The question of the extent to which and how children and youth with disabilities should be educated together with their peers without disabilities has been and likely will continue to be a social, educational, and political issue disputed in economically advanced Western countries.

In many countries, the trend toward increased integration of children with and without disabilities can be observed.

Teachers, besides the students themselves, are the ones most Saffected by changes such as those required by integration because teachers are the link between society's and parents' expectations for education provided by the state and local school districts and what students actually learn in school. Consequently, teachers and their concerns play an essential role in operationalizing changes involved in educational reform.

The purpose of the investigation was to (a) identify the concerns of physical education teachers about including students with disabilities in regular physical education classes, (b) explore personal and contextual variables affecting these concerns and how teachers cope with them, and (c) compare these concerns and variables across two cultures with different educational systems and different approaches toward integrative education.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) of Hall, Wallace, and Dossett (1973) provided the theoretical framework for the present study. The model was developed in response to the frequently observed failure of educational innovations. The introduction of an innovation in educational settings "often results in major role changes for teachers and administrators; changes in role often require new professional and interpersonal skills as well as personal value changes" (Hall et al., 1973, p. 2).

Hall et al. (1973) posited that individuals confronted with innovation (e.g. integrative physical education) pass through seven stages of concern and presented a Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) that administrators should follow when assessing concerns of individual teachers. According to the CBAM, change strategies should be planned in relation to specific teacher concerns. Brief definitions of the seven stages of concern posited by Hall et a. (1973) appear in Table 1.

Table 1: Seven Stages of Concerns Posited by Hall et al. (1973)

Note. Wording of items has been paraphrased.

Participants were 30 elementary school regular physical education teachers in Berlin, Germany (7 males and 9 females) and the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area, USA (2 males and 12 females). The research method was qualitative. Data were collected by in-depth interviews and observations of school settings and analyzed using grounded theory procedures. Although data were analyzed inductively in many ways, it was decided that presentation of findings under the CBAM stages of concern was the easiest, most efficient way to make cross-cultural comparisons.

In many ways Germany and the USA are similar in that both are Western industrial nations; democratic states; similar in overall social trends and school personnel attach the same significance to the social phenomenon of integration. Berlin and the DFW area are similar in that both are major metropolitan areas in their respective countries with a diverse population of over one million people.

The two areas are also similar in that both have laws (federal law for the DFW area, state law for Berlin) that require integration of children with and without disabilities in their schools. The laws in both cities give the responsibility for making placement and service decisions to a committee that plans the accommodation of the individual needs of students with disabilities. A difference between the laws in the two cities is that the Berlin school code limits the secondary school options for students with mental retardation and severe disabilities to laboratory and model schools. The Berlin school code furthermore ties the availability of education in the general classroom for students with disabilities to the availability of financial, personnel, and material resources.

Similarities also existed with regard to the variety of disabilities students had who were in the classes of the teachers in the two samples. Disabilities included physical, cognitive, behavioral, and multiple disabilities.

Although the Berlin school code requires integration, in practice teachers generally have a choice whether they want to teach an integrated class or not. The teachers in the Berlin sample have that choice because there are always several teachers available to teach a certain grade or subject and because the principal tries to accommodate the teachers' preferences. The DFW teachers, by contrast, do not have the same choice because they are usually the only physical educator at their school or one of two physical education teachers.

Physical eduation teaching personnel is another important difference between the DFW area and Berlin. Physical education in the DFW area is taught by certified physical education specialists who teach only physical education. These teachers receive support by adapted physical educators to varying degrees. Physical education teachers in the DFW area generally also have support by physical education paraprofessionals who assist them in their classes.

Most of the teachers in the Berlin sample taught other subjects besides physical education. Most, but not all of them, were certified physical education teachers. Adapted physical educators and physical education paraprofessionals do not exist in Berlin. However, 11 out of 16 teachers in Berlin team taught with one or two other teachers in some or most of their classes.

The most important differences, however, exist in the organization of physical education. Class sizes are significantly smaller in Berlin (approximately 15 to 30 students) than in the DFW area (approximately 11 to 100 students). Furthermore, in several schools in the DFW area, students with severe disabilities from self-contained classrooms are assigned to regular physical education. This does not happen in Berlin where class compositions do not change for physical education. Unlike in the DFW area, regular elementary schools in Berlin usually do not have self-contained classrooms for students with more severe disabilities. These students are either placed in regular classrooms or in special schools.

Physical education content is, to a large extent, similar in Germany and USA. One of the differences is the availability of large pieces of equipment and apparatus in German gymnasia. Most of the teachers interviewed in Berlin talked about the use of this equipment, how it offered possibilities for explorative learning, differentiation according to abilities and skills, and student participation in deciding what to do in physical education. In contrast, teachers in the DFW area, without this equipment, usually focused on movement education activities, games, and other activities that require only small equipment.

