Determining Eligibility and Placement 19
Adapted Physical Education Placement/Eligibility Made Easy
Timothy D. Davis & Luis Columna
SUNY Cortland
Lauren J. Lieberman
SUNY Brockport
Rebecca Lytle
California State University, Chico
Mr. Smith is a PE teacher in a Monroe County. He is very excited because the school principal told him that next semester he will be in charge of providing physical education (PE) to students with disabilities in his school. Mr. Smith took an APE course while he was in college. He wants to include the student in general physical education, but all that is available in his school district is a segregated physical education class called “adapted” physical education. Mr. Smith is trying to recall the information he learned in his introduction to APE class. He remembers something about a “continuum” of placements but cannot recall. However, he is pretty sure that all the students with disabilities don not have to be in a separate class.
The purpose of this article is to review the special education referral and placement process and to present an effective process to determining the criteria for eligibility (entrance) and dismissal (exit) for APE services and appropriate placement alternatives within the LRE for a child with disability. After reading this article the teacher should be able to examine their own district and consider whether children with disabilities are appropriately placed.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (PL 108-446/IDEIA) requires that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education, at no cost to parents within the least restrictive environment (LRE). Although these mandates for special education are well established and understood in the public school systems, services and placement for Adapted Physical Education (APE) often continue to be determined by the teacher availability, the schedule, or teacher preferences rather than individual child need (Block, 2007). Eligibility for APE services and placement decisions should be based on sound assessment data that informs the teacher of the student’s present level of performance (Lieberman, & Houston-Wilson, in press). In addition, these data should help the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team (often referred to as the Committee on Special Education) determine the LRE placement for that child. Just because a child has a disability, does not mean that the child needs APE services. In fact, APE is a service that can be delivered in a variety of ways to meet the needs of the learner and NOT a placement. Therefore, a child can receive APE services in a variety of placement options which may include an inclusive class with modifications. The IEP team should determine the amount of APE services, as well as the LRE placement, this placement may be inclusive physical education (PE), a combination of inclusive PE and separate APE, or separate APE (See Table 1).
Despite the theoretical continuum of APE placement options that are frequently described in APE text books, many students with disabilities continue to receive inadequate and or inappropriate services (Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig, 2005; Block, 2007, Dunn, & Leitschuh, 2006; Winnick, 2005). Many factors that can contribute to the quality of services provided include lack of adequate training (Lieberman, Houston-Wilson, & Kozub, 2002), oversized GPE classes, lack of administrative support, lack of APE teachers in the district or county, or heavy caseloads for APE specialists. However, this article will focus on the decision processes used in determining quality services and appropriate APE placements for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, there is a lack of consistent decisions or policies in place or available when making decisions about eligibility for APE, or the child’s placement in the LRE. One of the potential reasons for this may be due to the fact that many teachers are asked to make complex decisions about physical education placements with minimal training. Lack of experience working with children with disabilities, limited opportunity, and attitude of the teacher can also play a role in the outcome of the child’s physical education experience. In some districts the decision does not even take into account any input from the physical education teachers. Lastly, many districts do not have a clear criteria for placement in place in the district and placement is related to convenience factors as opposed to what is best for each child.
In addition, in most Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programs the infusion of knowledge specific to disability is often limited to a specific faculty member and course in most PETE programs. In fact, the majority of physical education training programs (PETE) offer only one required course in APE making it difficult to adequately train teachers who have the requisite skills and knowledge to make sound decisions for children with disabilities in PE. This lack of training may effect quality decisions regarding appropriate assessment methods resulting in inaccurate results of a child’s present level of performance. This information is critical when determining (eligibility) whether a child qualifies for services and the appropriate placement within the LRE for PE. All state and local education agencies are required to have special education guidelines in place for determining eligibility for services. However, teachers are often unfamiliar with these guidelines. Understanding district policy to determine eligibility and placement for PE and APE services demonstrates a commitment toward ensuring quality services for children with disabilities.
The establishment of a district wide decision model that follows federal and state guidelines for determining the type of PE services and placement decisions would aid to resolve the inconsistency for selecting services and placement within the LRE for each child. In this section, case studies will be presented and discussed using a systematic approach to making eligibility and placement decisions in PE for children with disabilities. In addition, after each of the case studies presented a discussion will follow providing APE and general PE teachers with examples of the process for making appropriate eligibility and placement decisions.
It is important to note that APE services vary from state to state. For example, in the state of New York, in order for a child with a disability to qualify to receive APE services, the child must score below the 20th percentile on a standardized assessment scale. In California each Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) has written guidelines for special education programs, some SELPA’s may have a designated cutoff to qualify for special education services such as 1.5 or 2.0 standard deviations below the mean. However, in every state and every case this serves as a guideline and the ultimate decision rests with the IEP team.
Eligibility and placement decisions include other factors that should be considered by the IEP team including the social, physical, emotional, sensory, and other potentially unique needs of the child. In addition, the ability of the child to participate in large classes with other students, safe participation, and parental concerns aid the IEP team toward making sound service and placement decisions (see Figure 1).
[Insert Figure 1 here]
A case study approach to determining APE eligibility for children with disabilities.
Elementary School
Case study 1. Jimmy is a 9-year-old boy with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy (CP). He is able to ambulate using a walker however he has difficulty with balance and is slow to move from one side of the gym to the other. Jimmy’s cognitive ability is at an age appropriate level and socially he his accepted by his peers. Jimmy truly enjoys being with his non-disabled peers. His physical education teacher (also responsible for the APE class) has the best intentions for Jimmy but does not know how to adapt the existing general PE curriculum to meet his unique physical needs. Because of Jimmy’s disability it was determined that he would receive APE services in a separate APE class.
Eligibility Decision. The small district where Jimmy goes to school does not have an APE teacher, therefore Jimmy was not assessed by an APE teacher. It was determined based upon his disability (spastic diplegic CP) and limited ability to move with the group that he would receive APE services in a segregated setting. No consideration was made for determining the LRE for Jimmy in PE.
Placement Decision. Jimmy was placed in a separate one on one APE class because of his physical disability.
Discussion. In this case, Jimmy would clearly benefit from participating with his non-disabled peers however, no assessment data was collected to determine his present level of performance regarding his motoric ability. Because of the lack of data, it is difficult to determine how much of the general physical education curriculum Jimmy could successfully participate in, even with modifications. A placement decision based solely on physical disability is inappropriate. In addition, no consideration was made toward determining the LRE for Jimmy using data to drive this decision. Appropriate assessment data would provide an informed decision about the extent of modifications necessary to participate in the general PE setting successfully. Such data would have included a standardized test to determine any discrepancy in performance, playground and PE observations, discussions with the GPE teacher and his parents, review of his cum file???, and any other pertinent data available. All GPE teachers have the knowledge and ability to assess children with disabilities using standard assessments, or modified assessment tools.
Middle School
Case study 2. Robert is a 14-year-old boy diagnosed with down syndrome. According to his parents, he has tested positive for atlantio-axial instability. Robert presents many positive characteristics including, good communication skills, average to below average motor skill performance, and 6-7 year delay in cognitive ability. Furthermore, Robert demonstrates positive social interactions but needs frequent redirecting during PE to keep his hands to himself and to stay on task. In order for Robert to have complete understanding of an activity he needs simplified directions and repetition 2-3 times with demonstration.
Eligibility Decision. Robert was assessed using the Brockport Fitness test. His test results were significantly low as compared to his non-disabled peers however the results were not discussed in regards to determining if he would benefit from separate APE services or from an inclusive setting. It was determined that Robert would automatically receive separate APE in the only segregated class offered at his school. This class was scheduled at 2 pm.
Placement Decision. Robert was placed in a separate APE class with other students with more severe disabilities primarily because of the schedule.
Discussion. In this case, Robert would best benefit from an inclusive setting, where he is accompanied by an instructional aid or is provided with trained peer assistance. He would benefit from the social interaction in the inclusive setting by working with a peer or paraprofessional. With appropriate support services, Robert could perform at the level of his able bodied peers in most activities. However Robert’s placement was determined by his schedule and the fact that the segregated class is where all kids with disabilities in this school district receive PE. While Robert was given a standardized test to measure his performance, it only examined his fitness level and did not measure his motor skill abilities. In addition, federal law requires that no single measure be used to determine placement. It should be noted here that the best case scenario for Robert would be inclusive physical education with segregated PE once a week to work on his fitness levels.
High School
Case study 3. Jennifer is a typical 16-year-old student with above normal intellect who could be classified as having developmental coordination disorder but was not diagnosed until last year. Jennifer is not successful in general PE classes and performs significantly below age appropriate level. Her physical education teachers have described her as clumsy, overweight, and having a particularly difficult time with balance activities. In addition, she would be classified as obese and has said repeatedly she does not enjoy PE or being active. She has been tested by her school district but does not qualify for APE services because she scored only 1 standard deviation below the mean on a standardized fitness assessment test.
Eligibility Decision. Jennifer’s case is difficult but quite common in Physical Education. Although she does not qualify for APE services, she is at great risk for remaining obese and failing physical education. It will be the discretion of the IEP team to review her case and the preponderance of evidence to decide what services – if any – she will receive.
Placement Decision. It is important to collect and review various types of data when considering the placement of any child – especially a child who does not clearly qualify for services but would benefit. The evidence or data will determine the placement as reviewed and discussed by the (IEP) team. In addition, it would be relevant to review of GPE curriculum and determine to what extent Jennifer would or would not be successful. Parent and child should have input on type of service and direction for future physical activity.
Discussion: Although Jennifer doesn’t meet the district’s guidelines to qualify for APE services, she should be provided with such services as a preventative measure to ensure that she doesn’t “fall through the cracks.” Jennifer would best benefit from additional APE two times a week, on top of her involvement in general physical education. Modifications should be made to meet Jennifer’s abilities and to ensure she is successful in general physical education. A committee of physical and occupational therapists, the child’s parents, PE and APE teachers and the committee on special education should consider lifetime and fitness activities that would be appropriate and of potential interest to her.