7 Result of the Chi-squar e test of r espondents’ opinions about their qualifications for working with childr en with SEN accor ding to the position of employment I am qualified for working with childr en with SEN Position of employment ECE teacher % ECE teacher assistant % Yes 27.7 9.3 No 72.3 90.7 Total 100.0 100.0 χ² = 7.013, p = 0.008 We find that there are statistically significant differences between ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants regarding their opinions on being qualified for working with children with SEN. Over a quarter of ECE teachers claim to be qualified for working with children with SEN, while the majority do not. Similarly, nearly all ECE teacher assistants do not feel qualified for working with children with SEN. 104 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) 4 Discussion and conclusion “The educational process in kindergarten is carried out because of and for the child” (Hmelak and Baša, 2022, p. 3). Children develop their wholesome personalities by be- ing involved in the educational process, which must be accessible to every child, re- gardless of their abilities (Novljan, 2004). Children with SEN are a particularly vulner- able group of children who need an adapted environment and specialized professional help for their optimal development (Perovšek and Kiswarday, 2022). Early childhood is a particularly sensitive period for children. Kindergartens play an important role during that period as they provide a crucial contribution to eliminat- ing the educational gaps in the children. The basic conditions for the optimal develop- ment of all children are, first and foremost, the appropriate treatment of children with SEN and the inclusive orientation of the kindergarten (Globačnik, 2012). As defined by Juriševič and Hasanbegović (2006), ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants are important actors in shaping children’s personal and social development, and contribute significantly to meeting these conditions. As indicated above, the most important actors in ensuring optimal conditions for the development of children with SEN in kindergartens are ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants. They are constantly confronted with new tasks, since working with different groups of children with SEN requires specific approaches that arise from the needs of each child. The inclusion of children with special needs has a positive effect on the personality development of all children (Karačić et al., 2022). However, Ker- mauner and Plazar (2019) suggest that the inclusion of children with SEN represents a great challenge for both the ECE teachers and the ECE teacher assistants, since they are the actors who must provide meaningful and high-quality educational opportunities for all children. Due to the aforementioned importance of kindergarten professionals, the results of our research are gratifying, as they testify to the fact that more than half of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants perform general tasks, such as monitoring the SEN children’s progress and development; participating in the preparation of the IEP and evaluation reports; planning adjustments; being familiar with the placement process for children with SEN and the legal requirements related to working with children with SEN. However, it is alarming that just under a quarter of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants are not familiar with the contents of the Act Regulating the Integrated Early Treatment of Preschool Children with Special Needs and that just as many are not fa- miliar with the contents of the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act. The two mentioned acts represent the foundations for the successful inclusion of children with SEN in kindergarten. Furthermore, we find that among ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants there are statistically significant differences in performing general tasks and being familiar with legal requirements for working with children with SEN. The results are more favour- able for ECE teachers than ECE teacher assistants and indicate that this area of work is still lacking in teamwork. At this point, it should be emphasized that