BTAM is designed to respond to a variety of behaviors of concern, not only explicit threats
the BTAM approach is designed to respond to a variety of behaviors of concern, not limited to explicit or direct threats.
NCIER®
Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Report pages 38–39: 35 claims on pp. 38–39 (fact 18, statement 7, evidence 2, conclusion 1, conjecture 3, definition 4).
Claims in this section
NTAC: objectively concerning behaviors include threats, violence, weapons, bullying (2018, p. 4)
NTAC guidance for defining the types of behaviors that might be referred to a BTAM team includes objectively concerning behaviors, such as “threatening or engaging in violence, bringing a weapon to school, bullying or harassing others, and criminal behaviors” (NTAC, 2018, p. 4).
NTAC: other concerning behavior may warrant BTAM team assessment and response
NTAC guidance also identifies a constellation of “other concerning behavior” that may warrant an assessment and response by the BTAM team, including a variety of indicators of stress, inappropriate interest in violent topics (e.g., past school attackers, weapons), interpersonal conflicts, suicidality, or other concerns that might lead to a potential harmful outcome if not addressed.
Early identification of concerning behaviors can make intervention and support more effective
Early identification of these behaviors can make schools’ efforts to intervene and support students more effective.
BTAM teams are not intended as the primary vehicle for lower-level concerns or routine discipline
BTAM teams are not intended to be the primary vehicle for schools to respond to lower-level behavioral or mental health concerns, signals of change in a student’s well-being (e.g., depression, bullying, declining grades), or such routine school discipline issues as classroom disruption.
Survey explored principals' descriptions of BTAM scope by incident and behavior types
In our survey, we explored how principals described the scope of their BTAM programs in terms of the types of incidents and behaviors that would be addressed by a BTAM team.
Chapter 4 focuses on roughly 1,600 schools with an official or alternative team
In this chapter, we focus on the subset of roughly 1,600 schools in our survey sample who reported having an official BTAM team at their school or alternative school-based team that functions similarly to a BTAM team.
Survey item: scope of threatening or concerning behavior the BTAM team responds to
We asked principals, “What is the scope of the threatening or concerning behavior to which your school or district’s BTAM team responds?”
Principals chose among eight example behaviors which, if any, would be referred to their BTAM team
We listed eight examples of threatening or concerning behavior that a student might exhibit and asked principals to select which, if any, would be referred to their school’s BTAM team.
Ninety-three percent of principals said official BTAM teams would respond to very serious behavior
Sample (N = 1401) · Schools with an official BTAM team (Figure 4.1 official-team column; N printed in Table A.35)
Ninety-three percent of principals indicated that their official BTAM teams would respond to very serious threatening or concerning behavior, such as students who directed threats toward other students or school staff, and students who made threats of or may be intending to commit mass violence against the school or school community.
State law or local policy sometimes requires immediate law enforcement involvement in serious cases
Though such behaviors would appear to always fall within the remit of a BTAM team, state law or local policy sometimes requires schools to immediately involve law enforcement in some very serious situations.
Some respondents may have viewed criminal-nexus cases as outside their BTAM team's jurisdiction
As a result, some of our respondents may have viewed such cases as outside the “jurisdiction” of their BTAM team and overall program because of their criminal nexus.
About 80 percent of principals said BTAM teams would respond to other serious concerns
Sample (N = 1401) · Schools with an official BTAM team (Figure 4.1 official-team column; N printed in Table A.35)
About 80 percent of principals responded that their
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 38 part and the sentence continues on page 39 (claim p039-01). Full sentence (pages 38–39): “About 80 percent of principals responded that their schools’ BTAM teams would respond to other serious concerns, such as students at risk of self-harm or suicide or students with fixations on past school violence incidents or interest in violence or extremist movements.”
Footnote: respondents also saw behavioral scenarios and follow-up questions on BTAM roles
We also presented survey respondents with a set of behavioral scenarios and associated follow up questions to explore how they viewed the role of their BTAM teams in response to different types of incidents.
