Remedial and Special Education http://rse.sagepub.

com/

Parents' Perceptions of the Factors Essential for Integrated Physical Education Programs
John H. Downing and Joanne Rebollo
Remedial and Special Education 1999 20: 152
DOI: 10.1177/074193259902000305

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/3/152

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Remedial and Special Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://rse.sagepub.com/content/20/3/152.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 1999

What is This?

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014

 Parents’ Perceptions of the Factors
Essential for Integrated Physical
Education Programs
JOHN H. DOWNING AND JOANNE
ABSTRACT
Since the passage of the Education for All Handi-
capped Children Act in 1975, problems remain regarding
appropriate placement of children into least restrictive learning
environments in physical education. Many educational place-
ments are ineffective for reasons that have little relationship to
the children’s abilities, and this has resulted in an ongoing need
to seek alternative methods of assessing children for appropriate
class placements. Parents have always been involved in this
decision-making process. As advocacy and training programs
have increased their effectiveness as resource personnel,
parents’ roles in the education process have broadened.
Because of parents’ enhanced capabilities as support personnel,
and the crucial roles they play in their children’s educational
programs, this study investigated parents’ perspectives regarding
the factors essential for placement of children with disabilities into
integrated physical education programs. Seventy-five parents
completed a 21-item survey to determine factors essential for
integrated physical education programs. Results suggested that
class size, program support, physical and communicative skills,
health status, and motivation were prerequisites of an effectively
integrated program.
VER THE PAST 20 YEARS, P.L. 94-142, PART B,
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, has
benefited many children by facilitating the creation of a sig-
nificant number of successfully integrated physical education
programs (Karper & Martinek, 1985; Rarick & Beuter, 1985;
Vogler, van der Mars, Darst, & Cusimano, 1990). However,
the consistent, universal determination of least restrictive
152
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
REBOLLO
educational environments (LREs) for children with disabili-
ties in integrated physical education environments continues
to elude both adapted and general physical education practi-
tioners and Individualized Education Program (IEP) commit-
tee members (Aufsesser, 1991; Block & Krebs, 1992; Block
& Zeman, 1996; DePaepe, 1984; Dunn & Craft, 1985).
Historically, a number of problems, often interrelated,
have precluded reliable implementation of the IEP process in
physical education. In addition, many of the barriers that
frequently prevented effective determination of children’s
LREs in adapted or integrated physical education in the 1970s
remain present in the 1990s. These obstacles include (a) inad-
equate college and university undergraduate preparation for
teaching students with special needs, especially with regard
to the lack of infusion of general and specific disability
content and methodology throughout curricula; (b) continued
shortages of qualified adapted physical educators to mentor
teachers in inclusive environments and conduct comprehen-
sive individual assessments; (c) high teacher attrition rates at
all levels of physical education; and (d) factors relating to
measurement and/or diagnostic error that cause the perpetua-
tion of student educational placements that are not always
conducive to optimum learning (Block & Krebs, 1992; Block
& Zeman, 1996; Boe, 1990; Broadhead, 1985; Churton, 1987;
DePaepe, 1984; Dunn & Craft, 1985; Kennedy, French &
Henderson, 1989; Lavay, Foret, Dempsey, & Loovis, 1987;
Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Sherrill, 1980, 1993; U.S.
Department of Education, 1995). In addition, overreliance on
one or two specific assessment tools that are often used for
expedience rather than effectiveness, as well as testing con-
ducted by school personnel who possess inadequate under-
standing of psychomotor processes, is a common contributor
to ineffectual placements (Jansma & Decker, 1990; Sherrill,
1993; Veal, 1988; Werder & Kalakian, 1985).
All these reasons contribute to the lack of consistent
diagnosis of appropriate placements for children with dis-
abilities in physical education. This situation creates a serious
dilemma because appropriate student placement is critical to
the success of any integrated physical education program.
Alternative approaches to seeking the least restrictive envi-
ronment for these children seem warranted. One suggested
approach posits the use of parents as alternative sources of
information in the determination of their children’s educa-
tional placements. Parents are their children’s first teachers
and are familiar with their habits, skills, and abilities. They
are integral members of IEP committees, and, as a result of
training programs, advocacy, and advances in technology,
have become more educated regarding the needs of their
children. This study attempts to solicit parental perspectives
of the factors essential for teaching elementary children in
integrated physical education classes.
