The Prevalence-Based Need for Adapted Physical Education

The Prevalence-Based Need for Adapted Physical Education

ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 2000,17,297-309
O 2000 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
The Prevalence-Based Need
for Adapted Physical Education Teachers
in the United States
Jiabei Zhang
Western Michigan University
Luke Kelly
University of Virginia
Debra Berkey
Western Michigan University
Daniel Joseph
Coppin State College
Shihui Chen
The University of Texas - Pan American
The purpose was to develop a method for projecting the need for adapted
physical education (APE) teachers in the public schools in the United States.
This method was derived from a prevalence-based model---dividing the nurnber of APE students enrolled by the APE student-teacher ratio and then subtracting the number of APE teachers hired. This model used the findings of
Kelly and Gansneder (1998) that (a) 4% of the school population required
APE services and (b) the overall nationalAPE student-teacherratio was 104:1.
The results revealed a need for 22,116 additional APE teachers nationwide as
well as specific projections for each state. The prevalence-based projection
method is recommended for policy makers at local, state, and national levels;
for APE advocates; and for all concerned with APE personnel preparation and
employment.
Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, requires that physical education service by qualified personnel, specially designed if
necessary, be made available to all eligible students with disabilities (Education of
the Handicapped Act, 1977). This law assumed that states would create teacher
certifications when it was enacted to ensure that physical education services would
Jiabei Zhang and Debra Berkey are with the Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008; Luke Kelly is
with the Department of Health and Physical Education, University of Vuginia, Charlottesville,
VA 22903; Daniel Joseph is with the Department of Special Education, Coppin State College, Baltimore, MD, 21216; Shihui Chen is with the Department of Health and Kinesiology, The University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, TX 78539. Direct correspondence
to Jiabei Zhang, Phone: (616) 387-2949; Email: [email protected]>.
298
Zhang, Kelly, Berkey, Joseph, and Chen
be provided by qualified personnel. Unfortunately, 23 years after the law was passed,
only 14 states have established certifications or endorsementsfor adapted physical
education (APE) teachers (Kelly & Gansneder, 1998), implying that most states
seem to be reluctant to use their resources on APE personnel preparation and quality control. This lack of state recognition and support has limited the number of
college and universities willing to create APE teacher training programs. Thus, the
initiation of APE training programs has depended largely on federal grants (Ellery
& Stewart, 2000; Sherrill& DePauw, 1997).
The field of APE has been directly impacted by legislation since the 1960s
(Hillman, 1986; Sherrill & Hillman, 1988). This impact has been partly through
provision of financial support for personnel preparation grant programs by U.S.
Department of Education (USDE; Bokee, 1995). Due to limited funds, only the
grant proposals documenting the greatest need for APE personnel have been funded
(USDE, 1999). APE personnel needs must therefore be more explicitly addressed
in all APE personnel preparation grant proposals for federal funds.
The need for APE teachers can be estimated using two models: the marketbased model or the prevalence-based model. These models are commonly used in
special education (USDE, 1989). The market-based model is driven primarily by
funded positions (Boe, 1990). In this model, the need for special education teachers is defined as the difference between the number of funded positions and the
number of employed teachers who are fully certified (i.e., the number of funded
positions being left vacant and filled by individuals who are uncertified or partially certified; Parshall, 1993). The weakness of this model is that it is confounded
by funding (the need estimated in this model is dependent on the number of
funded positions). This means that teacher positions will decrease if funding
is reduced regardless of the needs of student population (Sattler & Sattler,
1985; USDE, 1989).
The use of the market-based model in the field of APE may depress the
number of APE teachers needed based on the actual population of students with
disabilities who require APE. If states and schools elect not to support and hire
APE teachers, then there will be very few unfilled positions-falsely supporting
no need. In the state of Michigan, for example, a total of 82 APE teachers (USDE,
1998) are currently employed to teach a total of 106,779 students who require APE
services. The 106,779 figure is estimated based on the assumption that 4% of the
student population would have disabilities severe enough to require that APE be
written into their IEPs (Kelly & Gansneder, 1998). Mathematically, this means
that one APE teacher is needed to serve every 1,302 students. This estimated
caseload varies markedly from an actual caseload value of 133reported for Michigan by Nuttall, Cheatum, and Leon (1993), indicating that total number of APE
teachers employed in the state is not sufficient to serve the number of students that
require APE services in this state.
