the winston churchill memorial trust of …pdchurchill.s3.amazonaws.com/pd_churchill_final.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
1
THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA
Report by Peter Downs 2013 Churchill Fellow
To investigate models of best practice in sport and physical activity programs that include people with disability, particularly people with high support needs in Finland, UK and
USA. I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the Internet or both, and consent to such publication. I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any Report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet. I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-off or contravention of any other private right or of any law. Signed
Peter Downs 24th July 2014
2
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4
PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 5
PURPOSE OF THE FELLOWSHIP PROJECT ...................................................................................... 6 Importance of cultural context .................................................................................................................................................. 6
INCLUSION DEFINED .................................................................................................................... 7
COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICE ............................................................... 11 Leadership, Passion and Grit .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Collective Impact, networks and systems of accountability ....................................................................................... 15 Common Agenda ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Shared Measurement .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Mutually Reinforcing Activities ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Continuous Communication ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Backbone Organization ............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Good Habits ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Vision .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Order and preparation ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Creating Time ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Taking Responsibility .................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Accessibility ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Activity Adaptation and Development .................................................................................................................................. 39
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 42
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 44 APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLE CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................................................... 46
3
INTRODUCTION
I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for
their support and commitment for my Fellowship to investigate models of best practice in
sport and physical activity for people with disability. I would also like to thank all those
that encouraged me to apply for the Fellowship in the first place, particularly Susie
Bennett-Yeo, Hamish Macdonald, Veneta Amies and Churchill Fellow Phil Brown. The
project could not have happened without the personal commitment of many people in
Finland, UK and USA. In particular, I will always be very grateful to Aija Saari, Ken Black
and Matt Schinelli for their help, friendship and considerable skills in organizing the
country itineraries. While I may not quote or refer to all the people I met and interviewed
on this study tour in this report, I am very grateful to all the people who freely gave their
time and they have all contributed to my thinking and how this report has come together.
I was fortunate to have the full support of my employers, the Australian Sports
Commission and Play by the Rules. I am very thankful to all the staff at the Australian
Sports Commission who supported my period away for the Fellowship and to the co-
Chairs of Play by the Rules Graeme Innes and Craig Martin for their personal support to
my application for leave. I will do my utmost to ensure the knowledge and insights I have
gained from this experience will be of benefit to the work of the Australian Sports
Commission and Play by the Rules. Finally, none of this would have been possible without
the support and constant encouragement of my wife, Dorothy. Her own expertise and
experience in this field and her enthusiasm to learn and explore new ways of doing things
has been invaluable and inspiring to me.
Throughout my professional career I have been acutely aware of the enormous benefits
that sport and physical activity can have in the lives of people with disability. Participation
in regular sport and physical activity can, and does, change lives for the better. This is why
I am involved in this field of work and why I applied for the Fellowship. Although I have
been working in this field for twenty-five years I have never stopped learning about the
approaches, techniques and models of inclusive sport and physical activity. One way to
continue this journey is to look closely at what others are doing around the world and try
to identify the hallmarks of inclusive practice that are consistent across different programs
and organisations. The Churchill Fellowship gave me a unique opportunity to focus
specifically on this and I hope I have been able to encapsulate what I have learnt from
some of the great work being done in Finland, the UK and US in this report.
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Name: Peter Downs, 3 Sampson Close, Melba, ACT 2615
Occupation: Manager – Play by the Rules, c/o Australian Sports Commission, Leverrier
Street, Bruce, ACT 2616
Email: [email protected] | Phone: 02 6259 0316 | Mobile: 0418
281 174
Project Description
This project was to study models of best practice in sport and physical activity programs
that include people with disability, particularly people with high support needs. The
Fellowship took me to Finland, the UK and US on a four-week study tour. The study
involved 26 unstructured interviews with experienced practitioners and 8 site visits. A brief
introduction was given to each interviewee around the purpose of the study and
interview. Interviews were generally around 1 hour of broad discussion where key
hallmarks, issues and practices were identified. Following the general discussion a 15-20
minute video or audio recording was made, focusing on the key issues identified in the
earlier discussions. There were 17 video recordings and 5 audio recordings. There were 4
interviews where no recordings were made. Highlights of this study tour include:
• Meeting many innovative, committed and smart people who are making a real
difference in the world and having a chance to talk with them in their own backyard;
• Having time to reflect and think about the practices that really count;
• Reaffirming that we are not alone and that there are people all over the world
working toward the same objectives with the same challenges and successes, and
• Re-acquainting myself with like-minded colleagues.
Major lessons learnt include understanding the significance of local culture and
organizational context to how inclusion is delivered. Also, with a good deal of Grit and
passion; with long-term leadership; with creativity and skill, great progress can be made.
None of this was the work of one individual – it takes coordinated networks of like-
minded people, operating to a common vision, to achieve long-term change. The
information in this report wil l be disseminated in multiple ways. The report will be
made available and promoted via the Play by the Rules (www.playbytherules.net.au) and
Inclusion Club (www.theinclusionclub.com) websites. Articles will be produced in the Play
by the Rules online magazine and individual episode extracts published via The Inclusion
Club. Presentations will be made to the Australian Sports Commission and Play by the
Rules partners across the country.
5
PROGRAM The study tour itinerary for Finland, the UK and US was as follows:
Date Location Contact - Interview 14 April 2014 VAU, Radiokatu 20, Helsinki
(Finnish Sports Association for Persons with Disabilities)
Aija Saari, Tiinna Siivonen, Riikka Juntunen, Niina Kilpela
15 April 2014 Ruskis Special School, Helsinki (adapted swimming program)
Kira Durchman
16 April 2014 Pajulahti Sports Institute, Pajulahti Virpi Remahl, Osku Kuutamo 17 April 2014 Keskuspuisto Vocational College,
Helsinki Erwin Borremans Kari Koivumaki
18 April 2014 25 Mariankatu, Helsinki Kati Karinharju 21 April 2014 Community Sports Partnerships,
Manor House, 40 Moat Lane, Birmingham
Wendy Salmon (Birmingham Disability Forum) Amy Bird (Community Sports Partnerships)
22 April 2014 Mansfield Martin Mansell 22 April 2014 Loughborough University Dr David Howe 23 April 2014 Bromakin Wheelchairs,
Loughborough Peter Curruthers
23 April 2014 British Wheelchair Basketball, Sports House, Loughborough
Charlie Bethel
23 April 2014 English Federation of Disability Sport, Loughborough
Barry Horne
23 April 2014 Project Adapted, Nottingham Doug Williamson 24 April 2014 Inclusion Club, Shepshed, Leics Ken Black 28 April 2014 Disability Sport Wales, Cardiff City
Stadium, Cardiff, Wales Presentation and participation at the DSW Conference on Habits of Inclusion
29 April 2014 Disability Sport Wales, Cardiff Jon Morgan Fiona Reid Matt Fisher
1 May 2014 University of Worcester Glyn Harding, Andrea Faull, Mark Stevens, Rebecca Foster, Sophie Cargill
5 May 2014 Pheonix Centre, New Jersey Dr Gibbia 5 May 2014 Red Ribbon Academy, New
Jersey Linda Zani Thomas, Dr Marsha Wilks, Vicki Allen, Lisa Crilly, Linda Salerno
6 May 2014 Next Step Pediatric Physical Therapy
Chris Paserchia
6 May 2014 Ridgewood Public School, New Jersey
Dee Tobin
8 May 2014 Little Falls Recreation Centre, New Jersey
Dr Lynn Anderson
8 May 2014 Little Falls Recreation Centre, New Jersey
Presentation and participation at the New Era Conference
8 May 2014 New Jersey All People Equal, New Jersey
Matt Schinelli, Chelsea Cullen, Ashley Rillo
6
PURPOSE OF THE FELLOWSHIP PROJECT The purpose of this Churchill Fellowship project was to study models of best practice in
sport and physical activity programs that include people with disability, particularly
people with high support needs. As the focus of this study was around best models of
inclusion it would appear to be logical to define the meaning of inclusion in this context
for the participants. However, there were no attempts made to define what is meant by
inclusion to any of the interviewees in this study. This was because it was important, for
the purposes of this investigation, to understand what others understood about inclusion
and how it applied in their own contexts.
While it was necessary to allow for differences in understanding about inclusive practice,
at the same time it was a focus of this study to identify some of the hallmarks of best
practice that were common across different programs and individual work habits. The
common hallmarks of best practice provide a framework for the recommendations in this
report. Some hallmarks and habits were more common than others and it has been
necessary to use my 25 years experience in the field to distinguish these in this report.
