Regarding the March 12 article, “Santa Barbara School Board Votes to Send 85 Layoff Notices in Grueling, Emotional 8-Hour Meeting,” the board eliminated the classes that actually teach kids how to do something.
Most all the high schools have eliminated all vocational classes, but they never downsize administration positions.
I am a volunteer for the Community Hot Rod Project trying to get the vocational classes back to provide kids with actual learning experiences. The project did a questionnaire at Santa Barbara High School, and all who responded asked us to show them how to do something.
Not all students in high school will go to college so provide them with a trade to go make a living.
John Sween
Santa Barbara
• • •
I am appalled at how the Santa Barbara school board handled the teacher layoffs. Delaying the discussion until 9 p.m. was obviously a stall tactic, and waiting until well after midnight to get to the point was inexcusable.
With leadership like this, it’s no wonder the district keeps finding itself in financial difficulty. Remember this at the next board election.
Thank you to Noozhawk for keeping us informed, and thank you to publisher Bill Macfadyen for calling out the board majority on the timeline in his March 14 column, “Teacher Layoffs? Don’t Sleep on the Santa Barbara School Board.” A travesty of transparency indeed!
Paula Martinez
Goleta
• • •
I was a high school educator in Sacramento for 38 years.
We moved here eight years ago, and I have been very impressed how the Santa Barbara Unified School District handled COVID-19, the incredible musicals at the three high schools and the sports programs. My two grandkids graduated with almost a year of college credits.
WHY would you get rid of outstanding teachers? Why would you destroy the music and arts programs? What is next, counselors, help for the struggling, or minor sports?
A quality high school education program helps all students — kids hoping to graduate, kids who have unique talents, and kids who plan to become community leaders.
Please help 100% of the students, not 70% like President Donald Trump would do.
Jim Coombs
Santa Barbara
• • •
While I am a relatively new resident of Santa Barbara, I was a full-time public school teacher for 35 years.
During those years, I taught elementary school, junior high school, high school — from Guadalupe to Santa Ynez to Santa Maria.
With my six teaching credentials, I was afforded the opportunity to teach general education, special education, bilingual education and honors education students.
Moreover, I coached 29 seasons of sports: cross-country, volleyball, swimming, track and field, and tennis.
In addition, I taught at the community college and university levels. Therefore, I feel my experience lends some credence to my opinion.
Now, as a Santa Barbaran, I am a substitute teacher. Today, March 13, when I arrived at my favorite Santa Barbara Unified School District site, I learned that five Harding University Partnership School teachers had received layoff notices. I was heartbroken and furious!
In the past, I, too, have received a pink slip; it is a terrible feeling to be told your talents, your experience, your knowledge, your passion to educate are no longer deemed valuable.
While I have never been an administrator, nor a district office employee, I can tell Noozhawk readers: There is no more important job than being a teacher, whether the assignment is full time or part time, certificated or classified.
Moreover, I do not need to inform you we are drowning in news informing us the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, the educationally diverse will get forgotten, the marginalized among us will get pushed further to the edges, and our rights as Americans will get decimated.
In closing, I urge everyone who has any ties to SBUSD, any ties to children, any ties to teenagers, any ties to athletics, any ties to the arts to contact the school board and let them know you’re mad as hell, and you aren’t going to take it any more.
Elizabeth Osborne
Santa Barbara
• • •
A shout-out of thanks to Noozhawk South County editor Josh Molina for his school board meeting reporting, and to publisher Bill Macfadyen for his spot-on summation in his March 14 column.
Yep, Santa Barbara Unified School District trustees and Superintendent Hilda Maldanado flunk! You’ve failed every student and Santa Barbara property taxpayer.
School board president Gabe Escobedo is being fast-tracked politically by the Democratic Party machine via SBUSD as was Laura Capps and Monique Limón.
Escobedo stated at an Eastside meeting that he was picked as a then-Santa Barbara planning commissioner to run for the school board to get housing approved via school bonds, which can now be passed by 55%, not a two-thirds majority.
