Report pages 58–61: 71 claims on pp. 58–61 (fact 41, statement 10, evidence 4, conclusion 1, conjecture 6, definition 9).
When a case is referred to a BTAM team, the behavioral threat assessment component of BTAM involves gathering information to determine whether a student who engaged in concerning behavior may pose a risk of harm.
The assessment process can be divided into two main stages: (1) gathering information to understand the nature and severity of the concerning behavior or threat and (2) making a judgment about the risk of harm the individual poses to themself or others.
In this chapter, we analyze principals’ responses to questions about the assessment component of their BTAM programs (the management and support component is discussed in the next chapter).
We investigate what the process looks like at schools across the country, what data BTAM teams are using to make decisions about risk of harm, and the level of transparency schools are integrating into the behavioral threat assessment process.
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
In this chapter, we focus on the 82 percent of schools that told us they had an official BTAM team.
we hypothesized that BTAM teams could structure their processes and deliberations in four overarching ways when assessing the seriousness of a particular student’s behavior or the potential risk of harm they posed.
The options were meant to capture the degree of consistency or standardization that the BTAM team applied across cases—that is, whether these teams use a common structure and assessment process to consistently collect similar data across cases and a consistent method for deliberation across the set of cases referred to them.
Table 8.1 presents the four operational types included in a survey question focused on the assessment process and the percentage of principals who indicated that the option best described the structure and processes of their BTAM teams.
Drawing on the research literature on program implementation and quality improvement, operational types that are further down the table reflect modes of BTAM implementation that are more likely to produce consistent results case by case and maintain performance over time, thanks to their standardization (see, e.g., Bohanon, Caputo Love, and Morrissey, 2021).
As shown in Table 8.1, BTAM teams at schools across the country are spread across the four different operational types.
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.
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
However, 79 percent of teams are using a common meeting structure (the sum of the bottom three rows in Table 8.1)
NTAC guidance for effective BTAM implementation in K–12 schools emphasizes standardization across cases, through the establishment of “clearly defined processes and procedures to guide assessments” (NTAC, 2018, p. 7).
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Unstructured BTAM | No | No | No | 21
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Individualized threat assessment | Yes | No | No | 28
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Threat assessment with standardized data | Yes | Yes | No | 20
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Highly standardized BTAM | Yes | Yes | Yes | 31
NOTE: This table depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following statements best describes how your BTAM team operates when it is assessing the seriousness of a particular student’s behavior or potential threat during a team meeting?” (n = 1,394).
This table includes only those who said that their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
common data across all cases (the sum of the bottom two rows).
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 59 part and the sentence begins on page 58 (claim p058-12). Full sentence (pages 58–59): “However, 79 percent of teams are using a common meeting structure (the sum of the bottom three rows in Table 8.1), and 51 percent are collecting common data across all cases (the sum of the bottom two rows).”
Large teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) and teams in schools that were also supported by district-level BTAM teams were more likely to apply an entirely standardized process to the behavioral threat assessment process.
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.
Such structure and consistency are important in helping ensure that situations that might pose a threat are not missed and that students are treated fairly and appropriately through the BTAM process.
Our survey results suggest that BTAM teams use a variety of information sources to assess the risk of harm posed by students referred to the team.
Different BTAM models recommend collecting and using different types of information, but virtually all recommend broad data collection and integrating information from many sources to build the best understanding of student behavior.
We provided principals with a list of 14 potential data sources in our survey, ranging from interviews with students, school staff, and parents to reviewing discipline, academic, and other school records; law enforcement records; and social media accounts for referred students.
We asked principals which sources their BTAM teams rely on to conduct behavioral threat assessments and how often they use these sources.
As shown in Figure 8.1, principals’ responses suggest that BTAM teams use a variety of data sources to inform their assessments of risk level.
Teams also use many of those sources frequently.
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
School BTAM teams rely first and foremost on interviews with the referred student to make decisions about potential risk of harm: 73 percent of principals indicated that their BTAM teams use this specific information source every time a student is referred to the BTAM process.
This list is based on guidance provided by existing BTAM frameworks, such as guidance provided by NTAC and such named models as the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG).
