Election Questionnaire Responses

By Sandra L. "Sandy" (Armstrong) Dobbins

In response to questions posed regarding election

How old are you? 51

What is your occupation and where do you work? I am trained as a construction contracts administrator, cost accountant, licensed insurance agent and notary public. I provide property management for my own residential rental housing.

Please list any educational degrees: I am a certified as a Construction Document Technologist (CDT) and Construction Contracts Administrator (CCCA) through the Construction Specification Institute of America. Additionally, I hold an active California Notary Public commission, and am a licensed insurance agent.

What is your political party affiliation? I am a registered Democrat.

Please list any endorsements that you have received: Windsor District Educators Association (WDEA) EVOLVE (http://www.evolve-ca.org/)

Please list civic, professional or other organizations to which you belong:

• Windsor PTA - 2001/02 Volunteer of the Year
• Windsor Education Foundation
• Windsor High School Boosters
• Windsor Wellness Partnership

• Sonder Ranch; Equine Rescue & Recovery - Volunteer
• California Specifications Institute; Redwood Empire
• California Notary Public - Active
• California State Insurance Licensing - Personal Lines

Why are you running? Simply; I'm running because of my deep and abiding commitment to public education. I want to be a participant in providing access to a rigorous, relevant world-class education for all children, without regard to their socio-economic status, race, color, religion, sexual orientation or gender. I strongly believe that, as Gandhi once said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world". I feel an obligation to fight for the rights of our children to a rich, quality educational experience. I will continue to lend my knowledge of construction and cost accounting to provide crucial oversight to the budget, and to projects resulting from the General Obligation bond passed by the voters two years ago. Additionally, having served on the Board when we brought Dr. Herrington to our District over six years ago, my experience will be of great benefit to our District as we repeat the process to hire a new District Superintendent for WUSD.

What sets you apart from your opponents? The history and experience I bring is unique to the pool of candidates, and will prove crucial during this time of transition in our District. WUSD is undergoing change at nearly every administrative level, and I feel that with my knowledge of this District, of its challenges and its strengths, I will provide a high level of stability and continuity.

I have been deeply involved with the last two superintendent searches, and am proud to say the I was Board President six years ago when Dr. Herrington came to our District. I know that the result of our search will only be as good as the process, and I will ensure that the public is truly welcomed in and heard as we strive for a similar, highly successful outcome.

Additionally; I get results. I am tenacious and have a broad, relevant skill-set that I believe has served this District most effectively, and I am well-known for the detailed oversight I provide the District. This position requires strength of character and a deep commitment to public education. Also, proven leadership ability and experience are necessities at this time of change in our District. I will continue to work tirelessly for our students, and will remain fully engaged at all times. No detail goes unnoticed, no report goes unread. I am not a private-school person in public-school clothing.

I have been involved in virtually every element of school board governance, including;

• serving as Board President and Vice President on several occasions,
• service to innumerable committees and subcommittees, and in liaison positions to Windsor affiliated educational support foundations,
• work through negotiations, policies and budgets, enabling WUSD to attract and retain the best-of-the-best school employees for Windsor students,
• active participation in review, drafting and amendment of policy to provide a better fit and direction for WUSD,
• work to illuminate, mitigate and anticipate facility needs and issues,
• use of my accounting skills and knowledge of construction to benefit and provide skilled oversight for the District,
• providing the vision and drive to adequately house our students, in facilities that support learning;
• participating in the successful passage of a general obligation bond for Windsor schools, and;
• a deep personal commitment to broad-ranging student support, discipline, and safety.

• Managing the upcoming personnel changes in our District; from the hiring this year of an interim superintendent to begin January 3, 2011 to commencement of a superintendent search process for Dr. Steve Herrington's successor, due to Dr. Herrington's imminent departure as the newly elected Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools. It will be the responsibility of this newly seated Board to choose the next Superintendent of Schools for WUSD by July 1, 2011. This Board will be tasked to repeat the level of success we've had with Dr. Herrington's tenure in our District, and he's leaving very large shoes to fill, indeed. The individual chosen as Superintendent will need to demonstrate the experience and knowledge necessary to effectively administer the second largest district in Sonoma County. It is the duty and responsibility of this Board to make the right choice, and ensure that the fit be appropriate to address our needs.

