BTAM should not end once an intervention plan has been put in place
Behavioral threat management and support should not end once an intervention plan has been put in place.
NCIER®
Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Report pages 70–73: 54 claims on pp. 70–72 (fact 32, statement 7, evidence 1, conclusion 4, conjecture 6, definition 4).
Claims in this section
Process should continue to ensure plan is carried out and reduces student risk
Instead, the process should continue to ensure that the intervention plan is being carried out appropriately and that it is successfully reducing the risk posed by a student.
Monitoring should ideally continue until team is no longer concerned (NTAC, 2018)
Such monitoring should ideally continue until the BTAM “team is no longer concerned about the student or [their potential] risk for violence” (NTAC, 2018).
Monitoring and follow-up to ensure interventions are implemented as directed are critical
Monitoring and follow-up to ensure that interventions and supports are being implemented as directed are therefore critical.
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of schools with official BTAM teams
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
We focus on the 82 percent of schools that stated in the survey they had official BTAM teams.
96 percent of schools engage in some monitoring after a plan is implemented
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
As shown in Figure 10.1, virtually all schools (96 percent) said they engage in some sort of monitoring after a student’s behavioral intervention or safety plan has been implemented.
Active monitoring is usually a direct responsibility of the BTAM team
Usually, this active monitoring is a direct responsibility of the BTAM team.
Half of schools: BTAM team monitors all cases with a plan and adjusts as needed
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering what the BTAM team does after an intervention or safety plan is implemented (Figure 10.1)
Half of schools said their BTAM team actively manages and monitors the progress of all cases where a behavioral or safety plan has been implemented and adjusted as needed.
Another 23 percent of schools: BTAM team monitors only some students
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Another 23 percent said their BTAM team does this only for some students during the implementation of a behavioral or safety plan.
Twenty-five percent of schools rely on teachers, counselors and others without the BTAM team
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering what the BTAM team does after an intervention or safety plan is implemented (Figure 10.1)
Twenty-five percent of schools reported that they rely on teachers, counselors, and others to monitor progress and adjust interventions without directly involving the BTAM team.
District-level teams seem most likely to rely on staff outside the BTAM team
District-level teams seem most likely to rely on school staff outside the BTAM team.
37 percent of principals with only a district-level BTAM program rely exclusively on other staff
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
As shown in Figure 10.1, 37 percent of principals with only a district-level BTAM program said they rely exclusively on other staff for monitoring.
Presumably district teams prefer school-level staff for monitoring
Presumably, these district-level teams prefer to rely on school-level staff for monitoring, given their more regular, day-to-day contact with the student.
Large teams with more roles more likely to monitor all students; smaller teams rely on others
Large BTAM teams that include representation of more roles are also more likely to actively monitor all students’ progress, while smaller teams are more likely to rely on teachers, counselors, and others to monitor progress and make adjustments.
Survey item asked whether plans include measurable goals or thresholds for progress
We asked principals whether the intervention or safety plans that their BTAM teams develop include measurable goals or thresholds for student progress that then inform decisions about any required changes to the plan.
Forty percent of schools lack measurable goals; 60 percent integrate them via active monitoring
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Forty percent of schools are not integrating such measurable goals, and 60 percent did report that their BTAM teams engage in some level of active monitoring to integrate measurable goals into intervention
Fig 10.1 Total: all 49, some 23, reliance on others 25, total 96
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 49 | 23 | 25 | 96
Fig 10.1 School level: all 43, some 27, reliance on others 28, total 98
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
School level | 43 | 27 | 28 | 98
Fig 10.1 District level: all 38, some 16, reliance on others 37, total 91
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
District level | 38 | 16 | 37 | 91
Fig 10.1 Both: all 56, some 22, reliance on others 19, total 97
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Both | 56 | 22 | 19 | 97
Fig 10.1 survey question on what the team does after a plan is implemented (n = 1,379)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following statements best describes what your BTAM team does after a student’s behavioral intervention or safety plan has been implemented?” (n = 1,379).
Fig 10.1 includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Fig 10.1 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
No significant differences in developing measurable goals, except schools in large districts
We did not observe significant differences in schools’ likelihood of developing measurable goals across school characteristics, with one exception: schools in large districts were more likely to develop such goals, compared with schools in small districts.
Most schools rely on periodic reports; two-thirds get reports from designated teachers
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Most schools rely on periodic reports and updates, including two-thirds that receive periodic reports from designated teachers who have direct contact with the student and regularly speak with the student as part of the plan (e.g., check-in, check-out programs).
