SUSTAINING SCHOOLWIDE PBIS IN URGAN SETTINGS: CHALLENGES &

STRATEGIES PART 2

NESTING PBIS WITHIN RTI-DRIVEN SCHOOL REFORM: THE SCHOOLWIDE

APPLICATIONS MODEL (SAM)National PBIS Leadership Forum

Chicago, ILOctober 26-28, 2011

Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas

Better educational and social outcomes as verified from research

Better fit with federal policy (i.e., ADA; IDEIA) Consistent with Supreme Court decisions

challenging LRE

InclusionThe Good News

Disconnected from general curriculum Velcro-aide (dedicated paraprofessional)

blocks natural interactions Disruptive to general education class Driven by special education with little or no

participation from general education

InclusionThe Bad News

Integrate all school resources for the benefit of all students

Accomplish de facto inclusion through collaborative instruction

Driven by general education with support from special education

A Better Approach(Perhaps)

Contemporary logic◦ Medical Model

Teaching/learning informed by psychology Locus of academic/social failure of child Pathologizing process (i.e., LD; EBD; etc.) Diagnostic/prescriptive remedy Requires quasi-medical industry to service referrals Emphasizes place rather than need (congregate

service delivery).

Competing Logic Models

Suggested Logic◦ Schoolwice RTI Model

Teaching/learning informed not only by psychology (i.e., student assessment) but by sociology (i.e., school organization and leadership) and anthropology (i.e., focus on culture of the school).

Locus of academic/social failure is ecology of the child Addresses measured needs of child rather than

assesses pathology Addresses prevention rather than remediation Integrates specialized resources so all students benefit Reduces referrals for IEPs (special education).

Competing Logic Models (cont.)

Designing Schoolwide Systems for Student Success

Academic Instruction(with fidelity measures)

Behavioral Instruction(with fidelity measures)

Tertiary Interventions(for individual students)•Wraparound Intervention• Complex Multiple Life Domain

FBA/BIPs

Tertiary Interventions(for individual students)•Wraparound Intervention• Complex Multiple Life Domain

FBA/BIPs

Secondary Interventions(for some students: at-risk)• Simple FBA/BIPs• Group Intervention with

Individual Features• Group Intervention

Secondary Interventions(for some students: at-risk)• Simple FBA/BIPs• Group Intervention with

Individual Features• Group Intervention

Universal Interventions(for all students)• Direct Instruction of Behavioral Expectation• Positive Acknowledgement

Universal Interventions(for all students)• Direct Instruction of Behavioral Expectation• Positive Acknowledgement

Tertiary Interventions(for individual students)• Assessment-based• Resource Intensive

Tertiary Interventions(for individual students)• Assessment-based• Resource Intensive

Secondary Interventions(for some students: at-risk)• Some individualizing• Small Group Interventions• High Efficiency• Rapid Response

Secondary Interventions(for some students: at-risk)• Some individualizing• Small Group Interventions• High Efficiency• Rapid Response

Increases Levels of SupportRedu

ces N

umbe

rs o

f Stu

dent

s

Screen All Students

RtI conceptual system with general and special education integrated at all three levels

Universal Interventions(for all students)• Preventive, Proactive• Differentiated Instruction• Research Validated

Curriculum

Universal Interventions(for all students)• Preventive, Proactive• Differentiated Instruction• Research Validated

Curriculum

No special population classes. General ed teachers responsible for all

students at each grade level All support services delivered in ways such

that non-designated students can also benefit

Collaborative teaching (general ed and support ed)

Team-driven infrastructure with coaching support.

Integrating Means:

Integrating all school resources for the benefit of positive academic gains for all student (i.e., no silos).

RTI as Comprehensive School Reform

Extension of standard protocol RTI Alternative to medical model All personnel focused on all students All resources integrated in a universal

design for learning

Problem-Solving Logic

General education Special education Title I Gifted English Language Learners Section 504 Anything else

All resources means

Program Evaluation Model

Does SAM Work?

00.5

11.5

22.5

3

School A SAMAN (Fall, 2010)

Apr. 2008May 2009Nov. 2009May 2010Dec 2010

  2009-10 2010-11 1 year Growth in API Scores

District Overall 688 715 27District Students with IEPs 499 544 45Belle Haven Overall 685 693 8Belle Haven Students with IEPs 508 529 21Brentwood Overall 737 816 79Brentwood Students with IEPs 592 586 -8Cesar Chavez Overall 646 697 51Cesar Chavez Students with IEPs 411 497 86Costano Overall 701 759 58Costano Students with IEPs 538 617 79EPA Charter Overall 882 866 -16EPA Charter Students with IEPs 715 696 -19Green Oaks Overall 617 643 26Green Oaks Students with IEPs 467 482 15McNair Overall 659 631 -28McNair Students with IEPs 432 451 19

