The Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM) An RtI-Driven Approach to School Reform Wayne Sailor University of Kansas for the LSUHSC Advocacy Institute New Orleans, Louisiana May 2, 2007

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION A Logic Model of Support

Above proficiency in math29.4%66%47.8%66.7%90%100% Above proficiency in reading41.6%53.7%64.7%67.4%87.5% Unsatisfactory in math32.4%14.9%20.5%9.5%0% Unsatisfactory in reading27.1%22%12.5%8.7%3.1%2.4

SAM Schoolwide Applications Model Six Guiding Principles Fifteen Critical Features

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

Schoolwide Applications Model Analysis SAMAN

Does SAM Work? Evaluating the SAM Model

Ravenswood School District Demographics Data and Outcomes

Ravenswood School District School A Demographics Enrollment in 5 th -8 th Grades= 346

School Progress on Critical Features

Progress By Cohort

School A N=5 N=4N=2N=1N=2N=3

Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(1.75, ) = 12.85, p <.01, ηp 2 =.07 Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(1.908, ) = 15.66, p <.01, η p2 =.08 Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(1.77, ) = 5.14, p =.09, η p2 =.03 Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

School A N=86N=72N=89N=87

USD 500 KANSAS CITY, KANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT DOUGLASS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Paired Sample T-test Result  Comparing the state reading assessment results between and school year  Analysis included 53 students (25 4 th graders and 28 5 th graders) who consecutively attended at the school Results  There is a significant difference between the reading test (M = 61.79, SD = 18.7) and reading test (M = 70.11, SD = 14.22)  t (53) = -4.38, p <.01  The mean percent score of state reading test in school year improved about 8.32 from school year

Wayne Sailor University of Kansas Thank You For Your Time