Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers and parents urge Santa Barbara Unified to reverse 'forced dismissal' schedules; union says district declined to bargain
Summary
During public comment, teachers, union leaders and parents told the Santa Barbara Unified board that new high‑school 'dismissal' periods reduce instructional minutes and harm students; the SBTA said district negotiators declined to bargain non‑mandatory schedule changes.
Public commenters told the Santa Barbara Unified School District board on Jan. 13 that the district’s new high‑school dismissal periods risk violating state law and worsen inequities for students without alternatives.
Cat Ross, addressing the board during public comment, said the district’s practice of assigning students excusal or dismissal periods cuts instructional minutes below minimums set in California law. “By forcing students to take dismissals, we’ve dropped below the minimum for juniors and seniors,” Ross said, citing Education Code sections she named during her remarks.
The Santa Barbara Teachers Association’s president, York Shingle, told trustees the union had proposed alternatives but was informed by district negotiators that bell‑schedule changes and forced dismissals were not mandatory subjects of bargaining. “Because they don’t have to, they won’t,” Shingle said, urging the board to direct the district to engage teachers, counselors and master schedulers in developing schedule changes.
Several classroom and specialist teachers described operational and safety concerns if students are released into the community during long dismissal periods without supervision. A special‑education teacher said a forced dismissal can leave students who require structured transitions unsupervised and at risk; an elementary STEAM teacher who spoke remotely said having her role split across campuses has already reduced prep and collaboration time.
Board members acknowledged the volume of testimony and asked the district’s general counsel to examine whether assigned excusal periods comply with state instructional‑minute requirements. A board member also said the district is not finalizing new procedures that night and promised collaborative work on bylaws and practice to clarify public comment and meeting procedures. The superintendent said staff had received emails about the dismissal concern and confirmed legal review was underway.
Next steps: trustees did not take immediate action on schedules during the meeting; several board members signaled interest in working with staff and labor representatives on governance clarifications and possible policy or bargaining paths.
