This article showcases several small, rural schools in Wisconsin who have made a commitment to utilizing inclusive school practices. By re-aligning current building-based resources in innovative ways, the professionals in these four schools have designed unique inclusive education models and practices that respond to the educational needs of a diverse range of learners. This article describes four successful rural school inclusion models in detail. These rural school inclusion models focus on: (a) scheduling for cross-categorical programming, (b) including students with challenging behaviors, (c) co-teaching, and (d) practicing inclusive education in a rural high school. Other small, rural schools who are moving towards inclusion, will benefit from the discussed experiences these models encountered during the re-alignment of their resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmanR., & LewisT.J. (1990). Social judgements of integrated and segregated students with mental retardation toward their same-age peers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 107–112.
2.
BakerE.T., WangM.C., & WalbergH.J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33–35.
3.
BearG.G., & ProctorW.A. (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated program on the achievement of nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped children. Journal of Exceptionality, 1, 227–238.
4.
BeloinK., & FadrowskiR.A. (1996). Inclusive practices in rural schools. Proceedings of Wisconsin's first conference on inclusion in rural schools.University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point: A publication of the Wisconsin School Inclusion Project.
5.
BiklenD., CorriganC., & QuickD. (1989). Beyond obligation: Students' relations with each other in integrated classes. In LipskyD. & GartnerA. (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all.Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.
6.
ColeD.S., & MeyerL.H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 340–351.
7.
DenoS., MaruyamaG., EspinC., & CohenC. (1990). Educating students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children, 57(2), 150–161.
8.
FayJ., & ClineF. (1997). Discipline with love and logic.St. Golden, CO: The Love and Logic Press.
9.
FullerH. (1996, April). What would it really take to reform public education? Presentation to the School of education at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI.
10.
GiangrecoM.F., DennisR., CloningerC., EdelmanS., & SchattmanR. (1993). “I've counted Jon”: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(4), 359–372.
11.
GlasserW. (1989). Quality: The key to discipline. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 69(10), 36–38.
12.
HelmstetterE., PeckC.A., & GiangrecoM.F. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(4), 263–276.
13.
HollowoodT.A., SalisburyC.L., RainforthB., & PalombaroM.M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities.Exceptional Children, 61(3), 242–253.
14.
HuntP., & Ferron-DavisF. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general education versus special education classes. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(4), 247–253.
15.
HuntP., GoetzL., & AndersonJ. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement in integrated versus segregated school sites. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(2), 125–130.
16.
Kashinen-ChapmanA. (1992). Saline area schools and inclusive community CONCEPTS. In VillaR.A., ThousandJ.S., StainbackW., & StainbackS. (Eds.), Restructuring for caring & effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 169–185). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.
17.
McLeskeyJ., WaldronN., & PacchianoD. (1993, April). Inclusive elementary school programs: Teachers perceptions of strength and challenges. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX.
18.
MeadowsN.B., NeelR.S., ScottC.M., & ParkerG. (1994). Competence and mainstream accommodations: A look at mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed students with serious behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 19(3), 170–180.
19.
PeckC.A., CarlsonP., & HelmstetterE. (1992). Parent and teacher perceptions of outcomes for typically developing children enrolled in integrated early childhood programs: A statewide survey. Journal of Early Intervention, 16(1), 53–63.
20.
PugachM.C..& WessonC.L. (1995). Teachers' and students' views of team teaching of general education and learning disabled students in two fifth-grade classes. Elementary School Journal, 95, 279–295.
21.
RyndakD.L., DowningJ.E., JacquelineL.R., & MorrisonA.P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(2), 147–157.
22.
SalisburyC., PalombaroM.M., & HollowoodT.M. (1993). On the nature and change of an inclusive elementary school. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(2), 75–83.
23.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (1994). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative study of three reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 785–811.
24.
SontagE. (1996, April). Creating change by shifting the paradigm. Presentation at the Wisconsin Conference on Inclusion in Rural Schools, Rhinelander, WI
