School-Wide Applications Model:
SAM in the DC Public Schools
Action Planning and Effective
Implementation
Sailor, Roger, McCart & Wolf, 2008
Survey of Barriers to Implementation and Sustainability of SWPBS 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
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
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.
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.
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.
Schoolwide
Applications
Model
Analysis
SAMAN
SAMSCHOOLS
DCPS
Year One
• 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
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL SUPPORT
Team
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Washington, D.C. Summer
Insitute 2008
SAMSCHOOLS, LLC.
Implementation
Systems and Supports at the District Level: District and School Based
Action Planning
DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT
SAM Action Plan
Is there a SAM leadership team established?
Does the team meet at least semi-monthly?
Is there a team leader?
Leadership Team
Does the leadership team have an action plan completed?
Does the team regularly review data?
Does the team understand the critical features of SAM?
Are there established data collected?
Data Collection
Is there a SAM data collection system in place?
Are SAMAN assessments completed at least bi-annually?
Staffing
Is there a school employee with established Full Time
Equivalence committed to the SAM process?
Are there regularly established training times on SAM
guiding principles?
Training
How are new school personnel trained on SAM?
Is there general new teacher training in place?
Sustainability
Is the team actively working on sustaining systems?
Based on the work of Jim Knight
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING
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)
Based on the work of Marilyn Friend
CO-TEACHING
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.
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-Teaching
South Central RPDC 10-22-07
Year One
INITIAL OUTCOMES
“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
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
SAMSCHOOLS YEAR TWO
• We expect statistically significant trends on
outcome data as SAMAN assessments move
toward the upper ranges of implementation.
Sailor & Choi, 2009
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
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
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
Chavez Elementary
Ravenswood City School District
2.93
2.87
2.73
2.67
2.60
2.53
2.47
3
SAMAN SCALE SCORE
2.5
2.20
2
1.5
1.53
1
0.5
0
Jan. 04
Apr./May 04
Feb. 05
Dec. 05
May 06
Nov. 06
Oct. 07
Apr. 08
Oct. 08
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.
DC-BAS Reading Scale Score Changes by Grade Level
S. Elementary School
1650
1600
1550
1500
1492.29
1479.59
1467.66
1450
1469.24
Grade 6
1442.34
1436.72
1400
1426.49
1394.91
1360
1350
1340.89
1300
Test #1
Test #2
Grade 4
Grade 5
1452.14
1427.18
Grade 3
Test #3
DC-BAS Math Scale Score Changes by Grade Level
S. Elementary School
1650
1600
1550
1516.2
1500
Grade 3
1482.69
1472.6
1475.52
1454.43
1450
1440.33
1443
1422.14
1425.58
1375.02
1350
1355.67
1300
Test #1
Test #2
Grade 5
Grade 6
1402.08
1400
Grade 4
Test #3
Proportion of Students at Each Proficiency Level
DC-BAS Reading: S. Elementary School
Test #3
13.20%
50.00%
36.00%
0.70%
Below Basic
Test #2
18.60%
47.30%
33.30%
0.80%
Basic
Proficiency
Advanced
Test #1
0.00%
15.70%
10.00%
44.90%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
39.40%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
0.00%
90.00%
100.00%
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.
Thank You
Amy McCart, Ph.D.
Research Assistant
Professor
University of Kansas
amymc@ku.edu
816-719-3393
Pbis.org