153 claims on pp. 6–155 (fact 123, statement 5, evidence 3, conjecture 11, definition 11).
Schools in states with early mandates or policy encouragement for BTAM are further along in implementation, with more standardized meeting schedules and written procedures.
Training gaps are especially pronounced in urban and high-poverty schools.
To answer our research questions, we investigated national patterns in educators’ survey responses based on school characteristics and state policy context related to BTAM.
More specifically, we examined differences in educators’ responses based on six school characteristics: (1) grade levels served, (2) school locale, (3) school neighborhood poverty status, (4) student racial/ethnic composition, (5) school enrollment size, and (6) district enrollment size.
Where appropriate, we also examined differences in educators’ responses according to the BTAM state policy context in 2019.
Grouping states into the three aforementioned categories allowed us to understand whether early encouragement or legislation by states to implement BTAM in schools (potentially associated with stronger funding, training, or other support for BTAM) might be related to the practices and outcomes reported by principals today.
Nevertheless, understanding the implementation of early legislation by some states in 2019 is still useful for the purposes of this current analysis, insofar as it helps demonstrate how early state support in 2019 may have affected BTAM implementation over time across different state policy contexts.
As it is infeasible to consider all subgroup differences for all survey items in this report, we present subgroup differences in the text where they were particularly notable or interesting and where they provide helpful context to understand national patterns.
Unless otherwise noted, we only call out subgroup differences in the text that are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.
We then examine what types of schools are likely to have BTAM programs and to what extent the prevalence of BTAM programs today is at all related to what the policy context looked like in 2019.
Specifically, we explore any potential differences in schools’ implementation of BTAM today based on whether their states required, encouraged, or did not address BTAM in the 2019 policy.
High school principals, in particular, seemed more skeptical about the usefulness of these external teams.
However, there are marginal differences in specific elements of BTAM adoption across these contexts, namely in the types of teams serving schools.
schools in these states are more likely than their counterparts in other policy contexts to use a BTAM-like team to perform threat assessment and management functions (e.g., an MTSS or PBIS team).
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
More specifically, 90 percent of schools in early legislation states have an official BTAM team today, compared with 77 percent of schools in states that only encouraged the practice in 2019 and 73 percent of schools in states where there was no mention of BTAM in state policy in 2019.
Furthermore, schools in early legislation states are more likely today than those in states where BTAM was not addressed in 2019 to have teams at both the school and district levels.
We also investigated the prevalence of BTAM teams (including BTAM-like teams) across different school demographics, including school level, locale, poverty level, student racial/ethnic composition, and student enrollment size.
As shown in Figure 2.3, BTAM teams were common across all school types.
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Principals of large schools (those serving 450 students or more) were slightly more likely than their counterparts in small schools to report having official BTAM teams (85 percent versus 79 percent, respectively).
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
BTAM teams may also be slightly less common in rural settings: 78 percent of rural schools reported having official BTAM teams compared with 84 percent of suburban schools and 86 percent of urban schools.
Federal data on school safety measures from the 2021–2022 school year also show that schools located in rural locales were less likely to have threat assessment teams, compared with schools located in city, suburban, and town locales (Burr et al., 2024).
During that school year, schools located in urban areas were also most likely to have threat assessment teams.
However, we do note some minor differences.
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
(none) | Total | 82 | 14 | 97
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | Elementary | 81 | 16 | 97
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | Middle | 86 | 11 | 97
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | High | 81 | 13 | 94
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Urban | 86 | 12 | 98
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Suburban | 84 | 13 | 97
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Rural | 78 | 17 | 95
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 80 | 16 | 96
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 82 | 14 | 96
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 85 | 13 | 98
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Student racial/ethnic-composition subgroups
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 82 | 15 | 97
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Student racial/ethnic-composition subgroups
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 82 | 14 | 97
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Enrollment size | Small | 79 | 17 | 96
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Enrollment size | Large | 85 | 12 | 97
Throughout our analysis, we consider how and to what extent differences in the operation of BTAM programs may be related to factors such as BTAM team size, team level (school-level only, district-level only, or both), and other school characteristics.
Principals in schools in large districts and in schools serving a majority of students of color were more likely than their counterparts to indicate their BTAM program had defining policy documents.
Similar to the patterns we observed around the existence of defining policy documents, SOPs were more common in schools serving a majority of students of color, in large districts, and in support of large teams and schools with teams at both the school and district levels.
Which specific personnel were included on schools’ BTAM teams was also highly related to the school context (although this is intertwined with which types of schools tend to have which staff, as discussed in the “Differential Access to School Personnel Likely Shapes the Composition of BTAM Teams” box).
