In a context characterized by the diversity of population we were interested to know more about the teaching practices in small schools that were developed. The structure of these schools has led to the development of organizational and didactic practices in consideration with the needs of all. We carried out the fieldwork on the teaching with heterogeneous classrooms in three small schools from Aragón, with a help of a project financed by the local Aragón authorities in Spain. Aragón is an Autonomous Community of Spain, between the Communities of Cataluña and País Vasco. 97.18% of the territory is composed of scattered nuclei.  This territory is home to 41.95% of the total population of the Community. In the rural territory, the Community have 129 primary schools as Grouped Rural Schools on one hand, or as incomplete Schools on another hand. Most of the schools have their classrooms with children of mixed ages with and without special needs.

In the research frame that differs from studies that emphasize the geographical context (Champollion , 2003; Champollion and Poirey, 2005; Acle, Roque and Contreras, 2005) and those who stress the effectiveness of small schools (Durston, 2002; Howley and Howley, 2006), the teaching practices in small schools are an aspect less studied. Therefore, the purpose was to investigate the practices of attention to heterogeneous classrooms from teachers. We consider that creative practices (Woods, 1996; Craft, 2002; Jeffrey and Woods, 2003; Troman, Jeffrey and Raggl, 2007) could be a way to work in a heterogeneous classroom. With the theoretical frame of symbolic interactionism, it explores the ways how teachers manage the attention to the heterogeneous classrooms.  We spent time with the teachers in their classrooms, at break-times and also at meal times. There were some differences amongst teachers but they had similar ways of working. We saw that teachers value their practices of attention for all the children in a group with mix-ages, but we also saw their conflict with the homogeneous actions that teachers develop in the urban schools.

The research questions are:

• What are the methological practices in the classrooms?
• What was the participation of children in the practices?
• What are teacher’s perceptions about the methodological process?

Acle, G., Roque, M.P. & Contreras, E. (2005). Hacia una visión ecológica de la educación especial para zonas rurales e indígenas. Revista de Investigación Psicoeducativa, 3(1), 40-51. Champollion P.(2003) École rurale: quels atouts ?, Infos du MRJC. Champoillon, 2004 Champollion, P. & Poirey, J. L. (2005) .Première approche de l’impact de la scolarisation en zone de montagne sur la réussite scolaire et l’orientation. 7èmes journées d’étude RAPPE. Aix en Provence, 26/27 mai 2005 Craft, A. (2002). Creativity and Early Years Education. London: Continuum. Durston, J. (2002). La participación comunitaria en la escuela rural. División de Desarrollo Social CEPAL, Casilla 179-D. Santiago. Chile. Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2006). Small schools and the pressure to consolidate. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/83/209. Jeffrey, B. & Woods, P. (2003). The Creative School. A framework for success, quality and effectiveness. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Sabirón, F. (2006). Métodos de investigación etnográfica en Ciencias Sociales. Zaragoza: Mira Editorial. Troman, G., Jeffrey, B., & Raggl, A. (2007). Creativity and performativity policies in primary schools cultures. Journal of Education Policy, 22(5), 549-572. Woods, P. (1996). Researching the art of teaching. Ethnography for educational use. London: RoutledgeFalmer.