I was very conscious that the field of sport, physical activity and disability is extremely
broad and all encompassing. Because of this it was necessary to look at models, and talk
to individuals, across a broad range of settings and environments. These included
schools, tertiary institutions, sports associations, community programs, private providers
and government initiatives. The lessons learnt from this broad range of stakeholders were
often transferable, providing a rich collective of best practices. It soon became apparent
that there is no single model of best practice, rather, there are characteristics of best
practice at an organizational and individual level. When combined, they form a powerful
formula for inclusion.
Importance of cultural context As the study progressed it became increasingly evident that local cultural context plays a
significant role in determining best practice. For example, Finland, a country of 5.4 million
people, has consistently ranked at the top in the international rankings for educational
achievements. While there are schools that are specifically for children with disabilities,
there is an embedded approach that all children are taught in the same classrooms. 30%
of children receive extra help during their first nine years of school. The difference
between the weakest and the strongest students is the smallest in the world. The school
7
system is 100% state funded. All teachers must have a masters degree, which is fully
subsidized. They have an established network of around 100 adapted physical activity
instructors in Finnish municipalities who cater for some 80,000 participants, providing
specialist services for people with disability wanting to get involved in sport and physical
activity programs. There is an umbrella organization that helps coordinate and foster the
network of stakeholders across the country. In short, Finland has a culture and an
organizational system that is highly conducive to inclusive practice and providing the best
possible opportunities for participation.
Similarly, in Wales, with a population of just over 3 million, the umbrella body Disability
Sport Wales has coordinated activities and programs for people with disability for over 20
years and currently has 293 disability sport clubs across 22 local authorities with over 150
clubs achieving the insport (a program to provide inclusive sport and activity programs in
local communities) governing body accreditation. There is strong cultural identity in
Wales. It is officially bilingual with over 560,000 Welsh speakers. Disability Sport Wales
have invested a lot of time and energy in fostering their network of sport development
officers and building their collective expertise that is delivered in each of the 22 local
authorities. Again, this mixture of cultural significance, organizational influence and
conduciveness to inclusion were very important in understanding models of best practice.
The following hallmarks of best practice are divided into two parts. First, I will look at the
broad common characteristics of inclusive practice that were consistent across all the
discussions and observations. Second, I will consider some of the practices that were
discussed and observed that, while not entirely unique, were highly advanced and
specific to particular contexts.
INCLUSION DEFINED
While inclusion was not defined for the participants in this study it is necessary to define
the term in the context of this report. Throughout this report I will refer to the term
inclusion. Inclusion, for the purposes of this report is defined as:
The participation of people with disability in sport and active recreation
activities at a level and setting of their choice. Downs, 2014
Important to the understanding of this definition are the concepts of level, setting and
8
choice. Sport participation opportunities are often referred to in the context of pathways.
Typically, the pathway starts at the grass roots level, through participation in local
community sport, either as an individual or as part of a team. Tens of thousands of people
are happy simply doing this, enjoying the opportunity to take part with peers at a level
they can have fun and enjoy the myriad benefits of participation. Others like to take part
in competition locally, at a regional and state level. Some also go onto national and
international level.
This typical pathway applies equally to people with and without disability. However,
research has repeatedly shown (Darcy, Taylor, Lock, Sherry, Downs, & Nicholson, 2011)
that people with disability have significantly fewer opportunities to participate at all levels
of the pathway. According to the Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 64% of Australians participate
in regular sport and physical activity programs. This compares to 23% of Australians with
disability who participate in regular sport and physical activity programs.
There are many different settings in which people with disability participate in sport. From
the local park, gym or sports centre to the various stadiums around the country. Due to
numerous factors, not least the architectural constraints, people with disability are
disadvantaged in the options they have to participate in these settings.
People with disability are also disadvantaged when it comes to the choices they have to
participate. Again, there are many, often complex, reasons for this. In recent years sports
organisations in Australia have looked at expanding the choices that people with
disability have to participate in sport. The Inclusion Spectrum, developed by the
Australian Sports Commission, has been a framework used by sports to explore the
various choices that are possible for people with disability.
9
The Inclusion Spectrum presents six approaches to sport for people with disability. These range from sport that has no modification but includes people with disability, to sport activities that are solely for people with disability. It also includes participation in a non-playing role, such as an official, supporter or volunteer.
This approach is in contrast to other traditional models of inclusion that focus on a
continuum of participation where the preferred option is full participation of people with
disability with able-bodied peers. Furthermore, traditional models of sport participation
do not include non-playing role. The Inclusion Spectrum equally values all options based
on individual choice. The central notion of the Inclusion Spectrum is one that values
individual choice and, in a fully inclusive environment, all approaches will be offered at all
levels of the pathway.
Also important to The Inclusion Spectrum is understanding that people with disability
start from a disadvantaged position of choice. Often, we are not aware and have not
discovered what the best choice might be. The best choice is often unknown. Is the best
choice to be doing an activity only with other people with disability or where people with
10
and without disability are together? If different options were available would the choices
that people with disability make about their participation be different? To know the
answer to these type of questions we must be able to look and see what is possible by
redressing some of the disadvantages that people with disability commonly experience.
This often means being innovative and creative in our thinking, planning and
implementation.
This is a concept firmly rooted in the social model of disability. The social model
recognises the disadvantages that people with disabilities have as being imposed by their
environment. They are disadvantaged by a range of factors that has nothing to do with
impairment.
Being innovative and creative means adapting and modifying the environmental
constraints that restrict peoples participation. Throughout the course of this study I saw
many examples of innovation and creativity. Examples that created new opportunities for
participation.
Central to these innovations was the understanding and acceptance that this inevitably
brings failure and success in fairly equal measure. A trait of innovators is that they are not
negatively swayed by failure, rather, they are more motivated to succeed.
A challenge for regular sport providers is to emulate the innovative thinking that
redresses disadvantage within the fairly structured and rigid environments in which they
commonly operate. This challenge is a very real one for sport providers, particularly as
Image from Social Model of Disability: http://ddsg.org.uk/taxi/social-model.html
11
adults in a society where creativity and innovation, and hence failure, is stifled and even
frowned upon. As Sir Ken Robinson in his 2006 TED Talk1 says:
“if you are not prepared to be wrong you will never come up with anything that is
original. By the time they get to adults most kids have lost that capacity. They become
frightened of being wrong.”
The large majority of participants in this study described inclusion in a manner aligned to
the approach of the Inclusion Spectrum.
“Although some might subscribe to inclusion as one universal placement for all, we would
argue that the underlying philosophy of inclusion does not automatically imply universal
placement or one size fits all. Rather, inclusion must not be defined as a place (or
placement) but rather inclusion must be reconceptualised as an attitude or process.”
(DePauw & Doll-Tepper, 2000)
COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICE
Leadership, Passion and Grit Kira Durchman is a highly experienced teacher and physiotherapist at Ruskeasuo School,
or Ruskis for short, on the outskirts of Helsinki. She is a specialist in the teaching of
adapted swimming programs for young people with disabilities. Ruskis is a Government
funded special school that also acts as a service and development centre for children
physical disabilities, multiple disabilities and long term illnesses.
Kira stressed the importance of having clear systematic goals that are both short and long
term. As Kira said,
“if you don’t have a goal then you don’t know why you are doing something.” Kira Durchman
Kira described very vividly how she has cascading goals, starting with individual session
goals and leading to the achievement of medium and long term goals that are specific to 1 Sir Ken Robinson: How schools kill creativity. 2006 TED TALK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
12
each individual. These goals were very well recorded and understood by the instructors,
the students and the parents. At Ruskis they use a conductive education system of
instruction that is based on individual potential. It is understood that often the potential is
unknown, so the long term goals move and advance as each program develops.
Similarly, Erwin Borremans, a lecturer at the Keskuspuisto Vocational College, described
how broad goals are set within the curriculum. These are broken down through the
system to individual education plans to session goals. He described, with significant
passion, these goals as being constant and front of brain for people working at the
College. In-built into the system is a degree of flexibility allowed so that teachers can
adapt as the need arises and students can experiment with their own learning.
“of course, there is flexibility within the plan. Not everything is set in stone. Teachers have
the professionalism and flexibility to adapt” Erwin Borremans
Charlie Bethel is Chief Executive Officer of British Wheelchair Basketball, one of the most
respected and successful national sports organisations in the UK. Charlie charted the
progress of British Wheelchair Basketball over the past decade from an organization with
two staff in 2002 to one in 2014 with 24 employees. He placed great emphasis in the
evolution of its planning processes into the whole of sport plans that are currently in
place. He stressed the importance of a clear vision with strategic objectives and a plan to
achieve these step by step. He quoted Shakespeare to illustrate their approach to
planning:
“Dream in light years, challenge miles, walk step by step.”
