Kyrene presents progressive, data-driven approach to student discipline at study session

At a May 13 study session, Kyrene Elementary District staff presented the district’s approach to student discipline, describing a progressive, student-centered framework that combines board policy, statutory requirements and school-level professional judgment. Dr. Garth Kupp opened the presentation and said the purpose was “to provide an overview of Kyrene's approach to student discipline, what guides our practices, and how we ensure consistent practices across all of our schools.”

The presenters told the governing board the district uses governing board policy 5-306 and 5-306a and applicable state law as the legal baseline for responses such as suspension and due-process steps. Kupp said the framework is not the full picture, adding: “At our core, we are in the business of educating children between the ages of 5 and 13, and our first responsibility is to teach.”

Why it matters: the presentation framed discipline as part of instruction and student support, not only as punitive action. That framing affects when and how staff use in-school supports, alternatives to suspension and the district’s reporting and training priorities.

What the district told the board - Policy and handbook: Kupp pointed trustees to the family handbook discipline matrix, which lists behavioral violations and a range of possible consequences organized by severity; the matrix is intended to make consequences “fair, predictable, and aligned with board policy and legal requirements” while preserving administrator discretion. He said school leaders weigh a student’s age, disciplinary history, intent and remorse when assigning consequences. - Alternatives to removal: Staff emphasized alternatives that keep students connected to learning, including restorative practices, check-in/check-out systems, in-school interventions, a “Kyrene alternative to suspension program” and a long-term alternative to suspension program. Kupp said these options let students “take responsibility, repair harm, and stay connected to school.” - School-level practice and PBIS: Alejandro Vasquez, assistant principal at Kyrene Delos Lagos and Kyrene Del Norte, described elementary-level practice. “We understand that behavior is a form of communication,” Vasquez said, and added that schools use PBIS (positive behavior intervention and supports) teams to build flowcharts that distinguish minor classroom-managed behaviors from major incidents referred to administration. Vasquez listed classroom-level responses (verbal warnings, reflection sheets, parent contact) and office processes (electronic referral forms entered into Synergy as ODRs) for major incidents. - Middle-school process and due process: Jesse Gutierrez, assistant principal at Centennial Middle School, said staff take witness statements, interview all listed witnesses and triangulate evidence until there is a preponderance supporting a finding. “When it comes to discipline, the biggest thing to emphasize with students is ensuring you're honoring students' rights and due process,” Gutierrez said. He described team decisions for major incidents and reintegration strategies such as peer mediation or teacher-student supports. - Data-driven prevention: Presenters showed how school PBIS teams use Synergy office-discipline-referral (ODR) data and Panorama survey results to identify trends by time, location, grade and subpopulation. Gutierrez described an “early warning system” that flags students as low/medium/high risk using attendance, grades and behavioral referrals so teams can target interventions (check-in/check-out, counselor referrals, MTSS review).

Board questioning and clarifications Board members asked about how broad categories (for example, “defiant/disrespectful”) are calibrated at the school level. Vasquez and Gutierrez said teams norm definitions in PLCs and PBIS meetings and that administrators review context (location, intent, recurrence) and victim perception when distinguishing, for example, a minor aggressive act from an assault. Kupp and presenters agreed that due-process steps and family communication are built into the process; schools issue written responses to bullying complaints and involve school-effectiveness staff or talent management when appropriate.

Operational notes and limits - Elementary suspensions: Presenters said suspension for K–4 students is used only in limited circumstances (serious safety concerns or persistent behaviors that don't respond to intervention) and that schools coordinate with mental-health staff when suspension is considered. They emphasized that when students are removed for a period, they retain access to grade-level curriculum through in-school interventions. - Time per referral: Kupp indicated school leaders invest substantial time investigating ODRs; one presenter noted reviews of incidents and data analysis are routine work for site PBIS teams.

Where this goes next Kupp told the board the district will continue staff training, calibrate the discipline matrix and expand alternatives to suspension. Trustees asked follow-up questions and requested opportunities to review policy-level questions about how criminal-law referrals intersect with discipline policy; Member Davis asked for a future discussion of the district’s overall disciplinary philosophy and its relationship to criminal law.

Ending Presenters closed by stressing the work is ongoing: “the work that we do with student discipline is ongoing. It's not about arriving at a fixed system, but continually evolving and being able to better serve our student populations,” Kupp told the board.