School and Society
School education has become a central issue in today’s societies. Ideally, if we retrace the road that led us to the current definition of school education, we need to briefly look back at what the school (or in a certain sense education) has been over the past thousands of years. The first reference to schools was reported by Herodotus, who mentioned schools dating from 496 BC (Lawson et al., 2018). Before that, notwithstanding the idea that schools did not exist, education was already incorporated into society. Since then, the meaning of school, and more generally of education, has changed depending the culture in which it was embedded. From the “Education of the Primitive Cultures” to the establishment of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1946) education has always played a pivotal role in society. For a long time, the educational system acted largely as a system of indoctrination of the young: it trained them to be obedient, conformist, not think too much, stay passive, not cause any crisis, not raise any questions[1]. The original purpose was to impose authority on them (either political or religious). For example, in the Greek city-state of Sparta, the educational system was totally designed to create obedient, courageous and physically perfect warriors (people with disabilities were excluded from education), whereas in the rest of Greece, education was mostly private, and pupils could learn either gymnastics, music, or literacy (Cordasco, 1976). During the Middle Ages across Europe, where the religious ethos was dominant, Education was provided primarily by Roman Catholic monks within monasteries, and schools were founded upon these religious principles (Riche, 2008). The modern educational system derives from that idea of education, and it remains largely embedded within the values of society. However, the role of the teacher has also changed throughout the centuries, as well as the idea of education. Taking into account this background, it is obvious that the role of the teacher became crucial. Therefore, this essay focuses on a sociological perspective of the teacher, particularly the physical education teacher. Beginning from sociological considerations of school and teachers, this essay addresses the concept of disability and its social and medical aspects. It is widely showed that children with disabilities experience social exclusion within schools, in particular during the physical education classes. Thus, using some sociological tools, this essay presents the reasons why physical education is often a barrier to inclusion of children with disabilities, and which are the main sociological, behavioural, and practical factors that hamper it.
Teacher as a dichotomy
Antonio Gramsci, an Italian philosopher and politician, described the role of the teacher using his dichotomic vision of society: “a teacher is a clear reflection of cultural hegemony: the teacher embodies the values that that culture passes on; but at the same time, he/she is an expression of the subaltern classes” (Gerratana, 1975). The teacher may stimulate pupils’ thoughts and teach them in a way that helps them to become critical about society. This Marxist view suggests that cultural hegemony, which is a direct expression of the dominant classes, has the ability to impose itself on the entire social body through the school, but also through the family, the press and the media. These “Ideological State Apparatuses” serve to “reproduce the conditions of production” (Althusser, 1970) and instil inside the consciences of “culturally dominated people” the unequal power relations on which the social order is based. The “Ideological State Apparatuses” can be considered as social artifices, as illusions in the most current sense of the term. But these illusions are rooted, because they are produced and reproduced with the guarantee by the States. Therefore, they constantly receive the means to exist and persist. However, during the 1960s, the Cultural Studies re-interpreted Marxist theories and situated also culture within a theory of social production and reproduction, specifying the ways in which cultural forms served either to further social domination or to enable people to resist and struggle against domination.Therefore, the school, through its teachers, spreads either the dominant culture to the future citizens or enable them to resist. Moreover, the school is the first institution that a person meets after the family; entering into a school conventionally represents the beginning of secondary socialisation (Bagnasco, Barbagli and Cavalli, 2009). Due to the environment, the social actors/actresses, the roles and the norms, the school, as an institution, totally differs from the family. Thus, the school can be a social facilitator that develops, strengthens and increases the child’s abilities, but in the same way, it can also be a barrier that spreads stigmas and social exclusion. As a consequence, a teacher can act either as a social facilitator or social barrier. One of the fields where this difference is more noticeable concerns disabilities within the school.
