Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cses20
Sport, Education and Society
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20
What is the problem? Dis/ability in Swedish
physical education teacher education syllabi
Elisabet Apelmo
To cite this article: Elisabet Apelmo (2021): What is the problem? Dis/ability in Swedish
physical education teacher education syllabi, Sport, Education and Society, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2021.1884062
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1884062
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 13 Feb 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 186
View related articles
What is the problem? Dis/ability in Swedish physical education
teacher education syllabi
Elisabet Apelmo
Department of Social Work, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
This article discusses dis/ability and physical education teacher education (PETE). The aim is twofold. First, I explore how dis/ability is problematised in PETE syllabi from nine Swedish universities. Bacchi’s What’s the problem represented to be? approach for analysing policy texts is used. The centre of attention thus shifts from a problem and its solution, to how a phenomenon is made into a problem and to the effects of this problematisation. Second, a theoretical framework that corresponds better with the aims of the steering documents advising Swedish compulsory schools and PETE is proposed.
In the analysis, two dominant problem representations were discerned. First, pupils with impairment or special needs are constructed as the problem. When pupils with impairment are problematised, they risk being constructed as deviant and marginal in PE. This is reinforced by the fact that, in some cases, the subject is dealt with in only a few pages of text and as part of a single course. Second, power relations, norms or inequality are constructed as the problem. Thus, the focus shifts from the pupils’ reduced physical, cognitive or neuropsychiatric ability to the interactions with able-bodied teachers and peers. Bacchi also asks where the silences are in the texts. The notion of disability, caused by social barriers such as inaccessibility and prejudices, is completely missing. Moreover, ableism– discrimination that favours being able-bodied– is not explicitly dealt with, not even when the syllabi bring up power relations or norms.
A change within PETE is required, with inclusive education as the goal. I suggest that both the effects of impairment and ableism, which lead to disabilities, need to be taken into account. Cripistemologies– that is, the knowledge of disabled people– would be useful in this process, as a way to dismantle ableism and appreciate differences.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 22 June 2020 Accepted 28 January 2021
KEYWORDS
physical education teacher education; syllabus; policy analysis; inclusive education; disability; ableism
Introduction
A number of empirical studies have shown that physical education (PE) teachers in mainstream schools experience a lack of education in, knowledge about and experience of teaching disabled pupils, both during the initial teacher training and in continuing professional training in schools (Fitz-gerald et al.,2004; Fitzgerald & Stride,2012; Morley et al.,2005; Smith & Thomas,2006; Vickerman & Coates,2009). In-service training, support from teaching assistants and information regarding pupils’ abilities are not adequate for PE but are designed for general classrooms lessons (Morley et al.,2005; Smith & Green,2004). As an effect of the PE teachers’ limited knowledge, experience and support, they get frustrated, nervous and scared when meeting disabled pupils. They may be afraid that
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Elisabet Apelmo elisabet.apelmo@mau.se https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1884062
disabled pupils are going to‘flip out’ or will get hurt (Hardin,2005; see also Fitzgerald et al.,2004; Lee,2011). In a study on how PE teachers categorise differences, health was defined as a lack of disease or impairment and therefore, implicitly, sick or disabled pupils were constructed as unhealthy or incapable (van Amsterdam et al., 2012). Other authors tell of PE teachers who believe it is not fair for able-bodied pupils to have disabled classmates and/or who prefer to have segregated classes (Combs et al.,2010; see also Slee,2018). This uneasiness is mirrored in disabled pupils’ experiences of PE. They often feel stressed, excluded or picked on during such lessons (e.g. Apelmo,2016,2019; Bredahl,2013; Fitzgerald,2005; Fitzgerald & Stride,2012; Gaskin et al., 2012; Lamb et al., 2016; van Amsterdam et al., 2015). Moreover, they tell of PE teachers who show a lack of understanding and have a low opinion of disabled pupils, hence reinforcing negative stereo-types of disabled people (Brittain,2004; Fitzgerald,2005; Fitzgerald & Stride,2012).
Obviously, something is not working well. This article focuses on pre-service education. It has been stressed that disability is often problematised within educational settings (Lee, 2011). The first aim of the article is to explore how dis/ability is problematised in PE teacher education (PETE) syllabi in Sweden. International scholars have shown great interest in Nordic disability policies (e.g. Shakespeare,2014). The Nordic countries have a reputation of having one of the world’s best disability services and the Nordic relational model of disability, which I will come back to later, has gained international recognition (Goodley,2011). Thus, a relevant question is how the relational model is mirrored in Swedish PETE syllabi. The second aim is to propose a theoretical framework for the same syllabi that corresponds better with the aims of the steering documents of compulsory school and of PETE in Sweden.
What is the problem represented to be?
In the article, I use Bacchi’s (2009) What’s the problem represented to be? (WPR) approach for analysing policy texts. The WPR approach is both a way of thinking and a methodology. As a mode of thinking, the approach shifts the focus from the assumed problem and its solution to how a phenomenon is made into a problem in different policy texts (see also Ahmed,2012). Drawing from the writings of Foucault (1976/1990), Bacchi regards power as productive, as something that is done in the policies. She claims that‘we are governed through problematisations rather than through policies’ (2009, xi). As a methodology for analysing policies, the approach raises six interrelated questions to the text under scrutiny.
Q1. What is the‘problem’ represented to be in a specific policy?
Q2. What presuppositions or assumptions underpin this representation of the‘problem’? Q3. How has this representation of the‘problem’ come about?
Q4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the‘problem’ be thought about differently?
Q5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?
Q6. How/where has this representation of the‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended?