teamwork, and the skills it requires, must be learnt and that ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants should not only gain additional skills in working with children with SEN but should also participate in a variety of continuous specialized education programmes and/or 105 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... acquire the necessary knowledge at different stages of their education. The differences between ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants can be attributed to different levels of workload and responsibility. Similarly, Lepičnik V odopivec (2006) claims that the reasons for different levels of workload between teachers are due to the fact that ECE teachers still carry the responsibility for the work in the department. She further sug- gests that the difference in assigning work to teachers is still influenced by the past understanding of the roles of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants, as the ECE teacher’s roles were associated with educational work and the ECE teacher assistant’s roles with care and protection. According to Cigale (2014), their roles should be more equal, which, additionally, improves teamwork. However, the author also emphasizes that assigning an equal amount of work and responsibilities to ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants is further hindered due to the differences in the pay gap between them. As regards cooperation, we find that the majority of ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants cooperate with the children’s parents, the kindergarten’s counselling service and external professionals, which indicates that teamwork is present when working with children with SEN. It is essential for the optimal development of the child with SEN that ECE teachers and ECE teacher assistants cooperate with other individuals involved in the children’s learning. Similarly, Logar (2010) argues that when working with children with SEN, teamwork is essential and the team members should be equal, regardless of their education and the work they perform. While Vučak (2010) agrees, she also emphasizes that the members of the expert group should work together when formulating guidelines for a comprehensive treatment of the child. According to her, ECE teachers’ and ECE teacher assistants’ roles are primarily to work directly with the child, adjust the programme to the specific needs of the child, implement the IEP, and continuously monitor the children’s progress. Turning now to ECE teachers’ and ECE teacher assistants’ qualifications for work- ing with children with SEN, the results of our research indicate that while they perform various tasks related to working with children with SEN, they do not feel competent in performing these tasks. The majority of both ECE teachers and ECE teacher assis- tants reported that they do not consider themselves competent to work with children with SEN. As several studies indicate, feeling incompetent can lead to occupational stress, which negatively affects the productivity, health, fluctuation and well-being of employees (Slivar, 2009). Clipa and Boghean (2015) conclude that the best measure to prevent stress among ECE teachers is to increase the qualified workforce numbers with adequate working conditions and salaries. In addition, Devjak et al. (2020) emphasize that the better the professional staff in the kindergarten is trained, the higher the quality of services that the kindergarten can offer. We believe that the kindergarten management should provide its employees with appropriate working conditions and support them by providing additional training for dealing with stress. Modern guidelines for education highlight the importance of inclusion and claim that it is a fundamental value and challenge, and that all further development in the field of educational sciences must be aimed at meeting this challenge (Kiswarday and Štemberger, 2017; Petrova Trifonova, 2022). Both ECE teachers and ECE teacher as- sistants play an important role in facilitating an inclusive environment and thereby ena- bling optimal conditions for the development of all children. Therefore, both profiles must cooperate and receive continuous training for working