Board debates MOU to formalize in-school mental-health services; parental consent and background checks highlighted

A proposal to formalize how outside mental-health providers operate inside Jefferson County schools drew lengthy discussion at the board meeting, with parents, board members and the district’s counsel debating parental consent, background checks and how provider hours would be scheduled.

Parent Sarah Montgomery described in-school therapy as essential for her daughter’s progress and urged the board to prioritize students’ access. "None of these things would have been possible without Allied," Montgomery said, recounting that her daughter "hasn't had a panic attack since November" after weekly 30-minute sessions.

Board members and district counsel discussed a draft MOU and an accompanying RFQ that would set parameters for contractors who deliver school-based behavioral-health services. Scott Bennett, who presented the draft MOU, said the agreement is intended to set guardrails: contractors must carry insurance (paragraph 13), indemnify and hold the district harmless (paragraph 14), and accept specific district responsibilities such as providing space and scheduling (paragraph 21). Bennett also pointed to paragraph 22, which requires contractor staff to be "available in the presence of the school." "When you let someone into your school system during the school day, their mission needs to be to support the mission of Jefferson County Schools," Bennett said.

Bennett told the board that Tennessee law requires parental opt-in for counseling provided at schools and said the Tennessee General Assembly "enacted the parental rights and responsibilities act" that requires parental consent for any mental-health counseling provided to students. He also noted the district is baking in an age-of-consent rule consistent with district practice: "Most mental health counselors are used to consulting with individuals over the age of 16. Well, if they're gonna do it in Jefferson County Schools, they have to comply with the laws that govern Jefferson County Schools," Bennett said, adding the district’s practice treats age 18 as the relevant threshold for some permissions in the school context.

Board members pressed for operational detail: whether contractors would sit on campus all day to be available for crises, or operate by scheduled appointments; how multiple vendors would share limited office space; and how long recurring in-school therapy could continue before it should be moved to outside clinics. Bennett said the draft MOU and RFQ intend to "strengthen the existing services provided by school counselors," not replace them, and that availability should match school needs: "If I'm the principal, I'm probably gonna say, I need you here when the kids get here because ... when they unload off the bus, that's when they unload problems." He also said the agreement is sufficiently flexible to be tailored by principals and contractors.

Questions about background checks and file retention arose. Dr. Arnold said the district does not currently keep background-check copies for all outside contractors; some categories (private-duty nurses, certain RBTs) are verified, but general contractor checks are not maintained in the district files. Bennett pointed to the MOU language requiring contractors to comply with the relevant background-check statute (listed in the draft as TCA 49-5-413) and said the contract language would require contractors to meet those statutory checks before providing services.

Several members and staff warned about classroom disruption when students are repeatedly pulled from noncore classes for scheduled therapy. Teachers asked how principals should balance credit-bearing instruction and recurring therapy appointments; Bennett and Dr. Arnold recommended that teachers raise specific scheduling concerns with school administrators and work through 504 or scheduling accommodations when necessary.

No formal policy vote occurred. Bennett said he would follow up on operational concerns flagged by teachers—particularly reports of outside therapists wandering hallways—and "explore that" with Dr. Arnold and staff to consider tightening MOU language or operational rules. The board did not adopt the MOU at this meeting.

Why it matters: The board’s decision will determine whether and how outside behavioral-health providers are given access to students during school hours, affecting student access to services, parental control, teacher schedules and district liability.

Next steps: Board counsel and district leadership will review wording and operational details in the draft MOU and return with revisions for further consideration; no adoption or vote was recorded at this meeting.