Analysis of interview data revealed that participants reported concerns at four of the seven stages of the concerns model (personal, management, consequence, and collaboration). Some concerns were stated that did not fit the CBAM.

Personal concerns. Of the four stages of concerns, personal was the area in which Berlin and USA teachers were most different. Despite the fact that only one teacher in Berlin had completed adapted physical education courses prior to teaching an integrated class, fewer teachers in Berlin expressed personal concerns, and to a lesser degree, than their colleagues in the DFW area. Several teachers in Berlin emphasized the importance of having a choice about whether to teach integrated classes. One teacher indicated that lack of that choice may result in personal concerns. As in the DFW area, several of the Berlin participants pointed out that many of their colleagues did not want to teach integrated classes.

Widespread differences characterizd the responses of the DFW sample. Almost half of the teachers did not express personal concerns and described positive initial attitudes. These individuals indicated they were prepared for integration by university classes in adapted physical education and expected to have children with disabilities in their classes. Although all but one teachers in the DFW sample had received formal training in adapted physical education, not all participants felt sufficiently prepared. Slightly more than half of the DFW sample described concerns at the personal level, similar to the following:

Coping strategies that helped DFW teachers to overcome initial concerns at the personal stage were trial-and-error collaboration with paraprofessionals and consulting with adapted physical education specialists. Some teachers independently searched actively for solutions, by researching the students' IEPs (individualized education program), for example. About 15% of the DFW teachers in this study did not try to teach the children with disabilities but delegated responsibility for integration to the paraprofessionals who accompanied these students to the physical education class.

Personal concerns seemed to be most related to prior experience, perceived adequacy of professional preparation, attitudes toward disability and integration, self-confidence, perceived competency, class size, percentage of students with and without disabilities, type and severity of disabilities, and availability of support personnel.

Management concerns. Samples were similar in that most of their concerns fell into this category. While the concerns at the personal stage related to both personal and contextual variables, concerns at the management stage related mostly to contextual variables.

One concern shared by all Berlin teachers was the lack of funding provided by the Berlin government. Teachers pointed out that results of these spending cuts were minimized hiring of new teachers, increased class sizes, lack of money for equipment, and great reductions in paid leaves of absence for attending in-service training.

Several teachers in Berlin expressed concerns that integrated classes are frequently taken advantage of. Because integrated classes have smaller sizes and are taught by two teachers most of the time, administrators often use these classes to accommodate students who are difficult to teach but have no legal integration status (i.e., the class does not receive additional teacher hours to accommodate special needs of these students. Teachers who were affected by such practices said that, despite the smaller class size and two teachers instructing the class, the quantity and quality of their teaching were limited.

One concern that was expressed by almost all teachers in both Berlin and the DFW area pertained to unsatisfactory facilities and equipment. In Berlin schools, two classes frequently share a gym. While this is a difficult situation in general, the teachers pointed out that it is especially difficult for integrated classes. Many students with disabilities have difficulties adjusting in a crowded gym and in a group twice as large as the one they are used to. Lack of resources was a problem for teachers in the DFW area, too. Many teachers in the DFW area were concerned about large class sizes of up to 100 students.

Some teachers in the DFW area pointed out how important the support of an adapted physical educator is for the success of integration. However, several teachers saw their adapted physical educator only once or twice during the school year for a brief period of time.

Short class periods of 25 min was another concern; several teachers in the DFW area noted that 25 min which was too short a time to give individual attention to students, especially with large class sizes. While this was a concern only of teachers in the DFW area, lack of personnel was a concern shared by teachers in both countries as were concerns about lack of equipment and the ratio of students with and without disabilities in some classes.

Some teachers in the DFW area and Berlin were concerned about high ratio of students with disabilities in regular classes, which made teaching these classes difficult. In the DFW area, a high ratio sometimes resulted when a whole group of students from a self-contained classroom was included in regular physical education. In Berlin, a formula that determines how many students with disabilities can be placed in a regular class resulted in a similar problem for some teachers.

Consequence concerns. The many positive effects of integration mentioned by teachers in both the DFW area and in Berlin by far outweighed negative effects. However, concerns were expressed about how age and psychosocial development of students and curriculum demands differentially affected educational outcomes. When asked about the effects of integration on her students, several teachers in Berlin and DFW said that in the first three or four grades they learn a lot from each other, benefit from each other, and do a lot together. In the higher grades, however, when the activities become more complex and the students more competitive, students with and without disabilities seem to drift apart. Some teachers in Berlin mentioned that some students do not develop an understanding for and tolerance of their classmates with disabilities. This problem becomes especially obvious during competitive activities in which winning is important to the students.

