Report page 13

Additionally, these defining characteristics and implementation factors of BTAM serve to address common misperceptions of its use.

Often, students who come to the attention of the school have not engaged in criminal activity so interacting with them as if they have committed a crime does not foster a positive, trusting relationship with the student.

Assessing students who display concerning behaviors should be focused on gathering information about them and their behaviors within the context of relevant factors such as age, social and emotional development, mental health and well-being, and personal interests in order to provide support.

Zero-tolerance policies do not consider the context associated with a student’s behavior and are not intended to address student needs.

In contrast, behavioral threat assessment purposefully considers the context surrounding a student’s behavior and uses that information to identify the most appropriate interventions and resources to support their needs.

The primary objective of a behavioral threat assessment is early identification and early intervention – in other words, proactive prevention.

The process is not synonymous with reactive disciplinary processes, exclusionary practices, or punitive measures.

A behavioral threat assessment approach complements existing, related student support programs (e.g., MTSS/PBIS). This combination of approaches promotes successful outcomes for all students and decreases the risk of harm to the school community (NTAC, 2021).

Behavioral threat assessment focuses on understanding a student’s concerning behavior in context and identifying effective support and management strategies. It is unrelated to the physical security of a building (e.g., door locks and screening systems).

While BTAM is separate from a disciplinary process, it is important to recognize that it may coincide with disciplinary, punitive, or legal actions depending upon the severity of the behavior and local policies.