• Concurrently, we'll need to continue to mitigate and shape the seemingly endless budget reductions handed down from the State of California. We're doing our best to shield the students from the effects of several years of inadequate funding, but that will become more and more difficult every year that these massive reductions continue. Some tough choices will need to be made, based on a deep-seated knowledge of the District, with a strong understanding of the myriad of rules and restrictions under which we must govern.

I do feel that some level of consolidation might prove to better serve students in smaller districts where high administrative costs are no longer supportable. There may come a time when those districts look to combine in order to provide more funding directed to the classrooms, but I don't see it happening across the board for all districts in Sonoma County. Historically, it has proven difficult for smaller districts to give up their local autonomy to a larger, established District, but over the next few years, there will be few choices remaining for some.

Should open transfer policies be tightened? Please explain your reason. "Open Enrollment" is an element of the legislation recently adopted by California to make the state more competitive for "Race to the Top" federal money. Even though California's applications for RTTT funds were denied, SBX5-4 lives on, although it remains a work-in-progress. The language is being tightened currently, but I don't believe it can or will be amended enough to correct what I perceive to be incomplete, ill-considered, hurried legislation.

This measure will reduce money available to classrooms, as districts are mandated to pay for transfers from "failing schools"(as ranked by the state)to other districts. The State has mandated costs for transportation and for operational expenses to implementation the legislation, without identifying a funding source to do so. This legislation was hurried through under emergency regulations, using admittedly flawed assumptions and formulae to arrive at their ranking conclusions, with insufficient legislative language which is bound to result in lawsuits against the State. Schools scoring over 800 API appear on the list, and some of the lowest-performing schools do not appear at all. Charter schools are completely excluded. Additionally, many valid concerns that were expressed over how and when and under what circumstances these transfers should be allowed were summarily dismissed with legislative notes reflecting that the concerns were "beyond the scope of the statute" to address.

I am not in favor of this legislation or of any other additional, unfunded mandate at this time of continued, unprecedented reductions. Our state and federal governments should try fully funding some of their existing mandates and see how well their public schools fare, before they establish further mandates they have no intention of financially supporting.

Is class size reduction worth the expense? Please explain your reason. Yes. We are committed in our District to smaller class sizes, and have seen the results in that commitment with higher test scores, and with students being better prepared for their next educational step, whether that be from kindergarten to first-grade, or on to college-level classes after graduating. I will endeavor always to keep our class sizes at the lowest levels sustainable; our own district results are convincing. Sadly, during the latest series of cuts, we have had to incrementally increase K-3 class-sizes, but certainly not to the levels seen by other districts in the county. Under my watch, we'll continue to do everything we can to keep class sizes down to the smallest supportable levels.

Should teacher pay be linked to test scores? Please explain your reason. I am not in support of this element of the Race to the Top Legislation, because I believe it will unfairly penalize teachers who are passionate about reaching those students who are, for whatever reason, underachieving, or for those experiencing language or other fundamental barriers to learning. As with a large part of the federal No-Child-Left-Behind law, common sense has largely been sacrificed to our need to attach blame. In reality, and to make long-term progress, we need to focus on success - whatever that success might look like for each underachieving subgroup - and provide support where needed. That support doesn't come for free, and true progress doesn't come by measuring responsibility for student success in the paychecks of our teachers.

Student success would actually be better supported if the state were to fully fund their existing mandates, and to provide a means by which to assure stable annual funding to schools. This would support districts efforts to attract and retain qualified teaching professionals, in the following ways:

• Fund student supply budgets: Eliminate the time teachers spend perpetually fundraising with wrapping paper and frozen cookie sales, and from collecting toner and old cell phones just so they can purchase the student supplies necessary to run their classrooms, or to fund field trips relevant to their curriculum;
• Eliminate redundant testing that wastes money and precious classroom teaching time;
• Allow opportunities for peer review and support, so they might learn from and mentor one another, and for common planning time so they have an opportunity to share ideas, lesson plans, and strategies for success;
• Provide funding and support to attract and retain strong, capable teachers, instead of losing our talented professionals to higher-paying private sector jobs, wherein they aren't subject to pink slips year-after-year due to insufficient, unstable state funding, and woefully belated state budget adoptions;
• Provide funding and support to attract and retain strong, talented site and district administrators, so that the teacher review process is an honest assessment, and is as relevant and rigorous as their teaching assignments;
• By funding new textbook adoptions: students cannot remain competitive using old, outdated textbooks. Funding has been frozen for textbook purchases by the state until the 2013-2014 school year. This decision is not in support of relevant, rigorous state standards.

