Considerable variability in BTAM member training across schools
There is considerable variability in training for BTAM members across schools.
NCIER®
Standardization Gaps
26 claims on pp. 7–130 (fact 18, statement 1, conclusion 2, conjecture 5).
Claims about Standardization Gaps
Lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions and operations
There is a lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions and operations.
Significant variability in team structure, meeting frequency, information-gathering, case reviews an
There is significant variability in how BTAM teams are structured; how often they meet; and how they conduct information-gathering, case reviews, and program evaluations.
Inconsistency suggests many BTAM programs are not yet fully integrated or institutionalized
This inconsistency suggests that many BTAM programs are not yet fully integrated or institutionalized, highlighting the need for clearer tools and resources to support systematic and effective team operations.
Considerable variation in how teams deliver interventions and develop management plans
There is considerable variation in how BTAM teams deliver interventions and develop management plans for students.
Lack of consistency can affect quality and effectiveness of interventions
This lack of consistency can affect the quality and effectiveness of interventions, especially as many schools have only recently adopted BTAM.
Rapid expansion introduced variability in models, practices and training, which may undermine consis
However, the rapid expansion of BTAM has also introduced significant variability in terms of the models schools are using, operational practices, and training, which may undermine the consistency and effectiveness of these efforts across schools.
Only 31 percent of teams use highly standardized approaches
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Only 31 percent of teams are using what we labeled as highly standardized approaches—that is, applying common structures and processes in meetings and both collecting consistent data and using a standardized process for threat assessment across referred cases.
Unstructured BTAM: 21 percent of schools; common structure No, similar data No, standardized process
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Unstructured BTAM | No | No | No | 21
Individualized threat assessment: 28 percent of schools; common structure Yes, similar data No, stan
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Individualized threat assessment | Yes | No | No | 28
Threat assessment with standardized data: 20 percent of schools; common structure Yes, similar data
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Threat assessment with standardized data | Yes | Yes | No | 20
Highly standardized BTAM: 31 percent of schools; common structure Yes, similar data Yes, standardize
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Highly standardized BTAM | Yes | Yes | Yes | 31
Going down Table 8.1, teams and processes become more structured and consistent
Going down the table, teams and their processes become more structured and more consistent in how they operate—collect data, apply assessment practices, and respond to cases that may pose risk to their school.
Principals were evenly split: half cite case-to-case variation, half cite verbal deliberations
Principals were evenly split over why this might be difficult: Half of this group noted that explaining an outcome would be difficult because of how much their process differs from case to case (i.e., their team does not use a standardized process for assessment), and the other half felt it would be difficult because assessments are the result of verbal deliberations among BTAM team members (i.e., there is no documentation that could serve as the basis for explanation).
A related challenge is lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions
A related challenge is the lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions and operations.
Little standardization in team structure, meetings, information gathering, case review, evaluation
There is little standardization in the way of BTAM team structure and meeting frequency, information-gathering and case review processes, and program evaluation.
Principals presented a mixed picture: some structured processes, most less formalized deliberations
Principals presented a mixed picture of how their BTAM teams approach these various elements, with some schools following structured processes but most relying on less formalized deliberations.
Though many schools may have implemented BTAM, it is not fully integrated and institutionalized
This means that while many schools may have implemented a BTAM program, it is not fully integrated and institutionalized in their school or school district.
Inconsistency underscores need for clearer tools and resources for systematic team operations
This inconsistency underscores the need for clearer tools and resources to help schools establish systematic and effective team operations.
Lack of consistency can affect the quality and effectiveness of interventions
This lack of consistency can affect the quality and effectiveness of interventions.
Need may be driven by strong recent adoption, with many schools adopting in the past five years
The need may be driven by the strong recent adoption of BTAM, with a large percentage of schools adopting the practice in the past five years.
A.38 All BTAM activiti…: 23.5 (all teams incl. other school-based), 20.8 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
All BTAM activities from meeting structure to assessment processes differ across individual cases. | 23.5 | 20.8
A.38 BTAM meetings fol…: 28.1 (all teams incl. other school-based), 28.0 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
BTAM meetings follow a common structure and process, though the data sought and deliberations vary significantly from case to case. | 28.1 | 28.0
A.38 BTAM meetings fol…: 20.4 (all teams incl. other school-based), 20.3 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
BTAM meetings follow a common structure and process, and we collect similar data for each case considered by the team. | 20.4 | 20.3
A.38 BTAM meetings fol…: 28.0 (all teams incl. other school-based), 31.0 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
BTAM meetings follow a common structure and process, we collect similar data for each case considered by the team, and we have standardized processes that guide the application of structured tools for conducting our assessment. | 28.0 | 31.0
A.38 N: all teams incl. other school-based: N=1,626; official BTAM teams only: N=1,394
N | 1,626 | 1,394
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You