June 2026 State SARB Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
Preliminary Report of Actions/Draft Minutes for the June 10, 2026, State School Attendance Review Board (SARB) Subcommittee Meeting.Agenda
Item 01: Roll Call
Item 02: Approval of Agenda
Item 03: Approval of Minutes
Item 04: Recommended Supervisor of Attendance Training Components
Item 05: Approval of Draft Subcommittee Recommendations
Item 06: Next Steps and Future Meetings
Item 07: Public Comment
Item 08: Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Item 01: Roll Call
Type of Action: Information/Action
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Allegra Alessandri at approximately 9:33 a.m. Chairperson Allegra Alessandri welcomed members, expressed appreciation for the progress made to date this year, and turned the meeting over to the California Department of Education (CDE) for opening remarks.
CDE staff welcomed attendees, thanked members for participating, and apologized for technical difficulties encountered that month related to meeting postings.
Roll Call
Type of Action: Information/Action
Roll was called and members responded when their names were announced.
Members Participating Remotely: Elizabeth Bahn, Jennifer Elenes, Ryan Gallagher, Jennifer Gomeztrejo, Amalia Lopez, Jami Parsons, Tracy Schmidt, Mike Winters
Members Absent: Angela Chandler, Jane Claar, Nyeisha DeWitt, Laura Faer, Sherman Garnett, Sheri Hanni.
Quorum was established with eight members participating.Item 02: Approval of Agenda
Type of Action: Information/Action
Member Elizabeth Bahn moved to approve the agenda.
Member Jennifer Elenes seconded the motion.
Members of the public were invited to comment on the agenda; no comments were offered.
Yes votes: Elizabeth Bahn, Jennifer Elenes, Jennifer Gomeztrejo, Ryan Gallagher, Amalia Lopez, Jami Parsons, Tracy Schmidt, Mike Winters.
No votes: None.
Abstentions: None.
Members Absent: Angela Chandler, Jane Claar, Nyeisha DeWitt, Laura Faer, Sherman Garnett, Sheri Hanni.
The motion passed with eight votes.
Item 03: Approval of Minutes
Type of Action: Information/Action
Facilitator Mike Winters thanked member Amalia Lopez for preparing the minutes and the CDE team for formatting them in an accessible and professional format. Members were given time to review the minutes as presented.
Member Jamie Parsons moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Member Tracy Schmidt seconded the motion.
Yes votes: Elizabeth Bahn, Jennifer Elenes, Jennifer Gomeztrejo, Ryan Gallagher, Amalia Lopez, Jami Parsons, Tracy Schmidt, Mike Winters.
No votes: None.
Abstentions: None.
Members Absent: Angela Chandler, Jane Claar, Nyeisha DeWitt, Laura Faer, Sherman Garnett, Sheri Hanni.
The motion passed with eight votes.
Item 04: Recommended Supervisor of Attendance Training Components
Type of Action: Information/Discussion
The Subcommittee reviewed the compiled recommendations gathered at the main State SARB meeting, organized into categories, with the goal of refining the draft framework section by section.
The Subcommittee reaffirmed that the purpose of its work is to formulate a flexible framework of best practices and required components for comprehensive supervisor of attendance training, to be presented to school districts statewide once finalized through the State SARB. Members emphasized designing the framework for a long shelf life by keeping California Education Code (EC) citations and legislative references as broad as practicable to minimize the need for annual updates, and by allowing flexibility for the differing size and capacity of county offices of education.
Section A—Legal and Statutory Foundation. Members agreed that this section should serve as the basis of the framework: concise rather than exhaustive, establishing basic terminology and the foundational EC citations that underpin later sections. It was recommended that "root causes of absenteeism" be relocated to a more appropriate section.
Public comment recommended that the section address coordination with other programs, including individualized education program (IEP) processes, so that supervisors of attendance coordinate appropriately when a student with a disability has an IEP.
A question was raised regarding the scope of legal citations—specifically, whether the framework should reference only the EC or also the California Penal Code (PEN) and the California Code of Regulations. It was noted that PEN provisions generally apply to students age six and older and would not apply to transitional kindergarten and kindergarten students.
Public comment emphasized that statutory foundations should include the attendance rights and supports for foster and homeless youth and other identified populations, as well as behavior-related statutes governing suspended and expelled students, educational placement options, and other means of correction—areas where the deepest disparities in absenteeism exist. It was noted that a dedicated Special Populations section appears later in the framework.
A suggestion was made to consider, at a later stage, recommendations that would strengthen the authority of SARBs.
Public comment from a rural district noted the "Spray Days" pesticide-notification system and asked whether a correlation exists between chronic absenteeism and pesticide-spraying days in rural and agricultural areas.
Section B—SARB Structure and Duties of Supervisors of Attendance. This section addresses statutory requirements, service structure, and legislative authority; the development of attendance teams and systems at the district and county levels; program models; and the differing responsibilities across county offices of education.
It was recommended that the section reference EC Section 51744 (independent study) and attendance recovery as critical statutory aspects of the supervisor of attendance role.
Members recommended incorporating sample templates—such as SARB cover sheets and data-presentation tools that districts and organizations have developed—to provide concrete examples for the field.
Members expressed support for including the Model SARB Recognition Program process within the training, noting that the process prompts meaningful review of local practices.
Public comment emphasized that supervisors of attendance should serve as expert resources; the training should address identifying and leveraging local community resources and low- or no-cost resources and should reinforce that supervisors are not working alone and can draw on county office and statewide expertise, including guidance on how to remain informed of relevant professional development.
Section C—Data, Funding, and Policy Alignment. This section covers the review of statewide and local attendance data; use of DataQuest and the California Dashboard; alignment with the Local Control and Accountability Plan; connection of data to local plans and attendance goals; related funding; state and local attendance policies and procedures (board policies and administrative regulations); and required notifications to families.
