The Implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI)

in Adapted Physical Education Across the Nation

Kristal Wheaton

Western Michigan University

Author Note

Kristal Wheaton is a graduate student in the Master’s Degree Program in Special (Adapted)

Physical Education at Western Michigan University. This paper is submitted to the instructor for

fulfillment of a course requirement for HPHE 7100, Independent Study in Special (Adapted) Physical

Education.
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the implementation of response to intervention in adapted

physical education across the nation. In addition, the study sought to gather information regarding state

physical education assessments, APE state guidelines, and APE teacher requirements. Two methods of

investigation were used, including the administration of a survey to state department of education

special education directors and physical education directors; and the careful review of state laws and

policies governing the provision of physical education and adapted physical education. The results of

the study were that a total of 26 states require physical assessments in physical education, 18 have

developed APE state guidelines, and 5 require a separate teaching certificate or endorsement to teach

APE. A total of 5 states have implemented RtI in APE. Other states have developed physical education

programs which incorporate the components of RtI including assessment, progress monitoring, and

data-based decision making.

Key words: adapted physical education, physical education, response to intervention

2
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

The Implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI)

in Adapted Physical Education Across the Nation

Nationally, an estimated 61 percent of elementary schools, 45 percent of middle schools, and 29

percent of high schools implemented Response to Intervention (RtI) during the 2008-2009 school year

(United States Department of Education [US ED], 2011). The majority of these RtI programs have been

implemented to identify and improve academic and behavioral outcomes, primarily in reading and math

(US ED et al.). According to Winnick (2011) the RtI framework fits nicely into the adapted physical

education model, the implementation of which should be studied and researched further.

RtI provides schools with a method for identifying students who need instructional

interventions, and the framework in which to implement interventions. Universal screening identifies

students falling below the 25th percentile, and a tiered approach to intervention provides increasing

levels of intensity and instructional support (Buchanan, Hinton, & Rudisill, 2013). Although any number

of tiers may exist, 3 to 4 is the most common (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010).

Within a three-tiered model the bottom tier or first tier represents instruction within the general

education classroom in which 80 percent of students are successful, the second tier represents more

intensive small group instruction provided to on average 20 percent of students, while the third tier

represents even more intensive individualized instruction provided to approximately 5 percent of

students (Murawski & Hughes, 2009)

According to Averill, Baker, & Rinaldi (2014) even though RtI interventions are provided within

the general education setting, RtI is often confused with special education. However, a distinction must

be made because as Averill et al. explain that students with and without disabilities are able to benefit

from RtI programming. However, federally funded RtI programs exclude students with disabilities based

on the rationale that RtI services are meant to supplement not supplant SE services. (US ED, 2008).

3
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Federal funding for RtI programs is provided through the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals

with Disabilities Act (IDEA), in which up to 15 percent of IDEA Part B funds and IDEA Part D State

Personnel Development (SPD) funds (US ED, 2012) may be used to provide additional instructional

support to students who have been identified through universal screening as not meeting grade-level

expectations. However, among school districts implementing RtI programs, only 41 percent used IDEA

funds, while 80 percent used general education funds (US ED, 2012).

APE, on the other hand, is typically funded through special education funds (Stephens, Silliman-

French, Kinnison, French, 2010). According the Sherrill (2004) IDEA forms the basis for APE being

provided only to students declared disabled by IEP eligibility procedures. The National Association for

Sport & Physical Education (NASPE), along with the American Association for Physical Activity &

Recreation (AAPAR) report that “as practiced today, APE has been shaped significantly by mandates

within IDEA” (p.6). These mandates set eligibility requirements for APE, including that a student must

have one of 13 disabilities recognized by IDEA in order receive APE services, and once eligibility is

determined APE must be provided within the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (Sherrill, 2004).