The importance of clearly articulated goals allied to a strong vision was also a hallmark of
success discussed with Chief Executive Officer of Disability Sport Wales, Jon Morgan.
Disability Sport Wales is the lead agency for the development of disability sport in Wales.
They have been very strategic in their approach to providing opportunities for people
with disability across Wales, putting place a network of development officers in the 22
local authorities whose role it is to develop grass roots opportunities. Jon talked about
getting everybody on the same page in terms of their vision and strategic objectives.
“it’s about strategic processes, building a framework and about getting everybody on
board and on the same page striving toward the same objectives.”
13
Jon Morgan
In the context of these discussions it became clear that critical to the importance and
significance of having well articulated and commonly understood goals was the quality
and experience of the people driving them from a leadership position. The people
interviewed for this study and who talked about the importance of goal setting and
having a clear vision and objectives had several things in common. They were highly
skilled and respected in their field and they had a great deal of experience and passion.
They have been a constant driving force behind the achievement of organizational
objectives. They have built on their experience and expertise over many years and
applied them to the broader vision and goals of the organisation. They have what is
known in psychology as Grit.
Grit is defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth, Matthews,
Kelly, & Peterson, 2007). Grit is all about having stamina. It is about persistence in the
face of challenges and, sometimes, adversity. It’s about sticking to what you believe in
and not being distracted or letting set backs de-rail your progress. It’s about learning as
you progress and adapting to changing circumstances.
Angela Duckworth from Penn State University has been a leader in the study of Grit. In
her paper Deliberate Practice Spells Success: Why Grittier Competitors Triumph at the
National Spelling Bee (Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson, 2010) she
looked at how the personality trait of Grit contributed toward success and deliberate
practice. She found that perseverance and passion for long-term goals enabled spellers
to persist with practice activities that may be less intrinsically rewarding but more effective
than other types of preparation. A further takeaway from this research was the growing
recognition of non-cognitive skills like Grit and self-control and their contribution toward
success. This has little to do with intelligence (as measured by I.Q.) but more to do with
Grit as a predictor of success over the long-term.
Interviewees referred to programs and models as not being perfect or not always
succeeding. They talked about various challenges and political pressures that have
interrupted their journey. But, they have viewed these challenges as part of the process
and something that has been expected and necessary to manage. In short, they displayed
large amounts of Grit to keep going with the vision even when things got tough.
“I wouldn’t say that it’s perfect by any stretch of the imagination … but our long-term
14
vision is to build a pathway which is not dissimilar to mainstream sport … and we are on
the road.” Jon Morgan
The willingness to learn from mistakes is a characteristic of people that have Grit.
Interviewees showed that they were willing to persist, practice and learn from mistakes.
They understood the importance of deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-
Romer, 1993) and that they were often going into uncharted territory so were, inevitably,
going to make mistakes. The majority of people interviewed in this study had practiced
what they do, either administratively or practically, for decades and built up considerable
expertise and thus respect in their fields.
Perhaps the most impressive example of leadership, passion and Grit was found at the
Red Ribbon Academy in New Jersey. Linda Zani Thomas has been one of the driving
forces behind the establishment of the Red Ribbon Academy. The Red Ribbon Academy
is an innovative day program created from an original concept by The Parents Group. A
small group of parents campaigned for many years in trying to establish the Red Ribbon
Academy that is now providing a wide range of services and supports for young people
who, previously, had very few options in their local community. They are now able to
access a range of medical and recreational services, including an innovative multi-sensory
facility. This was achieved with large amounts of Grit to finally secure funding and
resources through the New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities. Following years
of work Linda and her colleagues finally presented the Business Case to the New Jersey
Department of Human Services in January 2011. Approval for baseline funding was
secured in mid June 2012. There was still a lot of work in establishing the Academy and
gaining funds for equipment and other facilities that were not covered by the seed
funding. Construction began in February 2013 with the Academy opening on March 25th
2013.
This was a long journey with many set backs along the way. Set backs, however, were
viewed as normal and, in many ways, a necessary part of the journey.
They were subsequently less fearful of failure and understood, instinctively rather than
academically, the implementation dip that commonly follows innovation. Michael Fullen,
in his book Leading in a Culture of Change defines the implementation dip as:
“a dip in performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new
15
skill and new understandings.”
(Fullen, 2001)
There seemed to be a common acceptance that being innovative commonly led to initial
failure but that persistence would pay off. This is a sign of Grit.
“The only thing that I see that is distinctly different about me is I’m not afraid to die on a
treadmill. I will not be outworked, period. You might have more talent than me, you
might be smarter than me, you might be sexier than me, you might be all of those things
— you got it on me in nine categories. But if we get on the treadmill together, there’s two
things: You’re getting off first, or I’m going to die. It’s really that simple…”
Oscar-nominated actor and Grammy award-winning musician Will Smith
Allied to the trait of Grit, another common broad characteristic of the people interviewed
in this study was that they showed consistent good inclusive habits on a regular basis.
Habits that, over time, build a culture of inclusion in their respective work environments
and organisations.
Collective Impact, networks and systems of accountability Many people interviewed in this study were change agents who facilitate inclusion rather
than deliver it directly. This is all about helping others take responsibility for inclusion.
Setting up systems of accountability within networks is critical in this respect. One
emerging framework for systems accountability, one that is strongly allied to the type of
environment that organisations in this field operate, is the framework of Collective Impact.
From evidence and observations found in this study, the most effective and widespread
models of change, particularly through the work of Disability Sport Wales and the Finnish
Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities, were ones that embraced the core
principles of Collective Impact.
Collective Impact is a framework for facilitating large scale social change (Kania & Kramer,
2011). The lasting change that organisations in this study are aiming achieve is greater
levels of inclusion of people with disability in community sport and physical activity
settings. To do this, umbrella organisations such as Disability Sport Wales, the Finnish
Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities and British Wheelchair Basketball,
coordinate the activities of individual and organisational networks toward clearly defined
goals. The coordination of networks in this manner is founded on the belief that, in order
16
to achieve the goals of inclusion, the collective approach is far more effective than single
organisations operating in isolation.
It was also recognized by the organisations in this study that there is no silver bullet
solution to systemic social problems, and the issue of exclusion of people with disability
from regular sport and physical activity programs cannot be addressed by simply scaling
or replicating one organization or program.
There are five conditions of Collective Impact success that will be considered here in the
context of how organisations in this study embrace these conditions.
Common Agenda
All participants have a shared vision for change including a common understanding of the
problem.
Riikka Jutenen has worked for the Finnish Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities
for over a decade. She understands the value and strength of a close network of key
people who share a common agenda.
“for me personally, it’s the way for succeeding. It’s the trust that I have. It gives me the
answers when I need them. It gives me a place where I can ask the questions where I
don’t know the answers. It’s also a place where you go in the hard moments and a place
you go when you really succeed. For a very close network, what makes it very special, is
that you can always ask, you don’t have to explain all the background theories and so on
– you just go and ask.”
Riikka Juntenen
The close networks of leaders in Finland and Wales have worked together for long
periods of time. They know each other professionally and personally. They have an
acknowledged, but often silent, understanding of the common vision. While some of the
techniques and tactics may differ at times, there is always a common bond and mutual
respect that generates a momentum all of its own.
“if we had significant personnel changes or gone backwards and forwards with strategy, I
17
think we would have been way behind. It’s been a fundamental element of our long term
vision.”
Jon Morgan
This consistency of personnel, strategy and vision allows for programs such as insport,
developed by Disability Sport Wales, to flourish and grow in a manner that brings
important partners together. Here, national governing bodies of sport strive to achieve
levels of inclusion set over four levels – Ribbon, Bronze, Silver and Gold. Agreed
measures are set between partners and an independent panel provides critical friend
feedback throughout the course of the program. The support of the network of
Development Officers, in partnership with 22 Local Authorities, is engrained in this
process. In turn, these are part of a single vision developed by Disability Sport Wales.
“Critically, key stakeholders are able to buy into a single vision. Welsh Government, Sport
Wales, National Governing Bodies of Sport, Local Authorities – irrespective of their level
of understand around disability sport and inclusive delivery - what they do understand is
the vision.”
Jon Morgan
Leaders such as Jon Morgan and Aija Saari understand the strength and power of a close
network and take meaningful strategic steps to foster it toward a common agenda.
Shared Measurement
Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts
remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable.
An outstanding example of shared measurement and consistent measuring of results is
insport. Insport supports National Governing Bodies of Sport (insport NGB), Local
Authorities (insport Development), and clubs (insport Club) to provide inclusive, quality
sessions to people with disability within their communities and at a level of their choice or
potential.
