Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates role, cost of Social Emotional Learning as district faces $5.5M reduction
Summary
Board members spent more than an hour debating whether Monroe Public Schools should scale back its Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs — including Trails and MindUP — as administrators said the district must identify $5.5 million in general‑fund reductions before June 30.
The Monroe Public Schools Board of Education spent the meeting’s longest block of time on Social Emotional Learning (SEL), questioning whether the district’s current SEL and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) approach should be cut or restructured to meet an announced $5.5 million general‑fund reduction. Board members pressed for data and a line‑by‑line accounting of SEL‑related spending ahead of work sessions March 9 and April 13.
“Whenever you start a program and you bring it in and you look at the success of that program … show me the successes,” a board member (S7) said, summarizing why they want more evidence before continuing funding at current levels. Another board member (S3) said eliminating or reducing SEL expenses could yield substantial savings: “We can get … roughly $3,800,000 just from eliminating SEL,” the member said, arguing the district should prioritize direct academic spending if revenue shortfalls persist.
Administration and district leaders pushed back on a forced binary choice between academics and SEL. Superintendent Schauff (S5) and other staff explained that some SEL components—Trails and MindUP—are low‑cost tools and that much of the $3.5 million figure includes positions (behavioral technicians, social workers, deans) funded by a mix of general fund and grant dollars. “Grant funds do not do anything for the general fund,” the superintendent said, while also noting some grant dollars can be redirected to offset general‑fund costs and that reductions must be planned to avoid immediate harm to instructional programs.
Board members requested specific follow‑up: a detailed cost breakdown (including how many staff are funded via general fund vs. grants), metrics tying SEL efforts to academic or behavioral outcomes, and comparative data on nearby districts’ use of SEL. Administration agreed to present those details at the March 9 and April 13 work sessions and to keep SEL on future agendas for further review. No policy change or vote to cut SEL occurred at the meeting; members resolved to consider options after the requested analysis.