Several teachers in Berlin and the DFW area expressed concerns about the consequences of disruptive and aggressive behavior of some students. As reported by one teacher, "especially calm, quiet, introverted children suffer and sometimes don't get their rights because the aggressive require a lot of attention." Aggressive behaviors present challenges even if a class is taught by two teachers and resulting problems are often reported at home by the children.

Consequence concerns were mediated by personal variables. How important these concerns were to the teachers and how they coped with them was influenced by their teaching goals and philosophies, training, and experience.

Collaboration concerns. Teachers in both the DFW and Berlin samples stressed the importance of a supportive school atmosphere for successful integration. However, the type of collaboration and the participants involved were different in the DFW area and in Berlin.

When asked what was necessary to make integration work, collaboration was one of the factors most often mentioned by the participants in the DFW area. At the same time, teachers pointed out that it takes a lot of good will, effort, and communication, as well as organizational skills to achieve successful collaboration. While some teachers in the DFW area mentioned excellent collaboration with their paraprofessionals and adapted physical education teachers, others described problems with paraprofessionals, for example, who did not get involved in the teaching process or adapted physical education specialists who were not available due to time constraints.

Collaboration was equally important to teachers in Berlin. However, because 11 out of 16 teachers in Berlin worked in teams of 2 to 3 certified elementary teachers or special educators during most of the school day, their collaboration concerns focused, not on adapted physical educators who do not exist in Berlin or paraprofessionals, but on their colleagues with whom they team taught. Because teachers in Berlin have a lot of input concerning whom they want to work with in a team, only a few teachers expressed concerns about team teaching. Referring to the complex nature of team teaching and personal experience, one teacher pointed out that "team teaching can go terribly wrong." As with the consequence concerns, collaboration concerns were influenced by personal variables such as teaching philosophy, commitment, and personality.

Other Concerns. Teachers in both the DFW and Berlin samples expressed some concerns that did not fit exactly into the Concerns Based Adoption Model. The concern about lack of specific teaching competence grew out of day-to-day interactions with specific students; this concern was not so much about consequences and outcomes as about teaching process (e.g., assessment, goal setting, individualizing). This need for greater specific teaching competence was one of the main concerns expressed by teachers in both countries.

Data analysis revealed that specific teaching competence concerns were related to concerns at the personal, management, and consequence stage and are, therefore, multidimensional concerns. Specific teaching competence concerns depend on personal variables such as training and experience and on contextual variables such as type and severity of disability and content.

Safety concerns, the second category of other concerns, were expressed by teachers in both samples although to a greater extent by teachers in the DFW area than by teachers in Berlin. One reason why safety concerns were expressed less often by teachers in Berlin may be differences in working conditions, especially class sizes.

Some teachers expressed concern about safety in regard to severe muscle spasticity, balance problems, and cognitive limitations. They observed that students with more severe disabilities should not be included in all activities (e.g. very fast and/or competitive activities that heighten the risk of injury).

The findings of our study revealed that many aspects of integration are generalizable across cultures; teachers in both countries expressed concerns about many of the same things at the management, consequence, and collaboration stages of the CBAM as well as concerns about specific teaching competency and safety that seemed independent of CBAM stages. Teachers in both countries were most concerned about management. This finding supports the results of other studies that the increased classroom complexity caused by integration leads to increased management concerns. Like other studies, we also found that many teachers believed they were not sufficiently trained to teach students with disabilities in integrated settings and do not have enough support personnel and other resources to meet the needs of all students in their classes.

Some of the cultural differences in teacher training, school systems, physical education, and the integration of students with disabilities affected teachers' concerns, whereas others did not. However, with exception of concerns at the personal level, differences expressed by teachers seem to be, to a large extent, differences in details. For example, one teacher in the DFW area said that she wished she had only 40 students in her class instead of 75. Many teachers in Berlin, in contrast, were concerned about the increase of the numbers of students in integrated classes from 20 to 23. Although the working conditions are very different and important, the concern is essentially the same.

Analysis of our data suggested that, as in a dynamic systems model, in most cases personal and contextual variables are constantly interacting and influencing teachers' concerns. It was impossible to analyze stages of concerns without concurrently examining variables that influence concerns. We recommend that future qualitative research should address specific personal and contextual variables that explain concerns as well as teacher attitudes and behaviors that support or fail to support successful integration in the physical education setting.

The results of our study support the notion of a profile of concerns but raise doubts about a linear development of concerns about integration. Our analysis indicated that some stages may be skipped or that concerns may occur equally at two stages at the same time. Whereas Hall (1979) stated that concerns at one level must be reduced to a certain degree before concerns at the next level will fully develop, our data suggest that conerns may be related not only in inverse proportion but also proportionally. For example, many teachers linked concerns at the management level to concerns at the consequence level. Consequently, a reduction of the management concerns would also result in a reduction of consequence concerns. For example, a complaint about large class sizes that made individualized instruction difficult related directly to limited learning outcomes, especially for students with disabilities.