EVOLVING PARENTAL ROLES IN THE
EDUCATIONAL PROCESS
Research has established that parent involvement is essential
to the successful education of children with disabilities (Dunn,
Morehouse, & Fredericks, 1986; Epstein & Dauber, 1989;
Ersing & Huber, 1992; Fredericks, Baldwin, McDonnell,
Hoffman, & Harter, 1971; N. K. French, 1996; Hanline &
Halvorsen, 1989; Hilton & Henderson, 1993; Johnson, 1981;
Kasser, Collier, & Solava, 1997; Peterson, 1987; Will, 1986).
Yet, the original role of parents in the IEP process was often
more passive than active. Due process protection was nomi-
nally guaranteed, but the majority of parents during the 1970s
and early 1980s were not well versed in the legal ramifica-
tions of the law, nor were they as understanding of the critical
importance of the IEP process and its implications for their
children’s curriculum as they are today (Mundschenk & Foley,
1994). Another problem stemmed from lack of cooperation
between parents and teachers. Often, an &dquo;us versus them&dquo;
attitude developed that emanated from mistrust and lack of
clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of each
group in the placement/educational process (N. K. French,
1996; Robinson & Fine, 1994).
Over the past 15 years, however, parental roles in the
education of their children with disabilities have broadened.
Some of the federal funding from Part D of P.L. 94-142 was
used for parent training programs, the purpose of which
was to increase their understanding of the nature of their chil-
dren’s disabilities and to train them for adjunct/subordinate
teaching roles (Churton, 1988). The Education of the Handi-
capped Act Amendments of 1986 legislated comprehensive
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
services for children (birth through age 2) and their families
(Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig, 1997; Jansma & French, 1994;
Sherrill, 1993). The development of parent and associated
advocacy organizations has paralleled these legislative enact-
ments (NICHY News Digest, 1988; Peterson, 1987).
These factors have all contributed to the body of parental
knowledge about the various disabling conditions and a better
comprehension of the means and methods used for bettering
their children’s educational opportunities.
Parents of Children in Integrated or Adapted
Physical Education
Children involved in programs that have established coopera-
tive home-school relationships in both integrated and adapted
physical education have evinced higher levels of achievement
in school than children in school without similar programs
(Auxter et al., 1997; Dunn et al., 1986; Ersing & Huber, 1992;
Folsom-Meek, 1984; R. W. French, 1979; Hopper, Gruber,
Munoz, & Herb, 1992; Johnson, 1981 ).
Diamond (1991) and Ehlers and Ruffin (1990) described
the Missouri Parents as Teachers project as a highly success-
ful model of early intervention through a home-based teach-
ing approach. In this program parents (a) were provided with
information about their child’s language, cognitive, and social
and motor skill development; (b) were involved in diagnostic/
prescription processes; (c) collaborated with trained parent
educators in the development and monitoring of their child’ss
individualized home program; and (d) became involved in
parent support group meetings for information and experi-
ence exchange. Dunn et al. (1986) described a &dquo;lunch-box&dquo;
data collection system in which parents, after participating in
an initial training program, taught physical education skills to
children with moderate to severe disabilities at home, in
conjunction with similar skills taught in school, via a lunch-
box communication system through which assignments were
sent from the school to the home. Hopper et al. (1992), Hor-
vat (1982), and R. W. French (1979) developed similar pro-
grams.
There is a paucity of information in the literature, how-
ever,relating to the direct solicitation of parental perspectives
regarding the critical factors required for successfully inte-
grating children with disabilities into physical education pro-
grams (but see Jansma & Schultz, 1982; Sherrill & Megginson,
1984). This study attempts to ascertain this information.
METHOD
Participants
Surveys were distributed to the parents (N = 100) of pupils
with physical disabilities in mainstreamed classes from six
elementary schools that were the primary sites for mainstreamed
children in physical education in the Middletown Township
Public School District in Monmouth County, New Jersey.
153
The demographics of the sample indicated the following: In
terms of socioeconomic status, 98% were White with income
levels ranging from welfare recipients to upper middle class.
