Parents, teachers and behavior team urge Lakeside Union Elementary to boost staffing and sensory supports

Lakeside Union Elementary School Board members heard more than a dozen public commenters press the district to expand staffing, clarify procedures and invest in sensory spaces to support students with significant behavioral and sensory needs.

Parents and teachers described injuries, lost instructional time and stretched staff at elementary and middle schools across the district. A parent who the board announced as Evelyn Gutierrez and who self‑identified during remarks as “Segalvin” said classroom ratios leave some children vulnerable: “A 1 to 24 ratio is not an educational environment. It is a survival environment,” she told the board and urged investment in indoor sensory gyms and sensory playgrounds.

Todd Johnson, the father of a fourth‑grade student with Down syndrome, described incidents he said harmed his child and questioned district leadership’s response. “The moment that shook us was a phone call from our school nurse telling us our daughter had been kicked in the chest,” Johnson said, and he said incident reports he received were incomplete or written by staff who were not present.

Medina Russell, an office employee at Lemoncrest, told the board staff often cover classrooms and duty posts and said playground supervision had fallen to an unsafe level at times: “Playgrounds, campus supervisors, 1 to 100 ratio is not fair,” she said.

Teachers’ union president Carrie Strong and multiple classroom teachers asked the board to prioritize supports that teachers help design. “We want every child in our classroom to stay there and to be safe,” Strong said, while teachers and principals described site‑level practices intended to reduce suspensions and referrals.

District behavior specialist Gabby Kreuthers gave the board a detailed presentation about the district’s behavior‑support model and the work of a four‑member behavior team. Kreuthers said the team has 48 students on its official caseload, with placements the team lists as 12 at Lakeside Farms, 6 at Windsor Park, 11 at Lemoncrest, 2 at Lakeview, 9 at TDS and 8 at LMS, and that the team consults to other classrooms districtwide. She described a tiered support framework — roughly 80% of students served by foundational (tier‑1) strategies, 15% needing targeted interventions, and about 3% requiring intensive, individualized services — and outlined training and crisis‑prevention programs the district offers.

Kreuthers and other administrators clarified how behavior intervention supports appear in students’ individualized education programs (IEPs). A district administrator explained that behavior intervention assistance listed on an IEP obligates a set number of minutes the district must provide and that the behavior‑team role is primarily consultative rather than a one‑to‑one classroom aide. The administrator said if the team could not meet required minutes, district leadership would elevate the staffing need to Cabinet and request additional resources.

Speakers called for concrete next steps: stronger incident‑reporting practices, clearer transition plans when students move from small special‑education settings into general classrooms, more campus supervisors for playground safety, and board action to ensure leadership follows through on staffing and program recommendations. Several commenters offered to help craft a written plan for inclusion and supports.

The board closed the public‑comment period and heard the behavior‑team presentation; the transcript records no formal motion or vote on these issues during the meeting.