Barry Lavay

Inclusion: Why the Confusion?

Aphilosophical debate about inclusion (the practice of placing students with disabilities in regular physical education classes) is beginning to appear in physical educationjournals (Issues, 1997; Stein, 1994), at our professional conferences, and on the Internet. This debate has engendered some interesting and heated discussions. The purpose of this article is (I) to outline the evolution of inclusion so as to help both adapted and regular physical educators understand current issues relevant to inclusion, and (2) to offer strategies for teaching students with disabilities in regular physical education classes.

Behavior management instructional practices and content of college/university physical education teacher education (PETE) programs

Background: Since 1969, the annual United States Educational Gallup Poll has reported the ability to manage behavior and motivate students as a major challenge for teachers and the primary reason why novice teachers leave the profession prematurely. Indeed, over one-third of all new teachers resign within three years due to this perceived incapacity and their resultant frustration. The rate of teacher attrition globally in the first three years of teaching varies by country with such rates as high as 40% in the UK, to less than 5% in Germany, and in France the percentage is reported as insignificant. Although it is common for physical education teacher education (PETE) majors to graduate with knowledge and skills grounded in scientific principles, many do not develop the ability to manage problematic student behaviors. Consequently, physical educators, particularly those who are new to the profession, often have difficulty designing an environment that enhances student learning and promotes self-regulation, cooperation with others, and contributing positively to the school community. Faculty who teach in physical education teacher education (PETE) programs have a responsibility to prepare preservice teachers to meet the instructional needs of all students, including those who lack discipline and motivation. Moreover, they must develop their coursework and practica to include the competencies outlined by the national organization, which includes the ability to manage student behavior. Aims: The purpose of this descriptive survey study was twofold: (1) to describe the instructional behavior management practices and content taught in college/university PETE programs in the United States (US), and (2) to provide recommendations for enhancing behavior management education and training for preservice physical educators. Method: Participants were 134 PETE professionals teaching in colleges and universities throughout the US. Data were collected through the use of an online survey administered during the 2008–09 academic year. A four-part 51-item online survey, accessed from a surveymonkey website, was designed to examine the behavior management instructional practices and content of PETE professionals. Survey questions, which included both category-scaled and open-ended items, were developed from behavior management content knowledge and an extensive review of the literature. Results: The results were compared to those reported in a similar study conducted 20 years ago to determine if behavior management instruction and content has changed over the past two decades. Similar to the respondents in the similar study, this sample of physical education teacher educators spends relatively little teaching time on the topic of behavior management. The participants do believe, however, that teaching behavior management in preservice programs is important. Conclusion: Recommendations for enhancing preservice training in behavior management include: (1) more emphasis on behavior management in PETE coursework; (2) more practicum experiences in school settings, and (3) more behavior management training and experience for faculty teaching in PETE Programs. The implications of this study are discussed. Suggestions for future research and practice are offered such as infusing additional behavior management instruction, practical techniques, and practica across multiple PETE courses.

What Is a Highly Qualified Adapted Physical Education Teacher

JOPERD • Volume 81 No. 2 • February 2010 O n January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. This act required statewide accountability for student performance in reading and math, greater flexibility for parents to make choices for their children if they attended a “low performing” school, and improved teacher quality. The requirement for better teacher quality has resulted in state guidelines to define what constitutes a “highly qualified” teacher. However, the U.S. Department of Education (2005) requires that, at a minimum, “highly qualified” teachers have a four-year college degree, a full state teaching license, and demonstrated knowledge of the subject they are teaching, either by having a college major in the subject or by passing an examination. State and national guidelines currently exist for teachers of “core” academic areas, but not for physical education or adapted physical education (APE) teachers. To address this, NASPE published a position paper that describes the qualities and characteristics of a “highly qualified” physical education teacher (Napper-Owen, Marston, Van Volkinburg, Afeman, & Brewer, 2008; Van Volkinburg, Marston, & Napper-Owen, 2008). The development of a comparable position paper for APE teachers began in 2006 at the AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition. The Adapted Physical Activity Council (APAC) of the American Association for Physical Activity and Recreation (AAPAR) formed a committee to develop a position paper defining the term “highly qualified” as it applies to the discipline of adapted physical education. The committee included current APE teachers and university faculty from APE teacher preparation programs. A draft of guidelines was written and shared with the committee for ideas and feedback. This draft was then edited and sent out to public school teachers for review and was then reviewed in an open forum at the following AAHPERD convention in 2007. Relevant suggestions were accepted, the document was edited, and the committee reviewed it again. A final draft was completed in May 2007 and received final approval from the AAHPERD executive board in winter of 2008. The full version of this document is available on the AAPAR web site (AAPAR & National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities [NCPERID], 2007) and is supported by both APAC and NCPERID. Table 1 describes the four minimum criteria for the training of a highly qualified adapted physical educator. The purpose of publishing this document was to inform public school administrators in special education and physical education about the requisite knowledge and skills that a highly qualified adapted physical educator must possess in order What Is a Highly Qualified Adapted Physical Education Teacher?

