Perspectives on Adapted PE Transition Programs for Students With Disabilities

Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Exhibit Hall Poster Area 1 (Convention Center)
Nick Williams, Manny Felix, Garth Tymeson and Teri Hepler, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse, La Crosse, WI
Background/Purpose: Students with disabilities (SWD) ages 14-21 years receive transition services to help them successfully progress from school to post-school life. Transition programs for SWD should include adapted physical education (APE) services. To ensure that meaningful transition APE content is considered, the perspectives of APE teachers that deliver these services and parents of SWD must be taken into consideration. The purpose of this study was to measure levels of importance and satisfaction of various components of APE transition programs among APE teachers and parents of SWD.

Method: Participants included APE teachers (n = 160) and parents of SWD 14-21 years (n = 32).  Each participant completed an online survey to measure perceived level of importance and satisfaction of the following components of APE transition programs:  physical activity leisure skills, adapted sports, health-related fitness, indoor/outdoor community facilities, social interaction, and functional daily living skills.  The survey also gathered data on perceived barriers to APE transition programs. 

Analysis/Results: Results indicated that APE teachers and parents were mostly in agreement regarding APE transition programs.  The top three most valued components by APE teachers were social interaction, physical activity leisure skills and health-related physical fitness.  The top three most valued components by parents were social interaction, functional daily living skills and health-related physical fitness. Both groups were less satisfied with almost all aspects of APE transition programs; overall, however, parents felt less satisfied with APE transition programs than APE teachers.  APE teachers and parents differed on what they perceived to be the most significant barriers to quality APE transition programs.  APE teachers identified lack of fiscal resources and transportation as the top two barriers, while parents identified social isolation of students from peers and lack of community resources.

Conclusions: Effective collaboration between parents and APE teachers as well as other special education personnel can result in high quality APE transition programs that are meaningful and appropriate for SWD. APE teachers and parents of SWD should have a common understanding of the various roles that APE has in a transition program.  The philosophy and benefits of APE transition programs should be carefully considered by special education programs and conveyed to parents.