NCIER®

Report page 23

Report page 23 with the extracted claims highlighted
Click the page to enlarge. Highlighted passages match the claims listed alongside.

Claims on this page

Statement [V] p023-01

Principals are assumed to have responded on behalf of their schools

Although survey invitations were directed solely to school principals, we assume that these principals responded to our survey on behalf of their schools and interpret their data accordingly.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Fact [V] p023-02

1,746 individuals completed the 20-minute survey, weighted to national principal population

In total, 1,746 individuals completed our 20-minute survey, and we weighted their responses to be representative of the national population of K–12 public school principals and the schools in which they serve.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Fact [V] p023-03

Responses examined by six school characteristics and state policy context

To answer our research questions, we investigated national patterns in educators’ survey responses based on school characteristics and state policy context related to BTAM.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-04

Six school characteristics: grade levels, locale, neighborhood poverty, race/ethnicity, school and d

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.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Evidence [V] p023-06

State groups drawn from 2021 Child Trends and NASBE analysis of state laws and policies

Specifically, we drew on a systematic analysis of state-level laws and policies related to threat assessment completed by Child Trends and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) and published in 2021.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-07

States divided into three groups by their 2019 policy context

We used these data to divide states into three groups, roughly corresponding to their policy context at the time of the review (2019):

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-08

Early legislation states (18 states): 2019 requirements to adopt threat assessment

Early legislation states (18 states), including states where, in 2019, state legal requirements, regulations or district policy required school districts to adopt threat assessment as a safety measure.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-09

Early legislation category could include states with explicit laws or training or assessment policie

This category could include states that had explicit laws about schools using the practice, or policies requiring training or mandating assessment processes as part of their response to violent incidents (sometimes in the broader context of bullying and violence response).

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Fact [V] p023-10

Early legislation states: CT, FL, GA, IL, KY, MD, MI, MS, NV, NH, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, WA

These states were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-11

States that encouraged BTAM (20 states): encouraged in 2019 or covered in non-codified policy

States that encouraged schools to use BTAM (20 states), combining states where, in 2019, state law, regulation, or district policy encourage[d] districts to adopt threat assessment policies and states where BTAM was not addressed in state law or regulations, but was covered in non-codified policy.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Fact [V] p023-12

Encouraged states: AR, CO, DE, ID, IN, KS, MA, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OK, SC, TN, UT, VT, WV

States in this group consisted of Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-13

Other states (13 states): BTAM not addressed in state law or regulation as of 2019

Other states (13 states), which included those where BTAM was not addressed in state law or regulation as of 2019.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Fact [V] p023-14

Other states: AL, AK, AZ, CA, DC, HI, IA, LA, ME, MN, SD, WI, WY (Child Trends and NASBE, 2021)

These states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Child Trends and NASBE, 2021).

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-15

Footnote 4: principals' responses speak for their schools; school is the unit of analysis

We interpret principals’ responses as speaking on behalf of their schools and therefore often report results using the school as the unit of analysis (e.g., “percent of schools who said X”).

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Definition [V] p023-16

Footnote 4: perception items reported per principal; terms interchangeable

However, for survey items that ask about principals’ perceptions, we report using the principal (e.g., “percent of principals who said Y”). These terms can be interpreted interchangeably.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Statement [V] p023-17

Footnote 6: 2019 compilation was the most up-to-date comprehensive source on BTAM requirements

The 2019 compilation of law and policy was the most up-to-date source of comprehensive information on BTAM requirements nationally at the time of survey sampling and planning.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map
Statement [V] p023-18

Footnote 3: Appendix A lists all survey items and response frequencies

A complete list of the survey items administered to principals and the response frequencies is available in Appendix A.

p. 23 · NCIER Claim Map

Top

Find the Perfect Training Class For You