- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Schools’ Class-Cutting Prevention Program on Chopping Block
Come fall, playing hooky without hassle from adults could become easier for students in the Santa Barbara School District and others across the county, thanks to the poor economy.
The county-funded truancy prevention program has been sliced from the 2008-09 budget by the cash-starved Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. But it’s not over yet. The supervisors — whose budget has been depleted by skyrocketing retirement costs and a slowdown in the housing market — have indicated that they would restore the truancy program if local school districts agree to pay for half of it.
This past week, leaders of the truancy program, who work out of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, began traveling to school districts to ask school boards to commit.
The leaders started Tuesday with the Santa Barbara School District, which has been a part of the program for 11 years. Ultimately, the school board, which is also experiencing dire financial straits, held its cards close by putting off a decision until August.
The countywide truancy program is made up of three administrators and three social workers, along with some clerical staff. The department, which comes with an annual price tag of about $658,000, spends its time working with class cutters and their parents to try to dissuade the students from skipping school, gradually turning up the heat on those who don’t comply.
The department’s involvement begins with a warning letter after three unexcused absences. If the class-cutting persists, the department deploys a social worker to set up meetings with the student, his or her parents and an assistant principal. If all else fails, the department puts students on probation. Parents can be fined, and even briefly jailed.
In the Santa Barbara district, about 1 percent of the 2,500 students who received a warning letter in the 2007-08 school year were prosecuted, a statistic the truancy department touted as being low because of its concentrated efforts.
Speaking to the Santa Barbara School Board on Tuesday, Caroline Anderson, supervisor of the DA’s truancy program, said the loss of the program ultimately would lead to higher rates of crime, gang involvement, dropouts and unemployment, and cost the schools more money because of declining attendance.
“In these troubled times, with juvenile crime and everything else going on, I just believe it would be a shame,” she said. “It would be the wrong time to get rid of such an important program.”
The truancy officials claimed that their department saved the Santa Barbara School District about $280,000 by dissuading most of those 2,500 students in grades seven through 12 from cutting more classes. (Most public schools receive money from the state based on average daily attendance.)
Specifically, they asked the Santa Barbara School Board for an annual commitment of $64,000, which would cover about half of the cost to run Santa Barbara’s portion of the program.
The Santa Barbara School Board members had little to say about the presentation, other than that they value the program but are strapped for cash. The truancy officials said the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors wants an answer by September.
Brian Sarvis, Santa Barbara schools superintendent, said he has sent a letter to Santa Barbara County District Attorney Christie Stanley articulating the district’s dilemma.
“Gosh, we value the program, don’t want to see it go away, but we just made $4 million in cuts,” he said Tuesday night. “In order to find that money, we’d have to make more cuts, which puts us in a real bind.”
Resident Karolyn Renard, an attorney who often represents the families of students up for expulsion, spoke to the board in opposition of the program, saying the district attorney’s office shouldn’t be involved in truancy matters because it criminalizes students who miss school.
“It doesn’t serve your students well,” she said, adding that one of the district’s former assistant superintendents once called the program ineffective. “It doesn’t even work.”
Last year in the district, Santa Barbara High School sent out by far the highest number of first letters: 956. Next was San Marcos High School, which sent out 664, but San Marcos had by far the highest number of students who were prosecuted: 13. Next was La Cuesta Continuation High School with five students prosecuted. Only three students were prosecuted at each Dos Pueblos and Santa Barbara high schools.
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at rkuznia@noozhawk.com.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 07.12.08 @ 05:50 AM
If the State is still being reimbursing the SB School Dist. for the average number of students attending, it would seem to be a fairly easy economic analysis to determine the cost effectiveness of this program and to verify the statements of truancy officials.
» on 07.13.08 @ 06:27 AM
It’s my understanding that school districts are only paid for actual daily attendance (not enrollment), so a program like this can be extremely important, not just from an educational standpoint but also in terms of revenue for the district.
I think that it should also be considered in regards to the gang issue in Santa Barbara. If these kids aren’t in school (and being held accountable for being there), where will they be and what will they be doing?
Just a thought.
» on 11.06.08 @ 11:09 PM
October 23, 2008
To a Dedicated Attorney:
I am a teacher seeking counsel to represent my arguments against School Districts (single in entity) on contentions for nuisance (both private and public) in a Restraining Order. I request to consider the matter of prudent representation because I believe both your advice and experience allows this injustice to discontinue. A civil action with a temporary restraining order granted under the California Code is not to exceed for more than five days. But since local jurisprudence has allowed for more than what is applicable, a period beyond two months is invalid because in the vested interest of our community, such a confinement is to cease. Jurisprudence is needing those actions being stopped in order to conform the law rather than interpret to make everyone else seem dubious.
School Districts is not learning the value of being reasonable in weighing manners of allowing a teacher not to have a complaint letter (to investigate matters criminally) by forcing an earlier resignation (likely to end not only my profession as a teacher, my livelihood, and other teachers as well) against filing an action to obtaining a Restraining Order in their “hopes” that my mere presence may be abated (or their fear of liabilities – do not confuse with apprehension). I reapplied for employment (for being loyal to the Districts) but still have not been employed over 20 waivers of other teachers who are less qualified and I have been shun in fear of liabilities. My union is acting in concert from the inception of a forced resignation but I now have severed all reliance with notice of e-mail. Multiply the weight and gravity of that there said harm to the teacher in relation to this community is irreparable.
