Adapted Physical Education

This article provides an overview of the history of adapted (or adaptive) physical education and the legislation that has supported and promoted the inclusion of students with disabilities into the least restrictive environment. The history and development of the Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS) is also discussed with an overview of each of the fifteen national standards that are considered to be the foundation of knowledge and skills for adapted physical educators. Inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular physical education classroom requires appropriate assessment and preparation, which is reviewed along with a brief discussion on the effectiveness of current physical education teacher preparation programs.

Keywords Adapted Physical Education; Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS); Assessment; Disabilities; Inclusion; Individualized Education Program (IEP); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Least Restrictive Environment; Normalization

Physical Education > Adapted Physical Education

Overview

Adapted physical education, or educational programming that focuses on the motor and physical development of students with disabilities, is rooted in 19th century medicine that was focused on attempting to correct disabilities (Davis, n.d.). This focus on correction was the impetus for a plethora of scientific research in the area. In the 20th century there was a revolution in how society viewed people with disabilities, which was reflective of a change in the way individuals with disabilities viewed themselves (Davis, n.d.). Individuals with disabilities began to be viewed as "individuals who possess a different set of abilities than the majority of the population…they constitute a minority, one with a rich perspective and diverse set of capabilities" (Davis, n.d.). This change in viewpoint from the focus on correcting disabilities to inclusion and value is reflected in the principle of normalization that became popular in the 1960's.

The principle of normalization focuses on the belief that individuals with disabilities should have "full access to patterns and conditions of everyday society" (Decker & Jansma, 1991, p.193). Legislation related to educational programming and services initiated change in public school education. Legislation PL 90-170, Title V (1967) mandated funding in physical education teacher education programs for education related to working with students with disabilities (Hardin, 2005). This legislation allowed for government agencies to offer grants to institutions of higher education for their teacher preparation and research programs (Hardin, 2005). This legislation led the way for the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL-142), which was the catalyst for the integration of students with disabilities into education in what is referred to as the least restrictive environment (Decker & Jansma, 1991). The education of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment indicates that the student is being educated to the maximum extent possible with their non-disabled peers (Decker & Jansma, 1991). Later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990)(IDEA) was passed, which mandated that public school physical education programs must provide physical education programming to students that offers opportunities to develop physical and motor skills, fundamental motor skills and motor patterns, as well as skills related to dance, aquatics, and individual and group sports and games (Davis, n.d.). IDEA set forth guidelines for the determination for what students qualify for special services. Students who qualify may have one or more of the following conditions:

• Autism

• Deaf – Blindness

• Deafness

• Hearing impairment

• Mental retardation

• Multiple disabilities

• Orthopedic impairment

• Other health impairment

• Serious emotional disturbance

• Specific learning disability

• Speech or language impairment

• Traumatic brain injury

• Visual impairment including blindness

Direct Services & Qualified Professionals

Adapted physical education teachers are considered direct service providers, as the physical education program is a part of the disabled student's special education program on the student's individualized education program (IEP) (Davis, n.d.). Adapted physical education teachers are responsible for the assessment of students, the prescription and placement of the child in the program, teaching, counseling and coaching. Adapted physical education teachers are also responsible for conducting evaluations of services, acting as coordinators of resources, as consultants and advocates (Davis, n.d.). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated that the physical education programs for disabled students be provided by "qualified professionals" (Davis, n.d.); however the legislation did not specify what qualifications or credentials were necessary for these "qualified professionals" to possess. This lack of specificity left the responsibility to define and interpret the term "qualified professionals" to the State Educational Agencies (Davis, n.d.). At the time the legislation was passed the majority of states did not have specific certifications for adapted physical education teachers (Davis, n.d.).

With these changes in federal law, along with new social awareness, the field of adapted physical education grew and continues to grow rapidly. According to Zhang (2011), as of 2011, the U.S. has a substantial shortfall in the number of teachers qualified to teach adapted physical education, with an additional 640 teachers required to fill currently-funded positions, and 20,087 required to meet the needs of all students required adaptive physical education services. This rapid evolution requires teachers to frequently continue their education in order to keep abreast of all current theory and practices in adapted physical education. Adapted physical education is a specialized field as it requires teachers to understand a specific set of theory, practices, and approaches to teaching that may not be required of a regular physical education teacher.