Additionally, I must take this opportunity to say again that parental support is so critical to student success. Parents need to send their children to school on time, during calendared student days, well-rested, well-nourished, with their homework completed and ready to learn. Parents need to provide access to books and other learning opportunities in their homes, and should read with their children every day. A strong partnership between the student, the parent and the teacher provides a crucial framework for successful learning.

Should completion of A-G courses be required to graduate from high school? Please explain your reason. I believe that making A-G classes an immediate mandated standard will do nothing but dramatically increase the drop-out rate. We need first to provide the necessary educational opportunities and focus over students' academic careers to ensure success toward that goal. I do not support broad new graduation mandates for our students at this time, when our state and federal governments have proven unable and/or unwilling to provide the necessary funding and educational resources to properly support even our current academic and graduation goals. When Districts are forced to eliminate student school days, counselors, summer school, libraries, all forms of remedial assistance, as well as class-size reduction at every grade level, and defer textbook adoptions for several years, I feel that this is not a reasonable goal at this time. I'd love an opportunity to have this discussion when student success is not only talked about but actively supported by the state.

I don't believe that it takes mandated A-G graduation standards to offer educational experiences and expectations that are rigorous and relevance to our students. In our District, we provide college-bound students with AP level classes and high school core structures supporting those motivated toward high academic achievement. For our students who might be headed for limited college after graduation, we also offer rich and diverse vocational training and ROP classes in addition to our high level academic choices, thus offering all of our students an opportunity for high achievement and success. In addition to our 9/10 Academic and Honors Cores, our 11/12 Focus Area Cores (our smaller learning communities) proffer the following areas of study: Advanced Placement (AP), Pre-Med, Nueva School of the Arts, Vineyard Academy, Humanities, Digital Media & Design Academy, and our WISE (Green) Academy. We offer something for every student; we enable pathways for all to succeed.

How can the structure of how education is funded in California be improved? The structure for education funding exists; it's just largely modified, revised, or reinterpreted on an annual basis, subject to the inadequate and unstable revenue base in the State of California. A constitutional convention should be called to address the structural defects inherent in California governance. I understand that idea was quashed in February, but without a substantive overhaul of the governance structure in California, there will only be band-aid solutions until the economy turns around once again. Until this is accomplished, or until the economy sees improvement to the point that adequate funding can be secured and guaranteed, the reductions will continue to fall disproportionately on the back of our most vulnerable of citizens.

Sonoma County school districts have seen a drop of approximately 20 percent in funding from the state over three years. Looking back over those three years, where would you cut that 20 percent? My sources peg the number at closer to 32% after the latest round of cuts; a staggering number however reductions are assessed, considering that schools were cut 25% during the Great Depression. I would do nothing differently than we have so far in our District, and I think the continued fiscal strength and flexibility of WUSD's financial condition proves that we have largely decided correctly.

Several years ago, we implemented a disaggregated budget model that encourages partnership between our schools, administration and the Board, so the needs of the sites can be met dependent upon the needs perceived at the actual site, within the funding parameters allowed. That's local control at its most effective. WUSD's current bond rating remains very high, with the ratings companies issuing a coveted "AA- Rating with Stable Outlook". I take that as an outstanding report card for this administration and this Board, relative to our fiscal management of the District, but it hasn't come without hard work, and hard decisions made. We've shaved away here, and we've shaved away there, trying to maintain the heart of those things that provide meaning and support for a well-rounded, well-educated student.

How would you add more arts and music to the regular day curriculum? All of our schools have access to art and music education, and we make every effort to imbed the arts and music in student's everyday core curriculum. Additionally, our high school enjoys the benefit of our core structure, offering focus areas such as our Nueva School for the Arts, Humanities, Digital Design, and Vineyard Academy, which support several forms of the arts and music. WUSD continues to support diverse arts and music elective offerings as well as several after-school clubs supporting the arts.

I will work to expand and support further enrichment resources such as the WE Foundation, and PTA, as well as available grants to provide additional avenues to art and music education. I will continue to strongly support activities like our existing Arts Day at the schools, taking a hands-on approach by providing materials and annually leading a class. Poetry slams, Spoken Word events, art shows, theatre productions and Talent Shows will also have my continued strong support, and are proven to be a fantastic way to engage students. I will continue to personally volunteer and encourage others to do likewise, and I will provide assistance, advertising and applause at every given opportunity.