Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavior Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board schedules public hearing on new behavior resource coach job after debate over role and title
Summary
School board members debated and approved a first reading to advertise two behavioral job descriptions: an amended Behavioral Resource Teacher role and a proposed new Behavioral Resource Coach. Some members suggested renaming it an engagement or classroom‑management coach; the board voted to advertise the descriptions for public hearing (4–1).
The Alachua County School Board on May 6 approved a first reading to advertise revisions to the Behavioral Resource Teacher (BRT) job description and to introduce a proposed Behavioral Resource Coach job; the motion to advertise passed 4–1 with Mr. Vu dissenting.
Why it matters: The changes are intended to shift some behavioral support toward instructional coaching so staff can prevent behavior incidents through classroom management and engagement strategies rather than responding only after incidents occur.
What staff proposed Assistant Superintendent Dr. Edwards presented the amended BRT description and a new job description for a Behavioral Resource Coach, describing the coach position as an instructional role that would provide ongoing classroom support and professional development for teachers to reduce behavior disruptions across schools. The amendments raise the minimum teaching experience expected (for some roles) and spell out a coaching focus for the new position.
Board debate Board members raised questions about title and pipeline: several members suggested “engagement coach” or “classroom management coach” would better capture the role and avoid the stigma associated with “behavioral” specialists. Members also discussed whether the role should require prior service as a BRT (some preferred that pathway to preserve internal advancement for current BRTs). Staff said they envisioned the coach as a separate role that could be placed at schools with sufficient allocations and that some existing BRT duties could be redistributed to allow coaching time.
Action and next steps The board voted to advertise both job descriptions for a public hearing and second reading; the vote was 4–1 with Mr. Vu dissenting. Staff said additional refinements, titles and implementation details could be discussed before the second reading and public hearing.
Ending The first‑reading vote moves the proposed job descriptions into the public notice process; the board will take a second reading and final vote in a future meeting after public comment.
