Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance And Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks 4–4 on state‑funded attendance/mental‑health manager; superintendent to return $100,000 grant
Summary
A proposed 12‑month attendance improvement specialist/mental‑health manager position funded by a $100,000 state grant produced a 4–4 tie May 26; board members disagreed about pay factor, whether the role should draw teachers from classrooms, and long‑term funding. The chair indicated the grant funds will be returned.
Get email alerts on the Attendance And Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Avoyelles Parish School Board on May 26 failed to adopt a proposed K–12 attendance improvement specialist and mental‑health manager position that would have been funded by a $100,000 state grant, with a final roll call resulting in a 4–4 tie.
Staff described the role as a 12‑month manager position that combines attendance intervention and mental‑health coordination, tied to a state grant that requires a local job description and measurable impact. "The state put this money out there, we had to apply for $100,000," staff said; they emphasized the funds and the state’s oversight tied to results.
Supporters argued the role provides coordination and boots‑on‑the‑ground outreach (including home visits) that some schools currently lack. Opponents pressed several concerns: whether the position would pull certified teachers from classrooms, whether the long‑term cost would fall to local funds once the grant expired, and whether the district already had staff performing parts of the work.
One board member warned that after the award ends the position would disappear rather than be funded locally; others said the state pays benefits and that the district would not exceed the $100,000 award. After debate, the board’s roll call produced four votes in favor and four opposed. Following the tie the superintendent said she would return the $100,000 to the state rather than move forward with the position.
The disagreement centered on pay factors (some members objected to a 1.5 factor that would raise the local compensation level), potential impacts on school‑level staffing and how to measure outcomes. Staff said the state will monitor the position’s results if the district accepts the award. The board offered no alternate motion to change the factor or alter the job description before the vote; the chair indicated the district would not accept the grant as structured.