IDEA eligibility guidelines do not address motor competence and physical fitness levels, two

fundamental aspects of physical education. NASPE recommends that individuals scoring 1.5 standard

deviations below the mean on motor assessment be recommended for APE (2010). According to Sherrill

(2004) many students without disabilities have significant motor problems requiring APE intervention,

and therefore services should be expanded to include nondisabled students. Implementing RtI in

physical education permits nondisabled students with motor problems and low physical fitness to

receive APE interventions, thus expanding APE services as Sherrill had suggested.

According to Winnick (2010) by implementing RtI in APE, physical educators can better meet the

needs of all learners. The basic components of RtI programming, including universal screening, a tiered

4
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

approach to intervention, progress monitoring, and data-based decision making (National Center on

Response to Intervention, 2012) are easily applied within a physical education setting. Universal

screening takes the form of a motor or fitness assessment, differentiated instruction provides

appropriate interventions, and continuous progress monitoring ensures new skills are being learned and

appropriate interventions are being implemented (Winnick, 2010).

A review of the literature finds several examples of RtI implementation within general physical

education. Stephens, Silliman-French, Kinnison, & French (2010) present a four-tiered model for

implementing RtI in physical education, in which the first two tiers represent interventions within

general education, with the third tier representing individualized instruction outside of the general

education setting designed by an APE teacher, and finally the fourth tier representing interventions

provided within special education. This model differs from the three-tiered model presented by

Dauenhauer (2012) based on a successful RtI pilot program implemented in a Texas elementary school,

although receiving no APE interventions. Applegate & Jung (2012) discuss the successful implementation

of three-tiered model focused on improving physical fitness levels within an Illinois elementary school,

and provide suggestions for physical educators wishing to implement RtI programming.

California, Connecticut, and Maryland are leading the nation in the implementation of RtI in

APE. The California Department of Education (2012) guidelines for APE are very clear regarding the

integral role of APE teachers within RtI programming, including advising and collaborating with the

general physical education teacher through all aspects of the RtI program. Within California, counties

have issued their own guidelines for implementing RtI in APE, modeled after the state's policy. An

exemplary three-tiered model is presented by the Los Angeles Unified School District for identifying and

improving outcomes for students with motor problems, in which the APE teacher assists with the

identification of motor problems, analysis of movement patterns, lesson design, measurement and

5
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

evaluation (Los Angeles School District, 2011). The Connecticut Department of Education (2011)

established a three-tiered model for improving physical activity levels among students, in which APE

interventions are provided with the third tier. The Maryland Department of Education (2015) has

implemented a RtI model for students not meeting grade-level physical education outcomes, including

demonstrating appropriate motor skills and physical fitness levels.

Murawski & Hughes (2009) indicate that RtI represents major changes in US public schools,

including broadening the scope of general education classes and instructional practices, removing the

stigma associated with receiving academic support, and increasing the number of students to which

quality individualized instruction is provided. Accordingly, implementing RtI in APE represents major

changes in the provision of APE across the nation, including broadening the role of APE teachers, as well

as improving educational outcomes in areas of motor competence and physical fitness for countless

students nationwide. The purpose of this research is to investigate the implementation of RtI in APE

across the nation by 1) conducting a survey of state programs, and 2) researching state laws and policies

online.

Method

Participants

Participants for this research included State Department of Education (ED) Special Education

(SE) Directors and Physical Education (PE) Directors. State ED contacts were researched by accessing the

US ED online education directory. Individual states were selected from the drop-down list to display

address, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and website address for the states’ ED and OSE.

Contact information for State SE and PE Directors was researched by linking to the websites

provided. SE Directors were often listed on the OSE homepage and PE Directors were often listed on the

PE homepage. If contacts were not listed on their respective homepages, site directories were searched.

6
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

SE Directors or their respective assistants were identified and email addresses obtained for 45 of the 50

states. PE Directors were identified and email addresses obtained for all 50 states.