A WPR analysis begins with a specific policy and then works backwards. The problematisations of the chosen policy are examined through the problem representations which they contain (Bacchi,2009). Q3 and Q6 will be discussed in the background section, in which I provide a short genealogy of the notions of segregation, integration and inclusion and of different ways of theorising dis/ability. A genealogy aims to reveal subjugated knowledge – both erudite knowledge that has not been widely recognised and local knowledge (Foucault,1977/1980)– from the social movements of dis-abled people and their allies in this case. In thefinal part of the background section, steering docu-ments for Swedish compulsory schools and the PETE are presented. They are, just like the syllabi,
what Foucault calls‘practical’ texts, ‘designed to be read, learned, reflected upon, and tested out, and […] intended to constitute the eventual framework of everyday conduct’ (1984/1990, pp. 12–13).
Background
Segregation, integration and inclusion
For a long time, disabled children were assumed to be uneducable and were therefore excluded from all education. Physicians, teachers and parents of disabled children rejected this idea and estab-lished segregated special schools at different times and places (Slee,2018). However, this segre-gation has been and still is heavily criticised. The expectations of the pupils are low and they are thus restricted in their future education and work choices (Connor & Ferri, 2007; Oliver, 1996; Slee,2018). The term‘integration’ began to be used during the 1960s, in an effort to replace previous special solutions and open up regular school to disabled pupils. However, integration is mainly about physical location (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). Disabled pupils are placed in the existing school system with some support and adaptations (Fitzgerald,2012). This makes them more visible and enhances their participation, but it also accentuates their position on the margins since they cannot fully participate (van Amsterdam et al.,2015). Integration may also encourage a deficit per-spective on disabled pupils, focusing on their lack of physical or cognitive ability (Brade,2014; Oliver, 1996).
Disappointments over the slow development led to the term‘inclusion’ being introduced in the late 1980s (Nilholm & Göransson,2017). The idea is that all aspects must change: the curriculum needs to be reformed, exclusionary practicies have to be removed and the teaching must be organ-ised according to pupils’ differences, with the goal of increasing all pupils’ participation (Fitzgerald, 2012). However, as Smith (2004) shows, what PE teachers term‘inclusion’ may in practice be about integration. Disabled pupils are‘required to “fit” into the curriculum’ (Smith,2004, p. 47). Many PE teachers also regard inclusion as something that lies in the future and that may be achieved if the teachers receive the necessary support, resources and training (Morley et al.,2005). Likewise, a review of the most-cited scientific articles dealing with inclusive education and published in Euro-pean and North American journals shows that researchers often use inclusion as synonymous with integration and mainstreaming, frequently (especially in empirical articles) defining it as just physical placement (Nilholm & Göransson,2017)– e.g. disabled pupils are placed in a regular school without any major change of curriculum or teaching organisation, or in rooms or buildings separate from regular classrooms (Slee,2018).
However, while the disability rights movement has always worked towards inclusive education, for some pupils– as Shakespeare (2014) contends– segregated education may actually be better. For example, pupils with severe autism may learn better in small groups, in calm environments and withfixed routines (Shakespeare,2014).
Models of dis/ability
Special education is predominantly based on the medical model of disability (Connor & Ferri,2007; Lee, 2011). In the medical model the ‘problem’ lies in the functional, cognitive or psychological restrictions of the individual and the solution is rehabilitation, normalisation, care and, if possible, cure of that which is considered pathological. Following criticism of the medical model, the social model of disability was developed by disability activists and scholars in the UK during the 1980s. The social model attributes the‘problem’ to society. Hence, the focus should be on removing societal obstacles, such as prejudice, discrimination, inaccessible public buildings (e.g. school gyms and sports grounds) and segregated education (Goodley,2011; Oliver,1996; Thomas,1999). According to the relational definition of disability found in Nordic countries, a disability appears in the meeting between an individual with an impairment and an inaccessible society (Goodley, 2011; Grönvik, 2007; Tøssebro, 2004). Tøssebro sees the relative model as the weaker version and the
social model as the stronger version of an‘environmental turn’ (2004, p. 3). Just like the social model, the relative model shifts from problematising the individual to problematising the surroundings (Grönvik,2007). Since the end of the 1970s, Swedish disability policy has officially been based on the relative definition. In both the social and the relative model, a distinction is made between impairment (reduced physical, cognitive or neuropsychiatric ability) and disability (societal barriers). Since 2007, this distinction is also recommended by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen,2007).
However, the social model has been criticised for leaving out the lived experiences of the body (e.g. Thomas,1999). Thomas (1999) makes an analytical distinction between disability and impair-ment effects, such as experiences of physical or cognitive limitations or pain. Impairment effects are of special significance in a school subject where the body and its being in different rooms in and outside the gym are central. Since the mid-2000s, there has also been a shift of attention within disability studies from the disabled body to the normative and able body and how it is pro-duced and maintained (Campbell,2009; McRuer,2006). Campbell (2009) identifies two main com-ponents in ableism. First, the notion of the normal human being. Second, the idea that it is possible to draw a clear dividing line between the normal and the deviant. This division is upheld through purification; everything that blurs the line is ignored (Campbell, 2009). In this field of research, ableism is the‘problem’, as is the tendency to regard able-bodiedness as a non-identity (McRuer,2006).
Born out of disability studies is also cripistemology;1 an epistemology that takes the situated knowledge from ‘the critical, social, and personal position of disability’ as its point of departure, and recognises and values it (Johnson & McRuer,2014, p. 134). From this position, ableist ideas about the normal body and the normal way of thinking and feeling are criticised and may be exceeded. In the conclusion, I develop how this way of thinking may contribute to change in PE.
