Teachers, therapists and parents urge board to preserve school‑based mental‑health services
Loading...
Summary
Numerous staff and community speakers urged the Santa Rosa board not to cut school counselors, school‑based therapists and restorative specialists. Speakers warned cuts would escalate crises, reduce early intervention, and increase costs long term.
Dozens of teachers, school‑based therapists, parents and union representatives used public comment on Dec. 10 to urge the Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education to protect counseling, wellness centers and restorative‑practice positions threatened by the district’s budget‑reduction planning.
A representative of the San Rosa Teachers Association told the board: “We are not fine. We’re angry. We’re scared.” The representative described widespread staff exhaustion and a loss of trust in district leadership amid consolidation and looming staffing reductions.
School‑based clinicians described the services they provide and the potential harm from job cuts. Elizabeth Smith, a school‑based therapist at Montgomery High School, said: “Preventative, responsive, and consistent mental health and wellness services are not extras. They are foundational, and they allow students to access learning.” Megan Ray, another therapist, said wellness centers average “over 100 students access the wellness center each month” and that cutting supports would remove essential early‑intervention help.
Mike Stanford, shop steward for Teamsters Local 665, raised facilities and operations concerns tied to care delivery, including access to site camera feeds and HVAC monitoring that affect classrooms and maintenance response times.
Public commenters — school counselors and social workers — described the role of counselors and therapists in crisis responses, IEP‑related work, threat and suicide risk assessments, and other prevention efforts. Several speakers said removing elementary counselors and wellness staff would increase safety risk and long‑term costs by pushing students into more intensive services.
Board members and staff acknowledged the comments and said personnel details for any reductions would return to the board with job descriptions, implementation plans and timelines. Several trustees asked staff to ensure that essential services and legal compliance (for special‑education supports) remain intact during restructuring.
What’s next: specific personnel actions were not approved tonight; staff will present implementation plans and personnel recommendations for formal board consideration before layoffs or reassignments occur.