Participants were contacted by email. The Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (HSIRB)

approved Consent Form was attached to the email invitations, and the principal researcher Dr. Jiabei

Zhang was copied on all email correspondence.

A third group of Participants included physical education contacts identified in the SHAPE of the

Nation (2012) Executive Summary. These individuals had in some cases already been invited to

participate in the research, as they were identified as the state PE Director. Email invitations were sent

to all 50 state contacts listed in the SHAPE summary.

Surveys

Two forms of the survey were developed, one for SE Directors and the other for PE Directors.

The survey designed for SE Directors included 12 questions regarding APE state guidelines, APE teacher

requirements, and the implementation of RtI in APE. The survey designed for PE Directors included

these same questions, in addition to 3 questions regarding the state requirements for assessments in

physical education. The survey administered to SE Directors was also sent to physical education contacts

listed on the SHAPE of the Nation (2012) Executive Summary. The physical assessment questions were

omitted as this information was gathered by the SHAPE survey.

Survey Administered to Special Education Directors

1. Has your state developed Adapted Physical Education guidelines?

o YES

o NO

2. Are these guidelines available online?

7
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

o YES

o NO

3. Please provide the website address for accessing APE state guidelines.

4. Is a separate teaching credential or authorization required to teach Adapted Physical Education

in your state?

o YES

o NO

5. If not, who may teach Adapted Physical Education in your state?

o PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST OR PHYSICAL THERAPIST

o OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY OR PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSISTANT

o OTHER

6. Has your state implemented RtI in Adapted Physical Education?

o YES

o NO

7. When was the program implemented?

8. What is the focus of your program?

o MOTOR COMPETENCE

o PHYSICAL FITNESS

o PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

o OTHER

9. Who conducts universal screening?

8
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

o PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o OTHER

10. Which screening tools are used? Mark all that apply.

o APEAS II ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT SCALE II

o BOT-2 BRUININKS-OSERETSKY TEST OF MOTOR PROFICIENCY

o MOVEMENT ABC MOVEMENT ASSESSMENT BATTERY FOR CHILDREN

o PDMS-2 PEABODY DEVELOPMENT MOTOR SCALES

o LOUISIANA COMPETENCY TESTING FOR ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION

o FITNESSGRAM

o BROCKPORT PHYSICAL FITNESS MANUAL

o AAHPERD PHYSICAL BEST

o YMCA FITNESS TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

o OTHER

11. Which of the following tasks are completed by the APE teacher? Mark all that apply.

o PARtICIPATES IN UNIVERSAL SCREENING PROCEDURES

o IDENTIFIES AT RISK STUDENTS

o DEVELOPS LESSONG PLANS AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

o PROVIDES INSTRUCTION DURING TIER 2 INTERVENTIONS

o PROVIDES INSTRUCTION DURING TIER 3 INTERVENTIONS

o OTHER

Survey Administered to PE Directors

9
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

1. Please select your state from the drop-down list.

2. Does your state require student assessments in physical education?

o YES

o NO

3. How often are physical assessments completed?

o ONCE PER YEAR

o SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR

o AT DESIGNATED GRADES OR INTERVALS, FOR EXAMPLE IN GRADES 4, 6, AND 8

4. What assessment tool is used?

o FITNESSGRAM

o THE PRESIDENTIAL YOUR FITNESS PROGRAM

o AAHPERD PHYSICAL BEST

o STATE DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT

o OTHER

5. Has your state developed Adapted Physical Education guidelines?

o YES

o NO

6. Are these guidelines available online?

o YES

o NO

7. Please provide the website address for accessing APE state guidelines.

8. Is a separate teaching credential or authorization required to teach Adapted Physical Education

in your state?

