In Italy, is effective the complete school integration in all types of schools. A short historical and legislative note is important to understand the integration process.

Until the mid-1970s, children with disabilities attended so-called special schools and/or special classes within normal schools. These special schools and classes accepted children with every type of disability (blind, deaf, those with mental or physical disabilities of whatever severity). During that period, two important trends occurred in Italy that radically influenced the government's approach to providing schooling for pupils with disabilities:

1) The Industrial Boom. During the 1960s and 1970s, Italy enjoyed a full-scale economic boom with rapid industrial development. This brought with it a massive migration of labor in particular from Southern Italy, to the industries in the large cities of Northern Italy. They often had difficulty in verbal communication, since in their places of origin they had generally spoken only their local dialect. These difficulties in turn caused learning problems; for teachers, the easiest solution was often that of transferring such pupils to special classes.
The Ministry for Public Education recorded a rapid increase in the number of special classes. It became apparent that many children whose only problem was one of social adaptation were being placed in special classes, which until then had contained children with mental or physical disabilities. In effect, such placement further marginalized these migrant children.

2) Student Unrest. The Commission was also forced to come to terms with the another phenomenon of those years: the student unrest that began in 1968. This movement accused schools of being élitist and of marginalizing pupils from less privileged backgrounds. The wider question of the marginalization of persons with disabilities became the object of lively debate, in academic circles, on the part of the trade unions, and in the mass media. Calls came from many sides to end the isolation of "different" individuals and to abolish the special schools . It was realized that there is a continual interaction between disability and social marginalization: social marginalization frequently causes disability, and disability in turn causes social marginalization.

A Ministerial Commission was set up to examine the problem and propose solutions. The Final Report of the Commission (1975) demanded "a new way of being for schools, the fundamental condition for full scholastic inclusion". Schools were given the difficult task of becoming what might be called social training agencies. Based on the Commission's Final Report, Circular No. 227, was issued by the Ministry for Public Education. This document stated that the goals to be achieved, inclusion of children with disabilities in normal schools and normal classes, "will be made possible through the transformation and renovation of schools, which must progressively acquire the capability of accepting those pupils who, during the years of obligatory schooling, have particular difficulty in learning and adaptation".

The "special classes system" was, on the basis of Circular No. 227, gradually replaced by the "inclusion system". Teachers who had worked in the special schools were transferred to normal schools to work as "support" teachers, i.e. additional teachers allocated to classes that contained children with disabilities. Increasingly the emphasis was on socialization and inclusion rather than on teaching/learning, and thus a conflict emerged concerning the purpose of schools: was socialization or teaching/learning more important?

The practical organization is still evolving. Changes are continually being introduced to the legislation, not only to address specific problems but also to reflect the current political ideas of the government in power. Obligatory schooling has been extended to age 16, which means that pupils with disabilities must now by law be included in the first two years of the high school, whereas previously inclusion in high school (or indeed university) only applied to pupils achieving a sufficient academic standard.

The generic definition that was given of children with disabilities has meant that government statistics are not very specific. The statistics distinguish between blind individuals and deaf individuals, two clearly-identifiable categories. All other disabilities of whatever severity (social maladaptation, learning difficulties, slight to severe mental illnesses including autism and psychosis) are included in the single category " psychophysical disabilities", which is obviously the largest. This is clear from Tables 1 and 2, which give the most recent official statistical data provided by the Italian Ministry for Public Education.

Table I: Number of integrated disabled pupils by type of handicap and type of school
s. y. 2001/02: www.istruzione.it

In Italy “psycho-physical” includes also individuals with all types of mental disability, autistic, psychotic and ESN

Table 2: Total number of integrated pupils in Italian schools (MPI)
s.y. 2001/02, www.istruzione.it

Unfortunately, the Framework Law gives only general guidelines, with no specific indications concerning physical education and sport. A physical education teacher with special training in adapted physical activity is not required to be present in classes in which pupils with disabilities are included. In 1995 a study was published relating to elementary schools and middle schools in the Piedmont Region, North-Western Italy. The study investigated the extent of participation of pupils with disabilities together with those without disabilities in gymnastics classes. Some significant data emerged.

In elementary schools, in which the class teacher takes physical education lessons, 56.4% of pupils with disabilities did all exercises with the others; 29% did not participate in all exercises; 8% did different, simpler exercises; 2.5% required specific one-to-one attention; 3.1% did not participate at all but only watched. In other words, 43.6% of children with disabilities in elementary schools could benefit from adapted physical activity, because in concrete terms they do not participate in all activities. In particular, 5.6% were unable to participate in class gymnastics at all.

In middle schools (where a specialized physical education teacher takes PE classes) it was found that 241 PE teachers had a total of 517 pupils with disabilities in their classes; 209 teachers, that is 86.3%, had one or more pupils with disabilities in their classes without having received formal training in adapted physical activity. Only 19 teachers, that is 7.85%, had no pupils with disabilities in their classes. Of the 517 pupils with disabilities, 157, or 30.37%, exercised in the gymnasium with their support teacher; 330 (63.83%) participated in gymnastics without the presence of a support teacher; 33 pupils with disabilities (5.8%) did not take part in this type of activity at all. The figure of 5.8% of pupils is close to that (5.6%) in elementary schools who did not participate or who required one-to-one attention, and we may assume that this proportion of pupils have severe disabilities.

Physical activity would be of great help to these children in improving both their independence in day-to-day life and in producing a general improvement in their health. This problem has yet to be solved. The PE teachers reported that the presence of pupils with disabilities regularly included in gymnastics classes makes their work difficult, and likewise that the "adaptation" of sports activities is a particularly complex problem. As part of the recent education reform, university courses for PE teachers have been changed to include specific training in APA.