A Practical Plan for Managing the Behavior of Students with Disabilities in General Physical Education.

JOPERD • Volume 78 No. 2 • February 2007 P hysical education experts agree that a lack of behavior management skills is the most signifi cant barrier to effective teaching (Rink, 2006; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). The inability to manage and motivate student behavior is often the number one reason given by beginning teachers for leaving the teaching profession (Rose & Gallup, 2004). The problem is intensifi ed when there are a large number of students with diverse emotional, social, cognitive, and physical abilities in the same physical education class. In recent years, effective behavior management has become even more challenging with the inclusion of an increased number of students identifi ed as at-risk or with serious behavior problems in general physical education classes (Graham, 2001; Loovis, 2005; Rink, 2006; Sherrill, 2004). Based on Sugai et al. (2000), these students represent an estimated one to seven percent of all students in schools. Many physical educators still maintain a narrow perspective about behavior management. They tend to equate behavior management practices with punishment used to control students or make students behave. The current philosophy has shifted to more positive behavior management practices that foster behavior changes through support and intervention to improve performance and learning (Lavay, French, & Henderson, 2006). The purpose of this article is to describe how to develop a positive behavior plan designed to empower students rather than control their performance and learning. Field-based research and best teaching practices will be integrated with behavior management approaches that have been proven effective in creating a positive physical education environment that is conducive for all students, including students with disabilities. The information and examples provided will guide physical educators through the steps of developing their own plan, customized to refl ect their philosophy of behavior management, their behavior management goals, and the characteristics and needs of the students in their classes.

The Trifold Display Board: A visual and Portable Way to Present Physical Education Class Information

As a physical education professional, have you ever walked into a classroom teachers room and admired the walls and bulletin boards created to display student work, key concepts and behavior management materials? Physical educators at all grade levels; including adapted physical educators, often provide instruction in open environments and classrooms without walls, such as gymnasiums, school playgrounds and athletic fields. Open teaching environments present unique challenges when it comes to implementing and displaying class information such as class schedules, routines and procedures, rules and consequences, and key lesson concepts (Lavay, French, & Henderson, 2006; Rink, 2006; Sidentop & Tannehill, 2000>.

Tablet Technology to Monitor Physical Education IEP Goals and Benchmarks

The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that all children who are eligible for special education services receive an individualized education program (IEP). Adapted physical education (APE) professionals who teach physical education to children with disabilities are challenged with how to best collect and monitor student performance data in order to report student IEP goal progress. The purpose of this article is to inform APE professionals about effective methods for using tablets to more efficiently monitor physical education IEP goal performance and progress. More specifically, the article will describe the development and implementation of electronic data collection worksheets on tablets. The customization and implementation of these worksheets on tablets allows APE teachers to easily collect student performance data. Analysis and justification of student learning in a variety of settings with technology reduces the challenges of meeting diverse student needs and caseloads often encountered by APE teachers. Electronic data tracking on tablets is well worth the time and effort because it will ultimately result in more effective compliance, instruction and student learning.

The Rural Itinerant Special Physical Education Service Delivery Model.

The itinerant delivery model has grown out of necessity in rural school districts and small schools where few students are identified as needing special physical education services. An interesting array of challenges are presented to professionals who deliver physical education using the rural itinerant model. Professionals in this position must possess expertise and experiences in the successful delivery of a number of unique services. This paper will closely examine the itinerant model in special physical education, discuss the variety of issues and challenges it presents, and offer proven strategies for successfully providing services through this delivery system.

Fitness Testing for Children with Special Needs--An Alternative Approach.

viously discussed (Baumgartner & Horvat, 1988; Lavay, 1988). Too often, these problems do not allow special needs children to receive proper fitness testing. Children with various resulting disabilities are made to fit a specific physical fitness test rather than the test being designed or modified to accommodate their unique needs. This is unfortunate because it cannot be assumed that fitness testing procedures used with the general population will be effective for all children with special needs.