10
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

o YES

o NO

9. If not, who may teach Adapted Physical Education in your state?

o PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST OR PHYSICAL THERAPIST

o OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY OR PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSISTANT

o OTHER

10. Has your state implemented RtI in Adapted Physical Education?

o YES

o NO

11. When was the program implemented?

12. What is the focus of your program?

o MOTOR COMPETENCE

o PHYSICAL FITNESS

o PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

o OTHER

13. Who conducts universal screening?

o PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER

o OTHER

14. Which screening tools are used? Mark all that apply.

11
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

o APEAS II ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT SCALE II

o BOT-2 BRUININKS-OSERETSKY TEST OF MOTOR PROFICIENCY

o MOVEMENT ABC MOVEMENT ASSESSMENT BATTERY FOR CHILDREN

o PDMS-2 PEABODY DEVELOPMENT MOTOR SCALES

o LOUISIANA COMPETENCY TESTING FOR ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION

o FITNESSGRAM

o BROCKPORT PHYSICAL FITNESS MANUAL

o AAHPERD PHYSICAL BEST

o YMCA FITNESS TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

o OTHER

15. Which of the following tasks are completed by the APE teacher? Mark all that apply.

o PARTICIPATES IN UNIVERSAL SCREENING PROCEDURES

o IDENTIFIES AT RISK STUDENTS

o DEVELOPS LESSONG PLANS AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

o PROVIDES INSTRUCTION DURING TIER 2 INTERVENTIONS

o PROVIDES INSTRUCTION DURING TIER 3 INTERVENTIONS

o OTHER

Data Collection

Surveys were collected online using SurveyMonkey.com. A data table was created using

Microsoft Excel to record survey responses. A total of 17 headers were developed for the data table,

including a name header, a physical education assessment header, and 15 headers corresponding to the

survey questions. The physical education assessment data was obtained from SHAPE of the Nation

(2012). Individual surveys were then downloaded from SurveyMonkey in pdf format. Survey responses

12
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

and SHAPE (2012) data was coded for Microsoft Excel. Each survey was assigned a unique identifier

based on its corresponding position within SurveyMonkey. For example, the 4 th Special Education

Response survey received was assigned the unique identifier of SER04. The unique identifiers were

recorded in the data table along with survey responses.

If no survey response was received from a state, state laws and policies were researched online

by using the Google search engine and by visiting the state’s ED website. The Google search engine was

used exclusively for this research. To locate APE guidelines the name of the state followed by “Adapted

Physical Education” was entered in the search engine. For example, to locate Arkansas APE Guidelines

the following phrase was used “Arkansas Adapted Physical Education”. If no relevant documentation

was found using the Google search engine, the state ED website was researched for APE guidelines and

documentation.

The Google search engine was also used to locate state’s in which RtI has been implemented in

APE. The terms “RtI in APE”, “RtI in Adapted Physical Education”, and “Response to Intervention in APE”

were entered in the search engine. In this manner, it was discovered that California, Connecticut, and

Maryland have implemented RtI in APE.

Results

Data was collected for a total of 42 states, including 11 states in which APE policy

documentation informed the research needs, 10 states in which PE policy documentation informed the

research, and 22 states in which survey responses informed the research.

Survey Responses. A total of 26 responses were received, including 15 from Group 1, 10 from

Group 2, and 1 from Group 3. Together these responses represented data for a total of 22 states. When

more than one response was received for a state, the data was combined. Any conflicts of data received

from multiple responses were resolved by researching the available state policy documents.

13
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Student Assessments in Physical Education. A total of 26 states require student assessments in

physical education (SHAPE, 2012). Assessments may be conducted once per year, several times per

year, or at designated grades or intervals. Fitness assessments are the most common assessment used

by states.

State APE Guidelines. A total of 18 states have developed APE guidelines.

APE Teacher Requirements. APE teacher requirements were determined for a total of 29

states, of which 5 required separate teaching certificates or endorsements for APE teachers. In the

remaining 24 states, the requirements varied. A total of 23 states reported that PE teachers may teach

APE. In addition to PE teachers, some states permit SE teachers, PT, OT, PTA, and OTA to teach APE.