Members expressed a continued desire for state databases to distinguish independent study from non-independent study attendance to better indicate program performance.
Questions were raised regarding additional data sources and the development of goals to address identified discrepancies.
A member asked about progress on collecting California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System truancy-notification data (for example, first-notification and citation levels), noting that this had been requested previously and that follow-up with the CDE was needed.
Members recommended including sample required-notification language and referencing family-notification tools, with attention to using appropriate, non-punitive language rather than "scared-straight" approaches, which research has shown to be ineffective.
Extended public comment cautioned that overall reductions in chronic absenteeism can occur without improving outcomes for Tier 3 and Tier 2 students and advocated for "value-added" data collection that measures individual student growth—recognizing and celebrating the progress of students who arrive at educational options schools with poor attendance and behavior—including California Healthy Kids Survey data on school safety and belonging.
A member noted that re-engaging students with intensive Tier 3 needs can require multiple years of sustained effort and stressed the importance of administrative support for that work.
Members discussed the difficulty of providing parent notifications in languages other than Spanish and suggested exploring state-level standardized language, at minimum for the mandated EC content of the first truancy notification.
Members recommended including sample board reports that demonstrate the value of the work—such as home-visit and intervention outcome data—alongside compliance reporting, with guidance on how to position that information.
Members discussed internal tracking practices (home visits, counseling contacts, and interventions logged in student information systems such as Aeries) as standard operating procedures that enable meaningful data queries and recommended that the framework capture both mandatory reporting requirements and internal best practices.
Members recommended reflecting the shift from punitive to supportive, Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)–aligned attendance environments, including whole-school foundational supports, attendance recovery, and independent study considerations.
Section D—Student and Family Engagement Strategies. Members recommended tracking reasons for absence beyond the excused/unexcused distinction so that interventions can be aligned to the underlying need.
Section E—Behavior, Discipline, and School Climate. This section addresses relevant statutory citations; behavior as a legal factor tied to attendance; whole-school foundational supports; a welcoming climate; social-emotional learning; special education IEPs, manifestation determination hearings, and related rights; and restorative practices and alternatives.
Members recommended including samples and templates—for example, codified alternative-to-suspension processes in English and Spanish—and identifying best practices for restorative approaches.
Public comment noted that restorative practice is not limited to responses to negative behavior; it also supports the health of the school community, including opportunities for students with social-emotional needs to support others.
The public comment recommended adding content addressing undocumented students and shared a resource, the Diagnostic Center, Northern California, for behavioral resources.
Public comment recommended addressing pregnant and parenting teens and youth, including maternity and paternity leave rights, and raised concern about the loss of continuation and community programs following categorical block-grant flexibility, urging the framework to highlight exemplary programs that keep students enrolled.
Members and public comment emphasized the importance of licensed pupil personnel services staff—school nurses, counselors, social workers, and psychologists with expertise in the context of schooling—and expressed concern about efforts to reduce staffing qualifications. Members recommended embedding access to professional development throughout the framework.
Section F—Special Populations. Members flagged additions for this existing section, including foster and homeless youth, students with disabilities and IEP coordination, undocumented students, and pregnant and parenting teens and youth.
Section G—Student Voice, Family Engagement, and Community Partnerships. This section addresses authentic student voice beyond climate surveys; genuine consultation; family voice in attendance interventions and parenting; community engagement strategies; collaboration with county agencies and community partners; and collaboration across all school and district staff—including roles such as bus drivers—to build a community of belonging, with specific actions for each role.
Members suggested including partnerships with faith-based and philanthropic organizations to broaden the range of supports.
Members discussed the value of positive-notification systems for families.
Members recommended referencing student-voice tools generally as available resources, rather than endorsing specific products.
A suggestion was made to encourage parenting classes and support through Adult Education, which can generate funding, model attendance for students, and provide adult-education credit to participating families.
Public comment described youth courts (California Association of Youth Courts) as restorative alternatives to suspension, expulsion, and prosecution.
A member asked whether there is movement toward before-school programming, noting that Expanded Learning Opportunities Program offerings are typically after school while many families also need before-school care.
Item 05: Approval of Draft Subcommittee Recommendations
Type of Action: Information/Discussion/Action
Members reached consensus that the notes captured during the meeting would be synthesized and the framework repackaged with the additional recommendations incorporated, and that one additional subcommittee meeting would be held to review the revised draft before advancing it to the full State SARB.
No action taken.
Item 06: Next Steps and Future Meetings
Type of Action: Information/Discussion
Members discussed bringing the framework to the State SARB.
Members were encouraged to compile and share relevant resources and websites—including CDE resources and materials from professional associations (for example, CCEA Plus, the California Continuation Education Association Plus, and others)—for potential inclusion in each subsection of the framework.
Members agreed to align the framework with the state’s work on California MTSS and cautioned that language should refer to Tier 2 and Tier 3 services rather than Tier 2 and Tier 3 students, to emphasize services matched to individual student need.Item 07: Public Comment
Type of Action: Information
Members of the public were invited to comment throughout the review, and their input is reflected within the relevant sections above. Public participants raised considerations regarding students with disabilities and IEP coordination, foster and homeless youth, undocumented students, pregnant and parenting teens, value-added data collection, restorative practices, community resources, and youth courts. No further public comment was offered at the close of the discussion.
Item 08: Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Type of Action: Information
Facilitator Mike Winters thanked members and participants for their contributions, noting that the revised list represented a stronger product than the group began with. Chairperson Allegra Alessandri offered closing remarks regarding development of a resource document and continued support for the field.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:04 a.m.
Note: These meeting minutes were generated with assistance from Microsoft Copilot.