Almost all the parents were high school graduates, with 45%
holding college degrees.
The categories of physically challenging conditions
included neurological impairments (59%, primarily cerebral
palsy and myelomeningocele), perceptual impairments (10%),
and communication impairments (30%). One pupil with a
visual impairment and one pupil with a hearing impairment
were included. These pupils attended the elementary schools
in the school district selected for this study.
Development of the Instrument
A 21-question survey was developed that identified items
from Part B of P.L. 94-142 and from a literature search
generated from adapted physical education computer data-
bases. The primary sources of information (Auxter et al.,
1997; Dunn & Fait, 1989; Jansma & Decker, 1990; Jansma &
French, 1994; Sherrill, 1988, 1993) gleaned from the litera-
ture search were experts in the field of adapted physical
education. Also, interviews were conducted with experts in
fields of special and adapted physical education, as well as
with the Middletown Township Public School District’s adapted
physical education staff, to garner information on assessment
priorities for integrated classes.
A closed-ended instrument was then constructed on a
5-point Likert scale chosen for its ability to yield a dispersion
approximating the normal distribution. The parents ranked
the items in terms of their perceived importance in their
child’s physical education program.
Reliability and Validity of the Instrument
Reliability. A modified split-half method was used to
determine the reliability of the survey. Questions 4, 6, 8, and
11 were designed to elicit similar responses. High correla-
tions between these pairs indicated reliability. Pearson product-
moment correlations yielded r values of .72 for Questions 4
and 6, and .82 for Questions 8 and 11.
validated in three steps:
Validity. The survey was
( 1 ) The content validity of the test items used to
develop the
survey was established by taking the information from cri-
teria set forth in Part B of P. L. 94-142 and past and present
expert opinion from the literature databases. The combination
of the two information sources indicated the need to include
the following items in the survey: students’ health and well-
being ; social and emotional status; general learning ability;
academic performance; communicative status; physical and
motor abilities and skills; motivation; values and attitudes
relative to age-appropriate physical education; and class size
and administrative, parental, and educational support and
interest. (2) The survey was then presented to four experts in
154
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
the field of exceptional education for evaluation. Two tenured
university faculty with PhD’s in special education, and two
tenured university faculty with PhD’s in adapted physical
education reviewed and suggested revisions for the instru-
ment. (3) The instrument was piloted on (a) the elementary
adapted physical education staff of the Middletown Town-
ship Public School District, (b) three university physical edu-
cation faculty who were parents of children with disabilities,
and (c) two lay parents and one adult sibling of children with
disabilities.
&dquo;
Data Collection
The surveys were distributed to the parents of the children
with physical disabilities for completion. Anonymity of both
parent and child was guaranteed. If the parents could not
answer one or more questions, were unable to understand
and/or follow the directions, or had any other specific or
general questions regarding the survey, they were instructed
to contact one of the adapted physical education staff for
further clarification. The data for all subgroups of disability
were treated as one, namely, children with physical disabilities.
The parents ranked the items on the survey in terms of
how important each was perceived relative to its contribution
to their child’s physical education program.
Treatment of Data
The data for 75 returned surveys were coded and stored on a
file using the BMDP Statistical Software package. The mean
scores, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean,
plus the mean ranking for each item on the survey, were
determined and are presented in Table 1. For the parents’
responses, a factor analysis was conducted to break down
similar groups of variables (opinions) into single more man-
ageable factors. In order to find these underlying factors, a
principal components extraction with iterations and varimax
rotation was administered. Only factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1 were retained for consideration. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy was then calculated. This
sampling statistic estimates how well a particular sample
lends itself to factor analysis. Under normal conditions a
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling measure of .80 is considered
indicative of a proper sample.
RESULTS
Data Analysis
The BMDP Statistical Software package was used to reduce
the data collected in the survey. Table 1 presents a rank
ordering of the 21 survey items. Class size was determined
as the most critical factor for successful integration. Other
highly ranked factors (ranks of 2-7) were teacher support,
parent/teacher interest, parental support, health and well-
 TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors of the Mean, and Mean Rank Order of Parent Opinions
aRelates to learning physical education skills.
being, motivation, and administrative support. Class size and
interest/support were perceived as most important within
the overall rankings. Items given middle-level rankings
(8-14) were emotional status, ability to communicate, bal-
ance and coordination, gross motor ability, physical skills/
fitness, learning ability, and ability to get along. Items ranked
lowest (15-21) were ability to retain information, self-help
skills, interest in physical education, means of ambulation,
academic skills, creativity, and age.