Steering documents
In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) from 1989 (ratified by Sweden in 1990), it is stated that the‘disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community’. Moreover, free assistance should‘ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education’ (UN,1989). The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRDP) of 2006, ratified by Sweden in 2007, also brings up education. Governments should ensure that disabled pupils‘are not excluded’ and ‘can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and sec-ondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live’. The basic principle in Swedish compulsory school is access to an equivalent education for all. ‘A school for all’ was coined in the 1980 curriculum (Skolverket,1980) and can be seen as an expression of this political vision. However, according to the curriculum for compulsory school from 2018, adaptations are needed to obtain an equivalent education:‘Teaching should be adapted to each pupil’s circum-stances and needs. […] The school has a special responsibility for those pupils who, for different reasons, experience difficulties in attaining the goals that have been set up for the education’ (Skol-verket,2018, p. 6). The call for adaptations and special responsibilities to meet some pupils’ ‘difficul-ties’, instead of calling for inclusive education, as in the UNCRDP (UN,2006), hints at an integrative perspective and constructs the pupils as the problem. The problem‘is thus redescribed here not as an institutional problem but as a problem with those who are not included by it’, as Ahmed puts it (2012, p. 35; see also Bacchi,2009). Furthermore, teachers should‘actively resist discrimination and the degrading treatment of individuals or groups’ (Skolverket,2018, p. 10). Finally,‘teaching should create the conditions for all pupils […] to regularly take part in physical activities at school, and con-tribute to the pupils developing good physical awareness and a belief in their own physical capacity’ (Skolverket,2018, p. 48).
Turning to PETE, the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100) sets out the requirements to obtain a subject teacher’s degree. It is established that students must ‘demonstrate the knowledge about children’s development, learning, needs and circumstances required for the specialisation for which the qualification is awarded’, and ‘demonstrate a specialised capacity to create conditions in which all pupils can learn and develop’. Moreover, they should ‘demonstrate the capacity to respect, communicate and instil a gender equal and equal rights perspective in educational pro-cesses’ (Ministry of Education and Research,1993).
How, then, are these objectives fulfilled in Swedish PE? The last report from the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen,2018) shows that 20 per cent of the pupils in Grades 7– 9 do not participate in PE regularly. There are several reasons for this, including an insecure learn-ing environment, choice of activities and teachlearn-ing organisation. PE is still dominated by ball sports, team sports and competition. In these activities, the pupils’ physical status becomes visible and some withdraw from the activity. In competitive activities, there is an increased occurrence of physical and verbal controversies, with more pupils feeling uneasiness about participating (Skolin-spektionen,2018). As also shown in the introduction to this article, ‘the gaps between policy and its enactment are many, complex and troubled’ (Dowling et al., 2015, pp. 1038–1039; see also Penney et al.,2018).
Materials and method
The study focuses on the physical education teacher education (PETE) for Grades 7–9, since it has been demonstrated that negative experiences are more frequent both among older pupils in general (Eriksson et al.,2003) and among older disabled pupils (Apelmo,2016,2019). The material for my study consisted of syllabi and reading lists from PE teacher training programmes with physical education as the primary subject. The Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100) states that all courses ‘shall have a course syllabus’. Syllabi are developed by the programme or course coordinator and are then approved by the Board of Education, Board of Faculty or Board of Department. Nine universities provided the programme in 2017. At two universities, the syllabi for Grades 7–9 were studied. The other universities provided it only at upper-secondary level, although this also gives graduates the competence to teach Grades 7–9. In order not to breach their anonymity, the universities are named alphabetically in order of their appearance in the analysis. The study is cross-sectional – that is, syllabi from the spring and autumn semesters 2017, or earlier if the programme is not given continuously, are analysed.2 It is of course impossible to know, from reading the policy texts, what actually goes on during the years of education (Bacchi, 2009). That said, syllabi are legally binding documents. The syllabi’s learning outcomes are of special interest, since they describe what is to be examined and the knowledge, skills and understanding which PETE students are expected to have acquired after completing a course.
All syllabi and reading lists were perused in their entirety. Formulations in descriptions of the aims and contents and in the learning outcomes– which either explicitly concerned special, adapted or inclusive education or the teaching of disabled pupils or pupils with impairments/special needs, or could possibly touch on such teaching (e.g. when terms such as equal treatment, equivalence, different target groups or norm criticism were included) – were manually highlighted. The high-lighted parts of the syllabi were then read through again and analysed using Bacchi’s (2009) ques-tions, beginning with Q1.
The reading lists were included since the amount of course literature on the subject shows the significance attached to the represented problem. The reading lists were also thoroughly examined and the literature dealing with the subject was marked up. If the titles were general or ambiguous– for example, when the title contained words such as power, body, ability or diversity– abstracts or the introduction to dissertations and articles, and the contents, introductions and dispositions in textbooks were read. A total offive dissertations, 16 general textbooks and seven articles were exam-ined in this way, but only one textbook proved to include a few pages on inclusive education. In
several lists, it was noted that there may be a few pages of additional or optional literature but it was beyond the scope of this article to examine it.
The WPR approach is ethical and normative in character. It draws attention to the‘ethical impli-cations for targeted groups and individuals’ (Bacchi,2007, p. 5) and takes the side of subordinated groups– in this case, disabled pupils (Bacchi,2009).
