Including pupils with special educational needs in secondary school physical education: a sociological analysis of teachers' views

Abstract

This paper explores physical education (PE) teachers' views of the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in PE from a figurational sociological perspective. Starting from the premise that teachers' views cannot be adequately explained by studying the concept of inclusion or the teacher in isolation, it is argued that we can only begin to make sense of such views by locating teachers within the figurations of which they are a part and by exploring two particularly salient features of those figurations: namely, teachers' habituses and contexts. In doing so, the paper focuses upon the training teachers receive, the constraints imposed upon them by their colleagues and pupils, and, most importantly, the suitability of the National Curriculum for meeting the needs of pupils with SEN. The paper concludes by highlighting some of the unintended consequences of the inclusion of pupils with SEN in PE.

Notes

Corresponding author. Department of Sport & Exercise Sciences, University College Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK. Email: [email protected]

For example, the dualism between structure and agency and body and mind.

Indeed, the importance of Bernstein's contributions was rightly acknowledged in a recent issue of the British Journal of Sociology of Education (2002) Special issue: Basil Bernstein's theory of social class, education codes and social control, 23.

Broadly speaking, this statement created an expectation that teachers would ensure that all pupils were ‘enabled to participate as fully and effectively as possible within the National Curriculum and the statutory assessment arrangements’ therein (DfEE/QCA, 1999, p. 33). More specifically, it specified ‘the principles schools must follow in their teaching right across the curriculum, to ensure that all pupils have the chance to succeed, whatever their individual needs and the potential barriers to their learning may be’ (DfEE/QCA, 1999, p. 3).

For a greater discussion of these issues, see Smith and Thomas (2004).

For a more detailed discussion of the similarities between Bourdieu and Elias in this regard, see van Krieken (1998).

Other particularly salient constraints on teachers at the local level include those posed by senior management, head‐teachers and parents. Although not explored in the present study, it is likely that the constraints posed by these groups are as equally, if not more, significant than those outlined here.