Yuma Elementary board reviews discipline policies; parents press for access to outside therapists for special‑needs students

At a meeting of the Yuma Elementary School District 1 governing board, district staff presented an overview of student discipline procedures and plans for a pilot program to address repetitive disruptive behavior, while parents and outside providers urged the board to clarify whether contracted therapists may continue providing in‑school services for students with autism.

Miss Lebonis, a district staff member who presented the discipline overview, described the district’s framework as rooted in PBIS — positive behavioral interventions and supports — and said the goal is to “create a safe and positive learning environment” and to teach expected behaviors campus by campus. “At the foundational level, all of our schools work under what we consider PBIS,” she said.

The presentation summarized how classroom‑level interventions, referral forms and administrative responses (lunch/recess detentions, on‑campus support, loss of privileges, parent conferences and, as a last resort, suspension) are used on a progressive basis when behavior persists. Lebonis said recommended disciplinary ranges differ by grade: younger students are treated with a stronger emphasis on instruction and intervention, while middle‑school incidents may warrant more immediate consequences.

The presenter also described a district effort to pilot a program this school year aimed at students whose nonviolent but repetitive behaviors materially disrupt instruction. Lebonis said administrators, counselors and teachers have provided input and that the district plans to involve parents in any pilot placements: “having parent partnership for any of the students that will be participating in this program will be key to really having that success,” she said.

Board members pressed staff on several procedural items. Board member Stoner asked whether the discipline handbook and updates are being distributed and acknowledged; Lebonis replied the handbook is published digitally, is pushed to student devices and that device paperwork includes an electronic acknowledgment. Stoner also asked whether disciplinary approaches are primarily punitive or restorative; Lebonis said the district typically uses a combination of both and that, in some middle‑school cases, restorative agreements may reduce a suspension if parents opt in.

Lebonis and the board discussed recent state changes and court guidance the district said affect suspension authority for young students. In the presentation she stated that legislation changed the district’s ability to suspend kindergartners through fourth graders, allowing suspensions of up to two days at a time with a 10‑day annual cap for that age group; she also noted a recent Arizona Supreme Court ruling that limited district discipline authority for incidents that occur off campus and outside the school’s supervision. The district presentation did not specify statute or case names.

Public comment that followed focused heavily on services for students with autism and whether outside therapists and Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs) are currently permitted on campuses. Channing Jones, a speech‑language pathologist and parent, said her child was moved to a school more than 20 minutes away without prior notice and without meaningful parent involvement and asked the board to “consider how these decisions are made and whether they're equitable, student centered, and legally compliant.”

Ruben Hernandez, who identified himself as an autism provider, told the board his clinic’s RBTs were being excluded from schools and said parents were calling him with concerns. Parent speakers, including Nicolette Deck and Sean Deck, described acute worries about children losing one‑on‑one support and cited safety incidents and elopement risks for students with autism. Several parents asked for immediate assurances that contracted therapists could continue providing in‑school services while the board investigates.

Superintendent Ponder acknowledged the public comments, said he would meet with staff and parents to gather details and that the administration would bring information back to the board. The board president asked the superintendent to investigate individual cases and report back at the next board meeting; board members also proposed adding an informational agenda item so the board can discuss rules, memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and procedures for permitting outside providers on campus.

District staff described current practice for outside providers: on‑site services by community clinicians require an MOU and must not interfere with the district’s obligation to provide students’ required IEP minutes. Lebonis said the district has allowed outside providers to operate under MOUs when schedules and services align with IEP obligations, and she noted that the district is trying to protect required services while permitting additional supports when feasible.

Lebonis also described a partnership the district has with a program the staff called “Cartwheel,” funded through an Arizona Department of Education grant. She said the district began that partnership in April and that staff reported much faster access to clinical therapy for referred families — “they are reaching out to our families within 2 days” and, if parents agree, services can begin within a week. The district did not provide the grant amount in a clearly stated figure in the meeting transcript.

The board did not take a formal vote on policy changes or on the status of outside providers at the meeting. Instead, members directed the superintendent to investigate the parent complaints about special‑education placements and the reported exclusion of outside therapists, to contact affected families and to present findings to the board at its next scheduled meeting. Several board members also proposed an informational session to explain what the board and district can and cannot do in response to public comments and to outline complaint and appeals procedures.

The discussion highlighted several crosscutting issues parents and board members raised: how parents are notified and consulted about placement decisions, the extent to which outside clinicians may work on campus under MOUs, how the district balances required IEP services with additional community supports, and how the district is implementing updated state law and court guidance related to suspensions for young students.

Board and staff members requested that parents who are concerned submit specific information so staff can investigate individual cases and prepare a public informational item for the board’s upcoming meeting.