The prevalence-based model is driven primarily by the number of students
requiring special education service and therefore is not dependent on the number
of funded positions for special educators (Sattler & Sattler, 1985; USDE, 1989).
The number of special educators needed is projected by dividing the number of
students who require special education by the student-teacherratio in special education and then subtracting the number of fully certified special educators hired
(Boe, 1990; Parshall, 1993). The prevalence-based model is guided by the
Adapted Physical EducationTeachers
299
assumption that all students with disabilities must have access to free and appropriate special education services (i.e., zero reject and zero fail; Horvat & Kalakian,
1996; Sherrill, 1998; USDE, 1996).
The prevalence-based model has been used extensively to estimate the need
for special educators in such states as Kansas and New York (National Association, 1994). The I F hAnnual Report to Congress by USDE (1996, pp. 20-21) describes this model. In this model, the need is estimated based on three variables:
(a) the number of students requiring special education, (b) the student-teacher ratio in special education, and (c) the number of special education teachers hired.
The application of the prevalence-based model is straightforward because it requires data on three variables that theoretically should be readily available
and can be expected to yield relatively accurate projections (USDE, 1996).
However, the prevalence-based projection model has not been applied in the
field of APE to date.
The purpose of this study was to develop a method derived from the prevalence-based model for projecting the need for APE teachers in the public schools
in the United States. Specifically, this study was designed (a) to estimate the national need for APE teachers in public schools in the United States, (b) to make
comparisons of needs for APE teachers among states in the nation, and (c) to provide a useful method that could be easily used by policy makers and grant seekers
in the field of APE.
Method
Data Sources
Rvo data sources were used in this study. The first source was the 2QhAnnual
Report to Congress (USDE, 1998). This report summarizes data on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as reported and updated
by each of the states as of September 1 in 1997 (USDE, 1998). This report is
considered to be the most reliable data source of special education need data
(McLeskey, Henry, & Hodges, 1999). Specifically, the data in Table AC4 (USDE,
1998) and Table AF1 in this report were employed. The numbers of fully certified
APE teachers hired by states derived from Table AC4 are presented in the fifth
column of Table 1 and the estimated numbers of resident children derived from
Table AF1 are shown in the second column of Table 1. These data were used because they were the latest data available.
Based on Data Dictionary developed by the Office of Special Education
Programs of USDE for the 2QhAnnual Report to Congress (Westat, 1998), the
ternfully certiJiedrefers to "qualified personnel" (p. 54) who "has met SEA approved or recognized certification,licensing, registration, or other comparable requirement that apply to the area in which he or she is providing special education
or related services" (p. 95). The fully certified also refers to "staff in personnel
categories that do not require certification or licensure if the staff meet existing
state standard or requirement for the position they hold and staff in positions for
which no state requirement exists" (p. 54). APE teachers are staff members who
"provide special physical education, adaptive [sic, adapted] physical education,
movement education, or motor development to children and youth with disabilities"
300
Zhang, Kelly, Berkey, Joseph, and Chen
(p. 89). Estimated resident children refer to "population counts that are
estimates from U.S. Bureau of the Census as of October 1, 1997" (USDE,
1998, p. A-221).
The second data source for this study was an article entitled "Preparation
and Job Demographicsof Adapted Physical Educators in the United States" (Kelly
& Gansneder, 1998). This article provides data from a national job survey of practicing APE teachers conducted by the National Standards for APE Project funded
by USDE. In this survey, 575 APE teachers from the 50 states were proportionally
sampled based on each state's population size. The return rate was 62%. This article is the latest data-based study wherein useful demographics of the APE teachers are available. Specifically, two values in the Kelly and Gansneder's article
were used in this study: (a) 4% of the school population was reported to require
APE services, and (b) the APE student-teacher ratio was 104:1 (i.e., caseload).
According to Kelly and Gansneder (1998), all APE teachers in the survey
were asked to report total student enrollment and the actual number of students
they served in each school. Through analysis of these data, Kelly and Gansneder
(1998) estimated that 3-5% of the school population would have disabilities requiring APE services. In reporting the number of students served, all APE teachers
in the survey were required to distinguish between direct and indirect services
they provided. The results indicated that the average APE teacher provided direct
service to 70 students and indirect service to 34 students. This translates into a 104
caseload for the average APE teacher.
Although these two sources provide the best-known data (i.e., the latest and
only data available) needed to use the prevalence-based projection model, two
known limitations should be noted. First, the term fully certified used in this study
is derived from the data source of the 20'hAnnual Report to Congress wherein
fully certified teachers are defined based on different criteria by different states.
