MPE Blog
The ideal picture of inclusion in a physical education setting is one that addresses all the needs of all the children. In this sense, inclusion cannot have a set of rules that will work for all classes and all schools. The amount of children in the class, the facilities available, the equipment available, as well as the personalities of the teacher and students, and the level of disability of each child must be considered. I believe the goal of inclusion should be the same, for every class and each student with a disability and that every teacher should strive to achieve this goal; the fostering of growth and development, both physically and socially, for all students in the class. This means that the physical educator must assess his or her students' abilities and ensure every child is challenged and feels safe and able to learn in the physical education environment provided. Therefore the ideal vision for the inclusion of all students into a physical education program is a complicated concept. Not only are you focusing on the needs of the many students but the needs of the few must also be reviewed and incorporated into the planning and delivery of the curriculum. This becomes more difficult when you consider that it is not simply the 5-7 students in the school learning centre but also the many other students that require adaptations and modifications to the physical education program to allow them to be successful. For this reason the ideal vision I have for inclusive PE at my school involves 5 keys to the program delivery model; (1) a dedicated EPA for Physical Education, (2) Daily PE for the LC and Physical Education IPP students, (3) a Peer support program within the inclusive classrooms, (4) a competitive extra-curricular program for the “athletes”, and (5) a non-competitive extra-curricular program for the masses.
Most para-educators are often asked to work in areas that they are not trained for (Lytle et al., 2007) Therefore, this position would require an EPA with the knowledge and interest to work almost exclusively in the gym. Partnering with the PE teacher the EPA would be responsible for students requiring modifications to the PE program as defined in PE IPPs that would be developed by the Learning Centre Teacher, PE Teacher, PE EPA, Occupational and/or Physical Therapists and the school Program Planning Team. Within the daily plans the EPA would work with the PE teacher to modify and accommodate the needs of Learning Centre students as well as any other identified students requiring a PE IPP or modifications. During classes the EPA would work with the student(s) reinforcing activity/game instructions, skill descriptions, providing hands on support for skill development and generally engaging the student in the activity or a similar modified activity.
Students requiring modifications and adaptations in order to be successful in an inclusive classroom environment clearly would require additional time for skill development. Small group sessions allow for more one on one time with the PE teacher. This additional formal “class” within the schedule would allow for a higher percentage of time dedicated to the school and possibly enable the PE teacher at MES to be 100% at the school rather than having to travel to a second school for a portion of each week. This full time placement in a single school would be a huge benefit not only to the program of inclusion but also to the student population as a whole.
This concept is similar to a peer tutor concept with the exception that the peer supporter is not responsible for instruction to their partner, has no need for training on disabilities, communication techniques, instructional strategies, behaviour modification techniques or practice teaching sessions. These peer tutor skills might be more suited to having a High School student working with a peer, however at the elementary level these skills are typically far beyond the ability of the students. For that reason it is more useful to have the peers support the participation and membership of the disabled students thereby allowing for the main benefits of being in an inclusive environment as stated by Goodwin et al (2007): participation in regular PE classes, all abilities involved, social belonging and the need for supports.
Inclusive physical education programs have to look both at the students that excel athletically as well as the students that fall behind (due to diagnosed disabilities, simple inability and physical immaturity). Similar to the classroom, where “gifted” students often work ahead of their peers, the PE program needs to be able to address the “gifted athlete” and allow them to “work ahead” and improve their abilities. This can best be accomplished when the “gifted” students can participate together without the needed modifications for others so that they are able to use their skills in highly competitive and challenging environments. In the elementary school environment this would best take place in extra-curricular activities specifically devoted to them.