Disability as a social issue
Disability is a clear example of how thin the line between nature and nurture is: the cultural factors that determine disability are caused by the natural factors of the disability, namely, what a child with a disability can do is strictly related to the classification of his disability and what society thinks that he/she can do. Disability represents the boundary between what is naturally determined (structural and functional medical aspects of the person with a disability) and what is culturally determined, i.e., inclusion/exclusion from the activities and restriction/widening of the participation opportunities in those activities depending on the type of disability (Di Santo, 2013). The medical aspect of disability focuses concern on the impairment and on notions of abnormality and deficiency, as defined in medical terms (Oliver, 1996). On the other hand, the social aspect centres on the view that disability is socially constructed and that it is the society that disables people with impairments (Finkelstein, 1980; Oliver, 1996). Thus, the word disability has a two-pronged nature and this dual vision may have its roots in the etymology of the word disability itself. In fact, the prefix dis has a twofold origin: in the Latin language, it refers to a broad range of negative dimensions, e.g., disadvantage, disagreement, dishonest, disorder, etc.; whereas in Classical Greek, the prefix dys refers to a deviance from medical normality, e.g., dysfunction, dyslexia, dyspnea, dyspraxia, etc. (Di Santo, 2013). This theory may explain why, in the past, society conferred to disability only negative connotations. An example of this nature and nurture dichotomy is represented by the number of special schools that educated children with disabilities in the past decades. Those children were not allowed to attend regular school and achieve regular education because the social norms (constructed mainly upon a medical point of view regarding the disability) established the fact that children with disabilities were not “normal learners” (a deviance from medical normality) as children without disabilities; thus, as such, they were relegated into special schools and taught using a “special education” based on different principles and values to those in “normal education”. The perpetuation of this mechanism of division had an impact on society and culture, and found its explanation in what social psychologists recognise as prejudice or stereotype. Both of those are not inborn expressions of a child, but they are internalised through the process of socialisation (which mainly occurs in the school and the family), namely they are culturally constructed. A helpless person, like a child, does not know the prejudice, but in growing up, he acquires the categorisations and the cognitive structures that are embodied in the social-cultural context of which he is part, such as the family, the school, and lately social media. Therefore, the role of teachers is crucial in this process of socialisation.
Physical Education as a barrier to inclusion
Although the process of inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) within schools became the concerns of many educational providers during the latter years, it is not well-established within mainstreaming schools yet. The educational discourses emphasised (and still emphases in certain cases) children’s abilities as something that is fixed, one-size-fits-all, measurable and could lead to broader generalisations about potential (Gillborn and Youdell, 2001). This is much more evident during physical education (PE) classes, where, despite evidences that show that PE is an important strategic area, both for the promotion of a physically active lifestyle in childhood and adolescence and the process of inclusion and socialisation (Murphy and Carbone, 2008), children with SEND may remain excluded from PE lessons (Maher et al., 2007). Sports’ abilities were strictly related to performance, technique and skill (e.g., there is only one fixed way to perform a movement), which have been for some considerable time the main components of PE grades. With the increasing number of children with SEND within mainstreaming schools, this paradigm changed, but yet they are not fully included in PE classes. Many authors investigated why the exclusion of children with SEND in PE is still so manifest within schools, and they found diverse reasons.
Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts
An important beginning is represented by the point of view of children, and how they internalise some expressions, such as the aforementioned prejudice and stereotype. Researchers argued that physical education, as well as sport, perpetuates the common social ideas of body among children and adolescents: for example, for boys the typical idea of body is often associated with masculinity and the mesomorphic body type (Light and Kirk, 2000; Tinning and Glasby, 2002). In seeking to better understand this theory, some helpful tools suggested by Bourdieu are needed. Firstly, Bourdieu conceptualised the idea of habitus, namely, the way in which culture and personal history of an individual shape both his/her mind and body, and as a result, shape his/her present social actions (Bourdieu, 1977). Therefore, the habitus is created through a process of socialisation that leads to patterns that are enduring and transferable from one context to another; as aforementioned, it mainly occurs within family and school. Secondly, Bourdieu conceptualised the idea of capital. According to Bourdieu, a capital (economic, cultural, social, and lately political) comprises the assets of a person, which can be used to promote his status within the stratified society (Bourdieu, 1986). Therefore, the abilities shown by a student during PE classes can be considered as a physical capital, a form of specific capital, that he/she can use to earn power in a setting where the habitus is sport-performance-based. In this case, habitus can be defined as the meaning conferred on sporting activities within PE classes and the profits expected from it; and not the least of these profits is the social value accruing from the pursuit of certain school-based sports (Bourdieu, 1978). In short, by producing and reproducing these dispositions (habitus) in a school-based context, the distinction between who can get physical capital and who cannot is perpetuated. Fitzgerald (2005) reported the notion of physical education habitus, namely those dispositions that serve to affirm and confirm the value of certain characteristics and competences performed during a PE lesson. Students measured themselves and perceived that they were measured by others, against a mesomorphic ideal. Moreover, pupils with SEND felt to be frustrated, because they were not able to perform at the same motor level as their peers without disabilities: “they are bigger and faster than me”. Furthermore, Fitzgerald highlights how different activities have different values. It was argued that the pupils believed that the value of their physical and social capital associated with playing Boccia[2] was not as great as that given to those pupils participating in other activities, such as rugby or football: “Everyone knows who are the football and rugby captains, but most people don’t know the Boccia captain” (Fitzgerald, 2005). Despite the fact that these dispositions seem fixed, the habitus is not permanent, and it can be changed through unexpected situations or over a long period.
Psychological Theories
The role of physical education teachers is crucial to minimise distinctions, in term of physical capital, between children with and without disabilities within PE classes. Holding positive beliefs ensures meaningful learning experiences of children with SEND (Block and Obrusnikova, 2007), and promotes inclusion, which is broadly guided by the fundamental principle of valuing diversity (Doulkeridou, Evaggelinou and Kudláček, 2010). To better understand why teachers’ attitudes are essential for inclusion, a brief look at Ajzen and Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (TpB) is needed. The Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that the positive way in which a teacher teaches children with SEND is influenced by teachers’ beliefs, in addition to social support (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). The Theory of Planned Behaviour expanded the TRA by adding the new concept of perceived behavioural control. Ajzen argued that a certain behaviour is influenced not only by the perceived social pressure, but also by personal and moral norms, and responsibility to refuse or perform that behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Moreover, past behaviours are reasonable predictors of future ones, namely prior behaviours may have an impact on later behaviours that are independent of the effects of beliefs, attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions (M. Bentler and Speckart, 1979). This suggestion assumes that a repeated behaviour results in the establishment of a habit (closely related to Bourdieu’s habitus). In contrast, Ajzen suggested that past behaviour is best treated not as a measure of habit but as a reflection of all factors that determine the behaviour of interest. These factors, which can be considered as a prediction to perform a certain behaviour, include (a) attitude toward a desired behaviour, (b) subjective norms, and (c) perceived behavioural control. These three components provide a framework in which the intention of a certain behaviour can be explained. In sum, the stronger the intention to engage in a particular behaviour, the higher the probability for that behaviour to occur will be (Fournidou, Kudlacek and Evagellinou, 2011).
Teachers’ attitudes matter
Changing teachers’ attitudes and beliefs is not a simple process that occurs in a short period of time. To understand the attitudes and the normative components, it is essential to consider teachers’ fundamental cultural beliefs (part of habitus). Personal and cultural beliefs influence teachers’ attitudes and normative components, and as a result, beliefs are not independent input regarding the intention to teach individuals with disabilities (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). An example on how teachers’ beliefs hamper inclusion is reported in a USA high school: Ms Deeds separated a student with a disability from her classmates because she did not feel like she really had to adapt the activities for her [student with spina bifida], because the environment tends to be very fast and ballistic in nature with balls or objects rapidly being fired around (Casebolt and Hodge, 2010). Combs et al. (2010) reported another explanatory example of how personal and cultural beliefs influence inclusion: they surveyed primary school PE teachers and one of them taught students the basic skills of the major sports they might play out of school, such as basketball. They found that he was largely guided by the idea that children had to be ready to work hard. This belief was mostly due to the fact that he was also a basketball coach of the local high school team (Combs, Elliott and Whipple, 2010), and as a result, negatively influenced his attitude toward inclusion of his students with SEND in PE classes. Therefore, it is evident that schools may be sites for racialisation and exclusion, and the experiences of segregated inclusion and social isolation (Place and Hodge, 2001) may be widely avoided by positive teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion of children with disabilities. An underappreciated fact that needs to be taken into account is that teachers, with either positive or negative attitudes toward inclusion, refer different definitions of success for children in their classes. This definition is largely represented by the individual teachers’ expectations of each child (Elliott, 2008). Nevertheless, despite the fact that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are influenced by culture and personal history, they can be changed through environmental factors.
Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward children with SEND vary according to the type and the degree of the disability (Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo and Wright, 1987; Hodge et al., 2009), however, they were significantly related to the number of in-service training that they had attended, the perceived support of the special education teachers (Combs, Elliott and Whipple, 2010; Hersman and Hodge, 2010), the academic coursework undertaken, and their positive practical teaching experience (Block and Rizzo, 1995; Hardin, 2005; Obrusnikova, 2008; Casebolt and Hodge, 2010). Finally, teachers indicated that their beliefs were favourably influenced by the proactive behaviours of classmates without disabilities (Ammah and Hodge, 2006) and an adequate class size (Lienert, Sherrill and Myers, 2001; Sato and Hodge, 2009). Therefore, increasing the number and the quality of inclusion-specific modules during the PE undergraduate courses, as well as those outside the academic context, may be helpful for both pre-and-in service PE teachers to become more confident and aware regarding disability. In addition, some practical changes are also needed, such as reducing the sizes of classes, providing more assistant teachers, and using pedagogical models that foster a positive interaction between students with and without disabilities. The last variable that influences inclusion of children with SEND within schools is the discourse used in relation to it, which is not less important than the others but often underestimated. In 2006 Tripp and Rizzo reported that when teachers were informed that a student has a disability by the use of a label, regardless of the student’s actual motor ability, the intentions to teach this student were less favourable than if the student did not have a label (Tripp and Rizzo, 2006). This suggests that disability still has a negative connotation and impact on teachers, and changing it is of the utmost importance, because any children may experience a dis-ability or a special educational need and have either a period of privilege or exclusion.
What can be done
In conclusion, disability is a complex, dynamic, and multidimensional phenomenon, but its paradigm can be modified. The low quality of inclusion of children with SEND within schools, showed by research and particularly evident during PE classes, reflects the quality of many school professionals who handle disability. Notwithstanding that there are several reasons, it is widely acknowledged that teachers, as well as students without SEND, play a crucial role in this field, because their attitudes and beliefs are the most important factors that influence their own behaviours toward disability and may be either a barrier or a facilitator to the inclusion of pupils with SEND. For these reasons, in addition to an enhancement of inclusion-based coursework both for pre-and-in service PE teachers, a social and cultural change is needed, and school, as aforementioned, is one of the most important institutions, in terms of socialisation of children, in which this change can occur. Therefore, anyone involved in education (teachers, educators, principals, families, students etc.) should be aware and act as an active part in this difficult, but vital change.
Notes
[1] Noam Chomsky on Democracy and Education in the 21st Century and Beyond. Interview by Daniel Falcone on June 1, 2013. Transcript of the interview available here: https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-on-democracy-and-education-in-the-21st-century-and-beyond/ (Access Date: April 4, 2019).
References
Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The Theory of Planned Behavior’, Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 50, pp. 179–211. doi: 10.1922/CDH_2120VandenBroucke08.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall. Available at: https://books.google.ie/books?id=AnNqAAAAMAAJ.
Althusser, L. (1970) Idéologie et appareils idéologiques d’État. (Notes pour une recherche). La Pensée.
Ammah, J. O. A. and Hodge, S. R. (2006) ‘Secondary Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Teaching Students with Severe Disabilities: A Descriptive Analysis’, High School Journal. High School Journal, 89(2), pp. 40–54.
Bagnasco, A., Barbagli, M. and Cavalli, A. (2009) Sociologia. I concetti di base. Il Mulino (Itinerari / Il Mulino). Available at: https://books.google.ie/books?id=OHNiPgAACAAJ.
Block, M. E. and Obrusnikova, I. (2007) ‘Inclusion in Physical Education: A Review of the Literature From 1995-2005.’, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 103–124. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sph&AN=24522730&site=ehost-live.
Block, M. E. and Rizzo, T. L. (1995) ‘Attitudes and attributes of physical educators associated with teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities’, Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. Bevan-Brown, Jill, Massey U, Coll of Education, Dept of Learning & Teaching, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, NE, New Zealand US: Assn for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(1), pp. 80–87. Available at: https://ucd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/618707779?accountid=14507.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology). Available at: https://books.google.ie/books?id=4BWZpwAACAAJ.
Bourdieu, P. (1978) ‘Sport and social class’, Social Science Information, 17(6), pp. 819–840. doi: 10.1177/053901847801700603.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “ The Forms of Capital. ” Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education , edited by J. G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press.’, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp. 241–258. doi: 10.1007/s11010-011-0831-4.
Casebolt, K. M. and Hodge, S. R. (2010) ‘High School Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching Students with Mild to Severe Disabilities.’, Physical Educator. Sagamore Publishing, 67(3), pp. 140–155. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=55232789&site=eds-live.
Combs, S., Elliott, S. and Whipple, K. (2010) ‘ELEMENTARY PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE INCLUSION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS: A QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION’, International Journal of Special Education. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), pp. 114–125. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ890572&site=ehost-live.
Cordasco, F. (1976) A brief history of Education. A handbook of information on Greek, Roman, Medieval, Reinassence, and Modern Education Practice. Revised Ed. Edited by A. & C. Littlefield. Rownman & Littlefiel Publishers, INC.
Doulkeridou, A., Evaggelinou, C. and Kudláček, M. (2010) ‘Components of Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students With Disabilities in Physical Education in the Atipdpe-Gr Instrument for Greek Physical Educators.’, Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis.Gymnica. Acta Gymnica, 40(4), pp. 63–68. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sph&AN=62984489&site=ehost-live.
Elliott, S. (2008) ‘THE EFFECT OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD INCLUSION ON THE PRACTICE AND SUCCESS LEVELS OF CHILDREN WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES IN PHYSICAL’, International Journal of Special Education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), pp. 48–55. doi: 10.1360/zd-2013-43-6-1064.
Finkelstein, V. (1980) Attitudes and disabled people: issues for discussion. International Exchange of Information in Rehabilitation (International Exchange of Experts and Information in Rehabilitation Series).
Fitzgerald, H. (2005) ‘Still feeling like a spare piece of luggage? Embodied experiences of (dis)ability in physical education and school sport’, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), pp. 41–59. doi: 10.1080/1740898042000334908.
Fournidou, I., Kudlacek, M. and Evagellinou, C. (2011) ‘Attitudes of in-Service Physical Educators Toward Teaching Children With Physical Disabilities in General Physical Education Classes in Cyprus. / Attitudes Des Enseignants D’Education Physique Envers Des Enfants Atteints De Handicaps Moteurs En Milieu Sco’, European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 4(1), pp. 22–38. doi: 10.5507/euj.2011.002.
Gerratana, V. (1975) Quaderni del Carcere. Edizione critica dell’Istituto Gramsci. Nuova Univ. Edited by Einaudi. Torino.
Gillborn, D. and Youdell, D. (2001) ‘The New IQism: Intelligence, “Ability” and the Rationing of Education BT – Sociology of Education Today’, in Demaine, J. (ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 65–99. doi: 10.1057/9780333977507_5.
Hardin, B. (2005) ‘Physical Education Teachers’ Reflections on Preparation for Inclusion’, Physical Educator. Physical Educator, 62(1), pp. 44–56.
Hersman, B. L. and Hodge, S. R. (2010) ‘High School Physical Educators’ Beliefs about Teaching Differently Abled Students in an Urban Public School District’, Education and Urban Society. Education and Urban Society, 42(6), pp. 730–757.
Hodge, S. R. et al. (2009) ‘A Diversity of Voices: Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs about Inclusion and Teaching Students with Disabilities’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(4), pp. 401–419. doi: 10.1080/10349120903306756.
Lawson, R. F. et al. (2018) Education, 29 August 2018. doi: 10.1109/VS-GAMES.2015.7295756.
Lienert, C. C., Sherrill, C. and Myers, B. (2001) ‘Physical Educators’ Concerns About Integrating Children With Disabilities: A Cross-Cultural View. (Abstract)’, Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. Musculoskeletal Research Centre, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia. United States: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc., 76(1 Suppl), p. A-11;a-10. Available at: http://articles.sirc.ca/search.cfm?id=S-1020055%5Cnhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sph&AN=SPHS-1020055&site=ehost-live%5Cnhttp://www.aahperd.org/.
Light, R. and Kirk, D. (2000) ‘High School Rugby, the Body and the Reproduction of Hegemonic Masculinity’, Sport, Education and Society, 5(2), pp. 163–176. doi: 10.1080/713696032.
M. Bentler, P. and Speckart, G. (1979) Models of Attitude-Behavior Relations, Psychological Review. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.86.5.452.
Maher, C. A. et al. (2007) ‘Physical and sedentary activity in adolescents with cerebral palsy’, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49(6), pp. 450–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00450.x.
Murphy, N. A. and Carbone, P. S. (2008) ‘Promoting the Participation of Children With Disabilities in Sports, Recreation, and Physical Activities’, Pediatrics, 121(5), pp. 1057–1061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0566.
Obrusnikova, I. (2008) ‘Physical Educators’ Beliefs about Teaching Children with Disabilities’, Perpetual and Motor Skills, 106(c), pp. 637–644. doi: https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.2.637-644.
Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-24269-6.
Place, K. and Hodge, S. R. (2001) ‘Social Inclusion of Students With Physical Disabilities in General Physical Education: A Behavioral Analysis.’, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 389–404. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sph&AN=6194080&site=ehost-live.
Riche, P. (2008) Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth Through the Eighth Century. Scholarly Publishing Office, U of Mi. Available at: https://books.google.ie/books?id=FLJUPQAACAAJ.
Rizzo, T. L. (1984) ‘Attitudes of Physical Educators Towards Teaching Handicapped Pupils’, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1, pp. 267–274. doi: 10.1123/apaq.1.4.267.
Rizzo, T. L. and Wright, R. G. (1987) ‘Secondary school physical educators’ attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps’, American Corrective Therapy Journal. State U New York, Coll at Cortland, US: American Corrective Therapy Association, 41(2), pp. 52–55. Available at: https://ucd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/617447714?accountid=14507.
Di Santo, R. (2013) Sociologia della disabilità. Prima Ediz. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Sato, T. and Hodge, S. R. (2009) ‘Japanese Physical Educators’ Beliefs on Teaching Students with Disabilities at Urban High Schools’, Asia Pacific Journal of Education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(2), pp. 159–177. doi: 10.1080/02188790902857164.
Tinning, R. and 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. Routledge, 7(2), pp. 109–119. doi: 10.1080/1357332022000018814.
Tripp, A. and Rizzo, T. L. (2006) ‘Disability labels affect physical educators.’, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. Musculoskeletal Research Centre, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia. United States: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc., 23(3), pp. 310–326. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=jlh&AN=106325233&site=ehost-live.
Giampiero Tarantino 