Terminology has been widely discussed: the initial expression "handicappato" (handicapped) was considered discriminatory and became in turn "disabile" (disabled) and "inabile" (unable), but met with critical reaction from persons with a physical disability, who did not want to be confused with those with a mental “handicap”.
The expression now became "persona con handicap o problema" (person with handicap or problem) to place more stress on the attributes of the person concerned, rather than categorizing the individual.
Many people who were first defined as being "handicapped", then "disabled" now vigorously sustain that the term to be used is "diversabile" (differently able). (4).

My personal hypothesis is that school integration, which began in Italy in 1977, and thus has almost 30 years of history and of legislative measures, has been the engine of this change in terminology, and not only in the general attitude in Italian society. Thirty years ago the term "handicapped" was used, but within a short period of time this term had become "heavy and unpleasant" because it had become synonymous with a "stupid", unintelligent person, who in some way was inferior. The solution was to use the term "disabled", but surprisingly there was a reaction from persons who had a physical disability but who were intelligent and who said: we are disabled, we cannot be placed on the same plane with the "mentally handicapped", A distinction must be made between them and us.

At present in Italy we speak of "differently able person", completely changing the standpoint: this person has different capabilities, we must see the positive aspects and produce working programs starting from those aspects. This is precisely the standpoint of APA.

The support teacher who must prepare the individualised educational plan for his/her pupil starts from a completely different standpoint if he/she thinks of the pupil's "different abilities" and not of his or her "special needs".

But what is interesting is that this change has not only come about that the linguistic level, in reality it has also come about that the cultural level and in terms of acceptance by the population: parents of other pupils in classes in which the differently able child is integrated, teachers, friends, gradually the entire population. There has been a general cultural change. Today's classification by the Ministry is: mental or physical handicap (single category); visual handicap; hearing handicap. This change has taken place over 30 years.

Starting from these considerations, I proposed to an Austrian colleague, Maria DINOLD, a snakk research project based on a questionnaire which focusses on this precise aspect of terminology, as it is currently used: the hypothesis was that in the Italian situation, full scholastic integration of all those with different abilities in all schools of every order and level may have influenced this linguistic change: this change seems to have come about not only in terminology and language, but also in terms of cultural acceptance, especially in the school context.

The relation between the above discussion and the proposed research lies in the theoretical background of social psychology. Attitude theories are used to measure attitudes; they are not generally seen as relevant within the pedagogic approach.

Nevertheless, some research on the relation between teachers' attitudes and inclusive teaching or coaching has been published: Rizzo (1984), DePauw & GocKarp (1990), Doll-Tepper et.al. (1994), Conaster, Block & Gansneder (2002), Klavina (2003) (see also Sherrill, 2004, p.139 – components of the attitude behavior link). Conaster et al. (APAQ, 2002, pp172-187 p.173: "The theory of planned behavior provides a framework for understanding the effects of factors such as the relationships between attitude towards behaviors, normative beliefs, perceived behavioral control, intention and behavior (Ajzen, 2001). The theory of planned behavior is an extension of the original theory of reasoned action except that it incorporates perceived control over behavioral achievement as an additional aggregate of intention.
It is designed to predict and explain human behavior related to specific situations …. The theory postulates that behaviors are a function of accessible information or beliefs pertinent to the behavior. …."

In regard to the possible application of this theoretical framework to the situation in integrated classes in different countries, we considered that useful indications could emerge if we asked people's opinions on various terms (disabled, special needs, having different abilities, etc.) and on the perceived importance of the influence of terminology on inclusion in school and in society in general.

“Contact theory is the body of knowledge that guides philosophy and practices tending toward increasing acceptance, appreciation, and inclusion of others perceived as different from oneself. In sociological terms, these are persons who are stigmatized and/or members of disadvantaged cultural subgroups. Another important background aspect appears to be that contact theory can promote inclusion: in order to change attitudes and consequently behavior, professionals must address several interacting components (according to the theory of reasoned action) and their favorable attitude towards inclusion should be associated with contact conditions.

Contact theory is important because it helps to understand friendship, social behaviours, and inclusive and exclusive practices in everyday life. (…) Contact theory also guides the examination of prejudices, stereotypes, discrimination, and oppression in physical activity settings.” (Sherrill, 2004, p. 141). Sherrill recommends that, as also suggested by Allport (1954) 4 conditions must be present in contact situations for the development of favorable attitudes (Sherrill p. 141) a) equal status, b) support and function inclusion, c) common objectives, d) association: deep, genuine, intimate. (M. Dinold, in "ATTITUDES AND TERMINOLOGY CONCERNING INCLUSION IN ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, co-authors Anna Bianco , Karl Hametne, Italo Fazio & Silvio Venuti, ISAPA Verona, 2005).

The decision to develop a questionnaire was motivated by the fact that scientists, academic teachers and experts recommend the use of correct terms when talking with and about individuals with disabilities or special needs. But very often in reality – in conversations in daily life –outdated words, discriminatory or offensive expressions and terms are used (sometimes unconsciously). Therefore it was our intention to find out what people think about the problem.

We considered this questionnaire to be a first attempt or investigation, in the form of preliminary research into the specific topic. This is important because, while working in formulating the questions and when contacting reasearch subjects, we had to face several difficulties – which turned out to be different in Italy and in Austria.

The questionnaire was developed by the Italian team (Bianco, Venuti, Fazio) and translated into German (Dinold, Hametner)6. The subjects questioned were as follows: school pupils (6/10, 11/14,15/19); university students (>19, different subjects); teachers (primary school, secondary school, high school); parents (of children with/without disabilities: active/non active); subjects at random. Data analysis was through descriptive statistics, ANOVA analysis (first with normal curve adaptation study, and then multiple linear correlation).