The court (or other counsel in the matter) has not show any satisfaction because no basis has been presented that substance as to irreparable harm is held before claims that bear false light is already evident. I am diligent in my search for representation but would only prefer one which is local and in the highest caliber instead of other litigators foreign who are not equip in the mastery of the dynamics that makes our community unique. Please consider counsel before December 2, 2008, the date of my hearing already postponed a second time in favor of the other party with no basis to conformity and in truth make law in itself more chaotic.
In Your Consideration,
John Demonteverde
165 Santa Ana Ave.
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
(805) 453-4283
PS – As to the issue of nuisance, my family has a local business that we “all” think this second situation is pretty “abnormal” for another litigation because the first time “we” are on the understanding that a certain party is not suppose to use the system to do us harm. This time, the Districts is preventing a criminal investigation from happening to protect their “friends” and would rather put my family’s competitive stance at a disadvantage against the rest of the community.
All I’m trying to convey is that the Districts, by not following due process to begin with because of certain “advice”, now has given an impression that would put “any” position at a disadvantage. Please reply ASAP in the hopes that “our school” no longer deteriorates from what I may have to say in court from the token fact of the Districts’ previous “choices” and has already made my position at a disadvantage. I am seeking legal advice because it is pertinent a “teacher” needs representation. – Scienter. Salus populi suprema lex.
» on 11.09.08 @ 11:49 AM
October 23, 2008
To a Dedicated Attorney:
I am a teacher seeking counsel to represent my arguments against School Districts (single in entity) on contentions for nuisance (both private and public) in a Restraining Order. I request to consider the matter of prudent representation because I believe both your advice and experience allows this injustice to discontinue. A civil action with a temporary restraining order granted under the California Code is not to exceed for more than five days. But since local jurisprudence has allowed for more than what is applicable, a period beyond two months is invalid because in the vested interest of our community, such a confinement is to cease. Jurisprudence is needing those actions being stopped in order to conform the law rather than interpret to make everyone else seem dubious.
School Districts is not learning the value of being reasonable in weighing manners of allowing a teacher not to have a complaint letter (to investigate matters criminally) by forcing an earlier resignation (likely to end not only my profession as a teacher, my livelihood, and other teachers as well) against filing an action to obtaining a Restraining Order in their “hopes” that my mere presence may be abated (or their fear of liabilities – do not confuse with apprehension). I reapplied for employment (for being loyal to the Districts) but still have not been employed over 20 waivers of other teachers who are less qualified and I have been shun in fear of liabilities. My union is acting in concert from the inception of a forced resignation but I now have severed all reliance with notice of e-mail. Multiply the weight and gravity of that there said harm to the teacher in relation to this community is irreparable.
The court (or other counsel in the matter) has not shown any satisfaction because no basis has been presented that substance as to irreparable harm is held before claims that bear false light is already evident. I am diligent in my search for representation but would only prefer one which is local and in the highest caliber instead of other litigators foreign who are not equip in the mastery of the dynamics that makes our community unique. Please consider counsel before December 2, 2008, the date of my hearing already postponed a second time in favor of the other party with no basis to conformity and in truth make law in itself more chaotic.
In Your Consideration,
John Demonteverde
165 Santa Ana Ave.
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
(805) 453-4283
PS – As to the issue of nuisance, my family has a local business that we “all” think this second situation is pretty “abnormal” for another litigation because the first time “we” are on the understanding that a certain party is not suppose to use the system to do us harm. This time, the Districts is preventing a criminal investigation from happening to protect their “friends” and would rather put my family’s competitive stance at a disadvantage against the rest of the community.
All I’m trying to convey is that the Districts, by not following due process to begin with because of certain “advice”, now has given an impression that would put “any” position at a disadvantage. Please reply ASAP in the hopes that “our school” no longer deteriorates from what I may have to say in court from the token fact of the Districts’ previous “choices” and has already made my position at a disadvantage. I am seeking legal advice because it is pertinent a “teacher” needs representation. – Scienter. Salus populi suprema lex.
More Local News »
It’s a Blooming Good Time for Wildflower Blossoms
Looking for spring sights? We can tell you right where to go
Road to Recovery Continues for Channel Islands National Park
Park superintendent says commitment to resource restoration remains focus for archipelago
Free-Flying Brown Pelicans a Recovery Success Story
After 40 years on the Endangered Species List, the seabirds were recently delisted as their numbers reached historic levels
Ride, Wine and Dine with Vino Vaqueros
Experience the richness of the Santa Ynez Valley on horseback, followed by wine tasting and a meal
Nite Moves Still On the Go After 21 Years of Waterfront Fun
Santa Barbara's original run- and ocean-swim event lures a 'mini-community' of loyal participants
Weather: Fair 50.0º
Search Noozhawk »
