Rawl's (1971) work has made the most sophisticated contribution to critical thinking about what justice requires when we begin from the idea of equal persons, their worth, and their capacities. Most recently his work has been enhanced by Nussbaum's (2006) theory of social justice. Many individuals with disabilities are fully capable of participating in physical education programs, processes, and choices. However, they are not being treated as full equals of other students in the same programs; their voices are not being heard when basic principles or curricular decisions are made. This problem seems all the graver when we recognize that one of the factors that excludes students from full participation is simply the way we use language. A beginning line of research inquiry with both inservice and preservice teachers, in several different countries has all come to the same conclusion, disability labels affect the beliefs of physical educational professionals (Tripp & Rizzo, 2006; Oh, Tripp, & Rizzo, 2007; So, Rizzo, & Tripp, 2007).
These findings suggest that when one is presented with a disability label to describe a student it triggers stereotypes about what it means to teach that student physical activities in general physical education (GPE). Even when teachers were presented a “visual” example of a student with a disability label participating in physical activity, they apparently saw things that were not there.
Equality and opportunity for students with disabilities in GPE is derived from the opinions and actions of teachers at all levels that are based on a learned value system grounded in language. This value system is learned during the physical education teacher education program (PETE). PETE curricula addresses the physical education of individuals with disabilities in a way that is often categorical, stereotypical, and based on disability conditions utilizing a medical model. PETE that fails to infuse knowledge of and experience with individuals with disabilities reinforces the value and status differences, or inequality, between students with and without disabilities in GPE, thus passing it on from one generation of teachers to the next. Consequently, GPE curriculum in the schools is socially constructed by teachers in schools, who have completed PETE programs in higher education. Rather than adding more specialized course work, universities must consider restructuring their pedagogical concentration to infuse information about students with disabilities, not based on “language” or categorical labels, but on individual capability and opportunity.