School launches parent mental-health workshop series as board debates new mental-health curriculum and procurement thresholds

Orange County Public Schools staff presented a grant-funded parent-education series on mental health, trafficking awareness and digital safety, and board members spent substantial time asking for more detail about proposed policies addressing life skills and learning-resource concerns.

Assistant superintendent Susan (last name not specified in audio) described a four-part parent series funded by the Department of Behavioral Health. Sessions will be held at the Taylor Education Administrative Complex (TEAC) starting at 5 p.m. and will include childcare and dinner for attendees who register in advance. The planned topics and tentative dates shared at the Feb. 24 meeting are: - "The Anxious Generation" fireside chat and screening (first session; copies of the book to be provided to the first 25 registrants). - Safe House Project (March 10) — a presentation on child trafficking awareness and protections. - "Hidden in Plain Sight" (March 31) — a law-enforcement presentation about drugs and vaping identification and resources for parents. - Digital Safety and Wellness (April 14) — practical guidance on screen time, brain effects and family boundaries.

All sessions were described as no cost to families because grant funds cover speaker and event expenses. Staff said registration is required so the division can plan childcare and meals and provide virtual links to those who prefer remote participation.

Later in the agenda the board resumed a longer debate about two proposed policy revisions (IGAE and IGAG) that incorporate state-mandated life-skills instruction, social-emotional topics and guidance for identifying signs of mental-health challenges. Board member Miss Dawson raised numerous questions about content and implementation, emphasizing definitions and parental notification: "What is a life skill? What are mental-health challenges?" she asked. She expressed concern about "the mental health piece being put on the backs of teachers who are not mental health professionals," and asked for curriculum samples across grade levels so the board can review specifics before adopting final language.

Other board members noted the material in the proposed policies tracks state code and Virginia Department of Education guidance — references to CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) and the VDOE appear in the draft — and said the board must implement legally required standards. One board member said bluntly, "they passed it. And since they passed it, then we have to deal with it," referencing the General Assembly's statutory requirements.

Board members also discussed DJR, a draft procurement policy that would align division purchasing thresholds with recent state procurement changes; some members called for greater transparency on purchases above $1,000 and questioned whether the board should reduce the threshold for review so the public can see more spending earlier in the procurement cycle. Others defended the current approach, noting the superintendent provides frequent reports on larger expenditures and that sudden issues (for example, an equipment failure) sometimes require expedited spending.

No final vote on policy revisions occurred at the Feb. 24 meeting; board members requested more detail and sample curriculum materials before the next work session. Staff said they would return with additional information and clarified that some elements reflect statutory mandates.

The parent-workshop series and the curriculum debate together underscore the tension school boards face implementing state-mandated social-emotional or mental-health instruction while also addressing parental concerns about scope, teacher qualifications and data/privacy protections.