The factor analysis for the parents yielded four factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1. They were retained for sub-
sequent analysis. One variable, learning ability, had a correla-
tion of 1.00 with all other variables and was eliminated from
the analysis. Table 2 contains the orthogonally rotated factor
matrix, the associated eigenvalues, the explained variance
( VP), and the percentage of explained variance for these fac-
tors. These four factors accounted for 78.8% of the explained
variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling ade-
quacy for the parents’ responses was .89, which is higher than
the .80 indicative of an adequate sample.
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
Responses with high factor loadings on Factor 1 were
primarily demonstrated in two groups of variables that related
mainly to factors intrinsic to the general health and affective
status of the children. This group contained the following
items: health and well-being, self-help skills, interest in physical
education, motivation, social skills, emotional status, and
means of ambulation. This group, named the child intrinsic/
class size factor, also contained class size. The explained
variance for this factor was 50.02%
Factor 2 consisted of one the following items: academic
ability, age, retention ability, creativity, and communication
ability. This factor was called cognitive/academics. The
explained variance for this factor was 12.70%.
The highest factor loadings on Factor 3 came from par-
ent and teacher support of the program, parent and teacher
interest in the program, and administrative support. Factor 3
claimed 9% of the explained variance, and was labeled home-
school interest and support.
Factor 4, the final factor, contained physical skill/
fitness, gross motor ability, and balance and coordination.
155

TABLE 2. Rotated Factor Matrix for
Parents’ Opinions
Factor 4 accounted for 7.10% of the explained variance. This
factor was designated psychomotor skills.
In order to determine the importance of the factors in
terms of their raw score rankings, mean raw score rankings
for each of the items in each factor were calculated. Factor 1,
child intrinsic/class size, was tied with Factor 4, psychomotor
skills, for the second ranking, with a raw score of 3.9. Factor
2, cognitive/academic, was last with a raw score of 3.5.
Factor 3, child support, placed first with a raw score of 4.2.
DISCUSSION
Historically, few studies have attempted to determine paren-
tal attitudes regarding the effects of adapted or integrated
physical education programs on their children. This study
attempted to solicit parental perspectives regarding the fac-
tors essential for integrated physical education programs for
children with physical challenges at the elementary level, and
in so doing, provide a possible alternative for determining
placements.
156
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
Part B of P.L. 94-142 and the research suggested evalu-
ating children with exceptionalities in all dimensions relating
to their exceptionalities, including such areas as age, health,
social-emotional development, intelligence and academic
performance, communication skills, and motor ability. In
addition, the literature suggests that lower class size, better
teacher preparation, and increased program support and inter-
est from parents, teachers, and administrators are critical
elements for successful integration.
Higher parental responses (i.e., rankings 1-7) indicated
that class size, teacher, parent and administrative support and
interest, physical health, and motivation are the most impor-
tant factors for successful implementation of an integrated
physical education program. These were followed by emo-
tional development, communicative skills, overall learning
ability, the items relative to motor and physical fitness, and
social skills. These responses are generally in agreement with
the literature (Auxter et al., 1997; Block & Zeman, 1996;
Dunn & Fait, 1989; Jansma & Decker, 1990; Jansma &
French, 1994; Rizzo, Davis, & Toussaint, 1994; Sherrill,
1993; Sherrill & Megginson, 1984). In addition, the parents
suggested that cognitive skills, (e.g., general intelligence,
academic skills, and creativity), which are often used as
primary placement determinants in special education classes,
were less important factors for physical education place-
ments. The factor analysis and the raw score rankings of the
items in each factor reinforced the mean rankings.
Increases in student-teacher ratios are generally inversely
proportional to effective teaching (Block & Zeman, 1996;
Jansma & Decker, 1990; Sherrill, 1993). This has become a
major concern at all levels of physical education instruction,
and especially classes that are integrated with children with
disabilities. This issue is especially problematic in physical
education because shortages of personnel and job attrition
have served to complicate the issue (Block & Zeman, 1996;
U.S. Department of Education, 1995).
