In a critical move to address budget concerns, the Santa Barbara Unified School District Board decided on major staff reductions that would impact a number of positions across the district, including teaching roles in English and math.
The nine-hour meeting that began on Tuesday evening and extended past 2 a.m. on Wednesday culminated in the decision aimed at slicing the district’s expenditures by approximately $9.65 million.
The board, driven by the necessity to maintain a state-mandated minimum reserve of 3%, approved the issuance of preliminary layoff notices to 85 teachers and staff. This reduction strategy also encompasses the elimination of five management roles and eight classified positions, to which 19 staffers will be preliminarily notified.
Notwithstanding the sweeping cuts, the board lent an ear to community concerns by directing the retention of certain specialized elementary school roles—specifically in music, art, physical education, and STEAM disciplines—by a narrow 3-2 vote. It instructed the district management to find alternative cost-reduction measures amounting to $525,000 to preserve these educational resources.
The layoff decisions come in response to a mix of financial pressures, including the approaching expiration of pandemic-related funding, rising personnel expenses, a dip in student enrollment figures, and the initiative to reduce class sizes.
Public pushback was fierce and heartfelt; with over 75 individuals, comprising educators, parents, and advocates, voiced their resistance to the proposed art and music teaching position cuts during the board meeting. The staff-reduction strategy induced further critique despite the board’s commitment to prioritizing other budget areas before elective courses.
The Santa Barbara Teachers Association, reacting to the developments, voiced its opposition to the cuts and rallied for a budget realignment that would safeguard student-facing roles. The association echoed the sentiments of board member Celeste Kafri, who has emerged as a strong advocate for preserving the district’s arts and music program, and who has called for a strategic pivot away from administrative expenses and towards direct educational support.
Board members Gabe Escobedo, Rose Munoz, and Sunita Beall voted in favor of advancing the layoff notices, facing opposition from Kafri and Bill Banning who voted against. The latter provided a glimmer of hope by indicating that many of the layoff notices might be rescinded pending state budget clarifications.
Furthermore, the district is contemplating an additional $4.22 million in budget reductions for the 2026-27 academic year, spotlighting the ongoing financial challenges faced by public education institutions.
As the preliminary layoff deadline is set on March 15, the board’s decisions carry heavy implications for the future of the Santa Barbara Unified School District’s educational landscape.
Also Read
- UCSB Comm Scholar Dan Lane Named UC Fellow for Research on AI and Civic Engagement
- San Luis Obispo Invites Public to Help Shape Next Climate Action Plan
- “Library on the Fly” Launches at Santa Barbara Airport
- Newsom’s final budget sends more than a billion dollars to University of California, Cal State
- Fundraiser Launched to Support 7th Annual Santa Barbara School Supply Drive
The first thing cut should have been the 10% raises (and another 5% coming next year) for the superintendent and district administrators who were already making $200K+.
Instead, after the district put out a statement saying their first priority was minimizing the impact on students and teachers in the classroom, their list of suggested cuts started with laying off teachers, which they tried to spin as “strategic master scheduling.”
Board member Kafri is right to push back on this.
Totally agree. At least there’s a trend happening in the right direction to FINALLY go against Queen Hilda’s top-down garbage philosophy. Go back to LA Hilda – around here kids are the goal, not Administrators. She’s failing our kids’ futures, hard.
They should commit to eliminating one district administrator for every teaching position they eliminate.
Yes, top down, rather than bottom up, since it’s the classroom teachers that are the core of their mission.
This would be awesome
They do need a “budget realignment” as the SBTA voiced. I hope the Board listens this time.
New blood on the board! Celeste Kafri kicked some butt:
“Kafri, who joined in January, emerged as a new force on the panel. She defended arts and music teachers, and unabashedly called on the district management to change its outlook, and focus cuts on administration, not classrooms. “To me, without a doubt, we need to say we cannot cut arts electives or elementary specialists,” Kafri said to a loud ovation from the crowd. “I think we need to be talking about where else we can cut,” Kafri said. “How do we impact students as little as possible?” Kafri noted that she has a master’s in business administration from UCLA and a certificate in education finance George University. [sic]
She said she examined the district’s audited financials and discovered that the district has increased spending in every category for the past several years, although enrollment has dropped 15%. “If we make cuts like this, we are going to be driving people outside our district,” Kafri said. “I don’t think we are going to be offering appealing programming, and we do have lots of competitors.”
Kafri said school site administration on a per-pupil basis has increased 28% since 2022. “I think we can reduce the amount we are spending on school site administration,” Kafri said.
She also said spending on district management has increased from $12.4 million to $15.4 million since 2022. “Does it make sense to right-size management,” Kafri said. “It might. If we have fewer students maybe we need fewer managers, and we need to have more investment in the arts.”
Kafri’s comments marked a stark departure from previous board members who lockstep followed Superintendent Hilda Maldonado’s lead.”
https://www.noozhawk.com/santa-barbara-school-board-votes-to-send-85-layoff-notices-in-grueling-emotional-8-hour-meeting/
I’d like to reiterate that these early notices are required by law; they’re possible termination notices, and, as said by one board member in the article, does not mean that 85 people will be laid off.
I agree with the top portion of your comment but I do want to point out that the 45 or so teachers at the bottom of the rif notices are being told that there is no current place for them. While the district may find a position for them in the next two months other neighboring districts, and the districts in some of these young/new teachers home towns are going to be holding job interviews over the next two months. So while I hope we can keep these energetic and passionate teachers if they find other employment before the district figures stuff out they may be better off moving on which means we’ll have to hire newer staff or long term subs to fill those positions
So agree with many here. The district is too top down. When you realize that 90% of the costs go to salaries and benefits it leaves only 10% for students needs, facilities, lunches, etc. The teachers had to beg and picket for a year to get a much needed 10% raise and 5% more next year. However the Superintendent & cabinet quietly got 15% also which comes to 2.25 million. Somehow this has been a tradition in the district and a sacred cow. So glad to see Celeste Kafri and Dr. Beall prioritize student outcomes and the arts and look for alternative cuts in management and the admin. Board President Escobedo also supports and prioritizes student outcomes and did an excellent job running the meeting and listening to 80 people plead to keep the arts and electives as well as many positions. So sad that the Superintendent does not share the same priorities and seems opportunistic with a salary that is costing vulnerable students many of whom don’t get their needs met in a meaningful way. This board has members willing to challenge the status quo which gives me hope . Feeling grateful but hope the community stays engaged.
We need teachers. Not administrators.
Superintendent, utterly unqualified, obscenely overpaid, ought to be kicked out. She doesn’t know what she’s doing, and is mainly a DEI hire. She’s basically an imposter. Also, she brought several of her cronies into featherbed, overpaid and unnecessary staff positions at the district. They also don’t know what they’re doing, and cause problems by acting mainly out of book-theory. The superintendent and people she brought in all need to be fired. We need a qualified and competent superintendent to manage the district.
Anyone saying “DEI hire” who also supports people like the racist with no accounting experience Musk, no leadership experience Hegseth, no medical training RFK Jr, “Russia’s girlfriend” Gabbard, wrestling announcer McMahon, etc, sounds infinitely stupid.
I really hope I’m wrong about you.
Of course you’re not wrong. In the right’s mouth “DEI” means “anyone who isn’t a cishet white male”.
This is what the campaign against “DEI” means: https://bsky.app/profile/nadinesmith.bsky.social/post/3lkco6kfmls2b
I’m responding to many of the comments about the proposed cuts to the arts. Following the information presented in previous board meetings, it is helpful to understand what the cuts to the arts were about. In all the discussions, no one from the admin or board seemed to be against the arts or doubts the value of having many different offerings at school. The district was faced with trimming a budget. Looking at each school, class sizes are maxed for all the content area classes. Class sizes are maxed for PE. The next thing to look at was electives which includes music and arts. Many classes had a very low number of students like 8, 10, 11, 13 etc…. Meanwhile all the other academic classes are maxed out (30+). So, they plan to reduce the number of similar offerings in electives so class sizes will be bigger. Student will still have art or music classes to take but there would not be as many levels. It is not ideal, but the district has to work with the budget from the state.
If the district had shown any evidence that they had already made cuts in non staff areas in the budget what you said could make sense. However for the last five years the district has said that they don’t have enough money and they will have to spend down the reserves only to add to the reserves every single year. Cutting arts and music is not worth putting more reserves into their savings accounts
Agree. Problem is they’re never going to be cutting spending for Admin’s while Hilda’s in charge. She’s digging her heels in, and it’s hurting our kids’ education in the end. Great to see a few new faces on the Board that aren’t rubber-stampers though. Kafri is a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of Capps and Sims-Moten who just ride along politically.
And what a turnout of parents and students!
They are making cuts in other areas. They explained these at the board meetings.
It is not true that the district has been saying they have no money for the last five years – they literally offered 13% raises right off the bat last year. And yes, they are spending down the reserves, that is exactly why they are making these cuts. With the coming 4% salary increase, they think they might have to make another 4 million cut next year if the state funding remains the same. The actual amount of reserves left over each year will always be unpredicatble because schools have to make their budgets before the revenue is confirmed. Every board across the state struggles with this, but at the end of the day, they aill always try to maintain 10-15% to be financially prudent.
The district is predicting that they will spend down the reserves we won’t know if they are actually spending down the reserves until September. I’d you look back at their reports the last four years they always predict that they are spending reserves and then they end up putting more into the accounts. They end up being 10-20 million off of their one year prediction and 20-30 million off their two year predictions, that’s why I don’t trust them this year. And yes they are making cuts in other areas but because they aren’t making reports on their current actual spending, or showing what they expect to be spending in other areas we don’t know how significant those cuts are, are they little things so that they look good, or are they once again artificially inflating their expected spending so that they can then make fake cuts? We don’t know and the fact that they are untrustworthy in these areas is a big problem
Cuts can be made at the top. Last July the Superintendent and cabinet quietly received the 15% raise that teachers worked hard to get. This comes to 2.25 million. Why not cut this out first. And when compared to Ventura , SBUSD has 6 extra positions in admin while being smaller district. Let’s cut admin. Our vulnerable students are suffering and deserve a free and appropriate education which many are not getting. Sad, true and avoidable. This Superintendent has not prioritized the students needs over her own bottom line.
What does the unified school district spend annually on bilingual education?
Besides racist dog whistling, do you have a point?