These different criteria include state certifications, state requirements, and no requirements (Westat, 1998). Thus, the term fully certified APE teachers defined in
our study is intended to include not only APE teachers who hold state certifications but also APE teachers who have no certificationsbecause their states have no
requirements for teaching APE.
Second, the percentage of students requiring APE services and the APE student-teacher ratio reported by Kelly and Gansneder (1998) was also limited by
their sampling design and by their 62% return rate. This means that the actual
percentage of students with disabilities in the United States requiring APE and the
actual APE student-teacherratio may differ from the results of Kelly and Gansneder.
For example, the APE student-teacher ratio reported in the state of Michigan was
133:1 (Nuttall, Cheatum, & Leon, 1993) which was slightly greater than the 104:1
ratio reported by Kelly and Gansneder. Because their results represent the only
known national estimates for the percentage of students with disabilities requiring
APE and the APE student-teacher ratio, these figures were employed in this study.
Future researchers are encouraged to validate these estimates.
Projection Formula
A prevalence-based projection formula based on the method recommended in the
18"Annual Report to Congress by USDE (1996) was employed to determine the
need for certified APE teachers in each state and the District of Columbia in the
Adapted Physical Education Teachers
301
United States. Based on the assumption that all students with IEP-recognized disabilities must receive physical education senices (i.e., zero reject and zero fail;
Sherrill, 1998; USDE, 1996), the formula used was:
Where N is the number of fully certified APE teachers (N)eeded, E refers to the
number of students requiring APE service (E)nrolled. R refers to the APE studentteacher (R)atio, and H is the number of fully certified APE teachers (H)ired. The
definitions of terms included in this formula and data analyses are described in the
next section.
Data Analyses
The number of fully ceM1ed APE teachers needed (N) for each state was calculated using N = (E I R) - H formula. For consistency with Data dictionary (Westat,
1998), fully certified APE teachers were defined as physical educators who met
one or more of the following criteria: (a) held state APE certifications, (b) met
state APE requirements, andlor (c) had APE positions for which no state APE
requirements existed. The concept of fully certified thus is shaped by employment practices. The reason for using the term fully certified in this study
was that this term was used in the 20" Annual Report to Congress (Table
AC4, USDE, 1998).
The number of students requiring APE service enrolled (E) was estimated
for each state by multiplying the number of estimated resident children ages 3-21
by 4%. The number of estimated resident children in a state was derived from
Table AF1 that presents updated population counts by each state from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census as of October 1,1997 (USDE, 1998). The 4% was a median
of the 3-5% of the student body requiring APE service reported by Kelly and
Gansneder (1998). The variable of E is thus the estimated number of APE students
in a state. When using this formula, the actual percentage of students receiving
APE services should be used if this value is known. For example, if a school district wanted to use this formula to estimate the number of APE staff they should
have, and they knew that 6% of their students qualified for APE services, then they
should use this value instead of the 4% estimate. Whatever percentage is used,
there should be a strong justification for its use.
The APE student-teacher ratio (R) employed in the projection for each state
was 104:1, the average caseload of APE students per APE teacher across the 50
states determined by Kelly and Gansneder (1998). The variable of R is thus the
mean APE student-teacher ratio across all states in the United States. The number
of fully certified APE teachers hired (H) in each state was derived from Table AC4
(USDE, 1998). These values were reported by each state to the Office of Special
Education Programs of USDE and represent the actual number of fully certified
APE teachers employed as of September 1 in 1997 in a state.
It should be noted that the APE student-teacherratio of 104:1 was used in
projections for all states. The rationale for this use was twofold. First, there were
no other ratio data available for all 50 states. Second, this ratio provided a measurement criterion for state-to-state comparisons of the need for APE teachers.
The use of different ratios to project the need for APE teachers for different states
would make comparisons across states impossible to interpret.
