Administrative Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

     These barriers are procedural difficulties posing participation obstacles to people with disabilities including financial constraints, policy restrictions, program limitations, and lack of qualified staff (Devine & Broach, 1998). Many of these administrative barriers can be traced back to the philosophy or mission statement of the recreational organization (Edington, Hanson, Edington & Hudson, 1998). Recreational organizations are slow to commit resources to programs in which low income and high staff involvement are projected (Edington, Hanson, Edington, & Hudson, 1998). Recommendation of the adoption of risk management systems for regular preschool swim programs has already identified early childhood swim programs as high risk (Langendorfer, 1990). Therefore, development of inclusive early childhood swim programs is not likely to be a high priority for various recreational organizations. Specific administrative barriers examined relevant to SNAP are philosophy, marketing, and quality staff.
     Philosophy of a community inclusive recreation program can be determined through a program's mission statement, usually presented in brochures and advertisements. According to Schleien and Rynders (1998), "successful inclusion requires the major stake holders of the service delivery system to adopt a philosophy and value system that reflects the right of every individual to participate" (p. 19).
     The SNAP philosophy is based upon the major purpose of inclusion, which is to provide opportunities for all children to develop skills and attitudes needed to learn, live, work, and recreate together in all aspects of society (Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Children can learn to recreate together if they grow up together in environments such as pools or swimming classes which support individual differences. Within the research literature, it has been reported that the younger the child, the more acceptance of differences seems to occur (Odom & Diamond, 1998). The age range served (6 months to 7 years of age) in SNAP allows for opportunities to create and maintain an inclusive environment utilizing developmentally appropriate practices for children.
     The practice referred to as developmentally appropriate is defined as presenting activities geared to a student's development status, fitness and skill levels, body size, and chronological age (Council of Physical Education for Children, COPEC, 1992). The developmentally appropriate practices within SNAP in regard to programming and instruction are based upon the swim instruction curriculum of the American Red Cross for three different age groups (infant/toddler-6 months to 3 years of age; preschool-3 to 5 years of age; young elementary-5 to 7 years of age). Therefore, all swim activities conducted within these classes are based upon developmentally appropriate practices for these age groups. (Readers interested in finding out more about these developmentally appropriate activities should refer to Smith, (1990) or the American Red Cross Instructor's Manual, 1992). Children with disabilities are included in a swim class according to chronological age and are exposed to developmentally appropriate activities, basically just like all the other children.
     Marketing of a recreational program striving to meet the needs of young children with and without disabilities can be challenging. Prior to development of SNAP seven years ago, the philosophy of inclusive aquatics for all children was strongly espoused by the administrative staff of SNAP (director and coordinator), both extremely knowledgeable about the provision of swim instruction for children with and without disabilities.
     The name of the program, Special Needs Aquatics Program, was established with the belief that all young children have special needs when it comes to a learn-to-swim program. These special needs implied in the program name involve providing a warm, positive, and safe learning environment, led by highly qualified staff utilizing age-appropriate activities and a pool with comfortable water temperatures (88-90°). Therefore, the advertising of SNAP uses a reverse type of marketing strategy, focusing on special needs for all children in a learn-to-swim program, to include rather than exclude children with disabilities. Many typical learn-to-swim instruction programs market their programs as follows: Deerwood Community Center now offering swim instruction for children ages 6 months to 7 years, children with disabilities welcome. (Note: facility name is fictitious, but advertisement is not). The language and descriptions of SNAP are intended to be inclusive and generic to all potential participants. This is a drastic change of marketing from what typical learn-to-swim programs usually use to promote inclusion. The following is an excerpt from the SNAP children's brochure - SNAP offers infant/toddler, preschool, and Levels 1 & 2 aquatic classes for children between the ages of 6 months to 7 years. The young child's special needs in SNAP are to gain an initial positive water experience, to learn safety skills in and around water, and to have fun.
     In the survey, past participants of SNAP were asked their opinions of the program name. Of the 56 respondents, 33 (59%) felt the name SNAP was confusing to the public and gave the impression the program was for children with disabilities. These 33 respondents stated they had to inquire about the program by either calling the director or by asking friends who had children in the program. From this sample, all of the individuals who were confused about the type of aquatics classes offered due to the name still enrolled their children in the program, and all participated in at least two different sessions. Though it is possible SNAP has lost potential customers due to its ambiguous name, it should be noted that all SNAP early childhood swim classes are filled each session with a sizable waiting list of willing participants. The major reason provided by participants for enrolling and/or remaining in the program was the quality of swim instruction offered.
     Staff hired for many recreational programs and at aquatic facilities often have minimal or no experience in teaching children with disabilities (Devine & Broach, 1998). Inadequate or under prepared early childhood program staff has been identified as one of the top four barriers to implementing successful early childhood inclusion (Buysse, Wesley, & Keyes, 1998). Recreational staff may lack knowledge and teaching experience of developmentally appropriate practices for young children in an aquatic setting. In addition, staff may lack information and skills to effectively include young children with different abilities together in swim classes.
     Another issue in this area involves provision of adequate staff numbers to conduct an inclusive early childhood swim program. The recreational program may not have sufficient funding to provide additional personnel or have an adequate system in place to provide non-paid support to assist children with disabilities in inclusive programs (Edington, Hanson, Edington, & Hudson, 1998).
     The staffing barrier has been successfully overcome in SNAP by utilizing best practices teaching methods in swim instruction and adapted physical education. This program provides strong teaching experiences for undergraduate students studying in the area of physical education. College students who possess appropriate swim credentials are often used as paid swim instructors. Many other college students utilized in the program receive class credit for volunteering time as assistant swim instructors. The University staff which supervises SNAP swim lessons not only helps develop effective swim instruction techniques for these class participants, but also trains the college students who are striving to be future physical education teachers to use developmentally appropriate practices for all children in an inclusive recreational environment.
     To overcome the funding barrier often encountered by programs attempting to provide additional support, SNAP has relied on various sources. For children with disabilities who are included in the swim classes, extra support has come from various non-paid sources-parents, peers, and other university students. Two of the swim classes, (infant/toddler and preschool) are offered as parent/child participation, requiring an adult to be in the water with the child. Therefore, support for each child comes from his/her parent/guardian. For a child with a disability, the parent/guardian is providing support just like everyone else in the swim class.
    For children with disabilities who are older and part of the swim progression classes emphasizing individual participation (American Red Cross Level I-water exploration and Level 2-primary skills), support has been provided by student volunteers and/or peers without disabilities. The philosophy espoused at these levels is that of partial participation (Block, 1994). Students are performing skills required at each level to the best of their abilities, which can range from no modification of the skill with minimal physical support, to major modification of the skill with maximal physical support.