The insport model was inspired by the Australian Sports Commission’s 'Sports
CONNECT' program that worked with National Sports Organisations identifying supply
and demand for disability sport across the Australian States and Territories from 2002 to
18
2010.
No only do multi-sector partners align to a single vision, engaged partners report on
progress via a single reporting online process. The reporting processes are consistent and
aligned to standards set at each of the levels.
This kind of reporting process allows Disability Sport Wales to track and monitor
performance and provide feedback to sector partners, particularly governing bodies of
sport, local authorities and clubs. For example, in the past year alone Golf Development
and Golf Union Wales, Table Tennis Wales, Welsh Football Trust, Welsh Athletics and
Welsh Rowing have all achieved insport NGB Ribbon Standard; and Welsh Triathlon,
Welsh Sailing, Welsh Karate, Cricket Wales and Welsh Cycling are all pushing toward
NGB Ribbon Standard. 19 of the 22 Local Authorities have achieved insport Development
Standard. Conwy, Merthyr Tyfil, Bridgend, Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion are all insport
Development Bronze Standard authorities.
There are now 145 insport clubs, with a further 97 working toward Ribbon Standard. RCT
Tigers and Cwm Gymnastics have both reached insport club Gold Standard.
Mutually Reinforcing Activities
Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a
mutually reinforcing plan of action.
Disability Sport Wales has multiple direct partners involved in their collective vision and
series of programs. Yet they are continually looking for new partnerships where they can
make contributions to even broader visions. They team up with UK partners for mutual
benefits under, for example, the Sainsbury’s Active Kids for All course.
“Wherever possible our approach is to team up with our UK Disability Sport colleagues,
sharing learning, resources and effort to create products which are collectively endorsed,
but reflect tailored delivery for the Home Country context.” (Reid, 2014)
The Active Kids for All course is funded commercially and delivers across the UK to help
ensure inclusion is embedded with physical education and school based activity
programs. They adopt a similar collaborative approach in working with disability sport
sector partners, helping to align strategy for mutually beneficial outcomes with Welsh
19
Deaf Sport and Special Olympics Wales.
Continuous Communication
Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust,
assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation.
Communication is key to developing a true collective impact approach. Dealing with
multiple sector partners, with different perspectives and life experiences, requires a good
deal of compromise and expertise in listening. We spend approximately 60% of our
communication time listening (Barker, Edwards, Gaines, Gladney, & Holley, 1980). People
in this study were, generally, excellent listeners. They were what Julian Treasure would
call conscious listeners (Treasure, 2014). Conscious listening creates understanding. With
understanding comes acceptance as people react to and implement strategies that are
collectively supported. Conscious listening is a strong trait of people who have inclusion
at the forefront of thinking. They understand that compromise is necessary and that the
greater good is better than individual differences. This is particularly important in the
politicized world of disability sport where there are multiple, and passionate,
perspectives.
Another important aspect of communication is listening to the voices and wishes of
people with disability directly. Inclusion in sport cannot happen without listening to the
wishes and thoughts of people with disability. While this is generally accepted as a given
in many circles it is not necessarily the habits of regular sport providers who operate in a
traditional hierarchical environment with strong, instructional, cultures.
Dr Ernesto Sirolli is an authority in sustainable economic development, the founder of the
Sirolli Institute and someone that understands, through direct and long experience, the
power of harnessing the passion and expertise of community collectives. Core to the
success of his work has been the ability to shut up and listen!
“What you do (to provide better aid is) you shut up and listen. You never arrive in a
community with any ideas.” (Sirolli, 2012)
Sirolli advocates, based on many years experience, that the future of any community
collective lies in capturing the passion, energy and imagination of its own people. The
best source of ideas and strategy toward inclusion in sport lie in listening to the thoughts
20
and ideas of people with a lived experience of disability. However, like all communities,
strategy needs to be built around collective need rather than individual passions. This is
where leadership is very important and listening to the collective voices of people with
disability is critical to forming good policy and strategy. It is not good policy or strategy
to react to the individual promulgations of outspoken individuals or to base actions on
personal experiences with small collectives of people. Good inclusive strategy
exemplified in this study was more based on years of listening to the thoughts and ideas
of many thousands of people with disability, across many diverse circumstances.
Backbone Organization
Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization(s) with staff and
a specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative and coordinate
participating organisations and agencies.
There is no question that organisations such as Disability Sport Wales and the Finnish
Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities are backbone organisations for inclusive
sport development. They have a history of coordination and have the staff and skills to
drive change in their jurisdictions. They have existing reputations in this role and a great
deal of respect. New Jersey All People Equal are striving toward being a backbone
organization in New Jersey. During this study New Jersey All People Equal organized the
New Era of Inclusive Movement Services conference with a wide cross section of
organisations from around the New Jersey area, all of which have some influence on the
provision of inclusive movement services. It was the first time such a conference was held.
Matt Schinelli, founding director of New Jersey All People Equal, explains the purpose of
the conference.
“It was a good time to put the inclusive thought processes into reality ... the thought of
the New Era conference was to collectively bring valuable players who are involved in this
game of movement and inclusion together and try and build a common bridge – a
common understanding – to connect people.” Matt Schinelli
New Jersey All People Equal are at the beginning of re-shaping themselves as a
backbone organization for inclusion around New Jersey. Matt identified some of the
challenges of this, not least, the perception of sport as a fairly rigid product promoted
through mass media. The product being one that promotes sport as an athletic,
competitive, aspirational and predominantly able-bodied activity. To combat this culture
21
New Jersey All People Equal emphasize pure enjoyment and joy of movement.
“I see physical education teachers and coaches getting into a terrible habit – they are
defaulting to sport as they see it on the TV – that this is the only way to play the game –
and that is the point that they should be heading their ship toward… part of what we
need to do is to allow joy and creativity to come back into play.” Matt Schinelli
The challenge they have is to influence the popular culture of sport, even within their own
sector, toward a more inclusive perspective where partners have a common
understanding and philosophy around inclusion. At the moment they are faced with a
competing culture around sport and a fragmented system. The Stanford Social Innovation
Review (Turner, Merchant, Kania, & Martin, 2012) outlines six common activities for
backbone organisations to facilitate collective impact frameworks:
1. Guide vision and strategy
2. Support aligned activities
3. Establish shared measurement practices
4. Build public will
5. Advance policy
6. Mobilize funding
While the challenges of implementation are many, the collective impact framework
provides organisations such as New Jersey All People Equal with a starting point. They
have the beginnings of a network and the expertise and passion to drive inclusion as a
collective.
Good Habits Due to the nature of their work and career commitments, the people interviewed in this
study had what can best be described as, good inclusive habits. Much of what they do
and how they behave, has people with disability at the forefront of thinking. While it
would be easy to dismiss this as something that is to be expected and entirely natural for
people in these positions, there are a lot of lessons that can be learnt from the regular,
familiar routines of people who act inclusively on a regular basis.
22
The challenge is identifying the important habits that are transferable and useable by
people who do not have people with disability at the forefront of thinking yet would
benefit hugely by adopting good inclusive habits. Essentially, what can we learn from the
actions of what experienced people take for granted but that make a significant
difference to how inclusive programs are delivered. First, before considering which
routine habits are the most important we will consider how habits are formed and what
influences them.
Research has shown that around 40% of the decisions we make everyday are made
unconsciously (Neal, Wood, & Quinn, 2006). We do not need to think about hundreds of
decisions – that’s because they are habits. It’s the body’s way of helping us cope with
ordinary life. Taken individually, most habits do not have much meaning. But collectively
and over time, they dictate much of our behavior – what we eat, how much we exercise,
how we go about our work. This has an enormous impact on our health, our productivity,
our financial security and well-being.
Individuals have habits and organisations have habits. The collection of habits is what
forms culture over time. How do habits form in our brain? The brain is like an onion. It has
layers over layers. The outside layers are where all the action happens. It is where the
most complex thinking occurs and where people make conscious decisions. When you
are trying to solve a problem or listening hard to understand what someone is saying,
then your outer layers kick in and decipher these messages. In the inner layers, near
where the brain meets the spinal column, is an area that dictates our more automated
behaviours, such as swallowing and breathing. In the centre of the brain is an area of soft
tissue known as the basal ganglia. This is the area of the brain that neuroscientists
attribute to storing our habits.
23
Basically, the basal ganglia converts a series of actions into an automatic routine and then
stores these behavioural chunks for later use. This is the core of how habits form. This is
pretty useful – as it saves us a lot of effort as our habits kick in, meaning we can turn our
thoughts to other things by using the outer layers of the brain while, for example, making
a cup of coffee or driving the car.
