This article presents case studies of two rural districts—both confronting economic and demographic challenges—that were making significant strides toward closing achievement gaps between students with and without disabilities. The districts accomplished this work by using six practices, common to both but implemented differently in each: (a) using data well, (b) establishing and maintaining focus, (c) selecting and implementing shared instructional practices, (d) implementing deeply, (e) monitoring and providing feedback and support, and (f) inquiring and learning. These findings illustrate that, contrary to popular stereotypes, some rural districts serving low income and diverse families are able to increase the achievement levels of students with disabilities.
BoeE. (2006). Long-term trends in the national demand, supply, and shortage of special education teachers.The Journal of Special Education, 40, 138–150.
2.
BomerR., DworinJ. E., MayL., & SemingsonP. (2008). Miseducating teachers about the poor: A critical analysis of Ruby Payne's claims about poverty.Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2497–2531.
3.
BondyE., & RossD.D. (1998). Confronting myths about teaching Black children: A challenge for teacher educators.Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 241–254.
4.
BowenS.K., & RudeH.A. (2006). Assessment and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges with educational reform.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 24–30.
5.
BrownellM., BishopA., & SindelarP. (2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 9–14.
ColadarciT. (2003). Gallup goes to school: The importance of confidence intervals for evaluating “Adequate Yearly Progress” in small schools. Washington, DC: Rural School and CommunityTrust. Retrieved from http://www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/Gallup_Goes_to_School.pdf.
8.
CopelandS. R., & CosbeyJ. (2008). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices.Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33/34(4-1), 214–227.
9.
CyrenneP., & GrantH. (2009). University decision making and prestige: An empirical study.Economics of Education Review, 28(2), 237–248. doi: 10.1016/j. econedurev.2008.06.001
10.
DahlR.A. (1961). Who governs: Power and democracy in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
DexterD.D., HughesC.A., & FarmerT.W. (2008). Responsiveness to Intervention: A review of field studies and implications for rural special education.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 3–9.
12.
EckesS.E., & SwandoJ. (2009). Special education subgroups under NCLB: Issues to consider.Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2479–2504.
13.
EvansC., WilliamsJ.B., KingL., & MetcalfD. (2010). Modeling, guided instruction, and application of UDL in a rural special education teacher preparation program.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29(4), 41–48.
14.
FriendM., CookL., Hurley-ChamberlainD., & ShambergerC. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education.Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27. doi: 10.1080/10474410903535380
15.
FullanM. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
FullanM. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
17.
GerstenR., & DiminoJ. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again).Reading Research Quarterly, 69, 99–108.
18.
GuillotM.C., & ParkerG. (2010). When we really believe: How Louisiana's St. Tammany Parish school system is reconciling IDEIA with the NCLB mandate.Educational Horizons, 88(4), 231–248.
19.
HallT., StrangmanN., & MeyerA. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html
20.
HammondH., & IngallsL. (2003). Teachers' attitudes toward inclusion: Survey results from elementary school teachers in three southwestern rural school Districts.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(2), 24–30.
21.
Has progress been made in raising achievement for students with disabilities? (2009). Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/howley/Downloads/Chudowsky2Kober_STST0708_P4_ProgressStudentswDisabilities_111609.pdf
22.
HehirT. (2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In GordonD.T., GravelJ.W. & SchifterL.A. (Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp. 35–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
HehirT. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass.
24.
HodgeC., & KrummB. L. (2009). NCLB: A study of its effect on rural schools—school administrators rate service options for students with disabilities.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(1), 20–27.
25.
HoppeyD., & McLeskeyJ. (2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school.Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245–256. doi: 10.1177/0022466910390507
26.
HowleyA., & HowleyC. (2006). Small schools and the pressure to consolidate.Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(10). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/81/207
27.
HowleyA., RhodesM., & BeallJ. (2009). Challenges facing rural schools: Implications for gifted students.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(4), 515–536.
28.
JamesonJ., McDonnellJ., JohnsonJ. W., RiesenT., & PolychronisS. (2007). A comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in the general education classroom and one-to-one massed practice instruction in the special education classroom.Education & Treatment of Children, 30(1), 23–44.
29.
KashiT.L. (2008). Response to intervention as a suggested generalized approach to improving minority AYP scores.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 37–44.
30.
KossarK., MitchemK., & LudlowB. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A national study of its impact on special education in rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 38.
31.
LemkeJ. C. (1995). Attracting and retaining special educators in rural and small schools: Issues and solutions.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 14, 2530.
32.
MalloryB. L. (2010). An ecocultural perspective on family support in rural special education.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29(2), 12–17.
33.
McNultyB.A., & BesserL. (2011). Leaders make it happen! An administrator's guide to data teams. Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press.
34.
MitchemK., KossarK., & LudlowB.L. (2006). Finite resources, increasing demands: Rural children left behind? educators speak out on issues facing rural special education.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 13–23.
35.
MonkD. H. (2007) Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas.The Future of Children, 17, 155 - 174.
36.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Common core of data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/aboutCCD.asp
37.
O'DellR. M., & SchaeferM. (2005). IDEA compliance: A view from rural America.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(4), 9–17.
PenningtonR., HornC., & BerrongA. (2009). An evaluation of the differences between big city and small town special education services for students with low incidence disabilities in Kentucky.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 3–9.
40.
PurcellL.L., EastB., & RudeH.A. (2005). Administrative perspectives on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) for students with disabilities in rural settings.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 2731.
41.
ReaP. J., McLaughlinV. L., & Walther-ThomasC. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs.Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203–222.
42.
RobinsonV. (2011). Student-centered leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
43.
RoseD.H., & MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
RosenkoetterS., IrwinJ., & SacedaR. (2004). Addressing personnel needs for rural areas.Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 276–291.
45.
SeilerL. H. (1975). Community power structures and methods' artifacts: A reinterpretation.Sociological Quarterly, 16(2), 272–276.
46.
ShippenM., HouchinsD.E., CalhoonM., FurlowC.F., & SartorD.L. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in reading for urban middle school students with disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 322–328.
47.
TarrJ., TsokovaD., & TakkunenU. (2012). Insights into inclusive education through a small Finnish case study of an inclusive school context.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(7), 691–704. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2010.502947
48.
TefsM., & TelferD. M. (2013). Director's and superintendent's commentary: Behind the Numbers.Journal of Special Education Leadership, 26(1), 43–52.
49.
ThompsonS.J., QuenemoenR.F., & ThurlowM.L. (2003). The status of large-scale assessment practices for students with disabilities in rural America.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(4), 3–9.
50.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014-015). Washington, DC: Author.
51.
WallaceT., AndersonA.R., & BartholomayT. (2002). Collaboration: An element associated with the success of four inclusive high schools.Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), 349381.
52.
WanzekJ., & VaughnS. (2011). Is a Three-Tier Reading Intervention Model Associated With Reduced Placement in Special Education?Remedial & Special Education, 32(2), 167–175. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361267
53.
WestJ.E., WhitbyP.J., & SchaeferJ. (2008). Federal policy and the education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward.Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(3), 1–14.
54.
WischnowskiM.W., SalmonS.J., & EatonK. (2004). Evaluating co teaching as a means for successful inclusion of students with disabilities in a rural district.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(3), 3–14.
55.
WoodrumA. (2004). State-mandated testing and cultural resistance in Appalachian schools: Competing values and expectations.Journal of Research in Rural Education, 19(1). Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/19-1.pdf.
56.
ZacharakisJ., DevinM., & MillerT. (2008). political economy of rural schools in the heartland.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(3), 16–24.