with children with SEN. 106 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) Dr . Monika Mithans, Živa Lipovec, Sabina Ograjšek Vzgojiteljevo delo z otroki s posebnimi potrebami Število otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami (v nadaljevanju OPP) se povečuje (Resolucija o nacionalnem planu zdravstvenega varstva 2016–2025, 2016), pri čemer so OPP v Zakonu o usmerjanju otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami (201 1, čl. 2) opr edeljeni kot “otr oci z motnjami v duševnem razvoju, slepi in slabovidni otr oci ozir oma otr oci z okvar o vi- dne funkcije, gluhi in naglušni otroci, otroci z govorno-jezikovnimi motnjami, gibalno ovirani otr oci, dolgotrajno bolni otr oci, otr oci s primanjkljaji na posameznih podr očjih učenja, otr oci z avtističnimi motnjami ter otr oci s čustvenimi in vedenjskimi motnja- mi, ki potr ebujejo prilagojeno izvajanje pr ogramov vzgoje in izobraževanja z dodatno str okovno pomočjo ali prilagojene pr ograme vzgoje in izobraževanja ozir oma posebne pr ograme vzgoje in izobraževanja”. Podobno opr edelitev po razvojnih motnjah OPP najdemo tudi v Zakonu o vrtcih (2005). V naspr otju s tem je namen Zakona o celostni zgodnji obravnavi pr edšolskih otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami (2017) v slovenskem pravnem r edu uveljaviti opr edelitev OPP , ki bi bila opisna in s tem bolj vključujoča in ne bi temeljila na delitvi na posamezne razvojne motnje. Kajti prav način opr edelitve pogosto določa, kdo in v kolikšnem obse- gu bo upravičen do storitev zgodnje obravnave (Mur gelj, 2019). Znanstvena spoznanja različnih str ok namr eč nar ekujejo, da je OPP potr ebno zagotoviti “zgodnje odkrivanje, ustr ezno diagnostiko in čim zgodnejšo vključitev v pr ograme vzgoje in izobraževanja” (Čas idr ., 2003, str . 4). T emeljni dokument, na kater em temelji vključevanje OPP v vzgojno-izobraževalni pr oces, je individualizirani pr ogram (v nadaljevanju IP), ki pr edstavlja načrt indivi- dualizacije vzgojno-izobraževalnega ter svetovalnega dela. Pr edstavlja unikaten načrt pomoči otr oku (T ežak, 2006). V literaturi zasledimo različne vidike, opr edelitve in defi- nicije IP (Al-Shammari in Hornby , 2020; Daniels idr ., 2003; Jurišić, 2008; Kiswar day , 2018; Koßmann, 2022; Räty idr ., 2019; V učak, 2010), iz katerih izhaja, da IP pr edsta- vlja ključni dokument za ur esničevanje odločbe o usmeritvi OPP (Kiswar day , 2018; Zakon o usmerjanju otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami, 201 1). Bela knjiga o vzgoji in izobraževanju (201 1, str . 294) IP opr edeljuje kot “načrt vzgojno-izobraževalnega in razvojno-r ehabilitacijskega dela posameznega otr oka”. Vzgojiteljem in staršem pr edstavlja osnovno vodilo pri zadovoljevanju otr okovih po- sebnih potr eb. Prilagojen je potr ebam posameznega učenca in je zato za otr oka prav tako pomemben kot Kurikulum za vrtce (1999). Za pr edšolske OPP je cilj IP pr edvsem v opr edelitvi prilagoditev , ki so izražene v ciljih na podr očju razvoja kognitivnih pr ocesov in socialne kompetentnosti. Za pripravo in spr emljanje IP je odgovorna str okovna skupina. Sestavljena je iz str okovnih delavcev , ki bodo vključeni v izvajanje vzgojno-izobraževalnega pr ograma. Pri pripravi in spr emljanju izvajanja IP morajo aktivno sodelovati tudi starši ter ob upoštevanju otr okove star osti in zr elosti tudi OPP (Zakon o usmerjanju otr ok s poseb- nimi potr ebami, 201 1). Str okovna skupina tor ej pr edstavlja podporno mr ežo za otr okov celosten in optimalen razvoj (T ežak, 2006). 107 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... Med pomembne stebr e zgodnje obravnave OPP nedvomno sodi pr edšolska vzgoja, kater e glavna akterja sta prav vzgojitelj in pomočnik vzgojitelja. Oba, v tandemu, sode- lujeta pri večini nalog, povezanih z OPP , kar od njiju zahteva določena znanja, osebno angažiranost in izkušnje. V sodelovanju z ostalimi str okovnimi delavci prilagajata pr o- gram dela specifičnim potr ebam posameznega otr oka, r ealizirata posamezne dele IP ter kontinuirano spr emljata napr edek OPP . Poleg tega je njuna naloga v tem, da med seboj uskladita delo v oddelku in potr ebe posameznega otr oka. S svojim odzivanjem na otr oka in situacije morata v oddelku ustvarjati