Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Hospital And Student Supports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members push back on cuts to home‑hospital instruction and student supports
Summary
Multiple board members warned they would withhold support for the preliminary budget unless the district protects home‑hospital instruction, social workers, counselors and restorative supports; administrators said a transition plan and targeted restorations will be presented if changes proceed.
Several board members told the Rochester superintendent on April 14 that proposed reductions to home‑hospital instruction and some student‑support roles are unacceptable without clear transitional plans.
Commissioner LeBron said on the record she would not vote for “major changes to programs or services that do not have a transitional plan” for families and staff and stressed that home‑hospital services are not a one‑size‑fits‑all intervention. Commissioner Fineman and others likewise highlighted the program’s role for students who cannot be in class and worried about community impacts if services were curtailed.
Superintendent Roster said the district’s home‑hospital model is “quite expensive” and that demand has fallen in recent months; he provided monthly counts showing the program served 60 students in October and about 39 in March. He said the district is exploring efficiencies, will prepare a thoroughly researched transition plan if changes are recommended, and that impacted certificated teachers would not be laid off but could be reassigned to classrooms where needed.
“We currently have 33 teachers who are assigned to home hospital,” the superintendent said, noting some teachers had small caseloads and that other districts now provide instruction to students who previously relied on Rochester’s program.
On social‑emotional and mental‑health supports, Commissioner Santiago said cuts to social workers, guidance counselors and the restorative hub would violate a board guardrail and could prompt a no vote on the final budget unless restorations are prioritized. The superintendent responded that the administration has earmarked increased per‑pupil allocations for students with exceptionalities and English‑language learners and plans to implement mental‑health ad hoc committee recommendations, but acknowledged hard choices.
Administration promised a detailed transition plan for any proposed home‑hospital modifications and said it had already restored some positions through identified efficiencies. Commissioners requested the plan and any updated staffing impacts prior to the public hearing and next deliberation.
Ending: The board did not vote on program changes; administrators pledged further detail and said restorations will be considered if additional state or philanthropic funds are confirmed.
