"Tele-counseling Services"

 

To: Members of the [County Name] Board of Education From: [Your Name/Title/Affiliation] Date: January 30, 2026 RE: FORMAL PROTEST – The Abdication of Duty via Tele-Counseling Implementation

To the Members of the Board:

This letter serves as a formal and scathing protest against the Board’s shortsighted and dangerous proposal to replace certified, on-site school counselors with "tele-counseling" services. This is not a "modern solution"; it is a calculated surrender of your responsibility to the students and families of this county.

By opting for a screen-based alternative, you are effectively declaring that the mental health and safety of our students are worth less than the convenience of a bureaucratic checkbox.

1. A Failure of Operational Effectiveness

While you may attempt to use tele-counseling to technically "check the box" for Policy 2322, do not be deceived: a digital interface is a poor substitute for an on-site professional. In a crisis—be it an active threat, a suicidal ideation, or a physical altercation—a counselor via Zoom is a spectator, not a responder. You are creating a "phantom" department that offers the illusion of support while leaving staff and students to fend for themselves in real-world emergencies.

2. The Erosion of Student Trust

Counseling is built on the foundation of physical presence and clinical observation. By forcing children to speak to a stranger on a screen, you are dismantling the 80/20 rule of direct student services. Vulnerable students will not "log on" to discuss trauma with a pixelated face in a room that likely lacks true privacy. This move will result in a total collapse of student engagement, rendering your "compliance" entirely meaningless in practice.

3. Negligence by Design

This decision signals to the community that the Board has failed in its primary duty: to recruit and retain a qualified workforce. Rather than addressing the systemic failures that have made these positions vacant, you are choosing the path of least resistance. Let it be clear: if a tragedy occurs on a campus where a physical counselor was replaced by a monitor, the liability for that failure will rest squarely on the shoulders of this Board for choosing a "cost-effective" workaround over student safety.

Conclusion

We do not accept this digital bypass. The students of this county deserve a person, not a program. We demand that the Board immediately cease the implementation of this tele-counseling scheme and instead reallocate the necessary funds to offer a competitive, market-rate package that attracts certified, physically present professionals.

Anything less is a dereliction of duty.