varno ozračje, ki bo vsem otr okom omogočilo optimalen razvoj. Med njune naloge sodi tudi ustvarjanje primerne klime za spr ejetje OPP v skupino, kar lahko najlaže dosežeta z lastnim zgledom. Kot člana str okovnega tima aktivno sodelujeta pri izmenjavi informacij o otr oku, opozarjata na težave in pr e- dlagata možne r ešitve (Čas et al., 2003). Str okovni delavci se v praksi pogosto soočajo z izzivom, kako oblikovati IP , ki bo uporaben in bo otr oku z ustr eznimi prilagoditvami omogočal optimalen razvoj (T ežak, 2006). V pedagoški praksi (v šolah in prav tako v vrtcih) se posledično pogosto poja- vljajo težave pri izvajanju ustr eznih prilagoditev za učence s posebnimi potr ebami ter težave z neustr eznim izvajanjem IP (Rovšek, 2009; Schmidt in Čagran, 2014; Schmidt in V r hovnik, 2015; T opolovec in Schmidt, 2015). Kot opozarja Bratož (2004), vzgojitelji (kar zagotovo velja tudi za pomočnike vzgojiteljev) zaradi pomanjkanja informacij in znanj o OPP pogosto zavračajo možnost, da bi otr oka vključili v skupino. Pogosto se počutijo pr emalo usposobljene, nekompetentne ali pa niso deležni zadostne podpor e s strani vodstva in drugih str okovnih delavcev . Strah jih je psihične obr emenitve, večje količine dela, mor ebitne prikrajšanosti drugih otr ok. Kljub temu so najpomembnejši akterji pri zagotavljanju optimalnih pogojev za ra- zvoj OPP v vrtcih prav vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev , ki se pri delu z OPP sr eču- jejo z vedno novimi nalogami, saj delo z različnimi skupinami OPP zahteva specifične pristope, ki izhajajo iz potr eb vsakega posameznega otr oka. Izhajajoč iz zapisanega smo v naši raziskavi želeli dobiti vpogled v vzgojiteljevo opravljanje splošnih nalog pri delu z OPP in njihovo poznavanje zakonodaje, sodelovanje z drugimi ter vpogled v njihovo mnenje o usposobljenosti za delo z OPP . Pri tem so nas zanimale razlike med vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev . Naša raziskava je temeljila na neslučajnostnem priložnostnem vzor cu 148 vzgojite- ljev in pomočnikov vzgojiteljev , ki so bili v šolskem letu 2020/2021 zaposleni v sloven- skih javnih vrtcih. V raziskavi je sodelovalo več vzgojiteljev (63,5 %) kot pomočnikov vzgojiteljev (36,5 %). Podatke za raziskavo smo pridobili s pomočjo anketnega vprašal- nika. Vprašalnik je vključeval vprašanja o splošnih nalogah vzgojiteljev in pomočnikov vzgojiteljev na podr očju dela z OPP , o njihovem sodelovanju z različnimi akterji pri delu z OPP in o usposobljenosti vzgojiteljev in pomočnikov vzgojiteljev za delo z OPP . Vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev so odgovor e podajali na lestvici od sploh ne drži do popolnoma drži. Pri enem vprašanju so izbirali med odgovor oma da in ne. Vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev so anketni vprašalnik r eševali v mesecu mar cu 2021. Vprašalnik je bil pripravljen v elektr onski obliki. Pridobljene podatke smo obdelali in analizirali s pr ogramom SPSS. Obdelava po- datkov je potekala na ravni deskriptivne in infer enčne statistike. Pri obdelavi podatkov smo najpr ej uporabili opisne statistične metode. Pr ed nadaljnjo obdelavo smo opravili Kolmogor ov-Smirnov pr eizkus, ki je pokazal, da spr emenljivke odstopajo od normalne 108 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) porazdelitve, saj se je povsod pokazala statistično značilna razlika (p < 0,050), zato smo za primerjavo dveh neodvisnih vzor cev uporabili neparametrični Mann-Whitneyev pr eizkus in Hi-kvadrat pr eizkus. Rezultati raziskave kažejo, da večina vzgojiteljev in pomočnikov vzgojiteljev opra- vlja splošne naloge, kot so spr emljanje napr edka in razvoja OPP , sodelovanje pri pri- pravi IP in pri pripravi evalvacijskih por očil, načrtovanje prilagoditev ter poznavanje postopka usmerjanja OPP , vsebine Zakona o celostni zgodnji obravnavi OPP in vsebine Zakona o usmerjanju OPP . A pri tem je potr ebno izpostaviti slabo četrtino vzgojiteljev in pomočnikov vzgojiteljev , ki ne pozna vsebine Zakona o celostni zgodnji obravnavi pr edšolskih otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami, in prav toliko tistih, ki ne poznajo vsebine Zakona o usmerjanju otr ok s posebnimi potr ebami. Omenjena zakona namr eč pr edsta- vljata osnovo za uspešno