School-Wide Applications Model: SAM in the DC Public Schools

1. School-Wide Applications Model: SAM in the DC Public Schools Action Planning and Effective Implementation Sailor, Roger, McCart & Wolf, 2008

2. Survey of Barriers to Implementation and Sustainability of SW-PBS in Urban Settings (Putnam et al., 2008) 10. Cultural difference between teacher-student 9. History of failed initiatives 8. Competing initiatives that drain resources 7. High proportion of inexperienced, short term teachers 6. Disconnect between school and district administration 5. Administrative turnover 4. Continuous change in district leadership and priorities 3. High bureaucratic complexity 2. Inadequate prepared teaching force 1. Teacher turnover 2

3. SAM Schoolwide Applications Model Six Guiding Principles Fifteen Critical Features

4. Six Guiding Principles of SAM • All instruction is guided by General Education • All school resources are configured to benefit all students • School Proactively addresses social development and citizenship • School is data-based learning organization • School has open boundaries in relation to its families and its community • School enjoys district support for undertaking the extensive systems-change activities required to implement SAM

5. Critical Features of SAM (1-5) • School serves all students. • All students at school are considered general education students. • General education teachers assume responsibility for all students at the school. • School is inclusive of all students for all classroom and school functions. • School is organized to provide all specialized supports, adaptations and accommodations to students in such a way as to maximize the number of students who will benefit.

6. Critical Features of SAM (6-10) • All students are taught in accordance with the general curriculum. • The school has an active, schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) program operating at all 3 levels. • The school is a data-driven, collaborative decision-making, learning organization with all major functions guided by team process. • School effectively utilizes general education students in instruction of students in need of supports in all instructional environments. • All personnel at the school participate in the teacher/learning processes and are valued for their respective contributions to pupil academic and social outcomes.

7. Critical Features of SAM (11-15) • School personnel use a uniform, non-categorical lexicon to describe both personnel and teaching/learning functions. • School has established a Site Leadership Team (SLT) empowered by the school and the district to implement SAM at the school. • School has working partnership with families of students who attend the school. • School has working partnership with its community businesses and service providers. • SAM implementation at the school site is fully recognized and supported by the district.

8. Schoolwide Applications Model Analysis SAMAN

10. SAMSCHOOLS DCPS • RtI: Response to Intervention Framework • Effective District Level Systems and Structure • District and School-Based Action Planning • Coaching Model • PBS: Positive Behavioral Support • Co-Teaching Year One

11. RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

13. POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL SUPPORT

14. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Team Agreements Data-based Action Plan Evaluation Implementation Washington, D.C. Summer Insitute 2008 SAMSCHOOLS, LLC.

15. Systems and Supports at the District Level: District and School Based Action Planning DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT

16. SAM Action Plan

17. Based on the work of Jim Knight INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING

18. What Is Instructional Coaching • A collaborative process that aimed to improve teaching. • An on-site professional developer who partners with educators to identify and assist with implementation of proven teaching strategies. (Jim Knight, KU, Center for Research on Learning) • An instructional coach: • Is on site • Is a professional developer • Partners with teachers • Identifies with teachers • Uses proven strategies (research-based) • Assists teachers Jim Knight Journal of Staff Development, Spring 2004 (Vol. 25, No. 2)

19. Based on the work of Marilyn Friend CO-TEACHING

20. The Power of Two • Co-Teaching is a model for successful collaboration between special education and general education teachers in order to meet the needs of all students with diverse learning abilities in the general education classroom.

21. Co-teaching is a collaborative process. . . • Two educators • Delivering instruction together in the regular classroom • To diverse groups of students • Accomplished through joint planning and both educators delivering instruction in large, small, and individual groups. Co-TeachingSouth Central RPDC 10-22-07

22. Year One INITIAL OUTCOMES

23. “What are the expectations for SAM schools in WDC over a three-year period?” • SAM uses an RTI logic model to examine the relationship of the implementation fidelity tool, SAMAN, to repeated assessments of pupil progress over time using a procedure called latent growth modeling. • As schools learn to implement the critical features of SAM, fifteen of which are sampled by SAMAN, outcomes will be reflected in pupil progress as measured by grade level and school gains in curriculum based measures, benchmark assessments and annual standardized assessments. • It is expected that over a three year period SAM schools will outperform demographically comparable schools within the same district in math and reading gains as estimated by statistical probability assessments. Moreover, we expect these gains to be reflected in all subgroups including special education. Sailor & Choi, 2009

24. SAMSCHOOLS YEAR ONE • We expect modest trends in a positive direction and gains on the SAMAN from initiation to implementation score ranges for the same corresponding period. Sailor & Choi, 2009

25. SAMSCHOOLS YEAR TWO • We expect statistically significant trends on outcome data as SAMAN assessments move toward the upper ranges of implementation. Sailor & Choi, 2009

26. SAMSCHOOLS YEAR THREE • We expect significant differences between SAM schools and a comparable match set of non-SAM schools (SAM waitlisted), on math and reading, and with statistically significant trends in a positive direction within each SAM school. Sailor & Choi, 2009

27. To Illustrate the Desired Trend • SAMAN progress from Chavez Elementary, Ravenswood School District, California. • Chavez took three years to reach SAMAN scale score 2.5 and higher which is the phase of enculturation. • Scores in that phase indicate that the SAM process has become “business as usual” at the school. • California State test (STAR) on math and reading over the span from 2003-2004 AY to 2007-2008 AY and the resultant statistical analysis. Sailor & Choi, 2009

28. 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

30. DCPS Initial Data • 2008-2009 AY DC-BAS • Seven of the eight schools are trending upward averaged across all grades • If the trend continues, cohort 1 schools as a group should reflect gains in annual grade level assessments by the end of year three. • In year two, we will create a matched sample of schools with comparable demographics and do a comparative analysis of SAM vs. non-SAM school gains.

34. Next Year • We add additional training on the core components (RtI, coaching, co-teaching, PBS) • We look for additional gains in progress and outcome data • As we introduce children back into the classroom there will be additional needs to address. Not sure of the impact on the data. • Additional focus on capacity building and school climate.

35. Thank You Amy McCart, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor University of Kansas amymc@ku.edu 816-719-3393 Pbis.org