Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Junior High Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs restoring 7-period junior-high day amid teacher, parent and student appeals
Summary
After presentations from district staff and principals, the Santa Barbara Unified School Board heard extensive public comment urging restoration of a 7-period junior-high schedule to expand year‑long electives and address equity concerns for English‑multilingual learners and students with IEPs; staff will return with feasibility, cost and funding trade‑offs.
The Santa Barbara Unified School District board spent the bulk of its Feb. 10 meeting discussing whether to restore a 7-period day at the district’s four junior high schools, a change parents, teachers and students say would expand access to year‑long electives such as music, arts and wood shop.
District staff and principals presented data showing substantial variation across schools in elective offerings and student needs. Doctor Sonia Wilson and Dr. Mary Anne Hu framed the conversation around equity and student outcomes, saying the goal is to provide both enrichment and intervention. Principals at Lacumbre, Santa Barbara Junior, La Colina and Goleta Valley described how current 0- and 7th‑period options are used to prioritize English‑multilingual learners (EMLs), students with individualized education programs (IEPs) and AVID students, and explained the staffing and scheduling constraints created by a six‑period day.
The presenters outlined four options: keep the status quo (no added cost); guarantee every junior-high student at least one elective (estimated additional cost about $250,000 per year and roughly 2 FTEs); a full districtwide shift so every student gets seven classes (estimated about $1,580,000 per year and roughly 13 FTEs); or pilot a smaller rollout at one or two schools (estimates shown at roughly $500,000 and 4 FTEs for a single‑school pilot). District staff emphasized those figures are illustrative and depend on enrollment, course design and whether new courses could be financed from restricted sources.
Public commenters — teachers, SBTA representatives, parents and students — urged an immediate move to expand elective access. York Shingle, president of the Santa Barbara Teachers Association, asked the board for class‑level data (enrollment and demographics) for existing 0/7th‑period offerings and warned that if current patterns persist, EMLs and many students with IEPs lack equitable access to electives. Several teachers described how Prop. 28 arts funding could be used to seed new elective sections, while parents and students described lost opportunities after the district curtailed overnight field trips and other programs.
Board members pressed principals and staff on transportation logistics (MTD routing and district bus options), course requests already collected for next school year, how special‑education and EML services must be scheduled inside the regular day, and how 0/7th‑period offerings depend on teachers who volunteer to teach outside the core day. Principals said MTD routing limits and shared high‑school routes make some schedule changes difficult without additional coordination.
Trustees expressed broad support for expanding elective access but differed on implementation tempo. Some favored a districtwide rollout; others recommended a pilot at one or two schools to test logistics, enrollment patterns and staffing needs. The board asked staff to return with a feasibility plan that includes funding trade‑offs (including what role Proposition 28 funds could play), a timeline for pilot vs. full implementation, the decision criteria for selecting pilot sites, and outreach to parents and students to gather targeted input. District staff said a preliminary feasibility memo could be returned Feb. 24 but broader stakeholder outreach and substantive budget analysis would take longer.
The meeting also included routine business: the board reported a 5–0 closed‑session vote to approve a five‑day unpaid suspension for a classified employee, and approved donations and the consent agenda by voice vote.
Next steps: the board directed staff to produce a feasibility analysis of the 7‑period options (pilot and full roll‑out), including estimated costs, staffing needs, potential uses of restricted funds such as Prop. 28, transportation implications and recommendations for parent and student engagement. The board set timing and format of the follow‑up (feasibility memo and outreach plan) as the item for its next meetings.