For example, secondary (middle and high) schools were more likely to have a greater variety of personnel on their teams—including other school administrators beyond the principal, school-based law enforcement, counselors, and social workers—than their elementary counterparts.
Schools in small districts (those serving fewer than 10,000 students) were especially likely to directly include school principals and district administrators on their BTAM teams.
Conversely, in large districts, other school administrators, such as assistant principals, were more likely to be involved.
We infer from these patterns that larger districts might have greater capacity for specialized roles or delegation of specific individuals to be involved in BTAM, given they tend to employ more school- and district-level administrators.
We also observed some differences in school BTAM team composition by school poverty level.
For example, schools in higher-income neighborhoods were more likely to have school psychologists than schools serving lower-income neighborhoods.
Federal government data from the 2021–2022 school year paint a somewhat different picture, showing that high-poverty schools were actually more likely than low-poverty schools to have both diagnostic mental health assessment services and mental health treatment services (NCES, 2024).
For example, middle and high schools were more likely to have school-based law enforcement officers and other security staff who are not law enforcement officers present at school.
Meanwhile, low-poverty schools were more likely than their middle- and especially high-poverty counterparts to have social workers and school psychologists.
Rural schools were also less likely to have mental health personnel available, but they were more likely to have sworn law enforcement officers (including SROs).
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals, staff available at school question
Total | 89 | 89 | 56 | 67 | 58 | 22
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Elementary | 84 | 90 | 51 | 68 | 47 | 16
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Middle | 96 | 91 | 63 | 72 | 74 | 26
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
High | 97 | 86 | 63 | 62 | 73 | 34
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Urban | 87 | 88 | 60 | 72 | 41 | 32
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Suburban | 88 | 91 | 66 | 82 | 61 | 25
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Rural | 92 | 88 | 46 | 53 | 67 | 13
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
High | 92 | 89 | 51 | 55 | 53 | 28
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Middle | 90 | 88 | 55 | 65 | 61 | 20
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Low | 84 | 92 | 63 | 84 | 51 | 24
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Small | 88 | 88 | 51 | 63 | 62 | 15
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Large | 90 | 91 | 62 | 74 | 52 | 31
Importantly, some types of schools were much more likely to have these personnel available than others.
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
That is, 55 percent of schools served by both types of teams train annually, compared with 39 percent of schools with district-only teams and 41 percent with school-only teams.
Principals in urban schools, large schools, large districts, and schools serving a majority of students of color—categories that are highly overlapping—were particularly likely to report having a standard meeting schedule.
Schools in large districts were especially likely to have dedicated funds for BTAM activities.
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Named models | 20 | 22 | 13 | 23
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
“Other” program | 11 | 8 | 9 | 12
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Locally developed program | 30 | 26 | 33 | 30
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
No defined program | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Don’t know | 22 | 24 | 27 | 18
Unsurprisingly, schools in states that already had legislation in 2019 were the most likely to use named models (some states with early legislation included states where named models were developed in their state—e.g., Virginia).
However, the use of named models was still relatively uncommon even in these states and equal to the likelihood of schools in states that did not address BTAM in 2019 policy.
Schools in the group of states that encouraged but did not mandate BTAM use in 2019 were the least likely to use named BTAM models.
Our results also show that schools with smaller BTAM teams, those located in large school districts, and those that only have district-level teams are the least likely to adopt named models.
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of schools in states that had early legislation or in states that encouraged BTAM use is statistically significantly different from the percentage of schools in other states.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
With the caveat that principals in large districts were more likely to report not knowing about the specific actions their school or district took in the lead up to BTAM implementation, principals’ reports suggest that small districts (those serving fewer than 10,000 students) approached adoption somewhat differently from large districts (see Figure 7.2).
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Taken together, these findings suggest that small and large districts may have sought buy-in or collaboration from differing groups before adoption.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
More small districts also engaged in outward-facing activities (e.g., discussing participation with community providers, consulting with law enforcement), whereas more large districts engaged in inward-facing activities (e.g., surveying their [larger population] of school staff
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of principals in small districts who said their school or district administrators took a specific action before implementing its BTAM program was statistically significantly different from the percentage of principals in large districts who said similarly.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
This could also suggest that smaller districts are having to look outside their immediate school community for buy-in and support, relative to larger districts that are able to draw and depend more on internal resources.
cite page 57 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
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.
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.
