Educational Considerations for Teachers with Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Physical Education Programs

Matthew F. Gerhardt ©2001

Abstract

     More and more children with disabilities are being placed in regular physical education classes.  The purpose of exploring the issue is to publicize the benefits.  Published literature was the main source of information for this paper.  The benefits outweigh the problems associated with inclusion for students with physical disabilities into physical education classes.  There are physical and psychological benefits for both the child with the disability and for the child without a disability.

Introduction

     The process of including children with disabilities into mainstream classrooms is relatively new when it comes to the history of public education.  It was not too long ago that people with disabilities were segregated from the rest of society.  This was also true in the public education setting.  One way this has been combated has been through the process of inclusion.  In order to receive a full education, physical education must be included in a student’s curriculum.  Both the teacher and the student must work together in order to design the best possible program.  Physical education teachers need to become better educated in the process of having a student with a disability in class.  Administrators need to become aware that this situation is only going to become more prevalent, meaning that they should require their physical education teachers to receive training through processes such as in-services.

     There are many benefits that result from a positive experience in a physical education class for a person with a disability.  Beyond the physical, there are also many psychological benefits.  For many children with a disability, a physical education class may be there first experience participating in any form of athletics (Miller, 1995).  It has the possibility of opening a new door of opportunities that children with disabilities never knew were possible.

What is Inclusion?

     Inclusion in physical education refers to the safe, successful, and satisfying physical, instructional, and social inclusion of persons with disabilities into regular physical education classes and may require the use of support personnel and accommodations (Stein, 1979).  Today, education outside the regular physical education class is the exception, not the rule.  In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education, 69.1% of all people with disabilities age 6-21 were served during 1989-1990 in a regular class environment for all or most of their educational programming (Riordan & Kruger, 1999).

     The movement of an increasing number of people who have disabilities into a regular class, referred to in the 1980’s as the regular education initiative, and now popularly termed inclusion, met with much resistance at first and is quite controversial across the field of special education.  Its proponents have gained considerable ground, and the inclusion movement is now sweeping the country with the full adoption seeming imminent (Stainback & Stainback, 1990).  With little doubt, gone are the days when regular physical education teachers functioned with an out of sight, out of mind philosophy.  They will have more and more people with disabilities in their classes.  As a result, the need for related in-service training for these physical education teachers is imperative, and will continue to be for some time.

Education

     In-service training is needed to increase the competencies of those professionals who already provide physical education to pupils with special needs.  Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the specific in-service needs of physical educators, special educators, and others teaching physical education to students with disabilities.  Two high priorities are classroom management and competency in teaching physical fitness and fundamental motor skills (Fink, 2000).  Two other important areas are safety precautions related to people with specific disabling conditions and administrative policies for placement of people with disabilities.

     In-service training is usually provided through workshops and consultation services.  Workshops are usually on a specific topic of concern to a targeted group.  They are on a short-term basis, usually from half a day to two days.  Consultation is ordinarily on a one-on-one basis concerning a topic that is of immediate concern to a teacher or group of teachers.  Consultation is often on an ongoing basis over an extended period of time.  More and more school districts are employing special physical education specialists who provide both types of in-service training (Block, Brodeur, & Gavron, 2001).

     To ensure adequate preparation of individuals teaching physical education to students with disabilities, credentialing in the form of certification, endorsement, or validation in special physical is required in some states.  In many other states that do not have a credential requirement, position papers are being written and proposals are being considered by state boards of education (Leisure Studies Program, 1988).  The process of implementing a new teacher’s certificate, endorsement, or validation is very slow because of various necessary procedural requirements.  With the number of professionals and parents interested in improving the physical education opportunities for their children, more states should be adopting some form of special physical education credential.

Benefits

     A large majority of children with disabilities now receive their physical education in a regular class setting.  One of the first regular classes into which people with mild to moderate disabilities are placed initially is physical education (DePauw & Gavron, 1995).  One reason for this trend is that most children and youth can receive educational benefits from a comprehensive regular physical education program.  Therefore, physical educators should expect to have all types of people in their classes.

     Before designing, implementing, and evaluating a physical education program that includes people with disabilities, a physical educator should have a basic understanding of what special physical education is, its historical evolvement, why it is so important, what types of people need special physical education, and the relation between special physical education and regular physical education.

     As with other curricular areas in education, physical education includes cognitive, affective, and psychomotor benefits.  The uniqueness of physical education is the major focus on the development of knowledge and skills in the psychomotor domain that can be carried over into extracurricular activities while in school, as well as in healthy post-school endeavors (Modell & Megginson, 2001).  The psychomotor domain includes physical fitness, fundamental motor skills, sports skills, and leisure skills domains.