Escobedo is not for student instruction, proficiency and diverse opportunities to discover . He’s for housing.
The end game is known well. Another parcel tax and bond request in 2026.
Heads up, property owners! Expect another parcel tax to fund music and artx like in 2008 — Measures H and I. Approve for the superintendent to divert from music and arts to other purposes (tech, foreign language, whatever).
The 2008-approved parcel tax was followed by other requests in 2012 onward. My chronology of Noozhawk’s SBUSD tax-and-spend articles fills a 2-inch binder.
SBUSD has been mismanaged since after the Mike Caston and Debbie Flores years. Every successful student needs music and arts instruction from age 3 thru 11.
Music plus math equals success! The arts develop brain synapses. Ask any student or adult: how did you learn to read music notes? SCHOOL!
Playing an instrument, singing, performing, drawing, sculpting, creating, enriches lives. Beyond recess and friends, music and art are why kids love school.
Every student wants to succeed. Insist that Maldonado and the school board do their job! Prioritize student needs. End meetings by 9 p.m.
Denice Spangler Adams
Montecito
• • •
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the appointment of Santa Barbara Unified School District trustee Bill Banning to the Santa Barbara Education Foundation.
His recent actions and statements during the March 11 school board meeting (which stretched into the early morning hours of March 12) reveal a significant disregard for the concerns of students, teachers and the broader community.
His approach demonstrates a troubling unwillingness to closely examine budgetary details, a reluctance to engage with the public in good faith and, ultimately, a lack of responsible leadership.
During that meeting — a marathon session lasting nearly eight hours — 85 preliminary layoff notices were approved. Students and teachers waited until late into the night, beginning their testimony at 9 p.m. when the meeting had started at 6 p.m.
Despite compelling arguments to preserve arts and music teaching positions, and overwhelming public support, Banning dismissively pushed back on fellow board member Celeste Kafri’s calls for a more thorough budget analysis and a timely special meeting to explore alternative cost-saving measures.
In his own words, Banning questioned the value of holding another discussion, stating:
“One question about what would or wouldn’t change if we did another meeting in two days is how much, how long would we have public comment. I’m sure it’s a public meeting, it’s going to be about budget. You don’t think there’ll be another audience that will take three hours of our time and we’re trying to find time to talk?”
When an audience member interjected, “It’s our time, too,” Banning raised his voice and continued:
“It’s our meeting time, however. We’ve had conversations about how to organize public comments so that we can have conversations when we are fresh — not at 2 a.m. in the morning.”
The irony is glaring: It was 2 a.m. only because the board — led by individuals who share Banning’s perspective — chose to push this critical agenda item to the very end of the meeting.
They effectively forced students and teachers to wait hours, and then faulted public commenters for consuming “too much time.”
Such statements betray a troubling disregard for meaningful public engagement. Banning’s apparent disinterest in “getting into the weeds” of the budget — treating proposals to cut administration rather than classrooms as last-minute “back-of-the-envelope stuff” — shows a concerning lack of accountability.
Kafri presented clear data on rising administrative costs and declining enrollment, which Banning chose to belittle rather than address substantively.
This is no mere conjecture. It is a documented pattern of behavior demonstrating his indifference to fully exploring alternatives, and an unwillingness to respect and collaborate with the very communities he purports to serve.
In moments like this, I am reminded of the words often attributed to Maya Angelou: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
Banning’s comments and actions speak for themselves, and they paint a picture of a leader ill-suited to a foundation committed to supporting students and improving education in our community.
Michele Voigt
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the March 10 article, “Man From China Pleads Guilty to Flying Drone Over Vandenberg Space Force Base,” I am appalled by the potential sentence this SPY was facing.
One year in prison, $100,000 fine and one year probation?!
How about revocation of his nationalized status, 10 years in federal prison, then IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION and a lifetime BAN to entry into the United States?
This criminal flew a drone over one of America’s primary defense bases AND took photos of restricted areas of that facility.
