Sport, disability and (inclusive) education: critical insights and understandings from the Playdagogy programme

ABSTRACT

It has long been held that participation in sport, physical activity (PA) and physical education (PE) can yield valuable benefits for young people (Bailey et al., 2009. The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809817). Recently, there has been much focus on the role of such activities for moral development in support of social inclusion and social justice agendas, often centred within the broad field of sport-for-development (Coalter, 2013. Sport for development. Routledge; Rossi & Jeanes, 2016. Education, pedagogy and sport for development: Addressing seldom asked questions. Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1160373). However, disability, and the social inclusion of disabled people, has been somewhat overlooked by policy, practice, and research in this field. This article considers findings from a study investigating a sports-based educational programme, Playdagogy, designed for use with children/young people and intended to: (1) raise disability-awareness, (2) promote positive attitudes to disabled people and (3) foster inclusion. In focusing on promoting understandings of disability and inclusion through ‘inclusive’ sport-based games, Playdagogy reflects a recognition of the need to critique ‘normalized’ and exclusionary conceptions and practices in youth sport (Fitzgerald, 2009. Disability and youth sport. Routledge). While progress has been made to conceptualise ‘anti-disablist’ or ‘anti-ableist’ pedagogies within the context of inclusive education (Beckett, 2015. Anti-oppressive pedagogy and disability: Possibilities and challenges. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2013.835278), it has been slow to trace this into relevant curricula or teaching/learning strategies (Symeonidou & Loizou, 2018. Disability studies as a framework to design disability awareness programs: No need for ‘magic’ to facilitate children’s understanding. Disability & Society, 33(8), 1234–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1488677). Playdagogy can be viewed as an attempt to achieve translation of pedagogy into practice. A mixed method approach was employed to capture experiences of programme staff, educators, and pupils (aged 6–12 ) involved in the Playdagogy programme. Findings highlight key issues related to the experience of delivering and undertaking Playdagogy activities from all stakeholders’ perspectives. In acknowledging claims that educational messages are often inherent but not explicit within these kinds of sport for development programmes (Rossi & Jeanes, 2016. Education, pedagogy and sport for development: Addressing seldom asked questions. Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1160373), we add to calls for closer examination of the educational process and impact of such initiatives and examine the place of an inclusion/disability focus in future SfD work.

KEYWORDS:

• Sport
• disability
• education
• inclusion
• sport-for-development

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The identification of pupils to participate in Playdagogy was negotiated between Cambridge House and participating schools. The researchers were given no specific information relating to the disability status of pupils, though it is likely that schools will have drawn on criteria typically used to identify pupils as having a Special Educational Need or Disability (SEND) e.g., physical impairment, ADHD, autism or one-to-one support requirements. It was requested that, where possible, focus groups could comprise both disabled and non-disabled pupils.

2 Within this study, we wanted to be sensitive to the fact that previous research has shown that whilst some disabled children strive for a positive disability identity, others reject it and many have a fluid approach to this matter – their identities are, especially at primary-age an ‘unfinished business’ (Priestley et al., 1999). Given the sensitivities in this area, we opted to give children the power to self-identify, or not. Whilst one child ‘came out’ as disabled during a Playdagogy discussion (as discussed in the article) no children self-identified as part of focus group discussions.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by funding from Cambridge House, 1 Addington Square, Camberwell, London SE5 0HF.