The meeting began with a focus on the debate over Care Plus counseling services. Community member Ronald Levy voiced his support, sharing that a petition to renew the contract had garnered 425 signatures in just three days. Levy stressed that Care Plus was not only an efficient use of taxpayer dollars but also vital in supporting student achievement and mental health. Subash Turbo, reading a statement from his classmate and valedictorian Alex Auchnney, highlighted the life-saving impact of school-based youth services, urging the board to reconsider its stance in light of past student tragedies.

Jess Long, a vice principal at the school, emphasized the importance of having immediate mental health assessments available on campus through Care Plus, pointing out the challenges and delays associated with seeking external help. Marcia Goldstein expressed confusion over why the board hesitated to renew a program providing essential services free of charge to students. In response to these public comments, the board noted operational concerns with Hunterdon Healthcare, which managed Care Plus, citing issues around student visits, documentation inconsistencies, and data sharing as reasons for not recommending the contract’s renewal.

Further into the meeting, participants expressed strong disapproval of the board’s decision, labeling it as a setback for the community. Speakers highlighted the critical role Care Plus played in offering free counseling during school hours, which many families relied on due to barriers in accessing external services. One speaker, visibly emotional, criticized the decision, labeling it as “disgusting” and emphasizing the program’s historical success and high approval ratings among students and parents.

Multiple speakers voiced personal experiences and concerns about the implications of discontinuing these services. A mother shared her distressing experience of struggling to find adequate counseling for her son, ultimately turning to the school for immediate support. Another participant questioned the board’s decision to eliminate a grant-funded service that had been in place for decades, calling for transparency and clarity on the rationale behind discontinuing Care Plus.

Participants highlighted the potential negative impact on remaining staff and the quality of care provided to students, with a focus on the need for clinical counselors rather than student assistance counselors alone. The board’s financial considerations, including declining state aid and rising operational costs, were also discussed as factors influencing the decision.

In addition to the Care Plus discussions, the meeting addressed the district goals for the 2025-2026 school year. A board member raised concerns about the incompleteness of the district goals document, citing numerous blank spaces in the metrics section and the lack of specificity in the proposed goals. This led to a debate among board members about the feasibility of achieving these goals without adequate funding and clear objectives. The superintendent clarified that the goals were intended to be working goals, with metrics to be finalized in collaboration with the board.

The board also engaged in discussions about procedural matters, including the approval of organizational items, special education tuition, and transportation needs for out-of-district placements. The agenda included a vote on Care Plus as a professional service, amid ongoing concerns about its financial implications and integration with existing district resources.