vključevanje OPP v vrtec. Nadalje ugotavljamo, da med vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev obstajajo stati- stično značilne razlike v opravljanju in poznavanju splošnih nalog pri delu z OPP in s tem podr očjem povezane zakonodaje. Vse razlike govorijo v prid vzgojiteljem in kažejo na dejstvo, da je na tem podr očju dela še vedno pr emalo timskega sodelovanja med vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev . Razlike med vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev lahko pripišemo različni delovni obr emenitvi in stopnji odgovornosti. T udi avtorica Le- pičnik V odopivec (2006) vzr oke za različno delitev dela med člani pripisuje dejstvu, da je vzgojitelj še vedno tisti, ki odgovarja za delo v oddelku. Na delitev dela po njenem še vedno vpliva tudi pr eteklo razumevanje vloge vzgojitelja in pomočnika vzgojitelja, saj se je vzgojitelja povezovalo z vzgojnim delom, pomočnika vzgojitelja pa z nego in var ovanjem. Njuni vlogi naj bi bili po pr epričanju Cigaletove (2014) danes veliko bolj enakopravni. Ugotavljamo, da je večina vzgojiteljev in pomočnikov vzgojiteljev por očala, da pri delu z OPP sodelujejo s starši, svetovalno službo vrtca in tudi z zunanjimi sodelavci. Za optimalni razvoj OPP je namr eč nujno, da se vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev poslužujejo tovrstnih sodelovanj. V nadaljevanju r ezultati naše raziskave kažejo, da čeprav vzgojitelji in pomočniki vzgojiteljev opravljajo različne naloge, vezane na delo z OPP , se pri opravljanju teh nalog ne počutijo kompetentne. T ako je večina vzgojiteljev kot tudi večina pomočnikov vzgojiteljev por očala, da se ne dojemajo kompetentne za delo z OPP . Sodobne smernice vzgoje in izobraževanja izpostavljajo inkluzijo kot “temeljno vr ednoto in izziv , v ur esničevanje kater ega mora biti usmerjen ves nadaljnji razvoj na podr očju edukacijskih ved” (Kiswar day in Štember ger , 2017, str . 3). Za ur esničeva- nje inkluzivnega okolja in s tem omogočanje optimalnih pogojev za razvoj prav vsem otr okom sta pomembna tako vzgojitelj kot pomočnik vzgojitelja. Zato je nujno, da oba pr ofila medsebojno sodelujeta in se za delo z OPP tudi nenehno dodatno izobražujeta. REFERENCES 1. Al-Shammari, Z. and Hornby, G. (2020). Special Education Teachers’ Knowledge and Experi- ence of IEPs in the Education of Students With Special Educational Needs. International Jour- nal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(2), 167–181. Available at: https://doi.org/10. 1080/1034912X.2019.1620182 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 109 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... 2. Alzahrani, S. S. (2020). Investigation of Teachers’ Perspective About Early Intervention Ser- vices. Journal of Supercomputing, 76(5), 3440–3461. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11227-018-2607-z (retrieved 17.06.2022). 3. Bratož, M. (2004). Integracija učencev s posebnimi vzgojno-izobraževalnimi potrebami. In: Krapše, Š. (Ed.). Otroci s posebnimi potrebami (pp. 9–50). Nova Gorica: Educa. 4. Cigale, T. (2014). Kompetence vzgojitelja skozi oči pomočnika vzgojitelja. In: Željeznov Seničar, M. (Ed.). Kompetence vzgojitelja – izzivi, izkušnje, spoznanja (pp. 61–70). Ljubljana: MiB. 5. Clipa, O. and Boghean, A. (2015). Stress Factors and Solutions for the Phenomenon of Burnout of Preschool Teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 907–915. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.241 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 6. Čas, M., Kastelic, L. and Šter, M. (2003). Navodila h Kurikulu za vrtce v programih s prilago- jenim izvajanjem in dodatno strokovno pomočjo za otroke s posebnimi potrebami. Available at: https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/Sektor-za-predsolsko-vzgojo/Progra- mi/kurikulum_navodila.pdf (retrieved 17.06.2022). 7. Daniels, R. E., Stafford, K. and Cougblin, A. P. (2003). Oblikovanje inkluzivnih oddelkov. Lju- bljana: Pedagoški inštitut, Razvojno-raziskovalni center pedagoških iniciativ Korak za korakom. 8. Devjak, T., Podgornik, V ., Berčnik, S. et al. (2020). Importance of a Positive Climate for Con- ducting Self-Evaluation in Kindergarten. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 35(1), 21–41. 