What was his intent? Was it a “joyride,” “just messing around,” or spying for his home country of China?
We need to send a message that we will absolutely not tolerate these types of activities, and the consequences will be severe.
Jack Owen Jr.
Santa Maria
• • •
Regarding the March 11 article, “Council Members Spar as Santa Barbara Moves Closer to Right-to-Return Policy for Tenants,” I was born and raised in Santa Barbara/Goleta. I left town in 2018 at the age of 80, but have kept up with the information on the town and Santa Barbara County politics. I am a registered Independent.
Do you really think any landlord will upgrade his or her property if they cannot raise the rent enough to recoup the cost of the upgrades in a reasonable time frame? The answer is probably not. So, does such a policy eventually create rental slums?
Further, on the coast of California, there is no housing that is truly affordable and there will never be any in a very desirable area with geographic constraints like Santa Barbara.
So, why keep allowing even more building? Do you really want a still more crowded community?
I have watched the continued deterioration of what was once a jewel of the California coast due to continuous unsound political decisions with some amazement, even though I expected it to happen.
It is just a shame.
Thomas Williams Jr.
Prescott, Arizona
• • •
Peter Rupert’s list of doom-and-gloom predictions in his March 10 commentary, “Santa Barbara ‘Renoviction’ Policies Will Backfire on Renters,” needs to be countered with an example.
The City of Alameda has a population of 78,280, slightly less than Santa Barbara’s 88,670. It has a “counter-renoviction” ordinance with a tenant right-to-return, including a rent increase that tops out at 8%.
Since 2019, Alameda added 800 new apartments for renters. Its vacancy rate is 5.4% compared to Santa Barbara’s 2%.
Santa Barbara’s asking price for vacant apartments increased by 26.6% from November 2021 to November 2024. Alameda’s increased 12.3%, an average of 4.1% per year.
Ed Belcher
Goleta
• • •
Imagine that a Santa Barbara city council member, a leader of Cars Are Basic and a member of the Road Rogues Bicycle Club walk into a bar. What could go wrong?
At its Feb. 25 meeting, the City Council wrestled with the long-bubbling issue of wheeled vehicles on the downtown pedestrian promenade portion of State Street and set enforcement standards true to the original intent of the street closure.
In his March 8 commentary, “Sidewalk Cycling Vital Where Santa Barbara Bike Lanes End,” bike lobby spokesman Sullivan Israel made the unbelievable case to allow cyclists, themselves, to decide when it is safe to ride on the pedestrian sidewalks outside of downtown.
Of course, the commentary led with a photo of a pedal cyclist with two adorable children aboard. The bike lobby wants us to believe they all ride beach cruisers with handlebar baskets and ring-ring bells.
But we know that’s not true and not the source of the problem. Cyclists, as a group, need to represent their general ridership and be a constructive part of the solution, not hector the City Council for special treatment.
The opinion piece called out a number of roadway pinch-points where cyclists are endangered by motor vehicles if not allowed to ride on the sidewalks.
Israel wrote, “I know where I want to ride my bike in this area: the sidewalk.”
For each cited example, I thought instead, “What about the intended beneficiary of those sidewalks, the pedestrian?”
Israel suggested trading cyclist safety for pedestrian peril from oncoming bikes. I cannot agree to that.
Since 2006, city government has been guided by a Pedestrian Master Plan that places the highest priority on safe pedestrian routes for children, students, the elderly and disabled travelers.
The city’s first Bicycle Master Plan was created in 1974 and updated in 1998, 2003, 2008 and 2016. There has long been consideration of cyclists in Santa Barbara.
In 2020, the “PeopleForBikes” City Ratings program evaluated 567 American cities and towns. They ranked Santa Barbara third-best in the nation.
Since then, the city has completed the Westside Community Paseos Project (2023, $4.5 million), continues work on the Eastside Community Paseos Project (current, $3.7 million), and has plans for the Cliff Drive Vision Zero Project (anticipated to begin in 2027) and the Castillo Undercrossing (proposed but unfunded).
