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

2.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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).

8.  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.

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

10.  Extension of standard protocol RTI  Alternative to medical model  All personnel focused on all students  All resources integrated in a universal design for learning

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

12.  Program Evaluation Model

14. 2009-102010-111 year Growth in API Scores District Overall68871527 District Students with IEPs49954445 Belle Haven Overall6856938 Belle Haven Students with IEPs50852921 Brentwood Overall73781679 Brentwood Students with IEPs592586-8 Cesar Chavez Overall64669751 Cesar Chavez Students with IEPs41149786 Costano Overall70175958 Costano Students with IEPs53861779 EPA Charter Overall882866-16 EPA Charter Students with IEPs715696-19 Green Oaks Overall61764326 Green Oaks Students with IEPs46748215 McNair Overall659631-28 McNair Students with IEPs43245119 Ravenswood City School District

19. Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(1.96, 522.13) = 53.62, p <.01, η p2 =.17 Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

20.  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) Significance r(518) =.286, p <.001 20042005 Correlation SAMAN score could be a significant predictor of CELDT (ß =.286, p <.01), explaining about 8.2% of the variance. Regression

21. Repeated Measure ANOVA- Significant main effect on year of measurement F(2, 534) = 60.47, p <.01, η p2 =.19 Significant on Tuckey’s HSD Test

22. 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 200220032004 Significant

31. Visit www.samschools.org Contact me... wsailor @ku.edu