Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School panel hears proposal to expand therapy-dog visits under ‘Positive Partners’ program
Summary
District staff presented a proposed ‘Positive Partners’ program to allow certified therapy dogs and handlers into schools for brief, supervised visits to support student and staff mental health; the board received the proposal but took no vote.
Dr. Kelly Oliver, a therapy-dog handler and presenter, and Tyler Geist, an elementary school administrator, presented a proposed program called Positive Partners to the South Bay School District Board on July 15, 2025, asking the board to consider allowing certified therapy dogs and volunteer handlers to visit district schools during the coming school year. Dr. Oliver said the district packet includes a recommended policy and administrative guidelines “to ensure the safety and well-being of all, including our students and staff and also our guests who would be our therapy dogs.”
The presenters described the program as a volunteer-driven model in which staff members, approved outside providers or outside volunteers could request to bring a certified therapy dog into non‑classroom settings or other approved spaces. Dr. Oliver said eligibility would be broad — “Anybody” — but noted handlers must provide proof of registration as a therapy-dog handler, a veterinarian’s statement of good health and up‑to‑date vaccinations, local dog license, and a liability insurance policy that covers the handler and the dog while on school property. She added that “the handler should be solely responsible for the supervision and caretaking of the therapy dog,” though caretaking may be delegated to an alternate adult in extenuating circumstances.
Presenters summarized the supporting research and district experience. Dr. Oliver cited studies showing animal contact can reduce stress hormones and raise oxytocin and serotonin; she said programs have reported reduced anxiety and improved reading fluency, and that therapy dogs can aid students with autism or ADHD in emotion regulation. Tyler Geist described a December pilot at the elementary school in which 2–3 dogs visited over about a week and a half. He said the district collected anonymous staff feedback via a Google Form; of 29 respondents, 100 percent rated the experience positive or very positive, and reductions in stress and anxiety were selected by 28 respondents. Geist said 22 respondents preferred weekly visits, one preferred biweekly, and three preferred monthly or as‑needed visits.
Program logistics presented by Dr. Oliver included recommended interaction lengths (typically 15–20 minutes followed by a 15–20 minute break, cycling for up to about two hours total), a suggested limit of two days per week of dog visits, grooming and hygiene practices to reduce infection risk, opt‑out provisions for cultural sensitivities, and training and certification requirements for dogs and handlers. Dr. Oliver said the proposed model would cost the district nothing: handlers would be required to maintain their own professional liability insurance, and she confirmed she carries liability insurance for her dog.
Board members asked about where dogs would be located during visits and how students and staff would know dogs were present. Geist said his pilot identified two primary locations — the elementary conference room and his office — then moved into higher-traffic hallways to increase visibility; teachers coached students on how to decline interaction and how to pet the dog safely. Board members also asked how brief, passing interactions could produce effects; Geist and Oliver responded that while many student encounters were brief in the pilot, repeated exposure across several days and more structured smaller-group interactions produced discernible calm and improved behavior in classroom settings.
No formal vote or policy adoption took place at the July 15 meeting. Dr. Miller, the superintendent, introduced the presenters and packet materials and the board heard questions and feedback; Dr. Oliver and Geist were invited to supply additional materials and hyperlinks to the research they cited.
The presenters recommended a phased rollout that begins with staff and non‑classroom settings to “prove the concept” before extending to classroom placements, and they offered written policy language and administrative guidelines intended to address allergies, hygiene, safety, handler responsibilities and community notifications.
Next steps discussed included further review of the proposed policy and administrative guidelines by district staff and an opportunity for the board to place a formal proposal on a future meeting agenda for action.