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interviews with . . . Student | 73 | 26 | 1
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Witnesses^a | 64 | 34 | 1
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Teacher/school staff knowledgeable about student | 57 | 43 | 0
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Parents or guardians | 55 | 44 | 1
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Potential target of a threat | 53 | 45 | 2
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Records: Discipline records^b | 60 | 40 | 0
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Special education records | 58 | 41 | 1
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Academic records | 43 | 55 | 2
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Other in-district schools a student attended | 38 | 59 | 2
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Other out-of-district schools a student attended | 29 | 68 | 3
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Outside medical organizations | 20 | 75 | 5
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Law enforcement records | 17 | 64 | 19
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Outside governmental organizations | 15 | 74 | 11
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Student’s social media/online footprint^c | 15 | 77 | 8
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “When a student is referred to your BTAM team for concerning behavior, how often does your team use the following sources of information to assess the level of risk posed by the student?” (n = 1,395).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Sample (no n: a percentage change, not a share of a sample) · a percentage that is not a share of a sample (e.g. a percentage-point change or a weighted estimate of the population)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
For example, peers or staff who witnessed the behavior.
Including but not limited to history of prior threats.
We specified “publicly available” social media/online footprint.
Including respondents who selected “rarely,” “sometimes,” or “frequently.” We collapsed these three categories into one for readability.
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
victims—every time they assess a student’s risk.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 60 part and the sentence begins on page 59. Full sentence (pages 59–60): “Half (or more) of principals also reported their teams use interviews with other people—witnesses, teachers, parents or guardians, and potential victims—every time they assess a student’s risk.”
Fewer principals indicated that their teams use various types of records in every threat assessment, but when they do, discipline records, special education records, and academic records top the list of records BTAM teams use most often.
Results also suggest BTAM teams use other types of records at least some of the time.
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
For example, 64 percent of principals said their teams sometimes use law enforcement records, but only 17 percent of principals said they use these types of records in every case, likely because few students have law enforcement records.
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
with survey responses that examined the role of law enforcement officers who were members of BTAM teams discussed previously, in which only 18 percent indicated that providing information from police and court records was one of the officer-member’s two most important roles.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 61 part and the sentence begins on page 60. Full sentence (pages 60–61): “Note that this finding is consistent with survey responses that examined the role of law enforcement officers who were members of BTAM teams discussed previously, in which only 18 percent indicated that providing information from police and court records was one of the officer-member’s two most important roles.”
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Somewhat surprisingly, only 14 percent of principals said their BTAM teams review students’ publicly available social media accounts or online footprint for every case.
The vast majority of schools check these accounts at least sometimes, though not in all cases.
High school principals said they review a student’s publicly available social media or online footprint at roughly twice the rate of their elementary and middle school counterparts.
This is somewhat surprising, given the rise of threats made against K–12 schools via social media (see, e.g., Moore et al., 2024).
Because the decisions made by BTAM teams can be high stakes for both the students involved and individuals concerned by student behavior and those potentially affected by any threats, questions may arise about whether decisions made by the team are correct and whether they appropriately and fairly balance student and school community safety needs.
Given the sensitivity of the data and decisionmaking involved in behavioral threat assessment, it can be difficult for the process to be transparent enough to satisfy everyone in all cases.
To probe these issues, we asked principals whether they thought it would be feasible for their BTAM team to transparently explain the outcome of their threat assessment process.
Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Sixty percent of principals said they believe it would be feasible for their BTAM teams to justify their decisions about a specific case to concerned individuals outside the teams.
In other words, if asked, BTAM teams would be able to explain the rationale behind an assessment decision to a parent, guardian, or other concerned individual (i.e., why a student was determined to pose or not pose a threat).
Principals indicated that such explanations would be possible because their BTAM process captures detailed information about both the rationale and data behind an assessment.
Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 32 percent of principals said they believe their BTAM team could potentially justify an outcome.
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).
Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The remaining 7 percent of principals said their BTAM team would not be able to explain the rationale behind the outcome of their threat assessment process of a student because their BTAM files and deliberations are closed.
Principals in schools with more standardized and well-documented BTAM processes—often schools with large BTAM teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) and those served by both school-level and district-level BTAM teams—were most likely to indicate that their teams would be able explain the rationale behind an assessment decision to concerned individuals (e.g., parents or other community members), highlighting a key advantage of consistency in assessment procedures.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