“PeopleForBikes” now uses a different ranking metric, but still puts Santa Barbara better for bikes than 85% of American cities. We are doing our part.
The council must juggle the competing interests (and safety) of pedestrians, cyclists (some motorized), residential street parkers, automobiles and traffic efficiency.
As part of that, the police enforcement function in the bicycle ordinance must not be complicated by carving out exemptions for certain parties. Balancing can be a delicate act, but I believe the council ordinance has it right.
Richard Closson
Santa Barbara
• • •
Sullivan Israel tries to sound reasonable in his commentary but he gives the game away when he lists his objectives: “Yet another — and perhaps the most popular — is a reduction in traffic.”
If that’s “the most popular” solution, he’s not using a very big sample size.
According to the DMV, there are 421,000 registered motor vehicles in Santa Barbara County. I can’t find the number specifically for the City of Santa Barbara but the county total is slightly less than the county’s current population of 441,000, a difference of 4.75%. Santa Barbara’s population is around 89,000, so 4.75% less would be 85,000 motor vehicles. Check my math.
What’s an acceptable “reduction in traffic” for the bicycle crowd? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Even if Santa Barbara cut motor vehicle use by 75%, that’s still 21,000 cars, trucks and motorcycles driving around. That number dwarfs the number of bike riders. Does Israel expect us to believe that 75% is going to turn to bicycles for transportation?
It’s been raining all week. How many people would say they don’t care, they’re going to ride their bike to work or the grocery store anyway? What if you have kids? And a dog? What if you’re elderly? What if you have a broken leg? What if you live up on the Riviera? What if it’s dark?
I live on the Westside, where the city’s so-called “paseos” have done nothing but irritate many of us residents who now have to drive around their blocks to get home.
Have the paseos increased bike traffic? Not in my neighborhood. Furthermore, a lot of riders still ride on other streets. What was the point?
I’m not against bike lanes but Santa Barbara officials are letting a small but vocal minority tell them what to do, based on very dubious “polls” like the one Israel refers to.
It’s time they started listing to the majority of us who want balance and reality. Cars — and traffic — are here to stay.
Tony Camarena
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the March 5 article, “Speakers Ask Lompoc Council to Protect City’s Undocumented Residents,” there was a well-organized effort to, as a Noozhawk put it, “support the role of undocumented immigrants in the community” and organizers were asking “for a resolution of support for Lompoc’s undocumented residents and asked the city to support state laws seeking to limit federal immigration enforcement efforts.”
I say “well-organized” because one of the organizers could be seen collecting the “spontaneous” signage showing support for their effort as the public comment portion of the Lompoc City Council meeting ended, perhaps for use by others at another “spontaneous” meeting.
There have been many of these protests held throughout California. I wonder who is financing all this as Spanish and English language media spreads fear among legal and illegal people.
As Lompoc leaders consider what — if anything — to do, they should avoid creating a policy that interferes with federal illegal immigration enforcement activity.
The negative repercussions of such interference could result in violations of federal laws and subsequent legal action up to and including fines or incarceration of city officials.
Ron Fink
Lompoc
• • •
As a parent of two children in the College School District, a local business owner, homeowner and taxpayer, I am deeply troubled by the board’s blatant unwillingness to negotiate in good faith with our beloved Santa Ynez Valley Charter School — as well as its apparent reluctance to provide Charter with the resources our children so clearly need.
For decades, Charter has reliably proved its value to our community. It is an exceptional school with exceptional people doing exceptional things — from academics to athletics to art.
And it’s clear I am not alone in this opinion. In recent years, Charter’s attendance has exploded as students and their families eagerly flock to the school.
But while Charter accommodates more and more of the district’s students, this board has denied it the resources required to keep up with that task — things as basic and essential as CLASSROOM SPACE.
For the past 12 months, Charter has attempted to negotiate with the board for more classrooms. And for the past 12 months, this board has done nothing of substance to help, or even to engage.
