Redlands school board pulls proposed student mental health policy for revisions

REDLANDS, Calif. — A proposed Redlands Unified School District regulation outlining how schools identify and support students experiencing mental health challenges was pulled for revisions after a lengthy discussion among board members.

Why it matters: Administrative Regulation 5141.5 and its accompanying Board Policy were introduced as part of a broader effort to formalize the district’s process for identifying students who may need behavioral or mental health support and connecting them with appropriate services.

The proposal outlines a districtwide framework for early identification, referrals and support through multi-tiered supports. 

After debate over language in the policy — particularly regarding crisis response procedures and parental notification — the board voted not to advance the administrative regulation on its first reading and later voted to pull both items so they can be revised by a committee and brought back to the board.

What’s in the policy: The proposed policy is intended to create a clear process for recognizing student mental health concerns and connecting students with appropriate help.

Under the framework, concerns could be identified by teachers, administrators, parents or students themselves. Referrals could occur when there are persistent behavioral issues, social-emotional concerns affecting school participation, escalating behavior despite classroom interventions, or patterns seen in attendance or academic data.

Once a referral is made, a school-based team would review the concern and determine the appropriate level of support.

The regulation outlines three levels of intervention:

• Tier 1: Universal supports such as social-emotional learning lessons and classroom strategies.
• Tier 2: Targeted supports such as small-group counseling or short-term interventions.
• Tier 3: More intensive services, including individual counseling sessions or referrals to outside mental health providers.

The policy also includes procedures for crisis situations, training requirements for staff to recognize warning signs of mental health concerns and protocols for maintaining student privacy.

District officials say the goal is to ensure early intervention while complying with state laws governing student mental health services.

What they’re saying: Much of the board’s discussion centered on how the regulation describes crisis response procedures when a student may be at risk of harming themselves or others.

Board Member Candy Olson suggested changing the order of steps to ensure parents are notified immediately.

“As a parent, I would want to be the first phone call,” Olson said, arguing that parents should be able to quickly reach the school and determine next steps for their child’s care.

Board Member Melissa Ayala-Quintero questioned whether contacting parents first would always be appropriate in an emergency.

“What if it’s a crisis?” Ayala-Quintero said. “Don’t you think emergency personnel should be the first to be notified?”

Superintendent Juan Cabral explained that the current wording prioritizes immediate safety responses — such as contacting administrators, health professionals or emergency services — before notifying parents “as soon as practicable.”

The intent, Cabral said, is not to delay parental notification, but to ensure staff focus first on stabilizing the student and addressing any immediate risk.

“It just means take care of the kid first, make sure they’re safe, and then make sure the parent is notified,” Cabral explained.

Olson and Board Member Jeannette Wilson said they were concerned the phrase “as soon as practicable” could be interpreted too loosely and suggested stronger language requiring immediate parent contact.

Board members also discussed whether the regulation should more clearly designate who is responsible for contacting parents during crisis situations.

Wilson also added that parents sometimes report receiving delayed notifications after serious incidents.

“It seems like a designated person to do it would help so that it doesn’t slip through the cracks,” Wilson said.

Others said multiple staff members are typically involved in crisis situations and that calls to parents, administrators and mental health professionals often happen simultaneously.

Another section of the policy sparked discussion about when parents may be excluded from counseling decisions.

Under California law, students age 12 or older may consent to mental health services themselves if a mental health professional determines they are mature enough. In certain circumstances — such as suspected abuse or situations where notifying a parent could put the student at risk — parents may not be informed immediately.

Olson and Wilson expressed concern about language describing situations where disclosure to parents could cause “emotional harm” to a student.

Olson suggested adding the word “significant” to clarify that the risk must be serious and recommended removing “retaliation” from a list of examples, arguing the term could be interpreted too broadly.

Others noted that determining risk to a student often requires input from trained mental health professionals or outside agencies such as Child Protective Services or law enforcement.

Moving forward: After about 20 minutes of discussion, the board voted on the administrative regulation. The motion failed on a 3-2 vote.

Because the regulation and board policy are closely related, trustees later voted to pull both items so they could be revised together.

A small committee of board members will work with district staff to review suggested edits and bring the policy back to the board for consideration at a future meeting.

Several board members emphasized that the proposal is important but said they wanted additional time to ensure the language is clear.

“It’s a very important policy and it’s long overdue,” Wilson said during the discussion.