Regardless of their children’s primary areas of disabil-
ity-neuromuscular and communicative disorders and per-
ceptual deficits-parents identified teacher, parent, and
administrative support of integrated programs within school
districts as primary areas of importance, while communica-
tion ability, balance and coordination, and means of ambulation,
which are need areas directly related to the disability catego-
ries of the parents’ children, were ranked as less important
(with rankings of 9, 10, and 18, respectively). These priorities _
are also cited in the current literature (Auxter et al., 1997;
Dunn & Craft, 1985; Jansma & French, 1994; Sherrill, 1993).
Ecological teaching/learning models (Auxter et al., 1997;
Rizzo et al., 1994; Sherrill, 1993) suggest that all students can
learn if the learning environment and support groups accom-
modate their needs. Parents, teachers, and administrators must
actively support the concept of integration before its practice
will become effective.
Balance and coordination, gross motor skills, and physi-
cal skills/fitness were identified as critical elements of the
learning process in physical education classes for children
with physical disabilities. These findings also concur with the
literature (Auxter et al., 1997; Jansma & Decker, 1990; Jansma
& French, 1994; Sherrill, 1993).
Social skills, which remain as one of the original corner-
stone concepts of the mainstreaming movement, was only
ranked 14th. The discrepant success rates of using integrated
environments to increase social skills and acceptance, as well
as the literature’s presentation of parental concerns relative to
the effectiveness of this approach, are indicated in these
responses (Carlson & Parshall, 1996; Titus & Watkinson,
1987). Social skills and other variables relating to the affec-
tive status of the child were also components of Factor 1,
intrinsic/class size, which received inconsistent rankings by
the parents, as indicated by its accounting for 50.02% of the
explained variance. Factor 1 was tied with Factor 4, psycho-
motor skills, for the 2nd mean ranking among the factors;
however, the high percentage of its explained variance and its
extreme range of means-4 in the higher rankings and 4 in
the lower rankings-cloud the validity of this ranking.
Academic skills, general intelligence, and creativity were
ranked lowest, probably because of physical education’s pri-
mary reliance on psychomotor skills.
Implications
Although the sample size precludes any extensive gener-
alizations, the results of this study suggest several obvious
implications regarding the potential role of parents in the
education of their children with disabilities in physical educa-
tion. Because parental perspectives on what should constitute
an ideal least restrictive learning environment in physical
education agree with those in the literature, it would seem that
their input in the decision-making process should be more
critically evaluated. Also, for some parents, parent advocacy
and training programs have escalated their roles in the educa-
tional process from passive observers to active support per-
sonnel in the teaching/training process of their children. As a
result, opportunities now exist for increasing the effective-
ness of physical education programs for children with dis-
abilities via home-school cooperation (Folsom-Meek, 1984;
Horvat, 1982; Kasser et al., 1997; Maguire, 1994). Three
additional factors support these conclusions.
Lack of Effective Teaching Time. Studies on Aca-
demic Learning Time in Physical Education (ALT-PE), which
is an indicator of efficient, meaningful time in which children
are engaged in learning physical education activities, have
determined that ALT-PE is considerably lower than academic
learning time in other academic disciplines (Kelly, 1987; Lacy,
LaMaster, & Tommaney, 1996). The management problems
unique to physical education, overall teacher attrition and
escalating student-teacher ratios, contribute to this predica-
ment. Qualified parents are in a position to alleviate the
effects of lower ALT-PE by helping to identify elements
essential for an effective teaching environment and by allow-
ing physical education teachers to focus more on specific
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
student needs. In some cases, trained parents might actually
help to increase ALT-PE for their children by serving as
support personnel and/or adjunct teachers during the regular
school year and in the summer months, when many children
with disabilities often lose much of the fitness and skill levels
that they attained during the school year. Dunn et al., (1986),
Hopper et al., (1992), Horvat (1982), and French (1979) have
already demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach.