Table 1 Data Used and Projected in the Prevalence-Based Projection Formula
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
No. of resident
children ages 3-21
estimateda
No. of children
requiring
APE service
estimatedb
Total no. of
certified APE
teachers
estimatedc
% of APE teachers
No. of fully
certified APE
teachers hiredd
No. of fully
certified APE
teachers needede
needed in total
APE teachers
estimatedf
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West V i n i a
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Nation
1,470,851
253,327
471,964
418,302
306,059
2,035,825
524,613
4,689,390
1,930,310
183,922
3,013,226
942,323
855,357
3,053,348
245,903
1,006,713
219,189
1,400,474
5,653,549
725,765
156,566
1,730,879
1,510,566
469,919
1,434,360
146,634
72,104,325
58,834
10,133
18,879
16,732
12,242
81,433
20,985
187,576
77,212
7,357
120,529
37,693
34,214
122,134
9,836
40,269
8,768
56,019
226,142
29,031
6,263
69,235
60,423
18,797
57,374
5,865
2,884,175
566
97
182
161
118
783
202
1,804
742
71
1,159
362
329
1,174
95
387
84
539
2,174
279
60
666
581
181
552
56
27,733
27
10
0
39
14
355
47
1,158
34
8
169
17
106
74
104
37
18
19
142
22
12
133
37
17
305
16
5,616
539
87
182
122
104
428
155
646
708
63
990
345
22 1
1,100
-9
350
66
520
2,032
257
48
533
544
164
247
40
22,116
95.23
89.69
100.00
75.78
88.14
54.66
76.73
35.81
95.42
88.73
85.42
95.30
67.17
93.70
-
90.44
78.57
96.47
93.47
92.11
80.00
80.03
93.63
90.61
44.75
71.43
79.74
Note. Bolded values are original data from related annual reports. "esident children ages 3-21 estimated are original values from Table AF1 in the 2PhAnnual
Report (USDE, 1998);bChildrenrequiring APE service are determined by multiplying resident children ages 3-21estimatedby 4%;"otal number of fully certified
APE teachers estimated is calculated by dividing the number of children requiring APE service with 104;*Fullycertified APE teachers hired are original values
from Table AC4 in the 2PhAnnual Report (USDE, 1998) except Nebraska from Table AC4 in the l g hAnnual Report (USDE, 1996) and Texas from Table AC3
in the 17IhAnnual Report (USDE, 1995); "Fully certified APE teachers needed are projected using the prevalence-based formula; The% of APE teachers needed
in total APE teachers estimated is determined by dividing total APE teachers needed by state with APE teachers estimated by state and then multiplying by 100.
:s~ol[ojse pasn aq pvo3 1: aIqeJljo pua ayl papyoxd uogm ayl xoj sanpn
p o l ayl ' s x a F d q o d lanaj p u o y ~ uxoj qq ayl 30 lxduq ayl ~ o q OJ,
s
~smL701dasayl uoddns 01 spun^ h~sxanpmpm q q s p u o g p p xoj ~ s a n b uoddns
x
01 pm smBozd O w q xaqDea1 a n qayl %n~pmdxa
Lplsnf 01 uopemojur s g
q papaau a.m sxaqxq a m p a r m
asn osp ppo3 s~o~erismnnpe
hrsxanpn -srourn~
' ~ MOW 01 paau axojsayl a1e1s s g sxavm X3god
-la3 Anq ~euogppe~ 8 0leyl
'~lnnuojayl u?N sr ~ 8 0 ' ~
f(9Wnlo3
= S9T - 6PZ'T
'PaPaau s3aq3ea13dVPYYa3 Ann3 30 x a q m ~P806T
)
t(S -103
H STS ~ I
' p a q sxaqDea1am pagltra:, dnnj jo 1aqmnN)epmroj ayl n~
t(V wn103
'pa1euqsa sxaq3ea1a n JOxaqWOL)6172'1 = M)T I ~ ~ 6 ' 6 ~ 1 :
f (ogex 1uapnls-xaq3ea1a n ) e~nmroJayl tq pAo1dma g s! ~1
f(sa3puas
% q b a xu a . 1 ~jo
~ 3saqmnN) qnnuoj ayl ur g sr S26'621.