Physical Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

     Physical barriers are those environmental and architectural obstacles that inhibit inclusion. Some examples of physical barriers include lockers or benches mounted too high, steps or lips at the thresholds of showers, narrow shower and dressing stalls, lack of access to pool entry, and lack of raised lettering or Braille signage (Devine & Broach, 1998). Primary physical barrier concerns in the recreational aquatic environment are to ensure that children with disabilities can access and utilize the pool like peers without disabilities, and that the area is free of any potential hazards. Physical barriers examined in relation to SNAP are locker room/shower facilities, parking, pool and program modifications.
     Locker room/shower facilities involve issues such as accessible entrances, doors, restrooms, lockers, and showers. Prior to initiating SNAP, an ADA facility compliance survey was conducted to ascertain status relative to accessibility. Though the facility was completed in 1991, the survey team still found 30 ADA code III violations in the area of the locker room and shower facilities (Harms, 1993). Fortunately, most of the barriers identified were minor and considered readily achievable by the United States Department of Justice. Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1992). Identification of these physical barriers in a locker room/shower facility provides insight into possible barriers not only for early childhood students with disabilities, but persons with disabilities of all ages. For early childhood swim programs, additional necessities such as changing tables, easily accessible pool entry modes, and moderate pool water temperatures are recommended.
     Parking for individuals with disabilities has been a barrier in program accessibility for individuals with disabilities for years (Suomi, 1992). Federal laws such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, mental or physical disability, and age respectively, in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Specific regulations regarding parking can be found in code compliance standards issued in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
     In 1991 on this university campus, a new recreation facility was built which included a new indoor track and aquatic center. No provisions for parking were made for the aquatic center, even though it featured a state-of-the-art therapeutic pool. People with disabilities who wanted to participate in the SNAP program had to park in a lot on the east side of the building, a distance greater than 400 meters from the aquatic center, even though an unused tract of land immediately adjacent to the aquatic center was available. The distance from the east-side parking lot to the aquatic center was believed to be in non-compliance with a reasonable distance requirement defined by ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Several class participants filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights regarding this issue. The final outcome was that the University, to be in compliance with ADA and Section 504 statutes, had to build a parking lot on the west side of the building, immediately adjacent to the aquatic center (OCR #05932206). Due to the closer proximity of parking, opportunities for individuals with disabilities to access the aquatic center and swim lessons have improved tremendously.
      Pools utilized in early childhood swim programs can prove to be barriers for participants if issues such as pool accessibility and water temperature are not addressed. Ways to enter a pool include stairs, ramps, and manual and/or motorized lifts (Reid & O'Neil, 1989). Specifications for stairs which need to be achieved include the minimum number, treads and risers, nosings and handrails (UFAS, 1984). Ramps must have a specific slope and rise based on length and must have a minimum clear width of 36 inches (UFAS, 1984). Specific standards for manual or motorized pool lifts have not yet been established. Suggested water temperature to facilitate effective instruction for early childhood students with and without disabilities is between 85 and 90° (Reid & O'Neil, 1989; Devine & Broach, 1998).
     For SNAP these barriers were not an issue. The pool can be entered via stairs or ramp that meet UFAS specifications, and the pool temperature is maintained at 89°. These factors not only promote pool accessibility and inclusion, but also effective instruction.
     Program modifications needed to include a child with a disability in swim instruction classes vary from individual to individual. Various modifications have been made for children with disabilities to participate in the swim classes within SNAP. The American Red Cross swim progression curriculum is used for all classes offered, beginning from infant/ toddler to Level 2. Modifications used in SNAP include (a) pictures or written poster boards that may include written instructions ranging from nursery rhymes to directions for specific activities; (b) flotation devices to assist with decreasing the amount of physical support provided by parent or staff for a child with a traumatic brain injury, spina bifida, or other physical disabilities; (c) use of age-appropriate music to reinforce swim skills being taught; and/or (d) providing appropriate level of instructional prompting ranging from most restrictive to least restrictive (physical, environmental, visual, verbal) based on the individual child's needs. Many of these simple modifications have proven to be very useful for children with disabilities, as well as many of the other class participants without disabilities.