9. Globačnik, B. (2012). Zgodnja obravnava. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. 10. Hmelak, M. and Baša, M. (2022). Različni načini načrtovanja dejavnosti v vrtcu. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 37(2), 3–16. 11. Juriševič, M. and Hasanbegović, D. (2006). Vrtec in oblikovanje otrokove samopodobe. Didac- tica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 21(2), 3–15. 12. Jurišić, D. B. (2008). Starši so enakovredni partnerji pri oblikovanju individualiziranega pro- grama: otroci naj bodo dobri v šoli in odlični v življenju!. In: Rovšek, M. (Ed.). Otroci s po- sebnimi potrebami. Izobraževanje in vzgoja otrok z motnjami v duševnem razvoju (pp. 33–57). Nova Gorica: Educa, Melior. Available at: https://icpika.si/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Starsi- -so-enakovredni-partnerji-pri-oblikovanju-individualiziranega-programa-B-D-Jurisic-2008.pdf (retrieved 17.06.2022). 13. Karačić, M., Kadum, M. and Radetić-Paić, M. (2022). Odnos staršev predšolskih otrok do vključenosti otrok v vrtce. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 37(2), 21–36. 14. Kermauner, A. and Plazar, J. (2019). Prilagojeni pripomočki in metode pri vzgojno-izobraževal- nem delu z otroki s posebnimi potrebami. Nova Gorica: Educa. 15. Kiswarday, V . (2018). Individualiziran program v inkluziji. In: Schmidt Krajnc, M., Rus Kolar, D. and Kranjec, E. (Eds.). Vloga inkluzivnega pedagoga v vzgoji in izobraževanju (pp. 11–24). Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta. Available at: https://press.um.si/index. php/ump/catalog/book/337 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 16. Kiswarday, V . and Štemberger, T. (2017). Pomen inkluzivnih kompetenc z vidika bodočih vzgo- jiteljev predšolskih otrok. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 32(2), 3–17. 17. Končar, M. (2003). Individualiziran program. Defektologica Slovenica, 11(3), 7–23. 18. Koßmann, R. (2022). Individual Educational Plans: Just a Tool to Immunise Teaching from Pa- rental Criticism?. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/233118 6X.2022.2085628 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 19. Krek, J. and Metljak, M. (Eds.). (2011). Bela knjiga o vzgoji in izobraževanju v Republiki Slo- veniji [White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Available at: https://pismenost.acs.si/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Bela-knjiga-o-vzgoji-in-izo- bra %C5 %BEevanju-v-RS-2011.pdf (retrieved 17.06.2022). 20. Kurikulum za vrtce [Kindergarten Curriculum]. (1999). Ministrstvo za znanost in šolstvo. Avai- lable at: https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/Sektor-za-predsolsko-vzgojo/ Programi/Kurikulum-za-vrtce.pdf (retrieved 17.06.2022). 21. Lepičnik V odopivec, J. (2006). Nekateri vidiki timskega dela v vrtcu. Sodobna pedagogika, 57(2), 54–67. 110 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2023) 22. Logar, D. (2010). Integracija otroka s posebnimi potrebami v prvo starostno obdobje v vrtcu. In: Željeznov Seničar, M. and Šelih, E. (Eds.). Otroci s posebnimi potrebami v vrtcu (pp. 37–45). Ljubljana: MiB. 23. Murgel, J. (2019). Zgodnja obravnava otrok s posebnimi potrebami v Sloveniji. Socialno delo – Social work, 58(1), 57–70. Available at: http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc- -SQNQB3VP/8d9aee11-9a2c-4e9b-b9b1-b7be35adf356/PDF (retrieved 17.06.2022). 24. Novljan, E. (2004). Sodelovanje s starši otrok s posebnimi potrebami pri zgodnji obravnavi. Ljubljana: Zveza Sožitje, zveza društev za pomoč duševno prizadetim Slovenije. 25. Perovšek, M. and Kiswarday, V . R. (2022). Položaj otrok v zasebnih vrtcih glede pravice do strokovne pomoči. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 37(2), 17–30. 26. Petrova Trifonova, M. (2022). Quality of Education and Care in Kindergartens and their Readi- ness for Inclusive Education in Bulgaria. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062905 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 27. Räty, L., Vehkakoski, T. and Pirttimaa, R. (2019). Documenting pedagogical support measures in Finnish IEPs for students with intellectual disability. European Journal of Special Needs Edu- cation, 34(1), 35–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1435011 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 28. Resolucija o nacionalnem planu zdravstvenega varstva 2016–2025 [Resolution on the National Health Care Plan 2016–2025]. “Skupaj za družbo zdravja” (ReNPZV16–25). (2016). Available at: http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO102 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 29. Rovšek, M. (2009). Stanje na področju vključevanja otrok z motnjami v duševnem razvoju v šolski system. Sodobna pedagogika, 60(1), 350–360. Available at: https://www.dlib.si/details/ URN:NBN:SI:doc-NEB3LOWJ. 30. Schmidt, M. and Čagran, B. (2014). Support for Secondary School Students with Special Ne- eds. Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 16(4), 1055–1091. Available at: https://hrcak.srce. hr/file/196312 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 31. Schmidt, M. and Vrhovnik, S. (2015). Attitudes of Teachers Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Needs in Primary and Secondary Schools. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska is- traživanja, 51(2), 16–30. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/221004 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 32. Sheppard, M. E. and Kaitlin, K. M. (2022). The Role of Early Care Providers in Early Interventi- on and Early Childhood Special Education Systems. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(6), 891–901. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01225-x (retrieved 17.06.2022). 33. Slivar, B. (2009). Raziskava o poklicnem stresu pri slovenskih vzgojiteljih in učiteljih. Sindikat vzgoje, izobraževanja, znanosti in kulture Slovenije. Available at: https://www.sviz.si/datot/po- klicnistres_jun2009.pdf (retrieved 17.06.2022). 34. Težak, S. (2006). Timski pristop in aktivna vloga učencev pri načrtovanju individualiziranih pro- gramov. Sodobna pedagogika, 57, 350–361. Available at: https://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI: doc-6FLUZI0B/320fbf34-ba4b-48aa-8513-2b9bad952110/PDF (retrieved 17.06.2022). 35. Topolovec, U. and Schmidt, M. (2015). Šolanje osnovnošolcev s posebnimi potrebami. Di- dactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 30(3–4), 3–18. Available at: http://www.dlib.si/details/ URN:NBN:SI:doc-ZMKIPC8M (retrieved 17.06.2022). 36. Vučak, M. (2010). Individualizirani program. In: Željeznov Seničar, M. and Šelih, E. (Eds.). Otroci s posebnimi potrebami v vrtcu (pp. 77–82). Ljubljana: MiB. 37. Zakon o celostni zgodnji obravnavi predšolskih otrok (ZOPOPP) [Act Regulating the Inte- grated Early Treatment of Preschool Children with Special Needs]. (2017). Uradni list RS, št. 41/17. Available at: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7681 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 38. Zakon o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami (ZUOPP-1) [Placement of Children with Special Needs Act]. (2011). Uradni list RS, št. 58/11, 40/12 – ZUJF, 90/12, 41/17 – ZOPOPP in 200/20 – ZOOMTVI. Available at: http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5896 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 39. Zakon o vrtcih (ZVrt-UPB2) [Kindergartens Act]. (2005). Uradni list RS, št. 100/05. Available at: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4589 (retrieved 17.06.2022). 111 Mithans , PhD , L ipovec, MA, O gr ajš ek: T eachers’ W ork with Childr en with Special... Monika Mithans, PhD (1985), Assistant Pr ofessor at Faculty of Education, University of Maribor . Naslov / Addr ess: Kor oška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor , Slovenia T elefon / T elephone: (+386) 02 229 36 44 E-mail: monika.mithans1@um.si Živa Lipovec, MA (1995), Pr ofessor of Inclusive Pedagogy , Ivan Glinšek Kinder garten in Maribor . Naslov / Addr ess: Gledališka ulica 6, 2000 Maribor , Slovenia T elefon / T elephone: (+386) 02 234 74 32 E-mail: ziva.lipovec@vrtec-ivanaglinska.si Sabina Ograjšek (1995), Assistant of Pedagogy at Faculty of Education, University of Maribor . Naslov / Addr ess: Kor oška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor , Slovenia T elefon / T elephone: (+386) 02 229 36 46 E-mail: sabina.ograjsek@um.si