RtI Implemented in APE. A total of 5 states have implemented RtI in APE. These states include

Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maryland, and Montana.

States requiring assessments that have implemented RtI. A total of 2 states requiring

assessments in PE have implemented RtI in APE.

States not requiring assessments that have implemented RtI. A total of 3 states requiring

assessments in PE have implemented RtI in APE.

Discussion

While many states have not specifically implemented RtI in APE their policies and procedures

governing physical education and adapted physical education serve the purpose of differentiating

instruction in physical education to meet the needs of all learners regardless of disability. For example,

Delaware has developed Exit Tasks aligned to national standards which assess motor skills, movement

skills, physical activity, physical fitness, and social skills (Delaware ED, 2008). In addition, the state

14
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

requires local school districts to administer fitness assessments of all students in grades 4, 7, and grades

9 or 10 (Delaware ED, 2007). The combined use of Exit Task Assessments and school-wide physical

fitness assessments inform the identification process for APE services (Delaware ED, 2012). Similarly, the

Ohio ED has implemented benchmark assessments in grades 2, 5, 8, and in high school based on NASPE

standards for physical education (Ohio ED, 2013). Local districts may use the results of these

assessments to guide the delivery of APE programs and services (Ohio ED, 2012).

Several state physical education programs incorporate the basic components of RtI, including

assessment, continual progress monitoring, and data-based decision making into their general physical

education programs. For example, New York requires the development of individualized physical

education plans which include continual assessment of student goals and progress (New York

Department of Education, 2010). In addition, New York state guidelines for APE recommend the use of

annual fitness assessments as universal screening tools for the identification of students who need APE

services (New York et al., 1997). New York City Schools require annual fitness assessments for all

students in grades 1-12, thereby implementing universal screening procedures to identify students

falling behind in physical education or not meeting grade-level expectations (2017).

Classification of State APE Guidelines

State APE programs may be classified based on if their requirements for providing APE are

aligned with 1) IDEA, 2) NASPE, or 3) Content and Benchmarks.

IDEA-aligned. APE is special education provided according to IDEA regulations. APE services are

provided to students with disabilities in the LRE. APE in a separate facility are only provided when the

student cannot safely participate in the general education class.

NASPE-aligned. The provision of APE meets IDEA requirements for students with disabilities. In

addition, APE services are provided to students with gross motor delays.

15
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Content-aligned. The provision of APE meets IDEA requirements for students with disabilities. In

addition, APE services are provided to students not meeting grade-level content expectations in physical

education.

Limitations of the research

The limitations of this research include that the study was conducted entirely online. Both the

survey and the policy research were conducted via the Internet. It is likely that a higher response rate

for the survey would have been achieved had participants been contacted by phone, mail, or in-person.

Furthermore, the researcher was limited in her examination of state laws and policies regarding physical

education to those documents available online.

16
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

References

Applegate K. & Jung J. (2012). Response to intervention and physical education: using the two together.

Illinois Journal for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance.

Buchanan, A.M., Hinton, V., & Rudisill, M. (2013). Using positive behavior support in physical education.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 84 (5), 44-50.

California State Department of Education (2012). Adapted physical education guidelines in California

schools.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2011). Guidelines for adapted physical education.

Dauenhauer, B. D. (2012). Applying response to intervention in physical education. Strategies: A

Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 25(5), 21-25, May-Jun.

Georgia Department of Education (2011). The Georgia student health and physical education (SHAPE)

frequently asked questions.

Los Angeles Unified School District (2011). Adapted physical education. Position Paper No. Schools for

All Children, Spring 2011.

Maryland State Department of Education (2015). Adapted physical education a guide for serving

students with disabilities.

United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (2008).

Memorandum. Subject: Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Under Part B of the

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)

17
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance (2011). IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study Final Report July 2011.

United States Department of Education, Special Education (2012). Fiscal year 2013 budget request.

