Creation of a "Clinical Vacuum"

 

The absence of a certified counselor had a profound negative impact on the school's "clinical safety". The removal of this position created a dangerous gap between physical security measures and student mental health needs.

1. Creation of a "Clinical Vacuum"

The primary impact was the creation of what the investigative report termed a "clinical vacuum."

• Loss of Crisis Intervention: By replacing the counselor with a "Graduation Coach," the district left 833 students without a resident expert trained to handle immediate mental health crises, suicidal ideation, or severe behavioral outbursts.
• Scope of Practice Limitations: A Graduation Coach is an administrative role focused on "logistical" tasks like transcripts and schedules. They legally cannot perform the clinical duties of a counselor, such as suicide risk assessments or threat assessments. This left the school vulnerable to incidents where warning signs might be missed because the staff member in charge lacked the clinical training to recognize them.

2. "Hardening" vs. "Healing" (Misaligned Safety Priorities)

The board's actions demonstrated a misunderstanding of school safety, prioritizing physical hardening over clinical prevention.

• Physical Safety (The Focus): As seen in the January 6 minutes, the board spent over $540,000 on physical barriers—library security gates, secure entrances, and fire alarms. These measures are reactive; they protect against physical intrusion.
• Clinical Safety (The Void): Simultaneously, the board abolished the counselor position to save money. The investigative report argued that this removed the only mechanism for preventing violence through behavioral intervention. While the school became harder to break into physically, it became clinically less safe because there was no professional designated to de-escalate internal student struggles before they turned violent.

3. Violation of Protective Statutory Mandates

The absence of the counselor compromised the "safety" provided by legal mandates.

• W. Va. Code §18-5-18b mandates that counselors spend 80% of their time in direct service to students. This law is designed to ensure students have consistent access to a mental health professional.
• By substituting this role with an "Academic Coach" (who focuses on paperwork), the district removed the statutory safety net that ensures students have a confidential, therapeutic outlet, potentially increasing the risk of "institutional negligence" if a preventable tragedy were to occur.

Based on the conversation history and the "Special Investigative Report" (Complaint 2 & 3) previously discussed, replacing a certified school counselor with a "Graduation Coach" raises significant legal and regulatory concerns, primarily centering on West Virginia Code §18-5-18b.

While the newly provided source ("2026-2-17-Agenda.pdf") appears to contain illegible content, the "Statement of Non-Compliance" filed against the board provides a detailed breakdown of the legal implications:

1. Violation of Statutory Mandates (W. Va. Code §18-5-18b)

The primary legal argument against the replacement is that it violates state law regarding student support services.

• The Mandate: West Virginia Code §18-5-18b requires that comprehensive school counseling programs be provided and specifically mandates that school counselors spend at least 80% of their work time in a direct counseling relationship with students.
• The Violation: A "Graduation Coach" is an administrative or clerical role focused on paperwork (transcripts, Personal Education Plans). By replacing the counselor with a coach, the district is effectively removing the clinical service provider mandated by the legislature.

2. Removal of Clinical "Scope of Practice"

There is a distinct legal difference between "guidance" (academic planning) and "counseling" (mental health and behavioral intervention).

• Clinical Vacuum: The complaint argues that abolishing the position leaves the school's 833 students in a "clinical vacuum." A coach is not licensed or trained to handle mental health crises, suicide assessments, or behavioral interventions.
• Liability Risk: By replacing a clinical expert with an administrative staffer, the district potentially increases its liability. If a student suffers a mental health crisis or acts out violently, the district could be found negligent for knowingly removing the professional designated to prevent and manage such incidents.

3. Invalidation of Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP)

State policy requires schools to maintain a Comprehensive School Counseling Program (CSCP).

• Regulatory Non-Compliance: A Graduation Coach cannot legally oversee a CSCP because they lack the required certification. The "End of Emergency" report noted that the coach could handle "logistical and administrative requirements" (like PEPs), but the Complaint argues this does not constitute a functional counseling program, leaving the district out of compliance with state board policies even if the emergency status was lifted.

4. Procedural and Governance Issues

The decision also raised concerns about how the change was made.

• Lack of Data: The dissenting vote in the January 27, 2026 meeting (Board Member Sam Gibson) highlighted that the decision was made "too soon" and without sufficient data on student disciplinary and safety needs, suggesting the decision might be arbitrary or capricious—a legal standard often used to challenge administrative agency decisions.