Report page 102

Total: very unlikely 28 percent, unlikely 34 percent, total 63 percent

Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions

Total | 28 | 34 | 63

• Leadership Turnover

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Level: Elementary: very unlikely 25 percent, unlikely 36 percent, total 61 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Level | Elementary | 25 | 36 | 61

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Level: Middle: very unlikely 33 percent, unlikely 31 percent, total 64 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Level | Middle | 33 | 31 | 64

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Level: High: very unlikely 32 percent, unlikely 33 percent, total 65 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Level | High | 32 | 33 | 65

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Locale: Urban: very unlikely 27 percent, unlikely 35 percent, total 62 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Locale | Urban | 27 | 35 | 62

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Locale: Suburban: very unlikely 33 percent, unlikely 36 percent, total 69 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Locale | Suburban | 33 | 36 | 69

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Locale: Rural: very unlikely 25 percent, unlikely 33 percent, total 58 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Locale | Rural | 25 | 33 | 58

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Neighborhood poverty level: High: very unlikely 24 percent, unlikely 31 percent, total 55 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Neighborhood poverty level | High | 24 | 31 | 55

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Neighborhood poverty level: Middle: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 33 percent, total 62 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 29 | 33 | 62

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Neighborhood poverty level: Low: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 40 percent, total 69 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 29 | 40 | 69

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 34 pe

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 29 | 34 | 63

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: very unlikely 27 percent, unlikely 35

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 27 | 35 | 62

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Enrollment size: Small: very unlikely 27 percent, unlikely 32 percent, total 59 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Enrollment size | Small | 27 | 32 | 59

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Enrollment size: Large: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 37 percent, total 66 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Enrollment size | Large | 29 | 37 | 66

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Figure 13.2 survey item: Would a leadership change result in changes to BTAM use or approach? (n = 1

This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Would a leadership change at your school (e.g., were you to vacate your position) result in changes to your school's use of or approach to BTAM?” (n = 1,376).

• Leadership Turnover
• Survey Methodology

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Figure 13.2 includes only principals whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team

Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.

• Methodology
• Sample

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Figure 13.2 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding

Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.

• Methodology

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Key element of long-term BTAM effectiveness is processes to identify and address challenges

A key element of BTAM program effectiveness over the long term is incorporating processes to identify challenges and take steps to address challenges and improve performance over time.

• Continuous Improvement
• Sustainability

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Approximately four in ten schools reported a generally stable BTAM process

Approximately four in ten schools reported that their BTAM process has been generally stable, using established approaches for assessing cases and planning interventions.

• Program Changes

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

The other 60 percent of schools made one or more changes to BTAM since initial implementation

Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions

However, the other 60 percent reported that they have made one or more changes to the program since its initial implementation.

• Program Changes

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Principals changed BTAM to be more effective (30 percent) or to better fit school needs (24 percent)

Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions

Most commonly, principals indicated that their BTAM process changed as they aimed to make it more effective at protecting the school and students (30 percent) or adjustments were needed for BTAM to better fit their school’s needs (24 percent).

• Program Changes

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Few schools changed BTAM due to resource constraints (12 percent) or community concerns about studen

Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions

Few schools reported making changes in response to specific problems, such as resource or other constraints that limited the capacity of BTAM (12 percent) or concerns in the community about how BTAM would affect students (3 percent).

• Current Challenges
• Program Changes

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Patterns suggest changes aimed to improve BTAM in context, not respond to threats to its functioning

These patterns suggest that schools made changes to BTAM processes to help improve how BTAM worked in their specific school or community context, rather than in response to challenges that might otherwise jeopardize the effective functioning of a school BTAM program.

• Program Changes

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

14 percent of schools changed their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy

Sample (N = 1376) · Official BTAM teams only answering Table A.51

That said, 14 percent of schools did change their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy regarding BTAM.

• Program Changes
• State Policy Mandates

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Schools in 2019 early-legislation states most likely to change processes in response to state law or

Schools located in our group of states with early legislation in 2019 (see Chapter 1) were most likely to indicate that their processes had changed in response to such shifts in state law or policy.

• State Policy Mandates
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Perhaps unsurprising that early-policy states’ principals reported being affected by policy changes

Given that that group of states put prescriptive policies in place early regarding local use of BTAM, it is perhaps unsurprising that principals in those states told us they were affected by changes in those policies

• State Policy Mandates

cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time