A majority of schools receive periodic updates from other school staff such as counselors
Fewer—though still a majority—of schools receive periodic updates from other school staff, such as school counselors.
One-third receive reports from outside providers, likely because they are in fewer cases
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Only one-third receive periodic reports from outside service providers, likely because outside providers are involved in comparatively fewer cases relative to school personnel.
60 percent of BTAM teams revisit cases during meetings, regularly, by event, or both
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
In total, 60 percent of BTAM teams revisit cases during their meetings, although schools were split over whether their teams revisited cases at regular time intervals, only when specific events warranted (e.g., when a student returns to school after an absence), or some combination.
Forty percent of schools reported not revisiting cases at all
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Forty percent of schools reported not revisiting cases at all.
One-third of principals analyzed data and tracked progress, e.g., behavioral graphs
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Meanwhile, one-third of principals reported that they analyzed data and tracked progress as part of their BTAM programs (e.g., they use behavioral graphs to visualize improvements in student behavior).
Slightly more than 15 percent of schools use a formal case management system
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Only slightly more than 15 percent of schools reported using a formal case management system that tracks data on the cases monitored by the BTAM team.
Principals asked what BTAM teams do as part of active monitoring of student cases (Figure 10.2)
We also asked principals what their BTAM teams are doing as part of their active monitoring of student cases (see Figure 10.2).
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from teachers who have direct contact with the student: 65 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Teachers who have direct contact with the student | 65
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from staff designated to speak with the student regularly: 65 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Staff designated to speak with the student regularly as part of the plan | 65
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from other school staff: 59 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Other school staff^a | 59
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from outside providers: 32 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Outside providers^b | 32
Fig 10.2 Revisiting cases when specific events occur: 39 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Revisiting cases during regular BTAM meetings . . . | When specific events occur^c | 39
Fig 10.2 Revisiting cases at regular time intervals: 38 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Revisiting cases during regular BTAM meetings . . . | At regular time intervals | 38
Fig 10.2 Manually analyze data and track progress: 31 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Manually analyze data and track progress^d | 31
Fig 10.2 Specific information/case management system: 15 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Specific information/case management system | 15
Fig 10.2 survey question on how team monitors progress against a plan (n = 984)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “How does your school or district BTAM team monitor progress against a student intervention/safety plan?” (n = 984).
Fig 10.2 includes only schools whose teams actively monitor some or all students
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team and that their team engages in active monitoring of some or all students’ progress.
Fig 10.2 response options have been truncated for readability
Response options have been truncated for readability.
Fig 10.2 note a: other school staff, for example counselors
For example, counselors.
Fig 10.2 note b: outside providers, for example reports on treatment delivery
For example, reports on treatment delivery.
Fig 10.2 note c: specific events, for example a student returning after an absence
For example, when a student returns to school after an absence.
Fig 10.2 note d: manual analysis, for example behavioral graphs
For example, use of behavioral graphs to visualize improvements in student behavior.
There is variability in how schools approach monitoring and follow-up
In sum, there is variability in how schools approach monitoring and follow-up as part of their BTAM programs.
Nearly all schools monitor after an intervention, but BTAM team involvement differs significantly
While nearly all schools engage in some form of monitoring after implementing an intervention or safety plan, the level of involvement by BTAM teams differs significantly from school to school.
Most schools rely on BTAM teams to monitor, but almost 25 percent delegate to other school staff
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Most schools rely on their BTAM teams to actively manage and monitor student progress, but almost 25 percent delegate this responsibility to other school staff, particularly in cases involving district-level teams or smaller BTAM teams.
Most schools incorporate measurable goals; fewer use formal tracking systems
Additionally, while most schools incorporate measurable goals into their intervention plans, fewer use formal systems to track progress, relying instead on periodic updates and reports from school personnel.
Findings suggest most schools track progress but methods and intensity vary widely
These findings suggest that while most schools are taking steps to track progress after interventions are implemented, the methods and intensity of monitoring vary widely.
Structured goals, case reviews and tracking systems may be better positioned to adjust early
Schools using structured goals, routine case reviews, and formal tracking systems may be better positioned to adjust interventions early and improve long-term outcomes.
Broader adoption of consistent monitoring strategies may support greater effectiveness
As BTAM practices mature, broader adoption of consistent monitoring strategies may support greater effectiveness.
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You