Two dominant problem representations (Q1) appeared in the analysis. Thefirst focused on the individuals who are to be included. These are presented under the heading Pupils with impairments. The second focused on structural problems, presented under the heading Power relations, norms and inequality. Thefinal section in the analysis, Silences, refers to the first part of Bacchi’s Q4: What is left unproblematic and where are the silences in the syllabi? In the discussion, the underpinning assump-tions of the problem representaassump-tions (Q2) as well as the effects of the problematisations (Q5) will be dealt with. Bacchi (2009) suggests the identification of three interconnected effects of the problema-tisations. First, discursive effects – What can/cannot be thought or said? Second, subjectification effects – Which subject positions become possible? Finally, lived effects – What impact do the pro-blematisations have on the PE teachers’ and pupils’ everyday lives (Bacchi,2009)? In conclusion, possible ways forward will be brought up. As Bacchi asks in the last part of Q4, can the‘problem’ be thought about differently?
Analysis
Conflicting problem representations in policies are common according to Bacchi (2009) and may indicate an ongoing process of change. As the analysis shows, internal tensions were recurrent in the syllabi, too.
Pupils with impairments
In several syllabi the represented problem (Q1) is pupils ‘with special needs’, ‘in need of special support’ or ‘with different impairments’. A typical wording under both this heading and the next is that:‘In the course, the school subjects’ contents are problematised too and put in relation to gender, ethnicity and pupils with special needs’ (University A).3Such wording is also to be found in a learning outcome from University B, which notes that the student should show‘understanding of how the teacher, based on the learning outcomes, can develop all pupils learning, taking sex, gender and impairment into consideration’. While the categories gender and ethnicity in the first quotation include all pupils,‘pupils with special needs’ are represented as the single problem.4 It is interesting that, in the second quotation, it is explicit that both the biological sex and the socially constructed gender will be dealt with while, when it comes to dis/ability, it is only impairment that is brought up. The use of‘impairment’ indicates that the focus is on the individual pupil’s reduced physical, cognitive or neuropsychiatric abilities, not on societal barriers.
My empirical material reveals that the PETE at University C is exceptional, given the time and lit-erature devoted to the subject. In the general description of thefirst two syllabi, it is stated that ‘The course takes into general consideration the knowledge of children in need of special support and issues concerning gender and ethnicity’. Neither learning outcomes nor the literature deal with the subject, so the issue is how this is ensured.
In the third syllabus, the overall aim is that the students should acquire‘in-depth knowledge of the teaching of children and young people in need of special support’. One learning outcome deals with ‘adapted physical activities’ and, in a second, ‘children in need of special support’ are men-tioned. One module is termed Adapted physical activity (AFA)/special education:
In the module, the student acquires basic theoretical and practical pedagogical knowledge within adapted phys-ical activity and special education for children and young people in need of special support in the subject of Physical Education and Health. The student develops knowledge in problematising and reflecting on how impairments affect the individual’s situation from an individual as well as a socially oriented perspective. The
module will also stimulate the student’s ability to come up with applications in Physical Education and Health in order to develop physical, mental and social capacities as well as participation in children and young people with impairments.
The literature list includes both textbooks about adapted physical activity and general textbooks about special education and about disabled children and their rehabilitation.
‘Children and young people with impairments’ or ‘in need of special support’ are represented as the problem. Yet, the sentence‘how impairments affect the individual’s situation from an individual as well as a socially oriented perspective’ may suggest that societal barriers, such as inaccessibility, discrimination, marginalisation and prejudices, are discussed too. In previous research, both the PE teacher’s and the classmates’ negative attitudes have been brought up by disabled pupils (Brittain, 2004; Fitzgerald, 2005; Fitzgerald & Stride,2012), which underlines the importance of addressing social obstacles. This uncertainty, which I will come back to, in regard to biological impairment versus social obstacles, is found in other syllabi too. Special education, criticised, for example, for its medical model perspective (Connor & Ferri,2007; Lee,2011; Slee,2018), indicates that segregated education is also dealt with.
However, at University C, the‘problem’ of pupils with impairments is not dutifully added to a single module together with other problematised categories. The fact that the subject is both main-streamed during the whole programme and devotes one 7.5-credit module to it, shows the PETE stu-dents the significance attached to the ‘problem’.
The solutions to the‘problem’ (Bacchi,2009) are adaptations and special education, as exem-plified in the module at University C. According to a learning outcome from University B, the student should be able ‘to apply an integrated special pedagogical approach to impairment’. Thus, the solution is special education, which implies segregated education; however, here it is phys-ically integrated in some form.
Power relations, norms and inequality
The second dominant problem representation (Q1) found in the empirical material focuses on social structures. The syllabi from Universities D and E have both somewhat of a power perspective. In a module at University D, one learning outcome states that the student should be able to‘discuss and analyse the subject of physical education and health’s social meaning and individual significance in relation to social science perspectives such as power, social class, ethnicity and impairment, together with their importance for different didactic standpoints’. It is not clear whether power is discussed in relation to impairment. Furthermore,‘impairment’ is presented as a ‘social science per-spective’. This is rather contradictory and makes it difficult to determine what the module is about. No literature on the subject exists. In a second module, it is said in the content description that ‘special pedagogical questions’ are included and there is an excerpt from a textbook on special edu-cation (not related to PE) in the reading list.
Two syllabi at University E deal with inclusive education. In thefirst, it is noted that ‘Particular focus is placed on dance, outdoor life and ball games, as a basis for individuals’ learning in a hetero-geneous teaching group. This includes developing knowledge about power structures in the school and didactic implications’. One of the learning outcomes explains what the heterogeneity is about. The student should be able to‘identify and describe power structures and relate these to gender, socio-economics and ethnic diversity’. Although dis/ability is not mentioned, the literature contains one book chapter about disability and PE.
In the second syllabus, it is stated that
The course aims for the students to further develop their knowledge of concepts of health, adapted physical activity and different ideals of the body, seen from a societal perspective. […] In addition, the course aims for the students to develop their ability to create learning situations in winter sports and outdoor life that benefit pupils’ learning in a school for all.
‘A school for all’, from the 1980 curriculum (Skolverket,1980), recurs in the content description:‘the stu-dents work from inclusive perspectives and adapt physical activity based on a school for all’. One learning outcome is more explicit. After concluding the course, the student should‘be able to map out sports-related difficulties for the pupils’ acquirement of knowledge and give an account of measures and uses in adapted physical activity’. In the reading list, there are five scientific articles on the subject, excerpts from two doctoral theses and a textbook about adapted physical activity.
In thefirst syllabus the represented problem is ‘power structures’ in ‘a heterogenous teaching group’. This suggests that both power relations between the teacher and the pupils and between the different pupils can be studied. Hence, the focus is shifted from disabled pupils to the role of the teacher and able-bodied peers. In the second syllabus, the students should acquire knowledge of‘different ideals of the body’. This implies that ideas about both able-bodied and disabled bodies may be criticised and the‘problem’ is the ideals. An inclusive perspective and ‘a school for all’ are also emphasised. On the other hand, however,‘sports-related difficulties for the pupils’ acquirement of knowledge’ and the adaptation of physical activities, indicate that the represented problem is pupils with impairments. They are the ones having difficulties and in need of adaptations, not the teachers nor the educational system (Slee,2018).
Universities B and F use the terms‘normativity’ and ‘norms’. In one content description from B, it is stated that‘Concepts of and theories about inclusion, sex, gender and normativity are problema-tised, based on the teaching practice’. Three of the learning outcomes deal explicitly with impair-ments and/or special education and, in a fourth learning outcome, the student should‘show the ability to problematise sex, gender, body and normativity in relation to teaching in sports and health’. Again, it is not clear if normativity is discussed in relation to inclusion but the learning outcome about body and normativity could possibly deal with issues about able-bodiedness and ableist norms. In the reading list, disability is just mentioned in a few pages of text.
University F uses the terms‘norms’ and ‘norm criticism’ in two of the three syllabi of the pro-gramme. What kind of norms, then, may this be about? In the second syllabus, the reader does notfind any clarification, but there is a textbook on adapted physical activity on one of the literature lists. The third syllabus is more explicit. Modules 1 and 2 will, according to the content description, take into account‘social class, gender, ethnicity, impairment and norms’ in relation to health pro-motion and outdoor education. Module 3 deals with‘didactive, inclusive and norm critical perspec-tives’ while Module 4 has the following wording: ‘In order to promote movement ability and creativity, inclusive education is studied, tested and evaluated, which also provides the opportunity to pay attention to and challenge norms in the different movement cultures in dance’. In the learning outcomes for Modules 1–4, this is followed up. There is not much literature on the subject – only a short article and a general textbook that contains a few pages about grading disabled pupils and a chapter on norm critical teaching in PE.
At University F, the ‘problem’ is norms. These will be criticised throughout several modules. However, the phrase‘social class, gender, ethnicity, impairment and norms’ shows that, even in a PETE characterised by a norm critical perspective, it is only impairments that are mentioned. Thus, it is unclear if ableist norms will be studied.
At University G, Module 1 in the first syllabus includes an ‘introduction to adapted physical activity’ according to the information about the content. However, this is not dealt with in the learn-ing outcomes and, hence, it is not examined here. The readlearn-ing list contains only a three-page article on the subject. In one module in the next syllabus, there are two learning outcomes on the subject: after the course, the student should be able to‘give an account of central critical perspectives on the subject of sports and health’ and ‘consider subject didactical themes such as gender, ethnicity, social background and physical prerequisites when planning and carrying out teaching’. It is unclear whether the critique of ableism within PE is one of the critical perspectives but‘physical prerequi-sites’ indicates a broader perspective on the body and may include both pupils with a body con-sidered‘normal’ and pupils with a body that deviates from this norm.
The PETE at University H notes in thefirst module of the programme that ‘particular attention is paid to’ the UNCRC (1989). Even if it is not explicit, inclusive education may be dealt with. In the content description for Module 2 it is said that:
Value issues are dealt with in relation to indoor activities, and then equal treatment and equality are taken into account and what these concepts can stand for within the subject. Particular attention is paid to how discrimi-nation and other abusive treatment can be prevented and counteracted. Similarly, special pedagogical working methods and the need for individualised teaching are discussed and exemplified.
‘Equal treatment and equality’ recur in one learning outcome each for Modules 1 and 2 but the reading list only includes one scientific article on inclusion. The same wording reappears in the second syllabus, but without any literature. It is not until in the third syllabus that inclusive education is dealt with explicitly. Module 2 has one learning outcome that states that the student should be able to facilitate‘an inclusive learning environment for everyone, including children with different impairments’. While there is no literature in Module 2, the reading list for Module 1 contains one scientific article and an introduction to a textbook on inclusive PE.
The implicit problems in thefirst and second syllabi are unequal treatment and inequality, exem-plified by ‘discrimination and other abusive treatment’. Thus, the disabled pupil is not the centre of attention; rather, it is the behaviour of the teacher and of the pupil’s peers. In the final module, however,‘children with different impairments’ are constructed as the ‘problem’. Again, the individual pupil’s reduced abilities are the main focus.
Solutions to the problem vary. University G suggests adapted physical activity while the solution at University D is special pedagogy. At Universities B, E, F and H, the solutions are inclusive perspec-tives together with adaptations (E and F) or special pedagogy (B and H). The phrase‘facilitating an inclusive learning environment for everyone’ (H) suggests a broader perspective on inclusion; it is not only disabled pupils but other pupils too who will benefit from an inclusive learning environ-ment. At University F, inclusive education is used both with the aim to‘promote creativity and move-ment ability’ and as a means to ‘challenge norms’. This could hint at a cripistemological perspective, where differences are recognised and valued and ableism is criticised (Johnson & McRuer,2014).