     Psychomotor domain.  The physical component relates to the anatomical structure of individuals, which is related to body mechanics.  The motor component involves the quality of a person’s movement and incorporates such basic factors as spatial orientation, locomotor, and object control skill development.  The fitness component refers to the quantity of movement that is demonstrated by an individual (Modell & Megginson).  The primary elements of a traditional physical fitness program involve strength, flexibility, cardiorespiratory endurance, agility, speed, muscular endurance, and power development.  The play component represents an integration of the other developed components within a social context, traditionally involving games and sports (Overton, 1987).

Special Physical Education

     If a person cannot benefit from or safely participate in a regular physical education program, some form of special physical education must be provided.  Special physical education is a specialty area within the field of physical education that was developed to provide programs for people with special needs (Jansma & French, 1994).  Three major types of programs exist within special physical education.

     Adapted physical education.  These programs are a modification of traditional physical activities to enable individuals with disabilities to have the opportunity to participate safely, successfully, and with satisfaction (Jansma & French, 1994).  For example, people who are visually impaired or who use wheelchairs may need modified equipment to play softball, or additional equipment for bowling.

     Corrective physical education.  Sometimes corrective physical education classes are called remedial physical education.  It refers mainly to the habilitation or rehabilitation of functional postural and body mechanic deficiencies (Jansma & French, 1994).  A child who has just had a cast removed and needs to rehabilitate an atrophied limb may be temporarily enrolled in this type of class.  Today this type of special education program is not usually implemented.

     Developmental physical education.  A developmental physical education program incorporates progressive physical fitness or gross motor training programs to raise a person’s ability to a level at or near that of peers (Jansma & French, 1994).  An example of a developmental approach in physical education would be to use varied styles of sit-ups.

     Currently, these types of special physical education programs are not always conducted in separate classes.  Sometimes elements of all three are incorporated into one comprehensive program.  For example, in a special class for students who are orthopedically disabled, the instructor might provide individual programs for postural, physical fitness, and gross motor skill improvement, as well as adapt traditional sports and games.  This might occur in one physical education class throughout a semester.

Legislation

     The twentieth century has provided most, if not all, of the legislative impetus for the development and growth of sport for and including athletes with disabilities (Gilbert & Robins, 1998).  Although several other western countries have utilized legislation, charters, or federally endorsed strategic planning efforts to effect change on behalf of individuals with disabilities, legislation mandates have been largely American phenomena.  Legislation has assisted in the development of sport opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the United States.

     Legislation affecting the rights of individuals with disabilities originated in 1958, and the rights of disabled persons to access programs, facilities, education including physical education, and sport have all been secured.  Of specific import are public law (PL) 90-170, the Elimination of Architectural Barriers Act; PL 93-112, the Rehabilitation Act, which made discrimination on the basis of disability illegal; and PL 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated education including physical education for disabled children (DePauw and Gavron, 1995).  Even though it did not mention disability specifically, the civil rights legislation of 1964 and Title IX legislation of 1972 influenced the disability rights movement.  Although not directly related to sport, legislation passed in the late 1980’s reaffirmed the civil rights of individuals with disabilities.  The American With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) extended the broad protections offered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to individuals with disabilities.  It provided protection against discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and public accommodations.  Although not specifically mentioned, sport and recreational programs are interpreted to be included among the public services (DePauw and Gavron, 1995).

     Each country is unique in its approach to accessibility, opportunity, education, physical activity, and sport, for individuals with disabilities.  Laws, regulations, and rules vary accordingly and are not universal.  Two organizations, the United Nations and UNESCO, have proclaimed the universal rights of individuals with disabilities.  On December 9, 1975, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following passage, Resolution 3447, as part of the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons:

Disabled persons, whatever the origin, nature and seriousness of their handicaps and disabilities, have the same fundamental rights as their fellow citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible (Riordan and Kruger, 1999).

As a direct result of this and other United Nations declarations, education of individuals with disabilities was ensured as an integral part of cultural development, equal access to leisure activities became inseparable from social integration, and the general quality of life of disabled individuals was vastly improved.

     In April 1976, the first International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport was held under the auspices of UNESCO (Riordan and Kruger, 1999).  At this conference, the right of persons with disabilities to participate in physical education and sport was established.

     The United Nations not only enacted a bill of rights for persons with disabilities but declared 1981 the International Year for Disabled Persons (Riordan and Kruger, 1999).  Many nations followed this lead and declared a National Year for Disabled Persons in 1982.

