Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Counseling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and teachers urge district to restore middle‑school counselors as board weighs wellness‑coach contract
Summary
Dozens of students, counselors and union leaders told the Pajaro Valley Unified board that cutting counselors threatens student safety and outcomes, and criticized a plan to add outside ‘wellness coaches’ while counselor positions remain frozen. The board postponed a contract amendment to allow more review.
Hundreds of public commenters and district staff pressed the Pajaro Valley Unified School District board on Sept. 10 to restore full‑time school counselors at middle schools and to avoid replacing credentialed counselors with outside contractors.
Students and counselors described how two counselors per middle school keep “peace pods” open, respond immediately to crises and coordinate special‑education supports. “Only having one counselor would mean our peace pod would not be open for daily support,” Cesar Chavez Middle student Yahit Reosa told the board, saying the loss of a second counselor would reduce access for students who need help immediately.
Counselors who spoke said recent reassignments left some sites split across campuses, increasing caseloads and eroding continuity of care. “The split model does not work,” Elva Quas, a special‑education teacher who said she was split between two sites, told trustees, adding that the change “is tremendously impacting my students.”
The teachers’ union and multiple counselors also criticized the district’s planned amendment to a contract with Effective School Solutions, a vendor that places wellness coaches in schools. PVFT’s speaker argued that the district was proposing to hire contract staff while eliminating three full‑time counselor positions at middle schools, calling the vendor contract a potential case of supplanting. “Why are we spending $90,000 on an outside agency when we could just go hire a counselor?” the PVFT representative said.
District leaders told the board the wellness‑coach positions differ from credentialed school counselors and are intended to broaden early outreach and billing capacity under county mental‑health initiatives. Officials said coaches would operate from wellness centers, conduct classroom observations and make referrals to counselors or clinicians, but would not replace the scope of work done by PPS‑credentialed counselors.
Trustees expressed concern about role clarity. Several board members asked the administration to provide concrete job descriptions, caseload expectations and projected costs before moving forward. In response to those requests, the board voted to postpone consideration of the contract amendment to the next board meeting so staff can supply clearer job descriptions and program data.
The public comment period and union testimony made clear the political stakes: parents and school staff framed the issue as a question of equity and student safety, asking the board either to restore counselor FTE or to show precisely how vendor staff would expand — not replace — in‑school mental‑health services.
The board directed staff to return with specific descriptions of wellness‑coach duties and a financial plan showing whether the vendor approach can be cost‑neutral once billing is established. Trustees also asked the administration to include comparisons of the unit cost of restoring a counselor versus contracting outside services.
Next steps: the board postponed the contract amendment to allow staff to return with role definitions, billing projections and clearer implementation plans; trustee updates are expected before the item is reconsidered.
