The board meeting opened to a public forum, where multiple speakers passionately advocated for the continuation of the Care Plus contract. Ed McLaclin from Delaware Township and Reverend Vernon Williams from Raritan Township were among those who criticized the board’s hesitation to renew the contract, emphasizing its critical role in supporting students’ emotional well-being. They pointed out that Care Plus had been previously included in the budget for 2025-2026, questioning the board’s rationale for potentially reversing their earlier support.

Victoria Craig Washington, a teacher and Aspire program instructor, highlighted the potential detrimental impact of removing Care Plus on students in the Aspire program, a sentiment echoed by Rachel White from Raritan Township. Washington stressed the partnership between Care Plus counselors and Aspire staff as vital to keeping students engaged and on track for graduation. She voiced concerns over equity, arguing that without Care Plus, families unable to afford private therapy would be at a disadvantage.

The public comment section featured emotional accounts from parents and residents who expressed dismay at the board’s decision. A concerned mother shared the challenges she faced in securing timely mental health support for her son, praising the immediate assistance provided by school-based counseling services. Another speaker criticized the board for removing a service that had been cost-free to the district and students, questioning whether any legal or community complaints justified such action.

In response to these concerns, the board clarified that issues with the Care Plus contract stemmed from unresolved discussions with Hunterdon Behavioral Health. Concerns were raised over the frequency of counselor interactions with students without parental consent and inconsistencies in the affiliation agreement. The administration also cited indemnification concerns and a lack of data on how often services were provided, factors that contributed to the decision not to recommend the continuation of the Care Plus services.

Despite these explanations, the board faced continued criticism for the perceived lack of transparency and communication regarding their decision-making process. Community members questioned whether the board had conducted a thorough analysis of the impact of eliminating these services on existing student assistance counselors and the overall support system.

Beyond the debate over Care Plus, the meeting addressed the upcoming strategic planning process, with a presentation by Maryanne Friedman from the New Jersey School Boards Association. Friedman outlined a three-meeting structure designed to engage various stakeholders in developing a unified vision and mission for the district. This process aims to gather input from faculty, parents, and students to identify strengths and challenges, with a focus on student achievement and community engagement.

Additionally, the board discussed district goals for the 2025-2026 school year, though these were met with some criticism. Concerns were raised about the approval of what some described as an incomplete document, pointing to blank spaces in the metrics and questioning the clarity of the language used in the goal statements. The superintendent clarified that the goals were intended as working metrics to be refined over time, acknowledging the need for adjustments due to recent changes from the Department of Education.

The meeting also covered routine operational and financial matters, including transportation needs and budget adjustments within special education. Items such as the proposal for a student club name change and an overnight trip for the cheerleading team were approved without comment. The operations and transportation committee reported on unused funds from a roofing project and requested an increase in maintenance reserves for network switch projects.