Age: 51
Profession: University professor and physician
Where do you live? Santa Monica Educational background: B.A., Princeton University; M.A., Harvard University; M.D. and Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania
Endorsed by: Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association, Santa Monica-Malibu Classified Employees (SEIU Local 660), Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS), Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, Santa Monica Living Wage Coalition, Santa Monica College Faculty Association, Malibu Democratic Club
In 100 words or less, what about your background makes you a qualified school board member? My background and my conviction that public education can be an engine for self-fulfillment, social justice and community improvement have made me an excellent school board member. I am a strong advocate of a well-rounded education for all students, and I am passionate about fostering students’ intellectual and personal growth. My varied educational experiences and professional background as a university professor and health care expert have nurtured my open-mindedness, belief in the value of public input, analytic skills and ability to build consensus, all qualities that contribute to improving the culture of the board and the quality of its deliberations.
In 300 words or less, a group of parents is staging an effort to secede Malibu schools from the school district. Do you think this would be a wise move? What are the possible upsides and downsides to this plan? Since I was elected to the board, I have worked very hard to represent all the students in our district, including those from Malibu, and I plan to continue to do so. I have listened to our parents, students and teachers in Malibu and have supported proposals to meet their particular needs and concerns, such as allocating additional resources to finish construction at Malibu High School and modifying the district’s mandatory transfer policy for high school students who commit certain disciplinary infractions. At the same time, I have come to realize that, despite the board’s best efforts, Malibu’s distance from and small size relative to Santa Monica have led some parents in Malibu to feel that they are not well represented. These parents would like more local control of their schools, and argue that Malibu has grown and matured enough as a city and community to have its own school district. I take these arguments for community self-determination very seriously. Therefore, I support the parents’ efforts to move forward with the administrative and democratic process that will determine whether Malibu can and should create its own district. Ultimately, separation would have to be approved by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the California Department of Education, and most important, the voters of Malibu.
Concerning separation itself, I do not yet have all the information I need to decide for myself whether I believe it’s a wise move. The main test, for me, will be whether separate school districts can provide the same quality of education to their students that our joint district currently provides. I anticipate that the data being compiled by the parents, with the help of our district, to support their petition for separation will be very useful in this regard.
In 300 words or less, the school board recently approved a policy that requires wealthy schools to share a portion of their cash donations with poorer schools. Where did you stand on this controversial issue? How will you address inequalities with local schools? I supported the new “gift policy.” As a school board member, my responsibilities are to provide the best education possible to our students within the constraints of our budget and to see to it that all students have an equal opportunity to fulfill their potential. In this context, the sizable differences across our schools in their ability to raise funds from donations — differences that reflect the socioeconomic status of the families who attend the schools — pose a vexing problem. On one hand, donations are part and parcel of parental and community involvement in the schools. I value parental involvement enormously and believe that it is an essential component of successful, high achieving schools and thriving school communities. Moreover, donations strengthen schools’ educational programs. On the other hand, large differences in donations can result in highly disparate educational opportunities for students. School districts throughout the nation wrestle with this problem, although few have taken steps to address it.
In my view, the new gift policy represents an excellent compromise. The policy recognizes the crucial importance of parental involvement and donations, and allows 85 percent of donations to be retained by the receiving school. However, the policy also sets aside 15 percent of donations to create an equity fund that can be used to fund services for students in other schools or in the district as a whole. I realize that in passing this policy, the board has assumed an enormous responsibility: Ensuring that the equity fund is used wisely and effectively to improve students’ educational opportunities in meaningful ways. That is why I am a strong proponent of devoting a substantial share of the equity fund to district-wide services and programs that can enhance opportunity and raise achievement for struggling students irrespective of the school they attend.
In 300 words or less, do you think the school district handles at-risk youth properly? And do you think Olympic High School, the district’s alternative high school, needs attention? In what way? One of our district’s main goals is to raise the academic achievement of students who are disadvantaged by virtue of socioeconomic status or other factors. To this end, we have emphasized literacy, developed intervention and support programs, expanded access to advanced coursework in middle and high school, and fostered professional development. We also redesigned Santa Monica High School to help students have a more personalized experience. These measures are working, and over the past two years achievement for disadvantaged students has risen substantially. We must now stay the course and redouble our efforts.
Despite this progress, I remain concerned that we are not doing enough for those students who, by late middle school, have totally disengaged from school and for whom our current strategies are not working. One new approach that intrigues me is creating a small high school of about 400 students that would offer highly personalized instruction and a rigorous core curriculum coupled with intensive support, small classes and community internships. This school could be a “school of choice” for students who struggle in middle school or who simply know they would do better in a small, personalized setting. I recently returned from an “Educational Leadership” tour of New York City in which we visited several such schools. I saw highly engaged teachers and students and reviewed data demonstrating remarkable success with youth at very high risk of not completing school. I believe our community should begin a conversation to determine whether and how this model can be adapted to our district.
Finally, Olympic High School is a crucial part of our district. Olympic has improved greatly over the past few years through the hard work of teachers and administrators, and many more Olympic students are graduating. I anticipate continued improvement under Olympic’s dynamic new leadership.
Do you support fast food and/or junk food being sold at local schools? Why or why not? I believe schools have an important role to play in instilling healthy habits, including dietary habits, in our children. As a physician, I am especially concerned about the epidemic of obesity afflicting American youth. Although no group is unaffected, the epidemic is most severe among low-income and minority youth, and foreshadows an epidemic of diabetes, high blood pressure and other obesity-related health problems as these children and adolescents age.
Schools can promote healthy dietary habits by including appropriate lessons in the curriculum and serving healthy foods. Currently, the food served or sold in our elementary and middle schools adheres to the guidelines set by California Senate Bill 677, which limits the fat and sugar content of food sold on elementary and middle school campuses and eliminates items like carbonated drinks. In my view, SB 677 is a great start, although it is still possible for students to choose individual food items that do not make a healthy meal. About half the food sold at Samohi adheres to the SB 677 guidelines, but “junk food” is still available on the campus.
I would favor taking additional steps to provide healthy food at all grade levels, and especially to reduce the unhealthy and fattening food and drinks sold at Samohi. It is not enough for schools to teach students how to eat healthy; they should reinforce the message by making only healthy foods available. On the other hand, to have a real impact on students’ diets, schools need cooperation from parents and youth. The problem is especially difficult at Samohi, where we have an open campus and students can go out to lunch. Continued education of adults and youth, by both schools and other community organizations and agencies, is essential in the effort to curb obesity among students.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 28, 2004. Read the original PDF.