Ravenswood City School District

2008-09 2009-10 2010-110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

666688

715

458499

544

Ravenswood City School District District API Compared to Students with IEPs

District API Students w/ IEPs

School Year

A. Ex

pecta

tions

define

d

B. Beha

vioral

expec

tation

s taug

ht

C. On-g

oing s

ystem

for re

warding

beha

vioral

expec

tation

s

D. Syst

em fo

r respo

nding

to be

havio

ral vi

olatio

ns

E. Mon

itorin

g and

Decisio

n-Maki

ng

F. Mana

gemen

t

G. Distr

ict-lev

el sup

port

Total

mean s

core

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

School A SET (Dec, 10)

Apr 08Nov 09May 10Dec 10

Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurementF(1.96, 522.13) = 53.62, p < .01, ηp2 = .17

Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

CELDT (California English Language Development Test) Score Relationship between CELDT and SAMAN scores

School B

CELDT score(M = 516.83, SD = 54.97, N = 520)

SAMAN score(M = 2.03, SD = .5)

Significancer(518) = .286, p < .001

2004 2005

Correlation

SAMAN score could be a significant predictor of CELDT (ß = .286, p < .01), explaining about 8.2% of the variance.

Regression

Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurementF(2, 534) = 60.47, p < .01, ηp2 = .19

Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Repeated one-way ANOVA

School B

Significant difference among 2002, 2003, and 2004 school year CELDT scores, F(1.83, 472.77) = 237.80, p < .001.

Significant increase from 2002 (M = 470.55, SD = 65.18) to 2004 (M = 520.29, SD = 47.69) school year.

Post-hoc Test with Tuckey’s

CELDT (California English Language Development Test) Score

Comparison among 2002, 2003, and 2004 school year

2002 2003 2004

Significant

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4Cohort 1 Cohort 2

1,380

1,400

1,420

1,440

1,460

1,480

1,500

1,520

DC-BAS Reading Score (2010-2011 School Year Only)Sc

ale

Scor

e

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4Cohort 1 Cohort 2

1,380

1,400

1,420

1,440

1,460

1,480

1,500

1,520

1,540

1,560

1466.94

1494.07

1524.56

1542.14

1434.53

1457.42

1497.55

1521.14

DC-BAS Math Score (2010-2011 School Year Only)Sc

ale

Scor

e

Test

#1

Test

#2

Test

#3

Test

#4

Test

#1

Test

#2

Test

#3

Test

#4

Test

#1

Test

#2

Test

#3

Test

#4

Test

#1

Test

#2

Test

#3

Test

#4

Test

#1

Test

#2

Test

#3

Test

#4

Test

#1

Test

#2

Test

#3

Test

#4

0809 0910 1011 0809 0910 1011Cohort 1 Cohort 2

1,300

1,350

1,400

1,450

1,500

1,550

1,600

1462.491469.97

1495.171506.96

1463.501476.79

1498.771510.74

1468.02

1496.481506.14

1515.31

1431.191444.44

1463.21

1481.07

1427.06

1445.75

1464.24

1494.15

1432.45

1452.60

1472.06

1493.82

DC-BAS Reading - Scale Score Changes(08-09 to 10-11 School Year)

Test Time

Scal

e Sc

ore

Test#1

Test#2

Test#3

Test#4

Test#1

Test#2

Test#3

Test#4

Test#1

Test#2

Test#3

Test#4

Test#1

Test#2

Test#3

Test#4

Test#1

Test#2

Test#3

Test#4

Test#1

Test#2

Test#3

Test#4

0809 0910 1011 0809 0910 1011Cohort 1 Cohort 2

1,400

1,450

1,500

1,550

1,600

1,650

DC-BAS Math - Scale Score Changes(08-09 to 10-11 School Year)

Test Time

Scal

e Sc

ore

Pearson correlation between ELA & SAMAN Score: Significant positive correlation betweenSTAR ELA score and SAMAN, r(9265)= .063, p < .01.

298.17

302.97

305.47305.42

308.28

316.86

325.36

1.71

2.322.41

2.312.44

2.542.67

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

Year 03-04 Year 04-05 Year 05-06 Year 06-07 Year 07-08 Year 08-09 Year 09-10School Year

SAM

AN S

core

STAR

ELA

Sco

re

STAR ELA & SAMAN Score Change(Three Cohort 1 Schools: Chavez, Willow Oaks, & Belle Haven)

STAR

SAMAN

Pearson correlation between Math & SAMAN Score: Significant positive correlation betweenSTAR ELA score and SAMAN, r(9098)= .140, p < .01.

296.99

304.61308.58

305.96

319.11

330.59

348.35

1.71

2.322.41

2.312.44

2.542.64

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

Year 03-04 Year 04-05 Year 05-06 Year 06-07 Year 07-08 Year 08-09 Year 09-10School Year

SAM

AN S

core

STAR

Mat

h Sc

ore

STAR Math & SAMAN Score Change(Three Cohort 1 Schools: Chavez, Willow Oaks, & Belle Haven)

STAR

SAMAN

Visit

www.samschools.org

Contact me . . .

wsailor @ku.edu

For More . . .