Exploring the Utility of a Behavior Assistant Position in One School District

Challenging student behavior is on the rise with increased verbal and physical aggression in schools. Some students who exhibit challenging behavior are identified with a disability and served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 or Section 504 (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2022). Legal mandates required schools to implement positive and proactive behavior supports for students who exhibited challenging behavior; however, teachers were not adequately trained in such legal requirements or effective behavior management strategies. This lack of training resulted in an over-reliance on reactive disciplinary reactions such as suspension, expulsion, restraint, and seclusion. These actions were harmful and dangerous and did not teach students the necessary skills or result in improved student behavior. A lack of instruction and coursework in teacher preparation programs for pre-service teachers and a lack of professional development opportunities for teachers in the field might be partly responsible for this problem. Coaching and mentoring programs presented a possible solution to the problem; however, such programs did not produce long-term results and were costly, leaving school districts without a feasible proactive behavioral intervention. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore a systemic, proactive behavioral intervention implemented in one school district in one state in the south-central United States. The following research questions guided this study. Q1 What are the participants' perceptions and experiences with the BA position? Q2 How are BAs trained, and on what specific interventions and skills do they receive training? Q3 What interventions and skills do BAs implement with students? Behaviorism provided a theoretical framework to facilitate the context and meaning of the proactive intervention. This qualitative case study involved five sets of data. Four data sets included semi-structured interviews with 16 school staff in four distinct roles within the district who shared perspectives and experiences unique to their role regarding the behavior assistant position, how behavior assistants were trained, and how behavior assistants implemented their training. The fifth data set included documents relevant to the research questions regarding the behavior assistant position. Data analysis involved open, axial, and selective coding, and trustworthiness was addressed via peer review, data triangulation, and member checks. Results included the evolution of the behavior assistant position, and data indicated that behavior assistants received specialized training to function as proactive interventionists and multi-faceted behavior support for students who exhibited challenging behavior and their general education teachers. A discussion of the findings related to the literature and implications for practice, limitations, and recommendations for future research were provided.