BTAM teams would respond to serious concerns such as self-harm, suicide risk, violence fixations
schools’ BTAM teams would respond to other serious concerns, such as students at risk of self-harm or suicide or students with fixations on past school violence incidents or interest in violence or extremist movements.
14 percent of schools have a school-based team for serious concerns not called a BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
some schools (14 percent) have a school-based team that makes decisions about serious student behavioral concerns but is not referred to as a BTAM team (a BTAM-like team).
Comparing official and BTAM-like teams shows the scope of official teams versus broader-remit teams
Comparing and contrasting the responses of schools that have official BTAM teams versus these school-based BTAM-like teams help provide some insight as to the scope of official BTAM teams compared with teams that would have a broader remit by definition.
Few official BTAM teams deal with low-level behavior such as classroom disruption
As shown in Figure 4.1, few official BTAM teams deal with low-level concerning behavior, such as regular classroom disruption and disrespect of school staff.
Principals' responses suggest lower-level concerns are appropriately handled by other teams
Principals’ responses suggest that these lower-level behavioral concerns are appropriately addressed by other teams schools may have in place, such as MTSS or PBIS teams that operate alongside, but separate from, the school BTAM team.
Official BTAM teams appear to be focused on the most serious concerns
Official BTAM teams appear to be focused on the most serious concerns.
BTAM-like teams responded more often to low-level incidents and less serious behavior
Principals also reported that such teams as the ones described above responded more often to low-level incidents and less serious behavior.
Fig 4.1 Serious: threats at/violent toward other students: official 93 pct, alternative team 69 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who have directed threats at or may be violent toward other individual students* | 93 | 69
Fig 4.1 Serious: threats/violent toward school staff: official 92 pct, alternative team 68 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who have made threats or may be violent toward school staff*a | 92 | 68
Fig 4.1 Serious: mass violence threats/intent: official 88 pct, alternative team 55 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who have made threats of or may be intending to commit mass violence against the school or school community* | 88 | 55
Fig 4.1 Serious: self-harm or suicide risk: official 83 pct, alternative team 74 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who may be at risk of self-harm or suicide* | 83 | 74
Fig 4.1 Serious: fixations on past violence/extremism: official 81 pct, alternative team 54 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students with fixations on past school violence incidents, interest in violence or extremist movements*b | 81 | 54
Fig 4.1 Serious: regular aggression toward peers: official 69 pct, alternative team 78 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who are regularly involved in aggressive behavior towards peers*c | 69 | 78
Fig 4.1 Lower-level: regularly disruptive to instruction: official 27 pct, alternative team 71 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Lower-level: Students whose behavior is regularly disruptive to instruction* | 27 | 71
Fig 4.1 Lower-level: disrespectful to staff: official 20 pct, alternative team 54 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Lower-level: Students who are disrespectful or argumentative with teachers or other school staff* | 20 | 54
Figure 4.1 source item and n: scope of behavior to which the BTAM team responds (n = 1,635)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “What is the scope of the threatening or concerning behavior to which your school or district's BTAM team responds?” (n = 1,635).
Figure 4.1: respondents were instructed to select all that apply
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Figure 4.1 asterisk marks statistically significant official versus unofficial team differences
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of principals in schools with official BTAM teams who reported their team responded to that type of student behavior was statistically significantly different from the percentage of principals in schools with unofficial BTAM teams who said similarly.
Footnote a: threats against teachers as an example of threats toward school staff
For example, threats against teachers.
Footnote b: fixation examples are Columbine, animal cruelty or abuse, extremist or violent sites
For example, fixation on Columbine attacks, fixation on animal cruelty or abuse, or viewing websites with extremist or violent content.
Footnote c: regular aggression examples are verbal or limited physical conflicts, bullying, fighting
For example, frequent verbal or limited physical conflicts without concerns about weapon use, bullying, or fighting.
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You