The Action Seminar

Following the passing of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, the National Consortium for Physical Education and recreation for Individuals with Disabilities (NCPERID), the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and Special Olympics International held an Action Seminar (Davis, n.d.). The Action Seminar provided a venue for state directors of special education and leaders of groups advocating for individuals with disabilities to "identify the barriers that were presenting full provision of appropriate physical education services to individuals with disabilities and to establish an action agenda for addressing and resolving these problems" (Davis, n.d.). The Action Seminar served as an opportunity for the group to identify barriers in developing adapted physical education programs in public schools, but it also revealed that state education leaders did not have an understanding of what adapted physical education was, how such a program could be beneficial to those individuals with disabilities and what skills and knowledge teachers needed to possess in order to deliver effective physical education programming to students with disabilities (Davis, n.d.). The overriding result based on the Action Seminar was the recommendation that the NCPERID be tasked with the development and assessment of professional standards for adapted physical education teachers (Davis, n.d.). The NCPERID Board voted to take on the responsibility of developing the national standards and submitted a funding proposal to the United States Department of Education to develop the national standards and certification exam.

National Standards

Funding was granted and the NCPERID embarked on a five year, multi-phase process to develop and validate a set of national standards for adapted physical educators. The NCPERID conducted an analysis of the responsibilities of adapted physical educators, developed and validated content standards, created and validated a set of certification examinations, and administered the first national certification examination nation-wide in 1997 (Davis, n.d.). The national standards and certification examination provided guidelines for what competencies are needed (or suggested) for adapted physical educators. However, the legislation indicated that each state department of education had the responsibility to define adapted physical education regarding legislative compliance (Davis, n.d.).

The Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS) were established to identify the body of knowledge necessary for adapted physical education teachers based on their job-related responsibilities, and as a means to assess the skills and knowledge of individuals wishing to be certified in adapted physical education (Davis, n.d.). Fifteen broad areas of specialized knowledge were identified as being important to the adapted physical educator. These fifteen broad areas were carefully reviewed. When outlined in detail, the APENS standards each delineate:

• Content knowledge that all physical educators must know in order to effectively teach physical education

• Specific adapted physical education content knowledge

• The application of the adapted physical education knowledge to the actual teaching skills of individuals with disabilities (Davis, n.d.).

Davis (n.d.) provides a general description of each of the fifteen Adapted Physical Education Standards. These standards include the following skills and knowledge that adapted physical education teachers must possess, including:

• Standard 1 Human Development: The knowledge and skills related to theories and practices in human development- a fundamental standard for adapted physical educators.

• Standard 2 Motor Behavior: The knowledge of typical motor development and the ability to recognize developmental delays along with the skills to apply motor learning principles to the planning and teaching process when working with students with disabilities.

• Standard 3 Exercise Science: The knowledge of all areas of exercise science (most importantly the areas of physiology and biomechanics) and the ability to modify the application of the theories and principals of exercise science when working with students with disabilities.

• Standard 4 Measurement & Evaluation: The ability to conduct valid and reliable measurements and evaluations of the motor performance of students with disabilities is necessary for educators in order to comply with federal and/or state legislation.

• Standard 5 History & Philosophy: An understanding of the overall legal and philosophical factors that contribute to practices in adapted physical education.

• Standard 6 Unique Attributes of Learners: An understanding and knowledge of the disability areas that are outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in order to appropriately and effectively assess and determine the needs of each individual student.

• Standard 7 Curriculum Theory & Development: An understanding and the ability to plan effectively and appropriately when considering students with disabilities.

• Standard 8 Assessment: The skills to conduct effective assessment of student performance including the ability to make appropriate and sound decisions related to the special services and programs that students with disabilities may need.

• extensive instructional design and planning in order to provide students with disabilities to meet the needs of each student, the legal mandates, and overall educational goals. In order to effectively design and plan programs, adapted physical educators must utilize the principles cited in previous standards (e.g., motor development, human development, exercise science).

• Standard 10 Teaching: The ability to effectively teach physical education to students with disabilities.

• Standard 11 Consultation & Staff Development: Willingness and ability to work in collaboration with other staff members to consult and develop as professionals.

• Standard 12 Student & Program Evaluation: An understanding of the overall program evaluation process as it relates to students with disabilities in order to ensure a physical education assessment is included, which may require advocacy on the part of the teacher if physical education is not already a component of the students' programs.

• Standard 13 Continuing Education: Adapted physical education teachers must engage in continuing education through a variety of arenas (e.g., workshops, conference presentations, in service trainings).

• Standard 14 Ethics: This standard proposes that "those who seek and meet the standards to be certified as adapted physical educators will strive at all times to adhere to the highest ethical standards in providing programs and services for children and youth with disabilities" (Davis, n.d.).

• Standard 15 Communication: The skills to effectively communicate with families and other professionals that may be included in order to take on a team approach to meeting the needs of the students with disabilities.

These standards highlight not only the important areas of knowledge and competencies that are necessary for adapted physical educators, they also shed light on the depth and amount of specialized information and skills that these teachers must have in order to be successful in providing students with disabilities a quality and effective physical education program. For those physical education teachers who have not been trained to work with these students, attempting to master all principles as they relate to adapted physical education while also planning an effective regular physical education program could be a challenge. These teachers have the responsibility to develop strong cognitive, motor and social programs for their students (Hautala, 1995). Including a student with disabilities in a physical education class with a teacher who has not been professionally prepared to develop such programs for students with disabilities may cause the motor component of class to be neglected and lead to unfocused and unstructured instruction (e.g., free play, games) (Hautala, 1995). These types of physical education programs may compromise the motor development of all students (Hautala, 1995), therefore it is imperative that school districts provide proper staffing, support, and resources for professional development as the inclusion of students into regular physical education classes will occur.

Applications

Inclusion

The inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular classroom setting amongst their non-disabled peers is referred to as inclusion. The inclusion of students with disabilities requires school districts to have a plan in place to effectively handle the transition of the student to the least restrictive environment. At the district level, administrators must have specific criteria in place that addresses students' entrance and exit from adapted physical education (Holland, 1992). Administrators must be sure that there are smaller student-staff ratios in place to support the inclusion (including the use of instructional supports), and adapted physical education teachers must be involved in the assessment and planning process of the student's IEP. There must also be cooperation with the overall student support team (e.g., special education teachers, medical professionals, parents, regular physical education teachers) (Chandler & Greene, 1995). Chaapel, Coluna, Lytle, and Bailey (2013) found that parents of children with disabilities believed that physical activity was important for their child and wanted to establish a collaborative working relationship with their child's physical education teacher. It is also recommended for school districts or physical education programs have a minimum of one teacher who is certified and trained in the assessment and program development for students with disabilities (Holland, 1992). Research has suggested that attitudes tend to also be a large barrier to the successful inclusion of students with disabilities into the physical education class; often consultants may be called in to work with schools or entire school districts to improve attitudes and understanding to ensure a smoother transition into inclusion for all stakeholders (Chandler & Greene, 1995).

Assessment & Planning

A number of steps need to be taken prior to students with disabilities being placed into physical education programs. The student must be properly assessed by an adapted physical education teacher and a special education teacher for (Holland, 1992) psychomotor abilities, cognition, severity of disability, affective domain traits and activity skills (Chandler & Greene, 1995). These considerations, along with physical education preferences, class size, scheduling options, resources, instructional support, and facilities are variables that must be considered when instruction planning for inclusion (Chandler & Greene, 1995). The conditions of the placement for the adapted physical education program must be considered as well, as these may influence the success of the inclusion. These conditions include the severity of disability, safety considerations, attainment of instructional objectives, special education teacher recommendations, regular physical education teacher's recommendations, parents' opinions and wishes and disability type (Chandler & Greene, 1995). Inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular physical education program requires school districts, schools, and teachers to be proactive and thorough in their assessment and planning in order to most appropriately match the environment to the student's needs.

