Inclusive physical education? A study of the management of national curriculum physical education and unplanned outcomes in England

Abstract

One key aspect of the growing policy emphasis on educational inclusion in England has been the tendency for physical education (PE) to be used as an important vehicle of social policy targeted at promoting the inclusion of young disabled people and those with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Drawing on aspects of figurational sociology, the central objective of this study is to examine the extent to which PE teachers have been able to achieve the government's inclusion policy goals articulated in the 2000 National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) for England. The findings indicate that using the NCPE as a means to pursue the government's educational inclusion policy goals has had unplanned outcomes that have the effect of undermining the extent to which the government is able to use inclusion to make a greater contribution to the promotion of young people's experiences of PE. It is also argued that these outcomes that no-one had planned or intended may, for some of the groups involved, be seen as undesirable consequences that emanate from teachers' attempts to manage the contradictory pressures brought about by pursuing the priorities of government.

‘Drawing’on disabled students’ experiences of physical education and stakeholder responses

“…Within education generally and more specifically physical education inclusion has become a central concern of legislation, policy and programming (Peters, 2007;Gabel & Danforth, 2008;Haycock & Smith, 2010). Indeed, Rioux (2010, p. 622) claim 'inclusion has become the mantra of education systems worldwide'.…”

Non-disabled secondary school children's lived experiences of a wheelchair basketball programme delivered in the East of England

“…Issues of inclusion are a central concern in legislation, policy and programming in physical education (PE) (Flintoff, Fitzgerald, & Scraton, 2008;Gabel & Danforth, 2008;Hadley & Wilkinson, 1995;Haycock & Smith, 2010;Lawson, 1998;Peters, 2007;Rueda, Gallego, & Moll, 2000). Disability, in particular, remains an area in which inequality in PE delivery is increasingly relevant given recent discussion about the valorization of disabled athletes following the London 2012 Olympics (Aitchison, 2009;Howe, 2008;Smith & Thomas, 2006).…”

Inadequate and inappropriate?: The assessment of young disabled people and pupils with special educational needs in National Curriculum Physical Education

“…Notwithstanding the requirements on them to differentiate the curriculum as much as possible to facilitate pupils' participation in PE (Vickerman, 2007), teachers were of the view that, since the NCPE statutory assessment criteria focused, in particular, on assessing the physical performance of pupils, this was not generally perceived as being conducive to identifying adequately the abilities of some young disabled people and those with SEN in PE (Smith and Green, 2004). In part, this was because, as we have noted elsewhere (Haycock and Smith, 2010;Smith, 2009), the dominant team-based activity structure of NCPE 2000 curriculum, with its apparent emphasis on competitive sport, performance, excellence and skills, served to constrain the extent to which some pupils were able to participate fully with their peers when being assessed in the kinds of activities that teachers offered them. Since some pupils were often unable to perform some of the activities provided by teachers and did not meet the standards expected of them, the assessment criteria that were used in NCPE 2000 were seen as inappropriate not least because they formed part of a sport-based PE curriculum that was not originally designed for many young disabled people and those with SEN (Barton, 2009; Thomas and Smith, 2009).…”

“…This is not to say, however, that teachers were able to simply ignore the demands of the NCPE 2000 and needs of their pupils. Indeed, the outcomes of the increasingly complex interweaving of the actions of the many different groups involved in the provision of NCPE 2000 did result in a number of unplanned outcomes that made it more difficult for teachers to achieve the government's policy goals in relation to the assessment of young disabled people and those with SEN (Haycock and Smith, 2010). It is worth exploring these issues in more detail.…”