Roles

     As a growing number of children with disabilities are being identified in schools, more of them are appearing in regular and special physical education classes.  As a result, physical educators are being charged with additional responsibilities and being asked to function professionally with others on an educational team for the benefit of children who are disabled.

     Special and regular physical educators.  The changing role of regular and special physical educators necessitates assistance from and communication with other members of the school staff and, at time, professionals outside the school.  These interactions make appropriate identification, placement, instructional programming, and evaluation of each person with a disability possible.  In essence, an ongoing functional team of professionals from many fields is needed to address any student’s special educational needs.  There are a number of good reasons to use an educational team approach.  First, a regular class teacher, such as a physical educator, cannot be expected to be a jack-of-all-trades.  No one teacher knows or can hope to know how to teach within all areas of development for all students at all levels of functioning.  For example, as a general rule, regular physical educators typically do not have the skills needed to effectively manage and teach students who are physically disabled.  Second, the more special needs a student has, the greater is the number of experts required to address those needs.

Public assistance.  There is usually a pool of expertise within and outside the school that should be available to each teacher.  The team provides a structure in which these professionals can work.  Perhaps most importantly, the more input obtained regarding a student’s instructional needs, the better each teacher can individualize for those needs.  In the end, the student will benefit.

     Educational team.  The educational team approach refers to a joining of forces and group interaction among professionals and, at time, paraprofessionals and nonprofessionals in order to test, assess, plan, implement, evaluate, and follow up instructional programs for targeted students who have or are suspected of having special needs (American College of Sports Medicine, 1997).  The team operates on an ongoing basis as needs arise, from the moment of identification all the way through program follow-up.  Mutual respect and open lines of communication among team members are essential.

     The educational team approach replaces the traditional self-contained approach where each teacher is responsible for all instruction-related activities.  The educational team is not just a child’s individualized education plan (IEP) committee.  The IEP committee is limited in membership and is formed only to write an approved plan of action for child who is disabled (ACSM, 1997).  The educational team is a pool of all related experts, inside and outside of school, who can meet as often as needed during the academic year to serve the student with a disability.

     The educational team can have as many members as needed, ranging from the regular classroom teacher to the physical education teacher to various support personnel from outside the school and finally to the parents and the student.  The collection of members presents a vast variety of resources that can be used to affect all of a student’s school experiences, not just in-class activities.  Regular and special physical education teachers are, and should be, integral members of any educational team.  In addition, theirs is not a one-way role in which they only receive information from others on the team.  Membership on the team mandates a reciprocal relationship among all team members.  For example, when information related to a student’s physical education is required, the appropriate individual from whom to obtain that information is obviously the trained physical educator.

     A number of side benefits result for the physical educator, and others, from participation on an educational team.  Camaraderie among the school staff and the morale of all school personnel can be enhanced because of the involvement of educational teams.  As a result, physical educators may interact more with others within the school and become increasingly more knowledgeable and interested in their colleagues’ areas of talent.  In addition, if some of the team’s members are personnel from outside the school, valuable contacts are made between the school and community.  Two possible valuable community resources for the physical educator are a recreation center and volunteer assistance.  Team members may also be challenged to keep up with changes within their specialization, because they need to know answers when another team member asks questions.  As team members respond to this challenge, a domino or multiplier effect can take over.  Once again, this can only benefit students with special needs.

     Parents.  The parents of a student with a disability should be considered potential members of any educational team because they probably know more about the child than anybody else on the team and because communication between the school and home is crucial.  Too often in the past, all decisions concerning a child’s educational program were determined only by school personnel.  Parent input was typically not even sought, and parents were considered obstacles to programming.  Public Law 101-476 designated parents as integral members of their child’s IEP or individualized family service plan team, and their ideas and approval must be obtained (Henderson, French, & Kinnison, 2001).

     In addition, parents are a valuable resource for regular and special physical educators in planning a child’s everyday program at school.  They can serve as very effective classroom aides for the physical educator and should not be ignored as such an important hands-on resource.  Further, the best possible program for a child who requires considerable remedial work can be realized by extending the school program into the child’s home where parents can be a most valuable resource.  Physical education homework is to be encouraged in order to accomplish educational goals more effectively and efficiently.  The only way to accomplish this is to form an ongoing bond between parents and school personnel.

