Questions were answered and some new questions came up, but it looks like the issue of dogs working in the schools will be decided in April.

Some of those questions related to the appropriateness of adding dogs to the district at a time when the board is anticipating cutting personnel in two years.

The curriculum, instruction, and technology committee discussed an item that would bring two facility dogs into service with the district.

The initial price tag associated with that item is under $6,000, according to Director of Pupil Services Dr. Patricia Mead.

The ongoing costs are also minimal, she said. The district has found donors and sponsors who will fund food for the life of each dog and veterinary treatment (two providers).

=She fielded a question about liability insurance – about $400 per year per dog – and said there would be costs associated with replacing equipment and purchasing preventive medications.

Committee member Jeff Dougherty, who expressed concerns about the item at the committee’s February meeting, said he had received answers from questions from that meeting.

“My additional concerns were answered, regarding the insurance,” Dougherty said. “I’ve had several people approach me with additional concerns.”

Chief among those concerns was the burden that being assigned as a handler would put on a staff member.

“For the last hour-and-a-half we talked about staffing and funding,” he said. “It’s glaringly obvious, people around this room are doing a lot more with less.”

“We’re going to add another element,” Dougherty said. Let’s “talk about taking some of this responsibility away… and giving them the tools they need.”

“We’re talking about cutting staff after a few years and we’re talking about adding dogs to the staff,” he said. “It’s not the correct time to be adding dogs to the school.”

“Whether it’s learning loss or the budget, I think those are the biggest things that we need to be tackling right now,” Board President Paul Mangione said. “From a timing standpoint, it’s definitely taking up some time right now.”

Dougherty clarified that he is “definitely not” opposed to the idea of the dogs being in schools.

Mead freely admitted that the staff is handling more responsibility than ever. “Over the course of time, we’re trying to do more with less,” she said.

But, she does not expect the dogs to contribute to that trend.

“I do not think that these… dogs will be a barrier or hindrance to the district,” Mead said.

Board Member Arthur Stewart suggested there could be time savings related to the dogs.

“What are the benefits that we want to derive and how do they correlate to time saved?” he asked.

On Monday, Mead presented some of the benefits without an analysis of any time-saving impact.

“We’ve seen the impact,” she said. During recent traumatic incidents, including the recent death of a district teacher, “I saw that the immediate influence of the dogs had an influence on the adults.”

Committee Member Mary Passinger attended a demonstration program on the benefits of facility dogs in schools. “This last year, two years, have proven how out of control this world is,” she said. “For many of these students, they’re struggling.”

She said dogs were greeting elementary students as they entered schools.

She said they also visited students prior to testing and that there was “documentation showing how much higher those scores were.”

“We’re talking an initial outlay that will cover approximately five to 10 years, depending on the dogs,” she said. “We spend $100,000 on computers that then have to be replaced within two years.”

“Something that will help even 20 kids, for that amount of money, we owe it to them,” Passinger said.

Mead said the assigned handlers would not be “walking the dog around” instead of performing other duties.

“In a situation where a social worker is working with (a student) the social worker could bring in the dog for… sensory comfort,” she said. “That doesn’t take away from anyone’s time.”

The handlers would bring the dogs to school in the morning and take them home at night, she said. The designated personnel already spend time in multiple buildings.

The idea is that the dogs will “de-escalate kids” and “have our teachers have a better day,” Superintendent Amy Stewart said.

She said the district could treat the program as a pilot with a “low-risk in.”

“You’ve got to dip your to in the water,” she said. “Everybody likes the dogs. But, there are strings attached.”

“If we look at this and say, ‘this is not what we thought it was, it’s taking too much time,'” it can be canceled and ownership of the dogs transferred to the handlers, she said. “I’m inclined to recommend that we go forward and try it.”

“From a committee standpoint, I’m inclined to ask for this to be moved forward,” Committee Chairman Joe Colosimo said. “I can’t not take into account Dr. Mead’s passion on this topic.”

“I think we should move it forward,” Passinger said. “If the board then chooses not to vote for it… I think it needs to be open to the entire board.”‘

In the end, the committee unanimously moved the item forward to consideration by the full board at the April meeting.