Neuroscientists have identified a three-step loop (Duhigg, 2012) that explains how the
basal ganglia does this. The first part is the cue, which basically acts as a trigger for your
brain, telling it which routine to set in motion. The routine is set in motion – the routine
can be physical, mental or even emotional. Then there is the reward. If the reward is
strong enough – it doesn’t have to be very strong – then the habit loop is formed and
becomes more and more entrenched in the basal ganglia over time as patterns are
repeated.
Habits can be changed, largely through the manipulation of routines. Cue’s and rewards
may also change and influence the loop but routines are at the core of the habit loop and
are what can, most effectively, impact on changing habits. Some habits are more
important than others. The keystone habits are the ones that have most impact on
outcomes.
It is useful to understand the neurology of habit formation as it gives us direction in
recommending actions that may influence keystone habits. While the neurology of habit
formation and change is easy to describe, it is not always easy to implement habit
change. Many routines are entrenched and have been in place for a long time. Changing
entrenched habits takes determination and patience. It takes serious commitment and
energy. It is also a challenge to identify entrenched keystone habits as they are often
Cue
Routine
Reward
24
simply described as business as usual. These are the unwritten ground rules (Simpson,
2005) of organisations that have developed a way of doing things that employees take for
granted. They are part of the 40% of unconscious decision-making.
So, what were the keystone habits identified in this study? Below are keystone habits that
were either observed directly during site visits or were talked about, directly or indirectly,
by interviewees.
Vision Many people in this study recognized that little things can make a big difference. They
displayed an ability to identify the incremental progress steps in any given activity. On
face value, these observations may seem straightforward, particularly for people
professionally involved in the area. Kira Durchman is able to see, sometimes in advance,
how people react to various intricate movements in the water, such as breathing patterns.
Erwin Borremans can see how young people react to various sensory stimuli as they enter
the building. Matt Schinelli sees clearly how one young person becomes slightly detached
during a group play session and understands where the distraction is coming from. There
were many other examples witnessed during this study.
It would be easy to explain this as the result of experience and training. These are very
experienced people and you could expect that they would use their experience and
training in this way. But, experience and training alone is not a prerequisite to these type
of enhanced inclusive observation skills. They have a special kind of vision. This vision is
an ability to see through the clutter of activity and dissect the reality of what is excluding
people from participation.
In what is now a famous experiment, Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons (Chabris &
Simons, 2010) in the late 1990s ran a test with students based on the work of Eric Neisser
in the 1970s looking at visual attention and awareness. They made a short film of two
groups of students passing a basketball, one group were wearing white t-shirts, the other
black. When the clip was finished and edited they took the footage and asked volunteers
to count the number of passes by the group wearing white, ignoring the passes made by
the black team. Most volunteers got the answer correct while some were only one or two
passes off. The answers were not important in this experiment. The instructions to
observe the number of passes was simply there to give people something to focus on. In
the video, about half way through, a young student wearing a full gorilla suit, walks out in
25
the middle of the activity and does a little gorilla dance and then walks off. The gorilla is
in the video about nine seconds2.
After asking the volunteers about the number of passes made the investigators asked ‘did
you notice anything unusual while you were doing the counting task?’ About half of the
volunteers did not notice anything unusual. They asked if the volunteers noticed anyone
other than the players. Again, about half said no. Finally, they asked if the volunteers
noticed the gorilla? Over many subsequent repeated experiments the authors found that
results were consistent – that around 50% of people do not notice the gorilla.
Typically, in activity situations, there are a lot of things happening, particularly in large
group situations. Even in small group and one-on-one situations it is often difficult to see
the reality of the things that are important to inclusion. Our focus is easily taken up by
either the immediate or the peripheral activities that are happening in any given situation.
This is known scientifically as inattentional blindness.
This means that if we are not paying attention to something then we are blind to it. It’s
understandable therefore that in busy places where multiple activities are taking place
simultaneously, that it’s very common for peoples attention to rapidly jump from one area
of focus to another. Attention is taken away from the detail of what makes a difference to
individuals with disability. Many of the people in this study had the habit of paying
attention to the detail of what makes a difference to inclusion.
Dan Simons also refers to something called the illusion of attention. This is when we think
we are paying attention when we are not. People think they are paying attention to the
road when they are using their mobile phones whilst driving. They are not paying as much
attention as they think they are and that’s often how accidents happen. Practitioners in
this study understood the importance of paying attention to the small details. They did
this consistently. They had that habit and the vision to identify the important details. It
was no illusion.
Inclusion, particularly ad hoc inclusion, can depend on the small changes. Those small
changes can be deliberate or non-deliberate. The challenge is attributing those changes
to greater levels of inclusion. For example, you change the rules of a practice volleyball
game – making sure that the ball can bounce before setting and spiking. This clearly
2 to see the video visit www.theinvisiblegorilla.com
26
helps a person in a wheelchair be more included into the volleyball practice. The change
is obvious and it results in greater levels of inclusion.
But make a rule that a throw-in for football can be underarm, not always overarm - it’s a
less obvious change but no less significant to an individual. Here, it is more likely that we
would have what Dan Simons calls change blindness.
This is where we fail to see the differences that changes make, particularly where those
changes are seemingly small. A number of establishments visited on this study tour, such
as Keskuspuisto Technical College, Ruskiss Special School, the Pheonix Centre and
Ridgewood Public School, used symbols, or visual aids, to assist student learning.
Symbols are used extensively in special education to assist students who have various
degrees of communication and learning difficulties. They are a form of Augmentative and
Alternative Communication (AAC) – the term used for describe ways of communicating
other than by speech or writing.
The rationale for the development of symbols as a means of communication was based
on the fact that symbols are static and consistently provide a simple means of
communication that promotes understanding and meaning. The Picture Exchange
Communication System (PECS), one of the most widely used tools, was first developed by
Bondy and Frost (Bondy & Frost, 1994). They were developed as a means of developing
opportunities for spontaneous exchange for children with social and communication
difficulties.
They were used in a wide variety of contexts, for example, as visual schedules to help
students remember where to be and what to
do. A visual schedule is a series of symbols
that depicts related actions in a sequence.
For example, symbols can depict actions for
a swimming lesson such as enter the water,
relax in the water, attempt to blow bubbles,
with assistance demonstrate a front kicking
action and get the face wet. These are
related tasks where symbols can help with
understanding a swimming lesson.
Symbols were also used for Social StoriesTM. A Social StoryTM is more like a pictorial
Swimming symbols at Ruskiss School
27
narrative of a related sequence of actions. Carol Gray first defined Social StoriesTM in 1991.
According to Gray.
“A social story describes a situation, skill, or concept in terms of relevant social cues,
perspectives and common responses in a specifically defined style and format.” Carol Gray3
Social StoriesTM were originally developed to help young people with Autism Spectrum
Disorder but have since been used extensively with a very diverse cohort of people with
communication and comprehension difficulties.
The significance of these symbols and the systematic way in which they were deployed by
the different establishments was, to a large extent, reliant on the habits of practitioners
who have the vision to use them in the way they are meant to. It is also because they
understood the significance of symbols and had the relevant training on how to use them.
However, being trained in the use of symbols is no guarantee that they would be used so
effectively, with imagination and persistence. This takes a level of vision.
It also begs the question, however, as to why these simple yet highly effective tools could
not be used in regular sport and physical activity settings. Perhaps this is because regular
providers are largely blind to the change that this can make. People simply do not have
the vision.
In places where sport and physical activity happens there are hundreds of distractions. It’s
hardly surprising therefore that people miss the important little things that can make a big
difference.
It takes a special kind of vision and habit to see the little things.
This also has implications for how we organize our activity places, which brings us to the
next habit.
Order and preparation
3 From What Are Social Stories?TM by Carol Gray. www.thegraycenter.org.
28
One of the things that will help us see the little things is if we minimize the possibility of
ad hoc, spur of the moment adaptations by being prepared and ordered. While we will
never completely get rid of the need to adapt in an ad hoc and experimental way, nor
would we want to, being well prepared will help us be more inclusive. This was evident
time and time again on this study tour.
All of the facilities visited on this study tour were highly organized and prepared on a
number of levels.
Of course, good teachers and coaches are well planned and have the ability to create
order from chaos. It ‘goes with the territory’ to a large extent. But it is the importance that
this has on student inclusion that is significant in this context.
Swimming equipment at Ruskiss School
The benefits of being prepared and ordered
accrue from a teaching and a student
learning perspective. There is a level of
complexity here that sets apart effective
inclusive instruction from regular instruction.
The Keskuspuisto College were highly
prepared on a daily basis for the visiting
students, down to the level of controlling the multiple different sensory experiences each
student would undertake as they entered the building, the multiple use of symbols for
timetabling and task recognition, the availability of play and activity equipment and the
colour coding of days and individual student rosters. Similarly, at the Ruskiss School
adapted swimming program there was a large range of equipment options available for
instructors, all ordered and prepared ready for use.