Scheduling Problems. The typical physical education
teacher’s daily schedule is hectic, with little time available for
either extensive or intensive assessment procedures. This
situation becomes more complex for adapted physical educa-
tors, because many are required to service four or more
schools over the course of the week, in addition to serving as
consultants for teachers in integrated gymnasia and as mem-
bers of IEP committees. Constructive input from parents can
aid these individuals in the effective performance of their jobs
and can effectively contribute to the cooperative effort needed
for the total education of children with disabilities in physical
education.
Increasing Effectiveness of Parent Advocacy and
Training Programs. The apparent effectiveness of both
parent advocacy groups and training programs suggests the
need to increase support and funding for these and other
parent-related educational support programs. Parental roles
as support personnel and/or adjunct educators of their chil-
dren can only be as effective as their preparation to serve in
these capacities. Collaboration between public school admin-
istrators, parent advocacy groups, and university preparation
programs is essential to meet this end.
Also, the discrepant ranking of social skills that was
found in the present study poses two questions: (a) Do par-
ents instinctively perceive the need for their children’s social
learning/relationships to be homogeneous? (b) Or, alterna-
tively, do they perceive that teachers are not modifying learn-
ing environments to appropriately meet the needs of wide
ranges of heterogeneous learners? Hanline and Halvorsen
(1989) reported that parental concerns included safety, atti-
tudes of general education students and staff, program qual-
ity, transportation, district commitment, and potential for
failure. Considering that the parents in the present survey
consistently ranked teacher and administrative interest and
support as highly important to the success of integrated physi-
cal education classes, it would seem that the latter question
regarding concerns about appropriate modifications to the
learning environment speaks to their primary concern. More
interdepartmental collaborative planning, including parents
and administrators, is necessary to address Hanline and
Halvorsen’s findings and to determine more appropriate, con-
sistent methods for modifying teaching/learning environments
to improve opportunities for social adjustment for children
with disabilities.
An additional implication garnered from this study
relates to the effect that active participation of parents as
157
decision makers may have on the parents themselves. If teachers
and/or administrators actively solicit assessment input and
adjunct training support from parents and treat them as equals,
the spirit of cooperation will be reinforced, and many parents
will take a more active interest in their children’s educational
programs. Also, from the perspective of the physical educa-
tor, more active parental involvement will afford an opportu-
nity to demonstrate the value of physical education as a
vehicle for increased health, fitness, functional movement,
and social skills, thus ensuring a better understanding of this
discipline for all members of the IEP committee.
Summary
In this study, parental perspectives of the factors essential for
integrated physical education programs demonstrated consid-
erable similarities with those reported in the literature. Although
sample size and limited geographical location make generali-
zation to other parent groups difficult, this particular group
demonstrated insights regarding exceptional physical educa-
tion that can only be attributed to an above-average under-
standing of the underlying principles of an effective physical
education class. Specifically, they demonstrated an under-
standing of the need to decrease class size, in both general
and integrated physical education classes, and reinforced
concerns regarding teacher preparation issues and support of
education for children with disabilities, which are currently
moot topics in academic circles. They preferred basing physi-
cal education placement decisions predominantly on psycho-
motor skills over academics, which has remained a contentious
issue for professional physical educators since the inception
of the integration initiative. Based on these results, further
study of the roles of parents in the education of their children
with special needs seems warranted, especially in regard to
their perspectives on methodologies for constructing inte-
grated environments that positively affect social skills. It is
suggested that parents of these children be encouraged to
become more active in the educational process of their chil-
dren and that they be afforded more opportunities through
training programs, advocacy, and other cooperative arrange-
ments to do so in the future.
JOHN H. DOWNING, PhD, is an assistant professor at Manhattan Col-
lege in Riverdale, New York. His interests include parent training in adapted
physical activity, fitness and skill assessments for wheelchair athletes, and
teacher preparation in all areas of physical education. JOANNE REBOLLO,
MA, is the adapted physical education coordinator in Middletown Town-
ship, Middletown, New Jersey. She was recently named Adapted Physical
Educator of the Year for the State of New Jersey. Address: John H. Down-
ing, Department of Physical Education and Human Performance, Manhattan
College, Riverdale, NY 10471.
REFERENCES
Aufsesser, P. M. (1991). Mainstreaming and the least restrictive environ-
ment: How do they differ? Palaestra, 7 , 31-34.
Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., & Huettig, C. (1997). Adapted physical education
and recreation (8th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
158
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
Block, M. E., & Krebs, P. L. (1992). An alternative to least restrictive
environments: A continuum of support to regular physical education.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 9, 97-113.
Block, M. E., & Zeman, R. (1996). Including students with disabilities in
regular physical education: Effects on nondisabled children. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 38-49.
Boe, E. E. (1991, 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 Sys-
tems, Orlando, Florida.
Broadhead, G. D. (1985). Placement of mildly handicapped children in physi-
cal education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2, 307-313.
Carlson, E. & Parshall, L. (1996). Academic, social and behavioral adjust-
ment of students declassified from special education. Exceptional Edu-
cation, 63, 89-102.
Churton, M. (1987). Impact of the Education of the Handicapped Act on
adapted physical education: A 10-year overview. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 4, 1-8.
Churton, M. (1988). Federal law and adapted physical education. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 5, 278-284.
DePaepe, J. (1984). Mainstreaming malpractice. The Physical Educator, 41,
51-56.
Diamond, D. B. (1991, August 11). Program helps parents think of them-
selves as teachers. Chicago Tribune, p.5.
Dunn, J. M., & Craft, D. (1985). Mainstreaming theory and practice. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 2, 273-176.
Dunn, J. M., & Fait, H. (1989). Special physical education: Adapted, indi-
vidualized, developmental (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
Dunn, J. M., Morehouse, J. W., & Fredericks, H. D. (1986). Physical edu-
cation for the severely handicapped: A systematic approach to a data
based gymnasium. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Ehlers, V. L., & Ruffin, M. (1990). The Missouri project—parents as teach-
ers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(2), 1-14.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400
et seq
.
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, 20 U.S.C. § 1400
etseq
.
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1989). Teachers’ attitudes and practices of
parent involvement in inner city elementary and middle schools. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary
and Middle Schools.
Ersing, W. F., & Huber, J. H. (1992). Considerations for clinical programs
in adapted physical education. Palaestra, 9, 38-42.
Folsom-Meek, S. L. (1984). Parents: Forgotten teacher aides in adapted
physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1, 275-281.
Fredericks, H. D., Baldwin, V. L., McDonnell, J. J., Hofmann, R.. & Harter,
J. (1971). Parents educate their trainable children. Mental Retardation,
9, 24-26.
French, N. K. (1996). Connecting teachers and families: Using the family
as a lab. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 335-346.
French, R. W. (1979). The use of homework as a supportive technique in
physical education. The Physical Educator, 36, 84-88.
Hanline, M. F., & Halvorsen, A. (1989). Parent perceptions of the integra-
tion transition process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Chil-
, 487-492.
dren, 55
Hilton, A., & Henderson, C. J. (1993). Parent involvement: A best practice
of forgotten practice? Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
, 199-211.
28
Hopper, C., Gruber, M. B., Muñoz, K., & Herb, R. A. (1992). Effect of
including parents in home based exercise and nutrition programs for
children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 315-321.
Horvat, M. A. (1982). Effect of a home learning program of learning dis-
abled children’s balance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55
, 1158.
Jansma, P., & Decker, J. (1990). Project LRE/PE: Least restrictive envi-
ronment usage in physical education. Washington, DC: U. S. Depart-
ment of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (Grant G008730022).
Jansma, P. & French, R. W. (1994). Special physical education: Physical
activity, sports and recreation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jansma, P., & Schultz, B. (1982). Validation of the use of a mainstreamed
attitude inventory with physical educators. American Corrective Therapy
Journal, ,36 150-157.
Johnson, W. R. (1981). Parent education in clinical physical education and
recreation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 52
(6),
34-36.
Karper, W. B., &
Martinek, T. J. (1985). The integration of handicapped
and nonhandicapped children in elementary physical education. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 2, 314-319.
Kasser, S. L., Collier, D. & Solava, D. G. (1997). Sport skills for students
with disabilities: A collaborative effort. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 68 (1), 50-53, 56.
Kelly, L. (1987). Instructional time. Journal of Physical Education,
ation and Dance, 60(6), 29-32.
Kennedy, S. O., French, R. W., & Henderson, H. L. (1989). The due-able
process could happen to you! Physical educators, handicapped students
and the law. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,
60, 86-93.
Lacy, A., LaMaster, K., & Tommaney, W. (1996). Teacher behaviors and
student academic learning time in physical education. The Physical Edu-
cator, (1), 44-50.
53
Lavay, B., Foret, C., Dempsey, S., & Loovis, M. (1987). Is mainstreaming
in physical education, recreation, and dance working? Journal of Physi-
cal Education, Recreation and Dance, (8), 14-15.
58
Maguire, P. (1994). Developing successful collaborative relationships. Jour-
nal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 65(1), 32-36, 44.
Mundschenk, N. A., & Foley, R. M. (1994). Collaborative relationships
between school and home: Implications for service delivery. Prevent-
(1), 16-20.
ing School Failure, 39
NICHY News Digest. (1988). Children with disabilities: Understanding sib-
ling issues. National Information Center for Children and Youth with
, 1-11.
Handicaps, 11
Peterson, N. (1987). Early intervention for handicapped and at-risk chil-
dren. Denver: Love.
The New York Times Launches National Education Web Site, the
http://www.nytimes.com/learning
The Learning Network (http:llwww ,nytimes .com/leaming)
is a new education Web site and online resource for educators,
parents, and students in Grades 6 through 12. The New York
Times Learning Network provides, free of charge, a daily lesson
plan and comprehensive interactive resources based on the
content of the newspaper.
More than a year under development, the New York
Times Learning Network is working with a number of well-
respected educational institutions and references, including Bank
Street College of Education in New York City, Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, and Microsoft Encarta multi-
media encyclopedia, to create a comprehensive news and
education resource on the Web.
The New York Times Learning Network’s education spe-
cialist will work with a Bank Street curriculum expert to develop
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on June 5, 2014
Rarick, G. L., & Beuter, A. C. (1985). The effects of mainstreaming on the
motorperformance of mentally retarded and nonhandicapped students.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2, 277-282.
Rizzo, T. L., Davis, W., & Toussaint, R. (1994). Inclusion in regular classes:
Breaking from traditional curricula. Journal of Physical Education, Rec-
reation and Dance, 65 24-26, 47.
(1),
Robinson, E. L., & Fine, M. J. (1994). Developing collaborative home-
(1), 9-15.
school relationships. Preventing School Failure, 39
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional
Children, 62, 59-74.
Sherrill, C. (1993). Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Cross-
disciplinary and lifespan (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Sherrill, C. (Ed.). (1988). Leadership training in adapted physical educa-
.
tion Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Recre-
Sherrill, C. (1980, April). Assessment of an administrative commitment to
mainstreaming. Paper presented at the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation Annual Convention, Detroit.
Sherrill, C., & Megginson, N. (1984). A needs assessment instrument for
local school district use in adapted physical education. Adapted Physi-
cal Activity Quarterly, 1, 147-157.
Titus, J. A., & Watkinson, E. J. (1987). Effects of segregated and inte-
grated programs on the participation and social interaction of moder-
ately mentally handicapped children in play. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 4, 204-219.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to Con-
gress on the implementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Veal, M. L. (1988). Pupil assessment issues. Quest, 40, 151-161.
Vogler, E. W., van der Mars, H., Darst, P., & Cusimano, B. (1990). Rela-
tionship of presage, context, and process variables to ALT-PE of ele-
mentary level mainstreamed students. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 7, 298-313.
Werder, J. K., & Kalakian, L. H. (1985). Assessment in Adapted Physical
Education. Minneapolis: Burgess.
Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared
responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-415.
NOTICE
Learning Network—
easy-to-use, high-quality daily lesson plans based on cur-
rent New York Times articles. In addition, vocabulary from
New York Times featured articles will link to maps and geo-
graphical information provided by Microsoft Encarta concise
encyclopedia.
In addition to new lesson plans appearing daily, teachers
will benefit from an archived database of past lesson plans
categorized by subject, and the ability to submit and share
lesson plans of their own with their peers nationwide. Parents
can also become involved through participating in discussion
forums, discovering the site’s online reviews of educational
products, and reading up on the latest in education news from
The New York Times.
159