Our data also show that elementary schools—whose BTAM teams likely deal with relatively less serious student behavior compared with secondary schools—were particularly likely to say they never use exclusionary discipline for students referred to a BTAM team.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Elementary school principals were also significantly more likely to say they never refer students to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, as shown in Figure 9.2.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 30 | 46 | 21 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 43 | 42 | 13 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 13 | 52 | 30 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 11 | 52 | 32 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 40 | 40 | 16 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 56 | 30 | 10 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 21 | 52 | 21 | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 15 | 56 | 24 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
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.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
In our survey, schools also appeared more likely to use these types of measures at the secondary level, compared with the elementary level.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
That is, principals in all types of school settings—whether in a large, urban school or a small, rural school—said they believe that their BTAM program effectively helps keep their school safe.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Sample (N = 1406 total; column N not printed) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Nevertheless, eight in ten of those principals said they believe that their BTAM program was effective.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Furthermore, principals’ positive feelings about the effectiveness of the BTAM team also did not depend on the level of crime in the school.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
That is, principals in schools that reported having higher levels of violent crime were just as likely as their counterparts in schools that reported that they had no or only a few violent crimes to feel that their BTAM team was effective in maintaining school safety.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
We did observe larger variation in principals’ perceptions of BTAM’s impact on school climate across school characteristics.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Sample (N = 1376 total; column N not printed) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Principals of large schools were slightly more likely than principals of small schools to view their community as supportive of BTAM (74 versus 67 percent, respectively).
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We observed only one statistically significant difference when it comes to school characteristics
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Elementary | 44 | 26 | 70
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Middle | 42 | 29 | 71
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | High | 45 | 28 | 73
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Urban | 42 | 30 | 71
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Suburban | 42 | 26 | 68
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Rural | 46 | 26 | 72
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 47 | 25 | 72
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 42 | 28 | 70
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 43 | 27 | 70
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 46 | 26 | 72
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 41 | 28 | 69
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Small | 44 | 24 | 67
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Large | 43 | 31 | 74
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Specifically, principals in the highest poverty schools were least likely to believe their BTAM program would withstand a leadership change, suggesting that BTAM sustainability in those schools may be more vulnerable.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We identified one notable difference by school characteristics.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Elementary | 25 | 36 | 61
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Middle | 33 | 31 | 64
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | High | 32 | 33 | 65
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Urban | 27 | 35 | 62
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Suburban | 33 | 36 | 69
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Rural | 25 | 33 | 58
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Small | 27 | 32 | 59
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Large | 29 | 37 | 66
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
This could imply that school characteristics might be significant in determining the types of challenges schools experience when it comes to operating BTAM programs.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Although the differences were small, we found some limited evidence for two challenges in particular: (1) training for BTAM team members and (2) reduction in school staff support for a BTAM program.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Principals of urban schools, high-poverty schools, and schools serving a majority of students of color (highly overlapping categories) were especially likely to report experiencing these two challenges.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Locale groups (urban, suburban, rural) among schools with a BTAM team; each figure is a share of its own locale group
For example, 10 percent of urban school principals said they struggled to get needed BTAM training, as did 7 percent of suburban school principals and 5 percent of rural school principals.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Our analyses show that schools in states that mandated or otherwise encouraged BTAM implementation at K–12 schools through non-codified policy in 2019 are ahead in terms of their BTAM implementation.
Schools located in urban and high-poverty areas are particularly likely to report challenges accessing training, highlighting obstacles that additional funding sources and support could help address.
Because principals’ perceptions and experiences can vary depending on their school context, we examined differences in educators’ responses by school characteristics (in addition to their state policy context).
More specifically, we examined differences by school grade level, school and district enrollment size, locale, poverty status, and student racial/ethnic composition.
school grade level (elementary, middle, and high)
school locale (urban, suburban, and rural)
school student racial/ethnic composition (schools in which more than half of students were Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or of two or more races were categorized as having majority students of color, with the remaining schools categorized as having majority White students.)
school neighborhood poverty (low, middle, or high poverty based on the income-to-poverty ratio [IPR] for the neighborhood surrounding the school.
IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty threshold set for the family’s size and structure and ranges from 0 to 999.
Schools with an IPR less than or equal to 200 were categorized as high poverty.
Schools with an IPR of greater than or equal to 401 were categorized as low poverty.
Remaining schools were categorized as middle poverty.
school enrollment size (schools with fewer than 450 students were categorized as small, whereas the remainder were categorized as large.)
district enrollment size (districts serving fewer than 10,000 students were categorized as small, whereas districts serving 10,000 students or more were categorized as large.)
It is important to keep in mind that each principal who took our survey is in a school that belongs to multiple of these categories—for example, a principal in a small, rural elementary school in a small district that serves majority White students in a relatively lower-income neighborhood in a state that does not address BTAM in state policy.
Thus, any patterns observed across multiple school contexts might be driven by principals in the schools that share multiple of these characteristics.
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)
In this report, we describe only those differences among principal subgroups that are statistically significant at the 5 percent level, unless otherwise noted.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
