Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternative Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $480,000 allotment with county office for alternative-school placements despite community opposition
Summary
The board voted to allocate $480,000 to reserve up to 30 slots with the county’s community-school program; community speakers argued the allotment incentivizes expulsions and urged more investment in restorative and mental-health supports.
Gilroy Unified trustees approved a memorandum of understanding with the Santa Clara County Office of Education to allot $480,000 for up to 30 slots at the county’s community-school program for the 2025–26 school year, a decision that drew sustained opposition from community groups and youth advocates at the meeting.
Multiple public speakers urged the board not to "incentivize expulsions," arguing expulsions remove students from positive school influences and worsen long-term outcomes. Rundo Arandes, an executive director of a local Latino-serving organization, told trustees the allotment could create a de facto quota of expelled students and urged investment in supports that keep students in their home schools. Youth organizer Samuel Bass and other community speakers described expulsions as punitive and urged restorative practices and additional mental-health services.
District staff described existing supports—seven district-run wellness centers at secondary sites, a team of 19 social workers, board-certified behavior analysts, restorative-practice training and safety-care de-escalation work—and said the county allotment is part of an array of interventions for students with severe behaviors who cannot be safely served in their current settings. Staff explained the allotment is based on recent historical usage (roughly 28–31 students annually in recent years) and said reserving slots can be fiscally prudent; staff noted the county-operated placements are an alternative when district options are exhausted.
Trustees debated whether the contract creates perverse incentives. Some trustees recommended reducing the number of reserved slots and shifting funds to prevention; others stressed the practical need for an available alternative for students whose behavior puts their peers at risk. Trustee Morano urged exploring reductions in the allotment coupled with reinvestment in restorative and prevention programs.
After discussion, the board moved and seconded approval of the $480,000 allotment and the motion passed by voice vote as recorded in the meeting transcript. Trustees asked staff to continue exploring prevention programs, restorative practices and ways to reduce reliance on exclusionary discipline.