Silences
Q4 explores the limits in the identified problem representations and silenced issues and perspectives (Bacchi,2009). When reading the syllabi from University I, it emerged that, in neither the content descriptions nor the learning outcomes was there anything that indicated that dis/ability is dealt with. Nor did the review of the course literature yield results. This leaves future PE teachers ill-equipped to fulfil the goals of the Swedish steering documents for PE.
Disability is also completely missing in all the syllabi, even though the distinction between disabil-ity and impairment has been recommended by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare since 2007 (Socialstyrelsen,2007). Nor do the studied syllabi explicitly deal with ableist norms or use the notions of functional ability or functionality, which include both those who have and those who do not have an impairment.
There is also a noticeable silence in several of the reading lists. The number of pages range from over 1,000 (University C) and slightly more than 300 pages (E), to almost 200 pages (F and A), between 20 and 70 pages (D, H and G) or a few pages or none (B and I) during the entire programme.
Discussion
The number of courses, modules and learning outcomes devoted to dis/ability, as well as the amount of literature on the subject, are part of the representation of the problem. Is it a‘problem’ of signifi-cance or not? It has been argued that reading lists are political decisions (hooks,1994). When the perspective is dutifully added to a single module, together with a few pages of text, the discursive
effect is that both the subject of inclusive education and disabled pupils are constructed as marginal in PE (Dowling et al.,2015). The basic assumptions made in the PETE as a whole are not questioned. It could be seen as a form of tokenism (hooks,1994).‘Look’, it says, ‘we are teaching PETE students how to include all the (deviant) pupils’. It may also strengthen the idea that segregated education is necessary (Hardin,2005).
Previous research also shows that one single module is not enough. It has been recommended that a mandatory separate module on inclusive education should be combined with training in inclusive PE embedded into the entire PETE curriculum, with a named staff member to ensure that the subject is addressed sufficiently (Coates, 2012; Vickerman, 2007; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). Training about both specific impairments and how to include them is needed. The importance of practical experiences of teaching pupils with different impairments has also been emphasised (Coates, 2012; Combs et al., 2010; Hardin,2005; Morley et al.,2005). Furthermore, several writers stress the need for reflection on one’s own attitudes towards and expectations of disabled pupils (Barber, 2018; Combs et al., 2010; Lee, 2011). Hence, both the theory and the practice that is linked to the theory are desirable, as is knowledge about the impairments and about social barriers (e.g. prejudices) that lead to disabilities.
In several syllabi, pupils with impairments/special needs are construed as the problem (Q1). Thus, it is the individual’s reduced physical, cognitive or neuropsychiatric abilities that will be dealt with, which runs the risk of reproducing the medical model’s assumptions that disabled people are deficient and needy (Q2). This is supported by previous research which has contended that the medical model is dominating universities’ PETE curricula (Lee,2011). However, learning from the dis-cussions about impairment effects (Thomas,1999), it is important for any future PE teacher to gain knowledge about the fact that, for example, some disabled pupils may be in constant pain or that teachers who have pupils with autism may need to expand their inclusive practice to the changing rooms and corridors outside of the gym (Lamb et al.,2016). None of the syllabi explicitly deal with disability. Thus, the Nordic relative model of disability seems not to have gained recognition. Dowling et al. emphasise‘the continuing dominance of bio-behavioural ways of knowing in PETE, at the expense of social theories about the body and teaching’ (2015, p. 1042). The discursive effect is a marginalisation of knowledge about social justice in general (Dowling et al.,2015) and of knowledge about able-bodied norms and other social barriers that cause disabilities in particular. For example, discrimination, marginalisation and the teacher’s and classmates’ ableist attitudes will not be taken into account. Problematisations guide our way of thinking and acting (Bacchi,2009; Foucault, 1984/1990). When pupils with impairment/special needs are constructed as the problem, the PETE contributes to maintaining a clear dividing line between the normal, able-bodied pupil and the deviant, disabled pupil (Campbell,2009).
When social structures such as power relations, norms and inequality are put at the centre (Q1), it may suggest that the Nordic relative model perspective is underpinning the syllabi (Q2). However, in most syllabi, it is unclear if ableist power relations will be dealt with. But the uses of the broader con-cepts of‘physical prerequisites’, ‘different ideals of the body’ and norms opens up for discussion a number of bodily variations in a school class such as height, weight, fitness, temporary injuries and congenital and acquired impairments. Hence, the sharp boundary between pupils with and without impairment is avoided (Campbell,2009).
The solutions to the problem vary from special education– that is, segregation – via adaptation, which could be interpreted as a sign of an integrative perspective, to inclusive education which, in its original meaning, implies a more thorough change of PE in general, not something to be done when a specific pupil arrives in class. Inclusive education is suggested in syllabi that problematise disabling structures, not disabled individuals. Some pupils– e.g. those with severe autism or severe intellectual disabilities– will benefit from segregated PE (Shakespeare,2014) but, otherwise, according to the UNCRDP (UN,2006), the basic principle should be inclusive education.
