I wanted to share this email that my husband, Josh, sent to the board. He makes some excellent points, and I encourage you all to email the board as well to drive home these crucial details. 

Dear Board Members,

Note I also sent through the website but it was giving some issues so I am also sending the same here.

I spoke during public comment at the June 9, 2025, regular board meeting regarding the removal of behavioral interventionists (BIs) in the elementary schools. Thank you for taking time during the meeting to challenge the superintendent’s office more on this decision and confirm the new District Behavior Support Model to be on the agenda in the next meeting. Today I email you on behalf of the many parents and RCS staff in our community in our concern regarding the elimination of the dedicated BI position in the elementary schools. I am a parent of three kids at Baldwin Elementary school, two of whom have been positively impacted by the outstanding services provided by Jenny Hamilton, the former Baldwin BI.

The District Behavior Support Model which the previous BI roles fall under, is agenda item 8.2 for the June 23, 2025, regular meeting. I urge the board to review this report with highest scrutiny and closely compare it to how it falls short from the current model which has been widely supported by the community in recent emails to the board and in public comment during board meetings. I have taken a preliminary look at this report, and it does a poor job at best in explaining the model and it has no comparison to the current model. In fact, it has one slide that is repeated twice, so I question what effort was put into this new model development considering such a basic mistake that could signal the lack of focus and fundamental understanding of the MTSS model and how it should be implemented within RCS. How can the board evaluate this proposed change and approve the associative budget if it does not compare to the current model and list the risks associated with eliminating many current positions that are crucial to early child behavioral development in the elementary schools?

Items that we expect to be reviewed and discussed during the June 23, 2025; board meeting include:

1.        A review of the previous budget vs the current budget associated with the new model. It is not noted in the presentation.

a.        This should not be strictly a budget-based decision but rather one that focuses on the students needs and the long-term impact of the proposed changes. In previous meetings the superintendent’s office has only discussed that there has been a reduction in state and/or federal funding which is causing this reduction of services.

b.       The budget presentation from the June 9, 2025, board meeting stated that there were ongoing costs associated with “Expansion of RCS District Behavior Support Model” in slide 10. How can you state that you are expanding when you have already eliminated BI roles in the elementary schools? That is a reduction!

c.        In slide 12 of the budget presentation, it states this covers “RCS Behavior Intervention Program-Salary, Benefits” and shows a $726,737 (5.2%) increase in the 2025-2026 salary budget. If we are eliminating roles where is this increase salary budget going to!?

                                                                              i.        Considering this discrepancy alone I urge the board to reject the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year Budget during agenda item 9.4 of the June 23, 2025, meeting and demand a closer look at the budget particularly that associated with the BI salaries considering this.

2.        A review of the risk assessment the superintendent’s office performed when making the decision to reduce services and change their model. I certainly hope one was made and is on record. It is not noted in the presentation.

a.        Eliminating dedicated MTSS tier 2 roles such as the BIs in the elementary schools has a negative impact on the students who require additional support beyond the Tier 1 support but not necessarily needing an IEP and intensive Tier 3 support.

b.       Removing/reducing behavioral services in schools can lead to increased disciplinary actions like suspensions and expulsions, academic difficulties, and negative long-term outcomes such as substance abuse, unemployment, and involvement with the criminal justice system. Students struggling with behavioral or mental health challenges may also experience social isolation and reduced quality of life.

c.        Removal of Tier 2 services like the dedicated BI role could have a negative impact on the overall budget. If students cannot obtain Tier 2 services, they may be encouraged to get an IEP and thereby increase the overall cost to RCS overall.

3.        An overview of how the (4) MTSS Behavior Consultants, (3) Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA), and up to (12) Registered Behavior Technicians (RBT) staff will be distributed amongst the (20) district schools. It is not clear in the presentation.

a.        How many RBTs will be implemented for the 25/26 school year as it says up to (12). That is not even enough to cover the (13) elementary schools if they employed all (12)!

b.       How will they decide which students received these services and which do not since there will not be as many that are currently in place?

The RCS mission statement includes, “The district is committed to whole-child growth that includes academic and social-emotional learning.” It is evident that further discussion on the newly proposed District Behavior Support Model and associative budget is crucial to truly fulfill the mission of RCS. Thank you for taking time to read this and for your service to our community. I truly hope the board takes our message to heart and pushes back on the superintendent’s office to do what is right for whole-child growth in social-emotional learning.

Sincerely,

Joshua Kieleszewski