DOCUMENT RESUME Kelly, Luke E.

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 417 496

EC 306 237

AUTHOR TITLE

INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE NOTE

CONTRACT PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

Kelly, Luke E.

Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS) Job

Analysis Survey. Results of a National Survey of the Roles

Performed and Preparation Received by Professionals Serving

as Adapted Physical Educators.

Virginia Univ., Charlottesville. School of Education.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

(ED), Washington, DC.

1998-00-00

66p.; A Project of the National Consortium for Physical

Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities.

H029K20092

Reports Research (143)

Tests/Questionnaires (160)

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.

*Adapted Physical Education; *Disabilities; Elementary

Secondary Education; Higher Education; Licensing

Examinations (Professions); National Surveys; Needs

Assessment; *Physical Education Teachers; Standards;

*Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Certification; Teacher

Education; Teacher Responsibility; *Teacher Role

ABSTRACT This report presents findings of a national survey to

determine the job functions and training of teachers of adapted physical education. The survey was part of a larger project whose goal was to establish standards and a national certification examination for adapted physical educators. The survey involved questions concerning teacher education and experience, job demographics, roles and responsibilities, and perceptions of training received and desired. Surveys were sent to 575 adapted physical education teachers, which resulted in 293 usable surveys. Analysis of findings indicated that teachers spent an average of 51 percent of their time providing direct services to students and 26 percent providing indirect services. Most teachers served students of all ages and were involved in decisions regarding eligibility for services, placement, Individualized Education Program development, assessment, and instructional content. Teachers reported that their training had involved approximately equal emphases in scientific foundations, behavioral/educational foundations, and planning and implementation. The major sub-content areas in which respondents desired more training were teaching, motor development, continuing education, and human development. The survey is appended. (Contains 10 references.) (DB)

********************************************************************************

*

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

*

*

from the original document.

*

********************************************************************************

Adapted Physical Education National Standards

4

(APENS)1

Job Analysis Survey

Results of a National Survey of the Roles Performed and Preparation Received by Professionals Serving as Adapted Physical

Educators

A Project of the National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities in Accordance with its

Mission to Serve the Profession

Luke E. Kelly, Ph.D. Project Director and Author

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office o ducational Research and Improvement EDU IONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it.

Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

N

A)

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.

A Special Project funded by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Division of Personnel Preparation: #H029K20092.

n5

2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Federal Disclaimer This report was developed as part of the National Standards for Adapted Physical Education Project which was funded by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Division of Personnel Preparation: #H029K20092. The views expressed herein are those of the grantee, the NCPERID. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Acknowledgments

The Project Director would like to thank all of the teachers in the field who took time from their busy schedules to complete this comprehensive survey of their current job responsibilities. This information was essential and provided the foundation for the development of the adapted physical education national standards. The Project Director would also like to thank the members of the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee for their review and evaluations of the draft instruments and the Project Staff for their countless hours of work on this survey. Clearly without a valid well constructed instrument we would not have been able to accurately collect the information needed to create the national standards.

Executive Committee

Member

Representing

Martha Bokee

Smokey Davis

Patrick DiRocco Hester Henderson Jeff McCubbin

U.S. Dept. Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

National Association of State Directors of Special Education

University of Wisconsin LaCrosse University of Utah Oregon State University

Steering Committee

Member

Representing

John Dunn Willie Gayle Barry Lavay Monica Lepore Mike Loovis Janet Seaman

University of Utah Wright State University California State University Long Beach West Chester University Cleveland State University AAHPERD/American Association for Active

Lifestyles and Fitness

Project Staff

Member

Bruce Gansneder

Jim Martindale Katie Stanton David Striegel Tim Davis

Representing

Bureau for Educ. Research, University of Virginia

Doctoral Student, University of Virginia Doctoral Student, University of Virginia Doctoral Student, University of Virginia Doctoral Student, University of Virginia

w

Table of Contents

Purpose

APENS Committee Structure

2

Survey Design

3

Sample

4

Return Rate

7

Data Analysis Plan

7

Report Organization

9

Section 1: Education

Education

10

Position Titles

12

Teaching Experience

12

State Endorsements

13

Section Summary

15

Section 2: Job Demographics

Teaching Settings

16

Number of Schools Served

16

Distribution of Work Time

18

School Levels Served

20

Numbers of Students Served

21

Range of Motor Delays Served

22

Age Levels Served

24

Section Summary

26

Section 3: Roles

Physical Education Placements Available

28

Placements Used for Physical Education

29

Involvement in Key Decision Making Processes

30

Sources of Information Used to Make Decisions

34

Criteria Used for Instructional Decisions

35

Staff Development Issues Addressed

36

Other Responsibilities

37

When Assessments Were Performed

38

Involvement in Transition Planning

40

Description of How APE is Conducted

42

Section 4: Training Perceptions

Emphasis Received in Formal Training

45

Training Emphasis Desired

46

Emphasis Desired by Sub-content Areas

46

References

49

Appendix A: APENS Information

50

Appendix B: Copy of the APENS Job Analysis Survey

51

APENS Job Analysis Report Introduction

Purpose

In the Fall of 1992, the National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities (NCPERID) received a five year grant to develop national standards and a national certification examination for Adapted Physical Educators from the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Kelly, 1992). For the purposes of this report, adapted physical educators are considered teachers who are qualified to design and implement specially designed physical education programs to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities that have qualified for special education services and whose needs can not be appropriately addressed in the regular education setting without some form of support. This project was predicated on the fact that PL 94-142/101-476 defaulted to state certification requirements to define who was qualified to provide adapted physical education services. Legislators decision to use state certifications for this purpose was based on the assumption that states already had these certifications in place. Unfortunately, 17 years after the passage of PL 94-142 only 14 states had defined some form of certification or endorsement for teachers of adapted physical education. While some of these certifications/endorsements have been comprehensive, many have required that teachers have only the minimum of one or two courses in order to be qualified.

Failure to define who was qualified to provide adapted physical education services has created a number of serious problems for the profession. For example, in many states, teachers either untrained in the motor domain (e.g., aides, classroom teachers) or untrained in working with individuals with disabilities (e.g., regular physical educators) have been required to address the physical education needs of students with disabilities. In other states, related services such as OT and PT have been erroneously used as substitutes for adapted physical education. The end result of practices like these has been that students have not been receiving the services they were mandated to receive by the law, and parents and other educators have been given an inaccurate view of what adapted physical education is, and of the benefits that can be derived from this educational

area.

Given the fact that most states had not defined who is qualified to provide adapted physical education services and the ramifications of using untrained professionals to deliver

Introduction 1

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download