It is difficult to see how the demands of the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100) for obtaining a PE teaching degree could be fulfilled at several of the studied PETE. As the report from The Swedish
Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen,2018) shows, change is not easy to bring about. Why, then, is it so difficult? Institutional bodies, such as PE and PETE, are habitual bodies. Long traditions, routines and everyday practices have sedimented and shaped the institution and,‘when things become insti-tutional, they recede’, as Ahmed puts it (2012, p. 21). Thus, institutional habits are hard to break. Some bodies and minds are being stopped (Ahmed,2012), in this case the disabled bodies of pupils. What has receded from consciousness (Ahmed,2012) in both PE and PETE, is the able body or, in other words, the‘sporting habitus’ (Fitzgerald,2005; Smith & Green,2004) that is brought into the PETE. Many PETE students have a sports background and already have‘heavy investments in the “cult of the body”’ (Tinning & Glasby,2002, p. 110) when they begin their education. They may believe that‘their role is to help their students become more like themselves, or more like the cul-tural ideals of body perfection’ (Barber, 2018, p. 525) This can make it difficult to adopt a critical approach to ideals and norms around body, movement, health and sports. As Smith and Green (2004) remark, it is even possible that this sporting habitus may be reinforced rather than challenged during the PETE. A second deep-seated assumption underpinning the problematisation of pupils with impairments/special needs is thus the compulsory able-bodiedness (McRuer, 2006) within PETE (Q2).
Bacchi contends that‘We become subjects of a particular kind partly through the ways in which policies set up social relationships and our place (position) within them’ (2009, p. 16). By pointing out certain pupils (those with impairments) as objects for discussion and problematisation, the other positions are normalised and thus made invisible (Brade,2014). The subjectification effect is that dis-abled pupils are set up as problematic and deficient in relation to other pupils. The PE teachers, on the other hand, are set up as benevolent and generous when adapting PE to the pupil. The problem representations have lived effects too (Bacchi,2009). If PETE is insufficient regarding inclusive edu-cation, PE teachers will continue to feel uncomfortable and unprepared when meeting disabled pupils. These latter will feel pointed out, excluded and that PE is not for them, with consequences for their future relationship to physical activity and sport (Brittain,2004; Fitzgerald & Stride,2012; Gaskin et al., 2012). This has impact on the pupils self-perception too (Bacchi, 2007,2009). They may either undervalue their own abilities or may pressure themselves to show that they are extra-ordinarily normal, independent, capable and strong (Apelmo,2016).
Conclusion
There is a need for a more fundamental change in PE and, accordingly, in PETE (Fitzgerald,2005; Penney et al.,2018). It has been suggested that PETE should be informed by a social model perspec-tive (Brittain,2004; Lee,2011). However, I propose that the effects of both impairment and of ableism (which leads to disability) need to be taken into account. Studies of impairment effects will give the necessary‘knowledge about children’s development, learning, needs and circumstances’ and edu-cation in ableism will provide PETE students with the‘capacity to create conditions in which all pupils can learn and develop’ (Ministry of Education and Research,1993). One way of thinking di ffer-ently about the problem (Bacchi,2009) is to take cripistemologies (Johnson & McRuer,2014) as a point of departure in shaping a new kind of PE, using the differences of bodies and minds as a source of knowledge (Lee,2011). This would include a dismantling of ableism and‘an appreciation that there are many different ways of moving, being healthy and physically active and a commitment to this diversity being reflected in curriculum’ (Penney et al.,2018, p. 1071). As Slee (2018) highlights: ‘difference is the normal condition of humankind’ (p. 51); most people do not belong to the strict categories of disabled or able-bodied but are situated somewhere in between (Campbell, 2012). Larger groups of pupils– with different fitness levels, sports interest, bodily sizes or temporary inju-ries and illnesses, etc.– would benefit from a more inclusive PE in its original sense. This would ques-tion PE’s focus on sports and competition and the ways in which health and ability are constructed and better fulfil the aims of participation, equality and inclusion (UN,1989,2006). However,‘an
institutional will is needed to transform a situation in order not to reproduce what would habitually be produced’ (Ahmed,2012, p. 128). Is there a willingness to make a paradigm shift within PE?
Notes
1. From the derogatory term‘cripple’.
2. University C was closing down its PETE and University F was starting a new PETE; thus syllabi from before 2017 (C) and after 2017 (F) were included.
3. All translations are by the author.
4. Other categories that were brought up were social class/background, religion and heteronormativity.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Sport Science under Grant P2018-0055.
ORCID
Elisabet Apelmo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8463-6775
References
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press. Apelmo, E. (2016). Sport and the female disabled body. Routledge.
Apelmo, E. (2019).‘You do it in your own particular way’: Physical education, gender and (dis)ability. Sport, Education and Society, 24(7), 702–713.https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1452198
Bacchi, C. (2007). The ethics of problem representation: Widening the scope of ethical debate. Policy and Society, 26(3), 5–20.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70112-1
Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson.
Barber, W. (2018). Inclusive and accessible physical education: Rethinking ability and disability in pre-service teacher education. Sport, Education and Society, 23(6), 520–532.https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1269004
Brade, L. (2014). När rekryteringen ska breddas: Om klass och inkludering i akademiska rum [When to broaden recruit-ment: About class and inclusion in academic rooms]. In K. Sandell (Ed.), Att bryta innanförskapet [To break the insi-derness] (pp. 98–121). Makadam.
Bredahl, A. (2013). Sitting and watching the others being active: The experienced difficulties in PE when having a dis-ability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 30(1), 40–58.https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.30.1.40
Brittain, I. (2004). The role of schools in constructing self-perceptions of sport and physical education in relation to people with disabilities. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), 75–94.https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332042000175827
Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Palgrave Macmillan.
Campbell, F. K. (2012). Stalking ableism: Using disability to expose’abled’ narcissism. In D. Goodley, B. Hughes, & L. J. Davis (Eds.), Disability and social theory: New developments and directions (pp. 143–158). Palgrave Macmillan. Coates, J. (2012). Teaching inclusively: Are secondary physical education student teachers sufficiently prepared to teach
in inclusive environments? Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(4), 349–365.https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989. 2011.582487
Combs, S., Elliott, S., & Whipple, K. (2010). Elementary physical education teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 114–125. Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education.
Disability & Society, 22(1), 63–77.https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590601056717
Dowling, F., Fitzgerald, H., & Flintoff, A. (2015). Narratives from the road to social justice in PETE: Teacher educator per-spectives. Sport, Education and Society, 20(8), 1029–1047.https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2013.871249
Eriksson, C., Gustavsson, K., Johansson, T., Mustell, J., Quennerstedt, M., Rudsberg, K., Sundberg, M. & Svensson, L. (2003). Skolämnet Idrott och hälsa i Sveriges skolor: En utvärdering av läget hösten 2002 [The school subject sports and health in Swedish schools: An evaluation of the situation in the autumn of 2002]. Örebro University.
Fitzgerald, H. (2005). Still feeling like a spare piece of luggage? Embodied experiences of (dis)ability in physical edu-cation and school sport. Physical Eduedu-cation & Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1740898042000334908
Fitzgerald, H. (2012).‘Drawing’ on disabled students’ experiences of physical education and stakeholder responses. Sport, Education and Society, 17(4), 443–462.https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.609290
Fitzgerald, H., Stevenson, P., & Botterill, M. (2004). Including disabled pupils in PE and school sport: Teachers’ CPD experi-ences. The British Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 35(4), 43–48.
Fitzgerald, H., & Stride, A. (2012). Stories about physical education from young people with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(3), 283–293.https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.697743
Foucault, M. (1976/1990). The history of sexuality. Vol. 1: The will to knowledge. Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1977/1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972– 1977 (pp. 78–108). Random House.
Foucault, M. (1984/1990). The history of sexuality. Vol 2: The use of pleasure. Random House.
Gaskin, C. J., Andersen, M. B., & Morris, T. (2012). Physical activity in the life of a woman with cerebral palsy: Physiotherapy, social exclusion, competence, and intimacy. Disability & Society, 27(2), 205–218.https://doi.org/10. 1080/09687599.2011.644931
Goodley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage.
Grönvik, L. (2007). Definitions of disability in social sciences: Methodological perspectives. [Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University]. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Hardin, B. (2005). Physical education teachers’ reflections on preparation for inclusion. Physical Educator, 62(1), 44–56. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
Johnson, M. L., & McRuer, R. (2014). Cripistemologies: Introduction. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8(2), 127–148.https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2014.12
Lamb, P., Firbank, D., & Aldous, D. (2016). Capturing the world of physical education through the eyes of children with autism spectrum disorders. Sport, Education and Society, 21(5), 698–722.https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014. 941794
Lee, S. S. (2011). Disability studies and the language of physical education curriculum. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(2), 7. doi:/10.18061/dsq.v31i2.1587
McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University Press. Ministry of Education and Research. (1993). Higher Education Ordinance, SFS 1993:100.
Morley, D., Tan, J., Cooke, B., & Bailey, R. (2005). Inclusive physical education: Teachers’ views of including pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 11(1), 84– 107.https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X05049826
Nilholm, C., & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 437–451.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856257.2017.1295638
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan.
Penney, D., Jeanes, R., O’Connor, J., & Alfrey, L. (2018). Retheorising inclusion and reframing inclusive practice in physical education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(10), 1062–1077.https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017. 1414888
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.
Skolinspektionen. (2018). Kvalitetsgranskning av ämnet idrott och hälsa i årskurs 7–9 [Quality review of the subject phys-ical activity and health in grades 7–9] (Nr: 400-2017:3948).
Skolverket. (1980). The 1980 compulsory school curriculum [Lgr 80].
Skolverket. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare (Revised 2018).https:// www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2018/curriculum-for-the-compulsory-school-preschool-class-and-school-age-educare-revised-2018?id=3984.
Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. Routledge.
Smith, A. (2004). The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in secondary school physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 9(1), 37–54.https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000208115
Smith, A., & Green, K. (2004). Including pupils with special educational needs in secondary school physical education: A sociological analysis of teachers’ views. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(5), 593–607.https://doi.org/10. 1080/0142569042000252080
Smith, A., & Thomas, N. (2006). Including pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in National Curriculum Physical Education: A brief review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 69–83.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856250500491849
Socialstyrelsen. (2007). Socialstyrelsens termbank. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Open University Press.
Tinning, R., & Glasby, T. (2002). Pedagogical work and the‘cult of the body’: Considering the role of HPE in the context of the‘new public health’. Sport, Education and Society, 7(2), 109–119.https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332022000018814
Tøssebro, J. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: Understanding disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 3–7.https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512635
United Nations. (1989). UN convention on the rights of the child.https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ crc.aspx.
United Nations. (2006). UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.https://ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/ Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx.
van Amsterdam, N., Knoppers, A., Claringbould, I., & Jongmans, M. (2012).‘It’s just the way it is … ’ or not? How physical education teachers categorise and normalise differences. Gender and Education, 24(7), 783–798.https://doi.org/10. 1080/09540253.2012.677013
van Amsterdam, N., Knoppers, A., & Jongmans, M. (2015).‘It’s actually very normal that I’m different’: How physically disabled youth discursively construct and position their body/self. Sport, Education and Society, 20(2), 152–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.749784
Vickerman, P. (2007). Training physical education teachers to include children with special educational needs: Perspectives from physical education initial teacher training providers. European Physical Education Review, 13(3), 385–402.https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X07083706
Vickerman, P., & Coates, J. K. (2009). Trainee and recently qualified physical education teachers’ perspectives on includ-ing children with special educational needs. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 137–153.https://doi.org/10. 1080/17408980802400502