:aldmxa ayl se
sroug11 asn sn la1 'H - (gjg ) = N eInmoj ayl jo uogeln3ps ayl qexlsnnl OJ,
-H- (gig) = N e ~ n m ayl
x ~6q
~ palem
-gsa st?papaau sxaq3ea1am pagpa:, d n q jo xaqmnu ayl sup11103 q o 3 ylxrs
a n '(8861 ' a a s n ) u o d w I V ~ U U V V A ) Zayl ur P ~ aV~ q e~. ~O A113a-v~
J J
u a m 'paw
A11uam3 sxaqxq
pagp1a3 dnnj jo ~aqnmuaql supluo:, uu1tqo3 qgy a u
yo1 liq s a + ~ ~ aas n Zuurnbax uaspllq3jo xaqumu ayl % u p p qAq paleqsa s e ~
q 3 y '~s J a q x a l 3 payg.ra3
~
dnnjjo xaqumu plot ayl sup1u03mnlo3 q m o j a w
-%tdq 2 m n l o 3 ul uaxplv luap!sax jo xaqumu ayl %ufildyjnmdq pqeuqsa s e ~
q 3 l q ~sa3puas am 8 u ~ n b a xu a . 1 ~ jo
~ 3xaqmnu ayl suyuo:, uu~tqo:,p q a u
'(8861 'aasn) uoday l v n u u y ,,A)zayl ur 1 s a1qeL WOJJu a w aleis q3ea ur 12
01 E sage u a q w luaplsax jo xaqmnu ayl s ~ o qwnlo3
s
puo3as a= -xapxop3paq
-eqdp y palsy salels ayl s q i u o 3 urunlo:, lsnj a= *s%upug
luaun3 ayl put! (S pm
2 sumqo3 '1upd p~oqaas) sa3mos ewp nroy u a p uogemopr sluasaxd -[ a l q q
-(pmn103 '1 a l q e ~pa~euqlsa
)
s~aq3ea1 jo xaqmnu @lo1
~ 1 0aw
1 % u p r ~dq
p
ayl Aq (9 a n l o 3 'I a1qed papaau slaq3eq sm jo xaqpqejn3p3 seM a%qua~xad
s m 'aiels q3ea tq papaau sxaq3eal am xo aZe1ua3xad
ayl uo paseq s e q~u ~ xpuoms a= -a1e1s q3ea ur papaau sxaq3eal s n jo xaq
-mnu amnjosqe ayl uo pawq s e p.~
~ lsnj a- 'pa~ndmo3araM s p x OMI 'suospd
- U I O ~a1vs-01-ale1s $ 0 .sxaq3eax
~
xoj paau puogeu ayl se pauyap SEM sanpn
aleis pa1mfo.rd 1s ayl jo ums a u - q ~e suy sxaqmq am jo snjdms e p a ~ e 3 p q
anpn ange%aue pue Laletse U; sxaq3ea1sm a m xoj paau e saM arayl leyl pa1e3
-pay anpa ang'sod TJ -ange%auaxah amos put! ang~sodaxaM sanpn amos .sanpn
palmfoxd 1sjo @101e UT pa1psa-TH - (xjg) =N epnnuo~uogmfoxdayljo asn
uays pue ' y d q '/Cay~ag
%//an'6ut3y~
POE
Adapted Physical Education Teachers
305
72,104,325 (Number of resident children, Column 2) X 0.04 = 2,884,175
(Column 3);
2,884,175 is E in the formula (Number of children requiring APE services);
104 is R employed in the formula (APE teacher-student ratio);
2,884,175 / 104 = 27,733 (Total number of APE teachers estimated,
Column 4);
5,616 is H in the formula (Number of fully cert5ed
APE teachers hired,
Column 5);
27,733 - 5,616 = 22,116 (Number of fully certified APE teachers needed,
Column 6);
22,116 is N in the formula.
The value of 22,116 at the end of Column 6 indicates the number of additional
APE teachers needed in the United States. This figure could be used by federal
agencies such as the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to
guide allocation of federal funds for the training of additional APE personnel.
These values could also be used by state universities to justify requests for more
state and local funding to support APE teacher training programs.
Of the 51 values presented in Column 6 (Number of additional fully certified teachers needed), 49 values are positive and range from a low of 40 in Wyoming to a high of 2,687 in California. These values show that there is a need for
more fully certified APE teachers in these 49 states. There are also two negative
values in this column, -3 for the District of Columbia and -9 for Rhode Island. The
negative values for the District of Columbia and Rhode Island warrant further
investigation. Since the APE student-teacher ratio used in projections was a conservative one (i.e., 104.1), it may be that these two states use a smaller APE student-teacher ratio. Given the number of students and teachers reported in these
two states, they would have APE student-teacher ratios of 95:l and 98:1, respectively. While these values are less than the 104:1 estimate, they are still relatively
close to the criterion value and a long way from 16:l student-teacher ratio used in
special education.