Attitudinal Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

     People with disabilities consistently report their biggest problem is overcoming negative attitudes held by other members of society (Yesseldyke, Algozinne, & Thurlow, 1992). Attitudinal barriers experienced by people with disabilities in recreation settings can take the forms of stigmas, stereotypes, unequal treatment, lack of social acceptance, and lower expectations of abilities (Bedini & Henderson, 1994; Devine, 1997; West, 1984). Attitudinal barriers have been identified as the greatest obstacle to inclusive recreation services for people with disabilities (Shank, Coyle, Boyd, & Kinney, 1996).
     In an attempt to assess attitudes of parents of the children enrolled in SNAP swim classes, a survey was administered. Sixty parents of children who had been participants in SNAP classes were randomly selected to respond to the survey. Fifty-six survey responses (93 %) were returned and evaluated. Data were categorized into the following groups - parents who had children in parent/child classes (age range of children 6 months to 4 years); parents who had children in independent swim classes (age range 4 to 7 years); and parents who had children in both classes. To further categorize the data, responses were analyzed by parental responses to the following question - My child has participated in an aquatic class with a child with a disability: yes ____, no _____.
The pertinent question towards inclusion presented in the survey dealt with the issue of quality of aquatic instruction. Parents responded to the following question using a Liekert-type scale - Having a child with a disability in an aquatic class did (would) not affect the amount of instruction given to my child.

____ Strongly agree ____ Agree ____ Not sure      ____Disagree ____ Strongly disagree
                  (1)                      (2)               (3)                       (4)                            (5)

     Results of this question may be seen in Table 1. In viewing the results, several trends emerge. The first deals with lack of understanding of children with disabilities by parents of children without disabilities. The average response of the 28 respondents who stated they had children with disabilities in their child's class for the question was 1.7, typifying their belief that the swim instruction of their child was not affected by the presence of a child with a disability. For the 28 respondents who had never had a child with a disability in an aquatic class with their child, the average response for this question was 2.5. This score, while not demonstrating a negative parental response to having a child with a disability in their child's class, certainly indicated their uneasiness or preconceived notion that instruction may be affected by including an individual with a disability alongside their son or daughter in the pool. Research on inclusive preschool programs has demonstrated that experience with children with disabilities has positive effects toward parental beliefs on inclusion (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998). Research exploring parental beliefs toward early childhood inclusion has indicated parents of children without disabilities, in inclusive preschool programs, have held more positive beliefs toward inclusion than did parents of children without disabilities, in non-inclusive preschool programs (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998).
     Another trend seen from responses to this question dealt with the issue of level of support provided in an aquatic class. For parents in both groups, their perceptions that having a child with a disability in their class would not compromise instruction was strongest in the aquatic class where parents were involved (Group 1 - Rating = 1.5 with parent, 1.9 independent; Group 2-Rating = 2.2 with parent, 2.8 independent). Level of support provided in this aquatic instruction situation was one-to-one between parent/guardian and child. In addition, parental perceptions that instruction may be compromised for their child by the presence of a child with a disability in the class were strongest in the independent child swim classes. While these scores certainly did not indicate a highly negative attitude toward young children with disabilities in an inclusive learn-to-swim program, it warranted concern. In the independent child swim classes, taught solely by an instructor, the student to teacher ratio was typically 6 to 1. When a student with significant disabilities was included, an assistant was typically provided. One could speculate that in swim programs where higher student to teacher ratios are employed, acceptance of a child with a disability may be more negatively viewed in terms of affecting instruction for other children without disabilities. Research on inclusive early childhood programs has identified high student to teacher ratios as a major barrier in preventing effective inclusion (Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, 1998).
     Overall results of the survey, based on this question and several others related to this issue, indicated introducing children with disabilities into an early childhood swim program did help overcome negative attitudes non-disabled members of society tend to hold toward those with disabilities. By providing age-appropriate activities with suitable levels of support, parents of non-disabled members of these swim classes tended to view children with disabilities in a more positive light, which may, in turn, help to form positive later-life recreational experiences.

Summary & Selected References (article cont'd) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    

Back to beginning of article

     

Home