Adapted Physical Education Teacher Preparation

According to Hardin (2005), the professional preparation of physical education teachers has been inadequate in preparing these teachers because, historically, “teachers have been exempt from teaching students with disabilities” (Hardin, 2005, ¶ 5). The field of special education and the professional practices that have developed and are now in place have improved over time while teacher education programs have not improved, therefore perpetuating the system of separating students by educating future teachers to become either special education teachers or general educators (Hardin, 2005). The field of physical education is not unique in that adapted physical educators are trained to deal with students with disabilities and regular physical education teachers are not (Hardin, 2005). Oftentimes, students studying to become regular physical education teachers are required to complete an adapted physical education course (Hardin, 2005). This lack of preparation and exposure leaves these new teachers entering the workforce with limited to no experience or knowledge about working with students with disabilities (Hardin, 2005). Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (2011) discuss ways to raise the profile of adapted physical education, and argue that educators working in adapted physical education can help promote physical education for everyone as well as for students with disabilities.

Research that has examined the professional preparation of teachers for inclusion has suggested that classroom and practicum experiences in the field help pre-service teachers acquire knowledge and improved skills in working with students with disabilities (Hardin, 2005). Teaching provides hands-on experience, but also offers an opportunity for the student to learn from the classroom teacher and support staff (Hardin, 2005). The teaching practicum experience increases the pre-service teacher's confidence and competency for teaching disabled students. Research also suggests that working with students with disabilities has a positive impact on the attitudes of these pre-service teachers toward their students with disabilities (Hardin, 2005). The research on teacher preparation clearly suggests that adapted physical education classes and experiences are important components of the pre-service teacher's education as it provides the skills, knowledge, support, and confidence needed to successfully work in an inclusive physical education program.

Viewpoints

The inclusion of students with disabilities into regular physical education classes has received opposition. Those who support the inclusion of students with disabilities, more specifically severe disabilities, believe that with proper support in the form of aids, volunteers, or adapted physical education specialists the arrangement can work (Block & Zeman, 1996). Opponents of the inclusion of students with severe disabilities argue that physical education teachers are not prepared to provide the appropriate programs for these students and that the inclusion of these students will have a negative impact on the overall physical education program for the non-disabled students (Block & Zeman, 1996). Research has shown that students with moderate mental retardation who are included in regular physical education classes have shown greater gains in motor performance than students with the same disabilities in a self-contained physical education class (Block & Zeman, 1996). There has also been no strong empirical support to suggest that the inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular physical education programs has a negative impact on the non-disabled students (Block & Zeman, 1996). Inclusion can be beneficial to both non-disabled and disabled students if the program is thoughtfully planned, implemented, and reassessed to ensure that the needs of all students are being met (Block & Zeman, 1996). Without proper planning, inclusion can be a negative experience for all students (Block & Zeman, 1996).

Adapted physical education is a complex and specialized field. It requires the teacher to have the skills to not only teach students with disabilities but to also assess, understand, program, instruct, and effectively facilitate the inclusion of these students into a non-traditional classroom (i.e., gymnasium, outdoors). While federal legislation requires public schools to provide inclusive physical education services to students with disabilities, the professional field of physical education continues to evolve. Adapted physical education certification and professional development opportunities are on the rise as physical education teachers must engage in continuing their education to become competent in adapted physical education programming.

Terms & Concepts

Adapted Physical Education: Federally mandated physical education programming that offers students with disabilities the opportunity to develop physical and motor skills, fundamental motor skills and patterns, and skills related to dance, aquatics, and individual and group sports and games.

Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS): Standards that identify the body of knowledge necessary for adapted physical education teachers based on their job-related responsibilities. APENS also serve as a guideline for the assessment of individuals wishing to be certified in adapted physical education (Davis, n.d.).

Assessment: As it relates to adapted physical education, assessment is the process in which adapted physical educators evaluate a student's capabilities as they relate to his or her physical and motor skills and how the student's disability impacts the student's needs in the physical education setting.

