Candidate for
Member; Alameda County Board of Education; Trustee Area 3

(1). The most pressing issue facing the Alameda County Board of Education for the next several years is the impending budget crisis in the State of California and its subsequent effects on the school districts and students we serve. Depending upon the depth and nature of the recession, our schools and our students will be impacted in several ways. Districts may be forced to reduce staffing, close schools, and generally reduce the quality of the education they are able to provide. As a result, two principle effects are likely to occur. First, the most affluent students in the district will tend to leave the schools, taking with them the fundraising capabilities they bring, and the economic diversity of the schools. Second, the recession is also likely to impact already-vulnerable low-income communities. I would anticipate that we might see increases in juvenile crime, family stress, and in truancy, suspensions, and expulsions as a result + issues of particular relevance to the County Office of Education.

The County Board must be proactive in addressing this fiscal environment in two important respects:

• The County Office's burden of fiscal oversight increases substantially under circumstances of fiscal decline. And while that function lies with the superintendent, I will work with the board to develop strategies that can support the superintendent as she assists the districts in this challenging era.

• I will work with the board to use the county offices in a collaborative role vis-à-vis other systems (e.g., probation, social services, and mental health) to draw in additional resources to help protect the most vulnerable children. For example, while the education system is seeing dramatic cuts, there has been some resiliency in funding for juvenile justice, due to legal actions against the Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly the California Youth Authority) as well as lawsuits holding in place mental health funding (e.g., Katie A., and Emily Q.) at 95% state and federal reimbursement rates.

There are a number of issues that now need to be addressed + some follow from the Grand Jury report (e.g., the quality of court and community schools, and the articulation of transition plans from ACOE back to mainstream districts) -- and others that relate to a broader agenda concerning the creation of collaborative, cross-district programming for Alameda County's probation, foster youth, and specialized populations:

• I can facilitate an ongoing dialogue with the Superintendent towards a set of clearly articulated and agreed upon goals for the next four years by use of a strategic planning process. Using strategic planning at the outset of our term will help to establish a clear agenda with agreed upon values and goals, and will help to foster a much-needed partnership with the Superintendent.

• I would also encourage board members to develop specialty knowledge areas where they can provide leadership and support to the Superintendent in forwarding this shared agenda. As an example, my specialty areas might be cross-agency funding, working with seriously emotionally disturbed children, working to provide support systems to children and families at risk of placement in foster care, and specialty programming for probation youth, including the use of Multi-Systemic Therapy. Others on the board have already established specialty areas. For example, Jacki Fox Ruby understands labor relations and is well-versed in monitoring education legislation.

• I can help the ACOE establish a protocol and partnership with Juvenile Justice whereby every student leaves ACOE and the Juvenile Hall with a clearly articulated educational success plan that includes specified elements: (1) a mainstream school transition point; (2) a key contact/support teacher in the transition school; (3) an identified administrator in each school that can be made aware of the youth and his/her support plan (within the limits of confidentiality); (4) an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for every student in need (i.e., a completed plan or a referral for an IEP, including appropriate referrals for mental health assessments under AB 3632); (5) linkage to district truancy programs for students with significant histories of truancy; and (6) a plan for securing grant funding to conduct a follow up study that tracks the status and success rates of these transition plans.

• I would also propose to develop a partnership between ACOE, the truancy court, school districts, and social service, mental health, and probation whereby the truancy court is staffed with case management services in order to provide a diversion point for families with mental health problems, substance abuse issues, exposure to the juvenile justice system, and/or who are at risk of involvement with child protective services. Such a program could provide both a higher quality of service to the families before the court and potential cost-savings for school districts and the affected county systems.