Symbols used for student timetabling at Keskuspuisto College
29
This level of preparedness is particularly important where the students concerned have
difficulty with the transfer of learning in one environment to another and where students
need systematic instruction and a range of pedagogies. Not only does it help the
teacher/coach be prepared and have multiple options available at any given moment, it
also has huge benefits for students that need predictability, stable environments and
consistency. In special education circles these are practices that are taken for granted as
best practice yet in regular sporting circles its importance is much further down the scale
of relevance and priority.
Perhaps this is because regular coaches and instructors have what Dan Simons calls the
illusion of knowledge. This is when we assume we know more than we do. In this case it’s
often assumed that we know how to plan and create order. Most coaches and sports
instructors would say that they are prepared most of the time. There is an explicit
assumption that this level of preparedness is sufficient and, if standards drop in the short
term, then there are no real significant consequences. They can get away with a bit of
chaos!
For many people with disabilities this is a poor assumption, particularly at local grass roots
sport where people with disabilities will be accessing sport for the first time. Initial point
of contact and experience is vitally important at the grass roots level. It can make or break
participation and inclusion. Grass roots sport is run by volunteers who receive little or no
training. We expect them to be able to plan and cover all eventualities. It’s not the case.
The expectations on grass roots volunteers far exceed the time they have available and
the resources at their disposal.
The importance of being prepared and ordered needs to be elevated in the content of
training and education programs at the grass roots level. The provision of training,
however, does not guarantee that people will be good at planning. Perhaps it is more
dependent on your personality type than on training.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a test to help people identify their
own personality type – their strengths and weaknesses. There are four key variables and
two elements to each variable.
For example, you can be extrovert (E) or introvert (I). Or you can be sensing (S) or intuitive
(N). Once you have completed the battery of questions you end up with a Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator signified by four letters. For example, if you are ISTJ then you are Introvert
30
– you focus on your own inner world – Sensing – you focus on basic information you take
in – Thinking – you prefer logic – and Judging – you like to make firm decisions.
Generally, people that are good at planning and that like structure are the ISTJ
personality types. If you are the opposite of this - an ENFP – it is highly unlikely you are a
good planner. The good side of this is that ENFP people are likely to be more creative
and able to adapt to ad hoc situations better.
The point here though is that we need the personality types that create ordered and well
prepared sport and physical activity programs. Not to the detriment of creativity and
innovation however, but to give us a place where we can see the possibilities for
inclusion.
Creating Time Creating time to think and plan for inclusion is very important. While this is, to a large
extent part of being prepared, as discussed earlier, it is also worth considering as a core
hallmark of inclusion in its own right. Creating time for inclusive thinking was something
all the participants in this study did on a regular basis, regardless of their experience.
There was a general acceptance that you never stop learning in this field. This reflects a
very healthy and progressive set of attitudes.
The ability and willingness of people, more generally, in regular sports to make time to
think inclusively needs to be considered. Slow learning has fallen into disuse. There’s a
time pressure on our teachers, our coaches, our volunteers to do things quickly. In
modern society we are losing the ability to contemplate and reflect.
Our default mode or d-mode (where d stands for deliberation), as Guy Claxton in his
book Hare Brain – Tortoise Mind (Claxton, 1997) calls it, is all about fast food solutions.
Quick, shallow and often not very good.
Part of the reason for the decline in slow learning is what social critic Neil Postman calls
‘technopoly’. In short this is:
“The widespread view that every ill is a problem which has a potential solution”
(Postman, 1993)
Technopoly has created a culture whereby examining the question is only beneficial if it
31
leads to a quick solution. Time is too precious to spend dwelling on the question. We
need solutions and we need them fast.
In a typical sports setting the act of giving instruction and advice is at the very core of
teaching and coaching. Most coaches and teachers understand that observation and
practice are fundamental to learning and any tips, hints and explanations need to be
introduced slowly and appropriately. Practical mastery occurs through repetition and
integrating learned practice into routines that can be called upon over time. Claxton
compares coaching to making mayonnaise. You need to add advice, like oil, very
sparingly and slowly. If you add too much too quickly then the mayonnaise curdles. If you
try to find a quick solution to inclusion then the likelihood is that the mind will ‘curdle’ in
much the same way. The result is that if a technical solution is not forthcoming then the
likelihood is the regular teacher or coach will simply give up and move on.
Regular teachers, instructors and coaches need to understand that inclusive solutions can
take time and that inclusion is a human problem that does not always lead to a very fast
or technical solution. As demonstrated in this study, it requires people to be clever,
innovative and creative. This is contrary to d-mode when we often seek out the expert to
find our solution for us and to put things right. Abdicating responsibility to find the time
for inclusive solutions is easy if we think there are experts at hand to do this for us. This is
a critical point and leads to our next hallmark.
Taking Responsibil ity All the participants in this study took responsibility for making inclusion a major part of
what they do. Most also understood that their role was very much to facilitate inclusion
and help others take responsibility. Martin Mansell, former Paralympic athlete and now a
leading practitioner and advocate, talked about the need to help people understand the
significance of their intervention on the individual with disability. It is common for regular
instructors and administrators to underestimate the long term impact that participation
can have on the person with a disability. They fail to see the significance of the big
picture.
“I think we need to share a philosophy that says ‘this is not about a short term fix’, this is
actually about a long term fix … about a life changing fix on the individual.” Martin Mansell
If people were able to see the significance of the long term impact of participation then
32
we are more likely to take responsibility to make it happen.
Matt Fisher is a Case Officer with Disability Sport Wales working with national governing
bodies of sport to help facilitate inclusion through existing structures and practices. His
role is very much as a critical friend to sports - checking, challenging and asking questions
of sports to help guide their approach to inclusion. Matt notes that in some sports there
are individuals that take responsibility for inclusion and wear the disability hat. While this
is a positive step forward it is also, at times, a negative. In effect the disability expert
within a sport becomes the gatekeeper of inclusion, thus inadvertently helping others
abdicate responsibility for inclusion in a broader context. Their role as a facilitator in this
respect is critical.
“some of the people that we work with get the ‘disability hat’ … anything that is about
disability comes to that individual. So you have one person that is quite knowledgeable in
an organization, but sometimes outside that you get people involved but don’t
understand the implications of what we are talking about.” Matt Fisher
While having someone who is knowledgeable is important as a leader in an organization,
they need to play the role as a change agent rather than a gatekeeper. This then
becomes a very powerful combination of having a knowledgeable person that is able to
share and instill a philosophy and approach to inclusion yet does not keep that
knowledge and approach as a secret. As Matt also says:
“a lead person is very important … you need them to champion and be a catalyst but I
use them to find out who is in favour or may act as a blocker to inclusion.”
New Jersey All People Equal understand the dangers of becoming the gatekeeper of
inclusion and have as one of their core pillars of operation their approach to partner and
support community organisations to be inclusive.
“we want to partner with local groups – help to train them – to own the product and
activity – so that eventually we put ourselves out of business. We really believe that it’s
important not to be the gatekeeper of success.” Matt Schinelli
To avoid this gatekeeper of inclusion situation perhaps what is needed is what Scott
Belsky in his book Making Ideas Happen (Belsky, 2010) describes as a system of
33
accountability. This is where an organization can harness the power of a community that is
focused on a particular collective goal. There are many ways to make this happen. The
important aspect of this is that responsibility is shared and each participant has a role to
play that is, to varying degrees, dependent on the actions of others in the community.
Brock Davis is the founder of Behance (https://www.behance.net), one of the worlds
largest creative online networks. He started Behance in 2009 by simply declaring that he
would make something cool every day. Every day he would upload a new creative project
to his website. Over the course of a few months he built a large online following as
people were eager to look at what new projects had been uploaded. The feedback and
momentum of Behance encouraged Davis to keep going, finding new creative projects
from around the world. But, behind the scenes, Davis was not working alone. He had
created a network of almost 1,000 creative professionals who had committed to a group
called MSCED (Make Something Cool Every Day). Their collective accountability made it
easy for Davis to maintain and grow his network.
This is where the role of the change agent or knowledgeable expert is critical. The expert
should look to establish a system of accountability for inclusion, particularly shared among
people in decision making positions.
On an individual level it is worth considering why it is that some people find it easy to
assume responsibility and others do not. This has to do with what psychologists call
locus of control. This is:
“the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them”4.
Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from
their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe
that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine results.
If leaders in sport who have a high external locus of control, it is unlikely that they will take
responsibility for finding opportunities for participation of people with disability in the first
instance.
