Meeting the Challenge of Conducting Community-Based Instruction in Rural Settings:

Abstract Community-based instruction for students with moderate to severe disabilities facilitates generalization for learning to real world settings, yet balancing CBI with the students' need to spend time in inclusive classroom settings can be a challenge. Dealing with the constraints of offering CBI in rural settings can add an additional challenge. This article describes how rural special education teachers confronted these challenges in conducting CBI with students across five age groups: (a) preschool, (b) elementary, (c) middle school, (d) secondary school, and (e) transition to adulthood. In addition, guidelines are provided for rural special education teachers who are striving to meet the same challenges. The practice of teaching in community settings (i.e., in vivo instruction) began because many students with moderate to severe disabilities have difficulty generalizing or applying the skills they are taught in classroom settings in the real world (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Stokes & Osnes, 1986). Although community-based instruction (CBI) facilitates generalization, special education teachers may find that it is difficult to balance the need for CBI with the need for students to spend time in classroom settings with their same-age peers. In addition, rural special education teachers may find that they must struggle with the constraints of providing CBI in a rural setting. For example, transporting students to a community setting in a rural district (e.g., grocery store, restaurant, laundromat) may take students away from the school setting for a longer period of time than it would in an urban district. Several authors have provided suggestion for meeting the challenges associated with conducting CBI. Brown et al (1983) provided a rationale for conducting CBI with students who need a functional curriculum and have cognitive disabilities that may prevent them from generalizing from classroom to community settings. Sailor et al (1986) provided suggestions for overcoming the barriers associated with administrative factors, such as insurance, transportation, staffing, and costs. When constraints cannot be overcome, Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Clancy, and Veerhusen (1986) suggested guidelines for providing instruction in classroom simulations as an adjunct to CBI. Rainforth and York (1987) suggested embedding related services (e.g., physical or speech/language therapy) in CBI. Finally, Beck, Broers, Hogue, Shipstead, and Knowlton (1994) made suggestions for involving same-age peers without disabilities with students with disabilities who participate in CBI. While rural teacher should review each of these sources, this article adds to the work of these authors by addressing the challenges associated with conducting CBI in rural areas. This will be accomplished by describing five examples in which rural special education teachers in Kentucky systematically implemented CBI with students with disabilities. In closing, guidelines will be presented for rural special education teachers who conduct CBI. Five Examples of CBI in Rural Settings The following examples demonstrate how rural special education teachers in Kentucky conducted community-based instruction across five age groups: (a) preschool, (b) elementary, (c) middle school, (d) secondary, and (e) transition to adulthood. CBI with Preschool Students Gast, Collins, Wolery, and Jones (1993) conducted community-based instruction with 4 young children with developmental delays, ages 3 to 5 years, who attended a preschool in a small rural town. The teacher targeted the specific skill of teaching the children to resist the lures of strangers by saying "No" within 5 s and walking away at least 5 feet within 5 s. During 1:1 instruction in the classroom, the teacher first talked to the children about the importance of saying "No" to strangers and modeled the correct response. She then used a constant time delay procedure to teach the response to the child. …