On a positive note, there were some good examples of inclusion during some lessons. For example in a gymnastics lesson on group floor routines, Pupil 1 was included in one of the groups and pupils planned and included Pupil 1 into a group routine. In line with the Inclusion Spectrum (see appendix 3) this was an ‘open activity’. Swimming and gymnastics were generally the most inclusive lessons and in these lessons, Pupil 1 looked most happy and made more progress than in separated activities such as rugby and football. The PE teachers were also good at using the STEP framework for general inclusion. During most lessons, activities were differentiated for all abilities not just Pupil 1. However, Evans (2014) states that the primary mindset of some PE teachers, to indulge in talent identification and development, rather than the inclusion of all students. Due to the selective nature and sporting reputation of the school I believe inclusion came second to developing highly skilled pupils. The main limitation of this practitioner enquiry is that research only took place in a singular school for a limited period of time. However, in conclusion, I have learned that the best way to include a child with a neuromuscular condition into a PE lesson is to have effective provisions where staff have the expert knowledge of the specific condition in order to then add this to current teaching pedagogy which uses differentiation in order to create multi-facet approach. I would also like to add that this enquiry has broadened my knowledge on pupils with neuromuscular conditions in particular arthrogryposis multiplex congenita.