The student population at the school also requires extra-curricular opportunities to develop an appreciation of life long physical activities. Non-competitive activities that focus on individual fitness, health and skill improvement rather than games and competition will benefit the vast majority of students. Such club activities as skipping club, running club, yoga club, gymnastics club, dance club and non-competitive sports clubs all provide this type of learning opportunity that is open to all students and allows for a focus on self-improvement. The ideal for an inclusive PE program is something that requires many supports, the PE teacher, EPAs, the school learning centre, school administration and school board program and staffing support. Without the support of all of these areas the program as envisioned would not be possible. Readings Goodwin, D.L., Gustafason, P., & Hamilton, B. N. (2007). The experience of disability in physical education. In E. Singleton & A. Varpalotai (Eds.), Stones in the Sneaker: Active theory for secondary school physical and health educators (pp. 223-254). London, Ontario: The Althouse Press. Block, M. E. (1999). Did we jump on the wrong bandwagon? Problems with inclusion in physical education. Palaestra, 15(3), 30-36; 55-56. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from http://www.palaestra.com/Inclusion.html The National Education Steering Committee of the Moving to Inclusion Initiative (1994). Moving to Inclusion - Active Living Through Physical Education: Maximizing Opportunities for Students with a Disability. Retrieved from the Active Living Alliance for Canadians with a Disability Website http://www.ala.ca/ Inclusion Club at http://theinclusionclub.com/ In particular watch the videos on episode http://theinclusionclub.com/2013/isthisinclusion/ Research Block M, Oberweiser B. Using classwide peer tutoring to facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities in regular. Physical Educator [serial online]. Late Winter95 1995;52(1):47. Available from: SPORTDiscus with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Retrieved on July 23, 2013 from http://search.ebscohost.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=s3h&AN=9505092150&site=ehost-live&scope=site Canadian Sport 4 Life website. CS4L for Athletes with Disabilities. Retrieved on July 23, 2013 from http://www.canadiansportforlife.ca/athletes-disabilities Canadian Sport 4 Life. No Accidental Champions: Long Term Athlete Development: Athletes with a Disability. 2nd Edition. Published by the Canadian Sport Centres. Fitzpatrick, David (1997). Inclusive Physical Education: Teachers Make it Happen. Physical Health and Education Journal Vol. 63.3 (Autumn 1997) p 4-9. Retrieved on July 22, 2013 from http://search.proquest.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/214327233 Goodwin D, Gustafson P, Hamilton B (2007) the experience of disability in physical education. Stones in Sneaker:Active Theory for Secondary School Physical and Health Educators. The Althouse Press p223-254. Jago, Russel, et.al. (2013) Action 3:30: protocol for a randomized feasibility trial of a teaching assistant led extracurricular physical activity intervention. Retrieved on July 23, 2013 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680970/ doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-122 Let’s Play BC website. Retrieved on July 23, 2013 from http://www.letsplaybc.ca/ Lieberman, Lauren Peer Tutoring in Physical Education. The National Centre on Physical Activity and Disability. Retrieved on July 22, 2013 from “Taken in part from: Leibermann, J. & Houston-Wilson (2002). Strategies for Inclusion: A handbook for Physical Educators. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Lytle R, Lieberman L and Aiello R. (2007) Motivating para-educators to be actively involved in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance; Apr 2007; 78, 4; p26-30 &50. National Centre for Health, Physical Activity and Disability (NCHPAD) website. Peer Tutoring in General Physical Education. Retrieved on July 22, 2013 from http://www.ncpad.org/109/853/Peer~Tutoring~in~General~Physical~Education# National Centre for Health, Physical Activity and Disability (NCHPAD) website. Principles for Adapting Programs in Recreational Programs and Settings. Retrieved on July 22, 2013 from http://www.ncpad.org/108/837/Principles~for~Adapting~Activities~in~Recreation~Programs~and~Settings Temple Vivian and Lynnes, Michelle. (2008) Peer Tutoring for Inclusion. Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal. Vol 55. 2-3 p11-21. Retrieved on July 22, 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=18da0d0f-68d3-4f75-80d6-1a0cabfdb070%40sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=127
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |