Thank you to everyone who has stayed engaged, asked thoughtful questions, and kept this effort unified and professional. RCA has now released a written FAQ summary dated January 23, 2026, and a follow‑up update dated January 26, 2026. Here is our analysis.
Many of us have read these carefully and our first pass is this: a few points were clarified, but many of the most important concerns were answered with broad phrasing, limited specificity, and “trust us” language that does not rebuild confidence.
What the FAQ did clarify:
• The difference between “net income” and “net operating income” was acknowledged. Public filings show a positive 2024 net income (approx. $237,000), while also claiming a negative net operating income (approx. -$1,022,003.80) once one‑time proceeds (such as a building sale) are excluded. This confirms what many suspected: the public filings and the “deficit” claim are both technically “true” depending on what is included or excluded.
• At‑home hours have been subjectively identified as the key financial driver. At‑home hours were labeled as “the largest single factor contributing to the budget overage” and that the first year of hourly at‑home pay had a greater impact than projected.
• The FAQ provided some organizational scale metrics. It has stated that RCA serves approximately 2,600 students across 25 centers in 17 states and employs roughly 750 people while also claiming that the NLT represents about 3.5% of staff (about 1 leader per 31 employees). According to leadership, RCA has reduced roughly 40% of NLT roles since May with an estimated 33% reduction in annualized NLT payroll, and that 13 NLT positions have been eliminated or consolidated.
• For this year tutors are not expected to work unpaid at home and RCA will continue to compensate tutors for at‑home work under the existing contract structure. We are taking that statement as a petition victory and a clear written commitment.
These clarifications help. But they don’t resolve the bigger issues that drove this petition in the first place: financial transparency in real time, governance credibility, clear center stability planning, and fair compensation that matches the actual workload.
Where the responses were vague or incomplete (and why trust has not been restored):
• Executive compensation and “shared sacrifice” are still not disclosed in meaningful terms. The FAQ says Mr. Ice has given back “a sizable portion” of his income and will give back “one paycheck” in 2026, and that other leaders made personal donations. That language is not an answer. “Sizable portion” is not a number, not a percentage, and not a policy. If staff pay structures are being changed because finances are urgent, then leadership compensation should be disclosed with equal seriousness: base salaries, total compensation, and actual reductions.
• The FAQ repeatedly uses non‑committal language instead of concrete actions. Phrases such as “leadership is evaluating,” “exploring a model,” “problem‑solving,” and “committed to improved communication… when possible” is all useless rhetoric. We need dates, owners, and commitments that can be measured.
• Financial transparency is being redirected to delayed public filings. The FAQ response to releasing 2024/2025 financials states that required disclosures are in public filings and that 2025 financials will be available after the audit is completed in 2026. That may satisfy a minimum legal requirement, but it does not address the reality facing families and staff making decisions now. Re‑enrollment has already happened. Tutors are planning now. A “wait until later in 2026” answer is not operational transparency.
• The “one‑time building sale proceeds” explanation creates more questions than it answers. If one‑time proceeds materially changed 2024 net income, then stakeholders deserve a simple, factual breakdown: how much was received, where it went, what remains, and how it was used to support operations (or not)? The FAQ explains that one‑time sales can’t be repeated—obviously, but it still doesn’t answer the elephant in the room: where did those proceeds go?
• Center stability planning remains unclear. Families and staff are asking a basic question: how will RCA determine which centers operate next year, which centers might close, and when people will know? The FAQ provides general statements about sustainability and future risk, but not the center‑level plan or timeline families need to make decisions responsibly.
• The virtual option remains confusing. Some local communications suggest virtual is “no longer being considered,” while the Jan 26 update says RCA has a plan to finish the year “even if we need to shift to virtual at some point.” Those are not the same message. Families deserve one clear, written statement: is virtual on the table, what triggers it, and how will tuition/service expectations be handled if it happens?
• Families have still not received direct, comprehensive communication. The FAQ indicates leadership plans to provide a written statement to families. Nationally, many parents continue to personally reach out to me to share their feelings of being left in the dark and having to grasp at straws to learn information through informal channels. That is unacceptable in a mission-driven program that depends on trust.
I call upon Ice and the Board to address additional concerns that have been anonymously raised to me via email:
• Families have requested the release of a clear organizational chart that includes the full leadership structure which shows how regional managers fit into decision-making. I have personally seen one (outdated), but we believe this needs to be reattached to the next memo released for the reference of everyone affiliated with RCA: parents, students, and staff alike. We demand that Chris Ice and the Board update this organizational chart to reflect the recent and significant changes that have fallen upon our beloved academy due to staff resignations in response to the justified overwhelming lack of confidence in high level leadership.
• Who actually makes decisions? Is RCA run by a true collective process with accountable governance, or are major decisions made by a small group with limited checks and balance much like the now overturned rash decision made by Ice without legal counsel to decline at-home pay to tutors despite their signed contracts justly promising it?
• Why has the Board itself not communicated directly and consistently beyond brief references in compiled documents?
• Concerns have been raised about role overlap and headcount at the national level. Is the staffing model really structured so that centers and tutors can continue to carry the mission daily?
• RCA families demand that the board speaks to the high rate of staff turnover and why so many seasoned national leaders have left or been replaced in so short of time? What does this signal about stability?
• Many families and tutors are anxious about whether RCA can finish the school year strong while continuing to pay staff and maintain operations.
• The board must address the enforceability and tone of contract clauses (including non‑compete / non‑solicitation concerns). Families want RCA to clearly state that families and staff can make responsible educational plans for their children without living in fear of unchristian intimidation tactics.
• RCA communities have raised practical questions about the academic calendar and recent schedule changes (including extended breaks). If RCA cancels center days, families deserve clarity on tuition value and tutors deserve clarity on contract pay obligations.
• What are the cost implications of the expansions taking place? Who goes on expansion visits? What does it cost to open a center? Why is expansion being pursued if the organization cannot support existing staff and centers?
Due to the timing and re-enrollment, we are asking Chris Ice and the Board to provide clear, written answers to these follow‑up items with specific numbers and timelines, not general statements:
1. The re-enrollment deadline was TOO SOON! You must extend this deadline until these concerns are directly addressed. All families who have already re-enrolled should be made aware of the current state of RCA and given the option to back out should they deem any circumstances of the situation to be not be suitable for their family.
2. Publish an organizational chart including national leadership roles, regional leadership roles, and the decision-making structure (who approves what).
3. Provide a center stability plan: what metrics determine viability, when final center commitments will be made for next year, and how/when families and staff will be notified.
4. Provide real compensation transparency: executive and senior leadership salary ranges or totals, and clearly stated, measurable pay reductions if “shared sacrifice” is a continuing expectation.
5. Provide a plain-language breakdown of the building sale proceeds referenced in the FAQ: amount, allocation, and remaining impact on reserves.
6. Clarify the virtual option with one consistent message: whether it is on the table for this year or next year, what triggers it, and what it means for families and staff.
7. Provide clarity on the 2026–2027 compensation model now that RCA has stated at‑home pay is going away next year: stipend amount ranges, what work expectations will be reduced accordingly, and how RCA will prevent unpaid labor from becoming the norm.
8. Provide a clear statement to families immediately (not “soon”) so parents are not re‑enrolling without understanding the realities that affect center stability, staffing, and program continuity.
9. Provide a written assurance that staff and families can ask questions, compare options, and make prudent plans without threats related to contract clauses.
One more point we want to make clear: Many tutors and families are fully committed to finishing this school year strong for our students. That commitment is not because everything is “fine,” and it should never be misread as consent to silence, acceptance of vague answers, or trust that has not yet been rebuilt. We can hold two truths at once: our children deserve stability, and leadership must still be accountable. Prudence is not panic. Asking for documentation is not division. Organizing questions is not hostility. It is what responsible stakeholders do when contracts, compensation, and the future of the organization are on the line.
We also want to thank everyone who continues to support this effort in a disciplined way: keeping discussions factual, keeping tone charitable, and keeping the focus on transparency, sustainability, and mission integrity rather than rumor or rhetoric. That approach is why we’ve made progress so far, and it’s how we will keep making progress in this next chapter.
Finally, as we move toward contingency planning conversations, know that we welcome practical help from those who want to contribute constructively, whether through drafting, organizing questions, gathering center‑level facts, or helping families think through options for next year. If you want to support the work in a concrete way, please reach out at jamesbakercharles@gmail.com.
God Bless,
Charles Baker
Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis!