1 / 31

National PBIS Leadership Forum Chicago, IL October 26-28, 2011 Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas

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, IL October 26-28, 2011 Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas. Inclusion The Good News.

afric
Download Presentation

National PBIS Leadership Forum Chicago, IL October 26-28, 2011 Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SUSTAINING SCHOOLWIDE PBIS IN URGAN SETTINGS: CHALLENGES & STRATEGIES PART 2NESTING PBIS WITHIN RTI-DRIVEN SCHOOL REFORM: THE SCHOOLWIDE APPLICATIONS MODEL (SAM) National PBIS Leadership Forum Chicago, IL October 26-28, 2011 Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas

  2. InclusionThe Good News • 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

  3. InclusionThe Bad 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

  4. A Better Approach(Perhaps) • 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

  5. Competing Logic Models • 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).

  6. Competing Logic Models (cont.) • 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).

  7. Integrating Means: • 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.

  8. RTI as Comprehensive School Reform • Integrating all school resources for the benefit of positive academic gains for all student (i.e., no silos).

  9. Problem-Solving Logic • Extension of standard protocol RTI • Alternative to medical model • All personnel focused on all students • All resources integrated in a universal design for learning

  10. All resources means • General education • Special education • Title I • Gifted • English Language Learners • Section 504 • Anything else

  11. Does SAM Work? • Program Evaluation Model

  12. Ravenswood City School District

  13. Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(1.96, 522.13) = 53.62, p < .01, ηp2 = .17

  14. School B • CELDT (California English Language Development Test) Score Relationship between CELDT and SAMAN scores Correlation CELDT score (M = 516.83, SD = 54.97, N = 520) SAMAN score (M = 2.03, SD = .5) Significance r(518) = .286, p < .001 Regression SAMAN score could be a significant predictor of CELDT (ß = .286, p < .01), explaining about 8.2% of the variance. 2004 2005

  15. Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(2, 534) = 60.47, p < .01, ηp2 = .19

  16. Repeated one-way ANOVA School B CELDT (California English Language Development Test) Score Comparison among 2002, 2003, and 2004 school year Significant difference among 2002, 2003, and 2004 school year CELDT scores, F(1.83, 472.77) = 237.80, p < .001. Post-hoc Test with Tuckey’s Significant increase from 2002 (M = 470.55, SD = 65.18) to 2004 (M = 520.29, SD = 47.69) school year. 2002 2003 2004 Significant

  17. For More . . . Visit www.samschools.org Contact me . . . wsailor @ku.edu

More Related