Column 7 in Table 1 presents the percentage of the number of APE teachers
needed in the total number of APE teachers estimated. The total number of APE
teachers estimated includes both the number of APE teachers currently hired and
the number of APE teachers needed because this total is estimated by dividing the
number of children requiring APE by the APE student-teacher ratio. The number
of APE teachers needed refers to the number of APE teachers shorted because this
number is estimated by subtracting the number of APE teachers currently hired
from the total number of APE teachers estimated. The percentage in Column 7
thus indicates the proportion of the number of APE teachers needed in the total
number of APE teachers estimated for ensuring all students with disabilities receive APE services.
Table 2 presents two types of ranks. The first rank is based on the absolute
number of APE teachers needed, and the second rank is based on the percentage of
the number of APE teachers needed in the total number of APE teachers estimated.
Comparison of these ranks, listed from the most to least significant need for APE
Zhang, Kelly, Berkey, Joseph, and Chen
306
Table 2 Ranks for State-to-State Comparisons Based on the Absolute Number
of APE Teachers Needed and the Percentage of APE Teachers Needed in Total
APE Teachers Estimated
Rank
Based on
number
Based on
percent
California
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
North Carolina
New York
Indiana
Washington
Missouri
Virginia
Tennessee
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Maryland
Colorado
Arizona
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Alabama
Kentucky
Connecticut
Connecticut
Nebraska
Delaware
Hawaii
Arkansas
Tennessee
Indiana
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Missouri
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Washington
Texas
Georgia
Michigan
Utah
Colorado
West Virginia
South Carolina
Montana
Mississippi
North Dakota
New Hampshire
Alaska
Rank
Based on
number
Based on
percent
Iowa
Mississippi
Arkansas
Utah
Wisconsin
Kansas
Oregon
Minnesota
Nebraska
West Virginia
New Mexico
Louisiana
Nevada
Hawaii
Idaho
New Hampshire
Maine
Montana
Delaware
Alaska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming
Illinois
Florida
Ohio
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Virginia
Vermont
Arizona
South Dakota
Maine
Maryland
California
New Mexico
Alabama
Massachusetts
Nevada
Wyoming
Oregon
New Jersey
Wisconsin
Minnesota
New York
Louisiana
Note. Both ranks are listed based on the largest to smallest values as presented in Table 1
except the top first three states have same percents.
teachers, inTable 2 reveals that among the top 20 states, only nine states are included
in both ranks: Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia,
Michigan, Missouri, and Washington.
Discussion
At least three implications can be drawn from the results of this study. First, the
need for fully certified APE teachers is significant across all states with the possible exception of Rbode Island and the District of Columbia. Table 1 shows that
only 5,616 fully certified APE teachers have been reported to the USDE as currently
Adapted Physical Education Teachers
307
employed to serve students who require APE services. This represents only 21.26%
of the total number of fully certified APE teachers estimated as needed to ensure
all APE students receive appropriate physical education services from the prevalence-based perspective. Given the discrepancy between the number of fully certified APE teachers currently employed (5,616) and the projected need for 22,116
more fully certified APE teachers, this raises serious concerns whether many children who qualify for APE services are receiving appropriateAPE services as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (Sherrill, 1998;
USDE, 1998). These data should be used by policy makers and college/university
teacher training programs to justify creating and expanding APE teacher training
programs.
Second, the two rankings based on the number of APE teachers needed and
the percentage of APE teachers needed are useful for making state-to-state comparisons. The first ranking allows for states to be compared in terms of the absolute numbers of APE teachers needed. Based on this ranking, the first 20 states
(from California to Arizona) show the greatest need in terms of number of teachers
needed. This ranking, however, appears to be closely associated with the size of
the state's population. Thus, the second ranking should also be considered when
making state-to-state comparisons. This alternative ranking is based on the percentage of APE teachers needed in the total APE teachers estimated. Because this
ranking is based on the percentage of APE teachers needed in relation to total
number of APE teachers estimated, this rank is not influenced by the size of a state
population. As noted in Table 2, the top states based on this ranking differ from
those based on the first ranking. For example, the top three states based on the total
number of APE teachers needed are California, Texas, and Florida, whereas the
top three states based on the percentage of APE teachers are Connecticut, Nebraska, and Delaware. It should be noted that, as shown in Table 2, there are nine
states included in the top 20 states based on both rankings. These nine states seem
to demonstrate critical needs for APE teachers.