Limitations

     Those who teach physical education to students with disabilities are confronted with realities that may conflict their school districts’ situations and the mandates of law.  On the one hand, laws mandate that each child with a disability is to have access to facilities and is to be provided with equipment and materials to meet his or her needs as specified on the IEP.  On the other hand, facilities, equipment, and materials are not always available in a local education agency (LEA) and cannot be guaranteed, even if requested on an IEP, because of fiscal restraints.  At times, even when an educational team is charged with providing services that require special facilities, such as a swimming pool, or unique supplies like Braille materials, sensor devices, adapted equipment, members of the team are hard-pressed to comply adequately, if at all.  They may also find themselves in competition with one another for limited funds.  It is noble to plan instruction in certain settings that require specialized equipment and materials, but it is not always realistic to expect full compliance by well-intentioned specialists.

     When faced with the conflict between a student’s needs and a school’s limited resources, the challenge to physical educators is to search out alternative facilities, equipment, and material sources.  The physical educator can then more fully contribute to accomplishing the mission of the educational team (Robinson, 1985).  For example, an arrangement might be made to use the pool at the local YMCA or community center.  Equipment and materials might be accumulated over time by in-school industrial arts projects, donations from local manufacturers, or funded grants throughout the school district, the state department of education, a foundation, or a corporation.

     Clearly, these sources do not appear overnight, but long-term work can eventually provide full physical education services for all people.  Physical educators and others on the educational team should at least be committed to working toward this goal of full service, closing the gap between what the laws require, what students need, and the available facilities, equipment, and materials.

Assessment

     In any comprehensive educational program, data-based testing and evaluations are acknowledged as being essential in overall planning.  In order to individualize such educational programming to any real extent, it is crucial to evaluate the results of instruction by using both objective and subjective methods (Henderson, French, & Kinnison, 2001).  Good testing and evaluation ensure effective instructional programs by providing data for such vital issues as student placement, feedback for the teacher for continued program planning, feedback for the student for learning and motivation, accountability, and follow-up.

     With the passage of PL 101-476, ongoing data on all students with disabilities must be collected to determine each student’s present level of educational performance, including psychomotor performance.  Furthermore, any recommendation for a change in educational placement must be based on such data, and this information needs to be presented to and accepted by all members of each targeted student’s IEP team (Henderson, French, & Kinnison, 2001).  In addition, the present level of performance data is also the basis for determining the duration of a student’s program, intensity of the program, individualized annual educational goals and short-term instructional objectives, and specific support services that may be required to reach these goals and objectives.  Annual follow-up of each student’s level of performance is also required to check on the progress toward reaching IEP goals and objectives.

Conclusion

     There are important commonalities between regular and special physical education.  The overall objectives of special physical education are similar for learners with all types of disabilities.  Yet, more significantly, general objectives of special physical education for learners with disabilities are no different than are physical education objectives for the non-disabled.  Everyone has common psychomotor needs, including the need for structured and unstructured play; for a variety of experiences in motor, fitness, games, dance, and for movement throughout all areas of life.  Still, further research needs to be done in order to realize the impact of specific curriculums, teacher training, and program design during the process of inclusion for students in physical education programs who have disabilities.

References

American College of Sports Medicine (1997).  ACSM’s exercise management for persons with chronic diseases and disabilities.  Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Block, M. E., Brodeur, S., & Brady, W. (2001).  Planning and documenting consultation in adapted physical education.  Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance.  72(8), 49-52.

DePauw, K. P., & Gavron, S. J. (1995).  Disability and sport.  Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fink, D. B. (2000).  Making a place for kids with disabilities.  Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gilbert, R. N., & Robins, M. (1998).  Welcome to our world: Realities of high school students.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Henderson, H. L., French, R., & Kinnison, L. (2001).  Reporting grades for students with disabilities in general physical education.  Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance.  72(6), 50-55.

Jansma, P., & French, R. W. (1994).  Special physical education: Physical activity, sports, and recreation.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leisure Studies Program (1988).  Fitness and disability resource handbook.  Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Miller, P. D. (Ed.). (1995).  Fitness programming and physical disability.  Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Modell, S. J., & Megginson, N. L. (2001).  Life after school: A transition model for adapted physical educators.  Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance.  72(2), 45-48.

Overton, S. R. (1987).  Dispositional and situational aspects of participation in sport by athletes with physical disabilities.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Riordan, J., & Kruger, A. (1999).  The international politics of sport in the 20^th century.  New York, NY: Routledge.

Robinson, C. J. (1985).  A comparison of the acceptance of disability of wheelchair athletes and wheelchair non-athletes.  Dissertation, Texas Woman’s University.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990).  Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education.  Baltimore, MD: Brookes.