Murawski & Hughes (2009) Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: a logical

combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for

Children and Youth 53(4), 267-277.

New York Department of Education (2015). Part 135 Regulation.

New York City Department of Education (2017). Physical Education Requirements.

National Association for Sport & Physical Education, American Alliance for Physical Activity, Recreation,

& Dance (2010). Eligibility criteria for adapted physical education services, position statement.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2010). Essential components of RtI – a closer look

at response to intervention.

Society of Health and Physical Educators (2012). State requirements for student assessment in physical

education.

Stephen, T. L. (2011). A forgotten component of special education programming: adapted physical

education programming. Journal of the Texas Educational Diagnosticians’ Association, 40 (2).

Stephens, T. L., Silliman-French, L., Kinnison, L., French, R. (2010). Implementation of response-to-

intervention system in general physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, &

Dance, 81 (9).

Sherrill, C. A. (2004). Adapted Physical Activity, Recreation, and Sport, Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw

18
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Hill Companies.

Winnick, J.P. (2010). Adapted Physical Education and Sport, Fifth Edition. Human Kinetics Publishers

19
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Table 1 – States requiring assessment, how often assessment is requirement, and the assessment used.

State requires assessment How often Which assessment

Alabama 1 1 4

Alaska 2    

Arizona 2  

Arkansas 2    

California 1  

Colorado 1    

Connecticut 1 3 4

Delaware 1 3 1

Florida 1    

Georgia 1 1 1

Hawaii 1    

Idaho 2  

Illinois 2    

Indiana 2    

Iowa 2    

Kansas 2    

Kentucky 2    

Louisiana 2    

Maine 1 4 5

Maryland 1 4 5

Massachusetts 2    

Michigan 2  

Minnesota 1    

Mississippi 1    

Missouri 1 3 1

Montana 1 4 5

Nebraska 2    

Nevada 2    

New Hampshire 1 4 5

New Jersey 2 4 5

New Mexico 1    

20
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

New York 1 4 5

North Carolina 2    

North Dakota 2 4 1

Ohio 1 1 4

Oklahoma 1 2 1

Oregon 2    

Pennsylvania 1    

Rhode Island 2  

South Carolina 1 3 1

South Dakota 2  

Tennessee 2    

Texas 1    

Utah 2

Vermont 1 4 5

Virginia 1    

Washington 1 3 4

West Virginia 1 3 1

Wisconsin 2    

Wyoming 2  

1=Yes 1=Once per year 1=Fitnessgram

2=No 2=Several times per year 2=Presidential Youth Fitness

3=At designated grades or intervals 3=AAHPERD Physical Best

4=LOCAL/DISTRICT DECISION 4=State Developed Assessment

5=OTHER 5=Locally determined

Table 2 – States having developed APE Guidelines, and websites for accessing documentation.
State has developed APE Website address to access State APE Guidelines
Guidelines

Alabama 1 http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/ape.al.elig.crit.pdf

Alaska 2

Arizona 2

21
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Arkansas http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Curriculum%20and%20Instruction/Frameworks/PE
1 %20Health/Physical_Education_and_Health_K_8.pdf

California 1 https://www.shastacoe.org/uploaded/Dept/selpa/SELPA_Resources/APE_Guidelines.pdf

Colorado 2

Connecticut 1 http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/publications/apeguide/apeguide.pdf

Delaware 1 https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/communities/tle2-de-sample-measure-c.pdf

Florida 2

Georgia 1 https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/GPS%20Support%20Docs/Physical_Education_Standards_4-30-09.pdf

Hawaii 3

Idaho 2

Illinois 3

Indiana 2

Iowa 3

Kansas 3

Kentucky 3

Louisiana 1 http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/ape.la.elig.crit.pdf

Maine 1 http://www.maine.gov/doe/physicaled/adapted/index.html

Maryland 1 http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/ape.md.service.guide.pdf

