The board’s termination of the Care Plus contract, which was done without a board vote, drew sharp criticism from attendees. Concerns were raised about the timing of the decision, which came just before the school year began, and the lack of communication regarding the initiation of the request for proposals (RFP) process. The termination was explained by the board president as a necessary step due to liability issues and the absence of oversight and accountability in the program, which was initially funded by a grant. However, this decision was met with dissatisfaction from board members who were not provided with a maximum budget amount for the services, leading to the board’s rejection of a new contract with Care Plus.

The administration, now supporting the hiring of additional internal counseling staff, plans to present a recommendation for such a position in the October agenda. Superintendent Charles M. Shaddow acknowledged the increased demand for mental health support within the school, reflective of national trends, and emphasized the district’s collaboration with NJ4S for mental health services. This collaboration includes tiered support for students, ranging from general presentations to individualized counseling. Plans are also in place to hire a full-time mental health clinician to assist at-risk students and work alongside existing counseling teams.

Public comments underscored the community’s alarm and frustration with these changes. Several speakers, including licensed mental health professionals and parents, voiced concerns about the adequacy of NJ4S’s services, which they argued lack the clinical capacity to address severe mental health needs. The hub-and-spoke model of service delivery was criticized for potentially disadvantaging families in rural areas. A teacher at the school shared a personal account of losing students to suicide early in his career and argued that removing established mental health programs could lead to further tragedies.

Moreover, the meeting revealed underlying tensions within the board itself regarding communication and governance. Critics pointed to a perceived lack of transparency and openness in board discussions. Specific concerns were raised about the absence of communication-focused objectives in the proposed board goals and the inadequacy of the current goal-setting process. An unidentified speaker noted that the board had previously acknowledged the need for improved communication, which has seemingly deteriorated under current leadership.

The public comment period also brought attention to alleged misuses of district resources aimed at silencing board members and legal disputes involving board members, which have incurred significant legal expenses.

In addition to mental health services and communication issues, the board discussed district goals, which were described as being recycled from the previous year. The process for setting these goals was defended by some as effective, though others expressed concerns over the lack of collaborative discussion and the adequacy of the proposals.

The meeting also featured presentations on the district’s magnet programs, which offer students opportunities to explore diverse fields such as architectural design, biomedical sciences, computer science, engineering, media and communications, and robotics. These programs were praised for their accessibility and real-world application, with testimonials from students highlighting the valuable skills and experiences gained.