It’s all too easy to see reasons why things don’t work. This is also tied to beliefs around
the medical and social model of disability. People that have a high external locus of
control can use medical model beliefs as a reason to abdicate responsibility for inclusion.
4 Taken from Wikipedia definition
34
“oh, he’s in a wheelchair, he can’t play football”
or
“she can’t play softball, she is blind”
Conversely, someone with an internal locus of control looks within themselves to
search for solutions. They take responsibility. Again, this can be equated with someone
who adopts a social model belief system.
They believe that it is the environment that disadvantages someone and, because they
have a high internal locus of control, they take responsibility for creating inclusive
settings.
If we look more closely at the relationship between locus of control and the belief systems
around the social and medical model then, ideally, we are looking for a person that has
an internal locus of control and a belief system that is centered around the social model.
But a person that has an internal locus of control and a medical model belief system may
also be able to promote inclusion. This is similar to the person that has an external locus
of control and a social model belief system. Both these people could benefit from
training, albeit a different kind of training.
Consider the model below:
35
The training that you might give a person with an internal locus of control and medical
model belief system should focus around the disadvantages that are imposed on a
person with a disability. These could be to do with teaching style, the rules being used or
the equipment. Because their fundamental belief system is one that is geared toward
impairment and what the person cannot do because of impairment, then training must
focus on other things.
With the person that has an external locus of control and a social model belief system the
training would be different. Remember that here, the issue is the person is not taking
responsibility - they have an external locus of control. But, they do believe that the
disadvantages imposed on a person with a disability are the result of factors other than
impairment. So the training should focus on how the person is going to take responsibility
for their actions.
For the person that has an external locus of control and a medical model belief system
the challenge is much greater. Certainly, these are the people that feel it is not their job
to provide opportunities for people with disability, particularly as you need to know all
about impairment to do so!
Fiona Reid is the education Manager for Disability Sport Wales. Fiona talked about the
challenge of bringing different people from the sport sector together and giving them the
framework and tools that would empower them to take responsibility for inclusion, even
when it wasn’t perceived to be their job.
“we wanted to put the education program together in quite a modulised way so that it
became very flexible - as we had a group of individuals coming together with a particular
role in sport - so that they (the participants) can understand how they can contribute to
inclusion – rather than going away and using the excuse of ‘it’s not part of my job’” Fiona Reid
Accessibil ity
Dr Lynn Anderson is a nationally recognized expert in the fields of outdoor, therapeutic
and inclusive recreation and has been behind the development of a unique user-friendly
database of inclusive New York recreational facilities. In addition, more than 1,400
outdoor recreation practitioners nationwide have been trained in ways to enhance the
quality of life for individuals with all types of disabilities through “Inclusion U” an
36
innovative program established by Anderson through ongoing funding from the New
York State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.
In 2011 Anderson, along with colleagues Laurie Penney McGee and Vicki Wilkins,
released the Inclusivity Assessment Tool (IAT)5. The IAT is used by certified Assessors to
gather descriptive information about recreation opportunities that is then shared on a
searchable online recreation resource database. The database is a valuable resource for
any person with a disability planning recreation activities in and around New York. Similar
systems of data gathering and dissemination could be set up, thus significantly improving
the access information available for people with disability.
The Finnish Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities has conducted extensive audits
and reviews on the accessibility of sports facilities and collected sport specific accessibility
information that resulted in the publication of a guidebook in 2013. As part of this work
Niina Kilpela and Aija Saari developed a framework for the conduct of access reviews
(Kilpela & Saari, 2013). This framework is different in the respect that it considers the
broader aspects of accessibility, beyond purely physical access. Through a review of
existing resources in this area they found that most resources focused on construction
guidelines and instruction in sport specific facilities, such as bowling alleys or swimming
pools. They failed to provide a framework and cater for the needs of professionals with a
disability or consider the differences in local sport specific environments. Guidelines and
resources tended to focus on national legislation not the specific local contexts in which
sports operate.
The criterion for their framework consists of four accessibility categories: (1) accessibility
of moving (mobility impairments), (2) accessibility of seeing (visual impairments), (3)
accessibility of hearing (hearing impairments) and (4) comprehensibility (easy
understanding) of the environment (intellectual disabilities, vision impairments, elderly,
small children). These aspects intersect with the viewpoints of an athlete/participant,
coach/leader/professional and spectator.
5 The Online Database for Inclusive Recreation can be seen here - http://acs7.cortland.edu/irrc/
37
This framework provides sport with a more comprehensive starting point to assess the
broader accessibility requirements in a sport setting.
As the framework shows, access is more than physical. Creating accessible environments
in sport has significant ripple effects on attitudes and perceptions of regular participants
and professionals. Essentially, the more accessible a facility becomes - the more people
with disability show up - the more exposure and interaction people without disability have
to people with disability – the more attitudes improve and evolve over time. These
knock-on effects of improved access are significant, even when small changes are made –
even changes that have minimal or no cost.
Tact ile map for people with vision impairment at Pajulaht i Sports Inst itute
Sound and smell AACs at Keskuspuisto College
38
Lynn Anderson has looked at the impact of training in accessibility and universal design as
part of Inclusion U, a one-day training program that teaches people to be Inclusivity
Assessors.
“I know that throughout our work with Inclusion U, when participants increased their
knowledge of inclusion (including the built environment and universal design), they also
increased their positive attitudes toward inclusion. I conducted pre and post knowledge
and attitude scales on over 3,000 participants and there was a significant change in both
areas as a result of the training.” Dr Lynn Anderson
It is clear that making changes to the physical environment has multiple benefits beyond
those immediate improvements in physical access. In Australia, national programs such as
Sports CONNECT have prompted national and state sports organisations to implement
access audits as part of their regular planning processes. It is unclear, however, how
widespread this practice has become and even if the conduct of formal audits are within
the capabilities of local clubs who rely on volunteers who are time poor. In addition,
formal access audits can be quite daunting and threatening for local clubs who might fear
being involved in what is perceived as a drawn out process that could have negative, and
costly, outcomes.
Perhaps one implementation tool that could benefit local clubs would be through an
Inclusion Checklist. Checklists are simple and quick to use, would help engrain positive
habits and raise the level of awareness around the needs of people with disability.
Atul Gawande’s book, The Checklist Manifesto, (Gawande, 2010) makes a clear distinction
between two types of failure in the modern world – failures of ignorance, where we do
not know enough – and failures of ineptitude, failures we make because we don’t make
use of what we know. Gawande shows what checklists can do and what they can’t. He
demonstrates through real case studies and stories the power of a simple checklist and
how they can be used to improve what we do in a variety of fields. Perhaps the most
impressive example is a simple surgical checklist adopted by the World Health
Organisation that is being used in more than 20 countries.
A series of Inclusion Checklists, based on the sport specific framework developed in
Finland, could have a transformative effect on awareness and be a proactive tool that has
the potential to embed new habits at the local level. An example Inclusion Checklist –
39
based on the category of Moving in the model can be seen in Appendix 1. These could
be used as starting points for inclusion and are not intended to replace or be a formal
audit. Rather, they are intended to pose a series of relevant self-assessment questions to
prompt people to take small steps toward inclusion and raise the level of awareness
around accessibility.
Activity Adaptation and Development Throughout the course of this study tour there were many examples of how practitioners
had adapted or modified existing practices to cater for the needs of people with
disability. The tasks of adapting and modifying practices was very much embedded into
the training and roles of practitioners – from the 100 adapted physical activity specialists
in Finland, to the sport development officers in Wales and the staff of New Jersey All
People Equal. These adaptations to existing activities help regular providers find the
balance that is necessary to maximize individual potential for people with disability yet
retain the integrity of the activity in a group setting.
In Wales, as part of the UK Disability Inclusion Training package, they use a model of
adaptation called STEPS. STEPS is an acronym for:
Space – change the space in which the activity is taking place (where is it happening)
Task – change the nature of the activity (physical actions)
Equipment – consider the type of equipment being used (e.g., size and colour)
People – Who is involved and how do they interact?
Speed – the pace of the activity
This model of adaptation has been used in the UK for some time and was first developed
by Ken Black at the Youth Sport Trust in the mid 1990’s. Models such as STEPS are easy
to remember and apply to any given situation. When applied it makes the activity harder
or easier, depending on the adaptation. It gives regular sport providers a mind-map for
inclusion and an easy tool to use, regardless of the activity or sport.
In Australia a similar model called TREE is used within many sports training and education
programs. TREE is also an acronym that stands for:
Teaching style
Rules and Regulations
40
Equipment
Environment
The purpose of TREE is the same as STEPS – giving regular providers a useful tool to
begin the process of making sports activities more inclusive. Models such as STEPS and
TREE apply where existing activities are not wholly suitable, or can be improved, for
people with disability.
