K-1 discipline support since the enactment of Arizona House Bill 2123

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of Arizona Revised Statues 15-843(K) with Arizona elementary administrators, since the 2021-2022 school year. Additionally, this research investigated the Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions administrators have found to be effective and ineffective to support K-1 students who have behavioral needs. Participants included 12 elementary administrators from two suburban school districts. The design of this study was a case study with a focus on qualitative data collected, analyzed, and summarized. No additional data were collected. Research Question 1 addressed how administrators’ discipline practices have changed since the revised law. Even though half of the administrators discussed no change has occurred, there was an equal number of participants who explained they had to be creative with their practices. Additionally, they expressed how they had to formalize their MTSS process and focus on early interventions and student relationships. Research Question 2 addressed what Tier 1 behavioral supports were being utilized for K-1 students. Administrators expressed having their teachers utilize a Social Emotional Curriculum to teach daily social skills as a support for K-1 students. They shared having school-wide expectations in place was supportive for the students. Additionally, having the expectations visible around campus, explicitly taught, and using positive tickets helped to support students with behavioral needs. Research Question 3 addressed identifying effective Tier 2 interventions. Administrators identified having extra staff members pull small groups of students in order to provide them with instruction on social skills. In addition, Check-in, Check-out was explained to be effective because it was a staff member, other than the teacher, who did the check-in and reflect on behavior goals with the student. When a student reaches their goal, an incentive is given. Research Question 4 asked administrators to identify ineffective Tier 2 interventions. Because there were none share by participants, there was no conclusion drawn as there was an insufficiency of data