Parents, teachers and counselors urge Cincinnati school board to spare counselors, social workers and teaching positions

Dozens of Cincinnati Public Schools employees and parents pressed the board at its June 8 meeting to halt proposed cuts to counselors, social workers and other student‑facing staff.

Speakers described concrete examples of work they said would be lost if positions are cut: suicide risk assessments, attendance investigations, coordination of emergency family supports, and summer planning that secures clothing, food and community partnerships. Rob Beninger, a graduation counselor at Dater High School, told the board he repeatedly postponed preparing remarks to help students with ACT scores and transcripts and urged the board not to eliminate counseling and social‑work positions that “help our kids get to the finish line.”

Other speakers backed the point. Victoria Oakley, a school social worker, said cuts to year‑round resource coordination would leave families without summer supports and harm students who rely on continuous services. Maddie McKenna, a school counselor, said the number of suicide‑risk assessments at her school more than doubled this year and warned reduced staffing would increase student safety risks. PreK–12 counselors and social workers described involvement on PBIS and MTSS teams, suicide prevention efforts, and work that they said could not be accomplished on a part‑time basis.

Union leaders from the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers urged the board to prioritize reductions in outside contracts rather than imposing five furlough days or eliminating licensed positions. Clayton Adams, CFT vice president of organizing, said a proposed five‑day furlough would erase a negotiated 2% cost‑of‑living increase for many employees. Karen Imbis, a CFT field representative, said contract cuts (including with third‑party vendors and some educational service‑center arrangements) would have less impact on classroom supports than furloughs imposed on teachers and student‑facing staff.

Administrators acknowledged the difficulty of choices in a presentation summarizing recommended reductions: the administration listed roughly $32.1 million in central‑office reductions, about $6 million in school‑based reductions and nearly $20 million in other items under review. Treasurer Gustin told the board the district faces flat revenue because of state property‑tax reform and warned that without new revenue the district will face repeated annual reduction cycles.

Several speakers asked whether Title funds could preserve social‑work roles. Administration staff cautioned that federal Title funds have strict allowable uses and warned against supplanting general‑fund positions with Title dollars without meeting legal requirements. They said some schools already use Title allocations for attendant social workers or coaches, but the district cannot simply move all general‑fund staff to federal grants without risking compliance issues.

The meeting did not produce a change to the budget recommendations. Several board members called for further analysis and for finance committee discussion before any final board votes. The board directed budget and finance to return with levy and budget recommendations at the next meeting so members could consider options for new revenue to reduce the need for additional cuts.

The public comment period lasted more than two hours and repeatedly emphasized the value of counselors, social workers and direct student supports, with requests that any final budget preserve those roles or at least explain concrete alternatives.

The board is scheduled to consider finance committee recommendations at its next meeting.