“Adaptation tools based on simple acronyms help teachers, coaches, volunteers and other sports practitioners to adapt and modify activity in order to ensure that everyone is
as fully included as possible. Adaptation tools, such as STEP or TREE, provide practitioners with a ready-made plan enabling them to differentiate most activities for most abilities and in this way support those who are still developing their skills whilst
challenging others with more advanced competencies.
The acronym concept can be adapted to suit specific circumstances; for example, by expression in another language or through the use of words that have more relevance or
significance in each locality.” Ken Black
Other activities have been created as inclusive activities from the ground up. Activities
such as Inclusive Zone Basketball and Table Cricket have been highly successful in the UK.
Fundamentally, these type of activities are based on principles of Universal Design.
Universal Design involves designing products and spaces so that they can be used by the
widest range of people possible (UniversalDesign.com). It evolved from Accessible
Design principles targeting people with disability but goes further to allow for even
greater human diversity. Universal Design principles are a good starting point for the
design of inclusive sports.
As an example, Inclusive Zone Basketball is a 4 a-side game, developed to enable players
who cannot participate in a full game of basketball to enjoy playing the game. The zones
used enable players to be matched in their abilities within these zones. The small-sided
teams and adapted playing area enable girls and boys, with and without disability, to
participate in a fun game of basketball. Similarly, Table Cricket was first developed in
1990 by Doug Williamson as part of the Project Adapted at Nottingham Trent University.
Table Cricket is played by a diverse group of people but was specifically developed for
young people with high support needs.
41
Importantly, both Inclusive Zone Basketball and Table Cricket are supported by their
respective national governing bodies - British Wheelchair Basketball and the English
Cricket Board.
Table Cricket is part of the Sports Ability program, originally developed in the UK but
now being delivered across Europe and in Australia. Sports Ability is an inclusive games
program that has a number of elements, including equipment, activity cards and
instructional DVDs. The range of activities and the quality of the resources has allowed
Sports Ability to grow and flourish, particularly in the UK and Finland, where it is used
through the network of adapted physical activity specialists as a key inclusive tool.
Inclusive Zone Basketball instructional card Table Cricket final at Lords
42
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There is no single model of inclusion, rather there are hallmarks and habits of inclusion
that, collectively, characterize good practice. The recommendations below apply to
individuals and organisations operating at different levels both within the sport and
disability sectors.
1. That individuals and organisations adopt a model of inclusion based on personal
choice where all options are equally valued.
2. That organisations take steps to identify and redress the disadvantages imposed
on people with disability in the sport and physical activity setting by committing to
short and long term goals that are integrated into the generic planning process of
the organisation.
3. That individuals recognize their role as a change agent rather than a gatekeeper of
inclusive practice.
4. Organisations actively foster and develop networks of like-minded people, across
sport and disability sectors, that operate to a common inclusive agenda.
5. Where possible, organisations develop shared measurement processes across
multiple partners to track and monitor milestones to inclusion.
6. Sports organisations take steps to listen to people with disabilities by forging links
with community groups and inviting appropriate people with disability onto
committees, boards, working groups and teams.
7. Where appropriate, organisations position themselves as backbone organisations
for inclusion in their communities, coordinating a shared approach across partners.
8. Organisations should explore the use of Augmentative and Alternative
Communication aids, particularly symbols, to assist learning, communication and
understanding for people with learning and communication difficulties.
43
9. Training and education programs should include content on the importance of
being prepared and well structured in relation to how this contributes toward and
facilitates inclusion.
10. Individuals and organisations should find the time to discuss and plan for inclusion
as a matter core business.
11. Individuals and organisations take responsibility for inclusion and put in place
systems of accountability across multiple partners.
12. That the self-assessment tool of Inclusion Checklists be developed with partners
based on the sport categories framework.
13. That organisations address accessibility issues as a matter of priority, using the
sports based framework and checklists model to raise the level of understanding
and awareness regarding the importance of access.
14. That organisations use an adaptations model, such as STEP or TREE, to modify
existing practices and programs so they are able to create more inclusive
programs.
15. Where appropriate, organisations consider the tools and resources of Sports
Ability to help foster inclusion in development work.
These recommendations will form the backbone of future articles and presentations. Articles and extracts from this report will be published via the Play by the Rules website, with 15,000 visitors per month, and online magazine that has a grass roots sports readership of over 3,000. Similarly, online ‘episodes’ will be published via The Inclusion club website with an international subscription base of 1,500. Presentations to national and state/territory based organisations will also highlight the major recommendations contained in this report.
44
Bibliography Barker, L., Edwards, R., Gaines, C., Gladney, K., & Holley, F. (1980). An investigation of proportional time spent in various communication activities by college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 8, 101-109.
Belsky, S. (2010). Making Ideas Happen: Overcoming the obstacles between vision and reality . London: Penguin.
Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1994). The Picture Exchange Communication System. Focus on Autistic Behaviour , 9, 1-19.
Chabris, C., & Simons, D. (2010). The Invisible Gorilla. New York: Crown Publishing House.
Claxton, G. (1997). Hare Brain - Tortoise Mind. New York: The Ecco Press.
Darcy, S., Taylor, T., Lock, A., Sherry, R., Downs, P., & Nicholson, R. (2011). Participation and non-participation of people with disability in sport and active recreation. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission.
DePauw, K. P., & Doll-Tepper, G. M. (2000). Toward progressive inclusion and acceptance: Myth or reality? The inclusion debate and bandwagon discourse. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly , 17, 135-143.
Design, U. (2014). What is Universal Design? Retrieved from Universal Design: http://universaldesign.com Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, A. K. (2010). Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social Psychology and Personality Science , 2, 174-181.
Duckworth, A. L., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., & Peterson, C. (2007). Grit: Perserverance and passion for long-term goals. . Personality Processes and Individual Differences , 92 (6), 1087-1101.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit. New York: Random House.
Ericsson, A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The roles of deliberate proactice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review , 100 (3), 363-406.
Fullen, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gawande, A. (2010). The Checklist Manifesto. New York: Picador.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review .
Kilpela, N., & Saari, A. (2013). Promotion of accessibility in sports facilities. The Threshold Foundation and Finnish Sports Association for Persons with Disabilities .
Neal, D., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing , 25 (1), 90-103.
45
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred Knoph.
Reid, F. (2014). Transforming Lives. Disability Sport Wales Stakeholder Conference. Cardiff.
Simpson, S. (2005). Cracking the corporate culture code: The unwritten ground rules . Sydney: Nania House.
Sirolli, E. (2012). Want to help someone? Shut up and listen! Retrieved from Sirolli Institute: http://siroli.com
Treasure, J. (2014). Julian Treasure. Retrieved from Julian Treasure: http://juliantreasure.com
Turner, S., Merchant, K., Kania, J., & Martin, E. (2012, July 18). Understanding the value of backbone organisations in collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review .
APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLE CHECKLIST INCLUSION ACCESS CHECKLIST
MOVING
FIRST CONTACT INDUCTION ONGOING How do people make contact with our club? What happens in the first month? What are we going to do in the future?
Is there a ramp to the front entrance?
Do we have parking spots marked?
Is there adequate lighting installed?
Are there any trip or slip hazards?
Is there clutter and is everything clean and tidy?
Are signs at the appropriate height and can
people see them?
Where are people likely to go/want to see on their
first visit?
What types of surface do we have leading to and
from the entrance?
How wide are our doorways and exits?
Do we ask potential members if they have any
specific access requirements on our forms, websites?
At sign up/registration days do we use this
checklist to make sure people with disability can get
access?
What areas might the individual need/want to
access?
Have we discussed with staff/volunteers how we assist
people to access our facilities?
Have we taken time to sit down and discuss access
requirements with the individual?
Are we actively making changes to our environment
to improve access?
Are we going the extra mile to make new members
feel welcome and have full access?
Have we done a walk-through with staff/volunteers
prior to any activity involvement?
Have we checked all our equipment to see if we have
adequate, need to modify or if we can use existing
equipment in alternative ways?
It may not be perfect but are all parties clear and
understanding that access is important and improving?
Who can we see to get a formal audit done?
Do we need to have a Disability Action Plan or can
we integrate inclusive strategies into our regular plans?
Do we have partnerships with local disability groups
to provide advice and liaise with?
Have we thought about our own transport for
members – how do people access this?
What about parents/guardians and support workers
– have we thought about their access requirements?
Are we adding to our resources on access and are
these readily available to our members?
Do we continue to provide training for our
coaches/instructors around adapting and modifying
programs for individuals with disabilities?
Do we need to budget for accessible equipment?
When we completed this checklist and by who …