Massachusetts 2

Michigan 2

Minnesota 3

Mississippi 2

Missouri 1 https://dese.mo.gov/faq-categorization/adapted-physical-education

Montana 1 http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/SpecED/guides/OT_PTGuidelines.pdf

Nebraska 3

Nevada 3

New Hampshire 2

New Jersey 2

New Mexico 3

New York 1 http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/pe/documents/qa.pdf

North Carolina 1 https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/instructional-resources/adapted-physical-education/ape-brochure.pdf

North Dakota 3

Ohio http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Academic-Content-Standards/Physical-Education/Physical-Education-
1 Evaluation-updated/Adapted-Physical-Education-Evaluation-8-30-12.pdf.aspx

Oklahoma 2

Oregon 2

22
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Pennsylvania 1 http://www.pattan.net/category/Educational%20Initiatives/Adapted%20Physical%20Education

Rhode Island http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Students-and-Families-Great-Schools/Special-Education/RI-BOR-Regs-

1 Governing-Education-of-Chidlren-with-Desabilities.pdf

South Carolina 3

South Dakota 2

Tennessee 3

Texas 1 http://www.tahperd.org/web/images/pdfs/about%20us/divisions/ape_qanda.pdf

Utah 2

Vermont 2

Virginia 2

Washington 1 http://www.k12.wa.us/HealthFitness/Standards/PhysicalEducationK-12LearningStandards.pdf

West Virginia 2

Wisconsin 1 https://dpi.wi.gov/sped/topics/specially-designed-physical-education

Wyoming 2

1= Yes

2= No

3= Unknown

Table 3 – State APE teacher requirements

Separate credential required If no, who can teach APE

Alabama 2 1

Alaska 1  

Arizona 2 1,2,5

Arkansas 3

California 1  

Colorado 2 1

Connecticut 2 1

Delaware 3  

Florida 3  

Georgia 2 1

Hawaii 3  

Idaho 2 1,2

Illinois 3  

Indiana 3  

23
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Iowa 3  

Kansas 3  

Kentucky 3  

Louisiana 3  

Maine 2 1

Maryland 2 1

Massachusetts 2  

Michigan 2 1,2

Minnesota 3  

Mississippi 3  

Missouri 1  

Montana 2 1,5

Nebraska 3  

Nevada 3  

New Hampshire 2 1

New Jersey 3  

New Mexico 3  

New York 2 1

North Carolina 3  

North Dakota 3  

Ohio 2 1

Oklahoma 2 1

Oregon 2 1,2,3,4

Pennsylvania 2 1

Rhode Island 2 1

South Carolina 3  

South Dakota 1  

Tennessee 3  

Texas 2 1,2,3,4

Utah 2 1,2,3,4

Vermont 2 1, 3

Virginia 2 1

Washington 3  

West Virginia 2 1

Wisconsin 1  

24
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

Wyoming 2 1

1=Yes 1=PE teacher

2=No 2=SE teacher

3=UK 3=OT or PT

4=OT or PT assistant

5=CERTIFIED TEACHER

6=OTHER

Frequency table distributions

Has your state developed APE guidelines?

Response Frequency Percent
YES 18 40.00%
NO 20 36.00%
UNKNOWN 12 26.00%

Is a separate teaching credential required?

Response Frequency Percent
YES 5 12.00%
NO 24 44.00%
UNKNOWN 21 46.00%

Has your state implemented RtI in APE?

Response Frequency Percent
YES 5 10.00%
NO 19 40.00%
UNKNOWN 26 52.00%

RtI in states requiring student assessment in physical education.

Response Frequency Percent
YES 4 15.38%
NO 10 38.46%
UNKNOWN 12 46.15%

25
Running Head: IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI

RtI in states not requiring student assessment in physical education.

Response Frequency Percent
YES 1 4.17%
NO 9 37.50%
UNKNOWN 14 58.33%

26