Inclusion: The placement of students with disabilities into the regular classroom setting amongst non-disabled peers.

Individualized Education Program (IEP): Required by IDEA for those public school students with disabilities that receive special education services. The IEP is unique to each student and serves as a guide to the educational program that assists the student with his or her progress through the curriculum (Küpper, 2000).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990) (IDEA): Law passed by legislation that mandated free and appropriate education for all disabled students in the least restrictive environment.

Least Restrictive Environment: Educating students with disabilities to the maximum extent possible alongside non disabled peers" (Decker & Jansma, 1991, p.192).

Normalization: A principle espoused by Nijre (1969) and "maintains that individuals with disabilities should have full access to patterns and conditions of everyday society" (Decker & Jansma, 1991, p. 193).

Bibliography

Block, M. E. & Zeman, R. (1996). Including students with disabilities in regular physical education: Effects on non-disabled children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13 , 38-49. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database SPORTDiscus. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=9602071596&site=ehost-live

Chandler, J. P. & Greene, J. L. (1995). A statewide survey of adapted physical education service delivery and teacher in-service training. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12 , 262-274. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database SPORTDiscus. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=9508080103&site=ehost-live

Chaapel, H., Columna, L, Lytle, R., and Bailey, J. (2013, Nov.). Parental expectations about adapted physical education services. Journal of Special Education 47 , p. 186-196. Retrieved December 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90521862&site=ehost-live

Davis, T.D. (n.d.) Adapted physical education national standards. State University of New York at Cortland. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.cortland.edu/apens/whatisapens.htm

Decker, J. & Jansma, P. (1991). Identifying least restrictive environment options in physical education. Physical Educator, 48 , 192-200. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22485249&site=ehost-live

Hardin, B. (2005, December). Physical education teachers' reflections on preparation for inclusion. Physical Educator, 62 , 44-56. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16876931&site=ehost-live

Hautala, R. (1995). Physical education for pre-school children with disabilities: A job for the classroom teacher or the specialist? Physical Educator, 52 , 140. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9510115407&site=ehost-live

Holland, B. (1992). Adapted physical education assessment practices in Wisconsin. Physical Educator, 49 , 160. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9609192509&site=ehost-live

Lieberman, L.J., and Houston-Wilson, C. (2011, Aug.). Strategies for increasing the status and value of adapted physical education in schools. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 82 , p. 25-28. Retrieved December 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=64432714&site=ehost-live

Küpper, L. (2000). Guide to Individualized Education Program. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#introduction.

Zhang, J. (2011). Quantitative analyses about market- and prevalence-based needs for adapted physical education teachers in the public schools in the United States. Physical Educator 68 , p. 140-149. Retrieved December 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67018186&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

American College of Sports Medicine (1997). Exercise management for persons with chronic diseases and disabilities. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Block, M. & Oberweiser, B. (1995). Using classwide peer tutoring to facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities in regular physical education. Physcial Educator, 52 , 47. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9505092150&site=ehost-live

Davis, W. E., & Burton, A. W. (1991). Ecological task analysis: Translating movement behavior theory into practice. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8 , 154-177. Retrieved September 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database SPORTDiscus. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=20724643&site=ehost-live

Dunn, J. M., Moorehouse, J. W., & Fredericks, H. D. (1986). Physical education for the severely handicapped: A systematic approach to data-based gymnasium. Austin, TX:  Pro Ed. ..FT.Fiornini, J., Stanton, K., & Reid, G. (1996). Understanding parents and families of children with disabilities: Considerations for adapted physical activity. Palaestra, 12 , 16-23.

French, R., & Henderson, H. (1993). Creative approaches to managing student behavior (2nd ed.). Park City, UT: Family Development Resources.

Herman, J., Aschbacker, P., & Winters, L.(1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Horvat, M., & Kalakian, K. (1996). Assessment in adapted physical education and therapeutic recreation. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Melograno, V. (1985). Designing the physical education curriculum: A self-directed approach (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishers.

Stiggins, R., Conklin, N., & Bridgeford, M. (1986). Classroom assessment: A key to effective education. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 5 , 5-17.