The article Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education written by Pivik, McComas, and Laflamme (2002) centers around the problems of students with mobility limitations and focuses on four categories of barriers: physical environment, intentional, unintentional attitudinal barriers, and physical limitations. According to the participants, the environmental barriers included “doors, passageways, elevators, washrooms, stairs and ramps, lockers, water fountains, and recreational areas” (Pivik et al., 2002, p. 101). Doors were often too heavy to open or were not accessible for the students; passageways were too narrow and difficult to use when filled with other students. The authors point out that the limits in the physical environment lead to social isolation as well (Pivik et al., 2002).
This isolation was linked to intentional attitudinal barriers such as bullying (physical or emotional) and stances of isolation. According to the authors, “physical bullying usually related to people pushing the student’s wheelchair without permission, and in one instance, being purposely knocked out of the wheelchair” (Pivik et al., 2002, p. 102). However, emotional bullying was more frequent and more harmful, according to the students, because they were treated differently compared to other students.
Unintentional attitudinal barriers included a lack of knowledge and understanding from the teaching and support staff. Students were assigned to be teachers’ helpers during physical activities and even excluded from some of the classes for no clear reason (Pivik et al., 2002). The staff experienced difficulties in understanding and accepting students’ capabilities and limitations. The last type of barriers are physical barriers; students with mobility limitations often need a personal assistant that will help them get dressed or move in the school. Students also have other physical needs that include the “need for extra time to get to class, eat lunch, or complete school work” (Pivik et al., 2002, p. 102).
Based on these observations, the authors of the study include the following recommendations: “technological solutions, along with basic architectural changes to doors, elevators, washrooms, and ramps” (Pivik et al., 2002, p. 102). Wider corridors and classrooms lowered sinks in bathrooms, new bar grabs, and ramps near stairs were also suggested as possible facilitators. As for the problems linked to intentional and unintentional attitudinal barriers, Pivik et al. (2002) point out that disability awareness is crucial for these students, and they are willing to talk about it, but other students do not ask questions related to it.
Policy facilitators could focus on adding extra time for students to get to the school/classes, repairment of elevators, and access to laptops since some of the students can have difficulties when writing. The authors of the study also asked parents to share their opinion on the issue (Pivik et al., 2002). The parents of elementary students were more concerned with the isolation of their children from their peers, while the parents of high school students noticed that “providing keyboard training, downloading timetables, notes, and assignments in advance to assist the student and involve the parent” would be reasonable to ensure that their children can study efficiently (Pivik et al., 2002, p. 103). The science laboratories and cafeterias were also often seen as inaccessible because of high benches or narrow aisles.
The authors conclude that the same issues and problems were identified in previous studies, which implies that the problems remain unaddressed (Pivik et al., 2002). Not only parents but their children as well should take part in the evaluation of barriers to help schools understand what changes can be made.
Reference
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 97-107.