Third, the method presented should provide policy makers, college and university administrators, and grant writers with a valuable tool for making need estimates. The prevalence-based formula can be used to calculate the need for APE
teachers by policy makers responsible for ensuring that the physical education
requirement of IDEA is addressed. Universities can use the formula to determine
their local, state, and regional needs for APE teachers and then adjust their program offerings accordingly. Grant writers applying for funds to supportAPE teacher
training programs can enhance the competitiveness of their proposals by accurately matching their proposals to the appropriate local, state, andlor national needs.
Finally, a point should be emphasized in relation to the APE student-teacher
ratio. The actual APE teacher caseload probably should be much smaller than the
104:1 ratio used in this study. For example, a recent position announcement for an
APE teacher indicated that the teacher would have a caseload of approximately
25-30 students (Spender, 1999). This caseload is significantly lower than the estimate used in the current study and probably is more appropriatebecause it is closer
to the caseload of 16:1 used in the field of special education and related services
(Tables AA1, AC 1, AC2, USDE, 1998). Therefore, a ratio of 104:1, as used in this
study, should be viewed as a very conservative way to estimate needs. The needs
projected in this study using 104:1, if they are not entirely accurate, most likely err
in the direction of underestimating the actual need for adapted physical educators.
308
Zhang, Kelly, Berkey, Joseph, and Chen
In conclusion, use of the prevalence-based formula indicates that there exists an enormous need for preparing and employing large numbers of APE teachers to deliver APE services throughout the United States. The state-to-state
comparisons based on two methods of rankings indicate a means of prioritizing
states in terms of most critical APE needs.
References
Boe, E.E. (1990, January). Analyzing teacher supply and demand: The role of national
survey data. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Elementary-Secondary
Education Management and Information System, Orlando, FL.
Bokee, M.B. (1995). Fiscal year1982 through 1995 adaptedphysical education and therapeutic recreation program analysis. U.S. Department of Education: The Division of
Personnel Preparation.
Education of the Handicapped Act. PL 94-142. (1977).
Ellery, P.J., & Stewart, M.J. (2000). Graduate adapted physical education personnel preparation programs receiving federal funding. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17,
54-68.
Hillman, W.A. (1986). The role of the federal government in adapted physical education.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 3, 124-126.
Horvat, M., & Kalakian, L. (1996). Assessment in adapted physical education and therapeutic recreation. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Kelly, L.E., & Gansneder, B. (1998). Preparation and job demographics of adapted physical
educators in the United States. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15(15), 141154.
McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Hodges, D. (1999). Inclusion: What progress is being made
across disability categories? Teaching Exceptional Children, JanIFeb, 60-64.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (1994). A report on the personnel supply and demand data collected by states: Networking systemfor training
education personnel. Alexandria, VA: National Clearing House for Professions in
Special Education.
Nuttall, J.R., Cheaturn, B.A., &Leon, E. (1993). The relationship between preservice training and sports participation of students who are disabled. The College of Education
R & D Connections of WesternMichigan University,2(1), 1-10.
Parshall, L. (1993, April). Special education workforce and projecting the special education demadsupply data managementproblems. Paper presented at Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Antonio, TX.
Sattler, E.L., & Sattler, J.L. (1985). Economic realities of special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8(2), 98-103.
Sherrill, C. (1998). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Crossdisplinary and
lifespan (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA.WCBIMcGraw-Hill.
Sherrill, C., & DePauw, K.P. (1997). Adapted physical activity and education. In J.D.
Massengale & R.A. Swanson (Eds.), The history of exercise and sport science (pp.
39-108). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
Sherrill, C., & Hillman, W. (1988). Legislation, funding, and adapted physical education
teacher training. In C. Sherrill (Ed.), Leadership training in adaptedphysical education (pp. 85-103). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
Adapted Physical Education Teachers
309
Spender, S. (1999, November 2). Adapted physical education teacher. Job annomcements
at PE central [On-line]. Available: ~http://pe.centrl.vt.eduljobcenter/jobs.htmb.
USDE (U.S. Department of Education, 1989). Eleventh annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDE (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). Seventeenth annual report to Congress on
the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDE (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Eighteenth annual report to Congresson the
implementation of the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDE (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDE (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Fiscal year 1999applicationfor new grants
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Personnel preparation to improve services and results for children with disabilities (CFDA 84.325).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Off~ce.
Westat (An Employee-Owned Research Corporation, 1998). OSEP IDEA, Part B Data Dictionary. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Author Note
The authors would like to thank Dr. Claudine Sherrill, Texas Woman's University, for her valuable suggestions and editorial comments.