From what I understand, attempts to equitably resolve this matter have been delayed and obstructed repeatedly.
Meanwhile, the College School District’s other school, which has fewer students than Charter, enjoys twice the number of classrooms.
I am only a parent, not a school administrator, but it seems wrong to me that at Charter, our Resource Room is located in a storage space; that we share one room for PE, after care and middle school math; and that our school lacks even a LIBRARY — while the school next door has more space than it needs or uses.
So, I must ask the obvious question: Would the board rather see resources wasted than provide them to Charter students who desperately need them? And if so, why is the board punishing our kids, teachers, parents and grandparents — all of whom love Charter and depend on it?
Presently, it is a sad fact that the Santa Ynez Valley Charter School’s success comes in spite of the district and not because of it. I hope, one day soon, that changes.
Nick Zigler
Solvang
• • •
I am a retired teacher. I taught high school English and served as a school librarian for 35 years at various locations in California, including Atascadero and San Diego.
California’s Assembly Bill 1468 is being touted as a necessary step to standardize and safeguard ethnic studies curricula in public schools. It is proposed by Assembly members Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, and Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Hollywood, and state Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, who say it is intended to combat rising antisemitism in K-12 schools, citing incidents of Jewish students being targeted over the war in Gaza.
However, upon closer scrutiny, this bill poses serious risks to academic freedom, inclusivity and local control — ultimately undermining the very goals it seeks to achieve.
One of the bill’s most concerning aspects is its centralization of curriculum development. By mandating the state Department of Education to set uniform content standards, AB 1468 strips local school districts of the flexibility to tailor ethnic studies courses to reflect their communities’ unique histories and needs.
The California Teachers Association, representing 300,000 members, strongly opposes the bill.
In 2024, CTA opposition led the bill’s authors to withdraw similar legislation that would have restricted local lesson plans, such as units on Haitian Americans facing anti-immigrant rhetoric or Native Hawai‘ians resisting development on sacred land.
AB 1468 explicitly designates African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans as “priority” groups.
While these communities’ histories are essential, this narrow categorization risks marginalizing other ethnic and identity groups, including Arab Americans, Pacific Islanders and LGBTQ+ individuals.
The bill also raises red flags about potential censorship. It may restrict educators from addressing certain topics — such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — out of political sensitivity. If the state begins picking and choosing what aspects of history can be taught, it sets a dangerous precedent for suppressing difficult but necessary conversations.
Beyond content concerns, AB 1468 introduces bureaucratic obstacles that could hinder rather than help ethnic studies education.
Instead of imposing top-down mandates, California should prioritize a collaborative approach that involves educators, scholars and community leaders in shaping ethnic studies curricula.
Schools should have the flexibility to craft programs that reflect their students’ lived experiences while ensuring academic rigor and historical accuracy.
Standardization should not come at the cost of erasing perspectives, stifling discussion or burdening schools with unnecessary bureaucracy.
Jill Stegman
Grover Beach
• • •
Mail Calls
Noozhawk welcomes and encourages expressions of all views on Santa Barbara County issues. Click here to submit a letter to the editor.
Letters should be BRIEF — as in 200 words-BRIEF — and letters under 150 words are given priority. Each must include a valid mailing address and contact information. Pseudonyms will not be accepted, and repeat letters will be skipped. Letters may be edited for clarity, length and style.
As a hyperlocal news site, we ask that you keep your opinions and information relevant to Santa Barbara County and the Central Coast. Letters about issues beyond our local region have the absolute lowest priority of everything we publish.
With rare exceptions, this feature is published on Saturdays.
By submitting any content to Noozhawk, you warrant that the material is your original expression, free of plagiarism, and does not violate any copyright, proprietary, contract or personal right of anyone else. Noozhawk reserves, at our sole discretion, the right to choose not to publish a submission.
Click here for Noozhawk’s Terms of Use, and click here for more information about how to submit letters to the editor and other announcements, tips and stories.