The Santa Barbara Unified School Board voted 3-2 to implement a contraband detection and deterrent program effective the start of next school year. In other words, drug-sniffing dogs will soon be making their way through the classrooms of the district’s secondary schools.
The two no votes, Annette Cordero and Monique Limón, expressed several concerns about the program, primarily that it would further the perception that certain students were being targeted.
In response to such worries, Boardmember Ed Heron said, “I have a hard time understanding this idea of targeting. We are targeting illegal drugs.” Kate Parker argued that dogs actually “take one more opportunity for bias out of the equation” because they have no idea whose backpacks they are searching, and moreover, the searches would be randomized.
Cordero replied that, although the dogs would detect drugs, “The dogs don’t hand out the punishment.” Limón made the point by saying, “I do not feel comfortable voting for a new tool given that the tool, policy, and practice are not aligned,” her point being that, even if the searches are completely fair and unbiased, they would take place within a system where the disciplinary outcomes for whites and Latinos are skewed.
In a special hearing on discipline last month, Superintendent David Cash revealed that, during the last three years, three Latino boys were suspended for every white male suspension, and that the ratio rose to six-to-one for females. To realign those numbers, Cash is advocating a restorative justice–based discipline policy that focuses less on punitive measures and more on forcing rule-offenders to remedy their actions. On Tuesday night, however, Cash said that it would take several years to fully implement a restorative justice policy.
Cash also said he spoke at length with administrators and the English Learner Advisory Committees at all of the district’s secondary schools, as well as with parent groups. “In almost every circumstance, parents were in favor of this happening at schools,” said Cash. When Cordero asked if he consulted with community groups like Esperanza and PUEBLO, he said no.
The only public commenter was Layne Wheeler, president of the Santa Barbara Teachers Association (SBTA). He did not endorse or denounce the use of drug-sniffing dogs, but he did raise several concerns: the disruption of class, the anxiety caused by false positives (on the belongings of students and teachers), whether the money spent on the program would be more effectively spent elsewhere, and how exactly the searches would be conducted.
Some of that nitty-gritty was discussed before a second vote to choose between two services, Interquest Detection Canines and Kontraband Interdiction and Detection Services (KIDS). The former would be slightly cheaper than the latter at $410 per full-day visit. Both suggest two visits per school site per month, and they can visit more than one school in a day. KIDS offers a richer insurance plan and the endorsement of Director of Student Services Marlin Sumpter, whose former employer in Modesto contracted with them.
The school board unanimously chose to request a contract with Interquest, however, because its dogs are trained to detect commonly abused prescription drugs, as well as narcotics, alcohol, and gunpowder.
While discussing the fiscal impacts of contracting out for a canine detection service, the board briefly considered limiting visits to once a month. Cordero questioned the effectiveness of such a policy because once that visit was over, kids would know they could bring drugs to school for the rest of the month. At that point, Cash interjected and said that most districts do not discuss such details publicly. “Based on that, I’d assume you recommend two visits per month,” Parker said to Cash facetiously. When he replied affirmatively, the boardroom, which at that point had filled with parents of children at Peabody elementary (whose charter is up for renewal), burst into laughter.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Wow, what a nice lesson for our children on how our Constitution and its protections are optional....
This is a disgusting affront to our forefathers, our Constitution and the very thing that made this country great. A sad, sad day indeed.
iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who's gonna clean up after the dogs? I wonder how long before someone is bitten or gets fleas..
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The high school pranksters are going to have a field day with this one. Hide some marijuana in the principal's car. Or sprinkle marijuana dust all over the school. This is gonna be fun ...
Etna (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Umm of course more hispanic kids are going to be busted than white kids... white kids are no longer the majority, they are the minority in Santa Barbara. My son goes to Harding where the population is over 90% hispanic... that's not bais, it's reality. My son is discriminated against because he is WHITE, he is picked on, ganged up on and constantly in trouble because kids say he did things that THEY did and set him up for. How's that for ironic?
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When is are the sniper gun towers and concertina wire going up? Might as well get the youngsters used to living in prison since they live in a prison state.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well let's see...encourage the poorest and the least educated a segement of a country to mass-migrate to this country, make sure these people don't have to assimilate by providing everything in their language, infuse their American-born children with a sense of entitlement with "Chicano" studies, and then cry "racist" when inevitably there is a higher crime rate in that demographic. Brilliant!
To Santababarasand: the following article about Hannah-Beth Jackson's stepdaughter will support what you are saying (about what REALLY goes on in the schools and how Cordero wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot-pole)
http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Putting aside the racial stuff, isn't it sad that our schools are now proving grounds for the control-freaks who run our government?
Strip-searches and lockdowns and armed guards don't seem like a paranoid scenario any more. Let's keep pumping more $$$ into the schools to give them more ways to control and contain the inmates.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Idiots.
What a great way to waste money. All the wretched canines are going to find is Marijuana......and who cares?
I would rather see kids smoking pot than drinking beer or liquor.
Will the hideous beasts find beer and liquor? NO
Will the disgusting police hounds find Cocaine, Heroin??? NO
And I agree with the one commentator that said that the kids are going to have a field day with these poor beasts. They will hide weed everywhere and make the Keystone Cops look even more ridiculous than they are already.
Reminds me of a story....I was once at a stop light in la and in front of me was a K9 Police Car....I was smoking a large joint and the K9 went insane barking and trying to jump over the seat.......I laughed so hard I had to pull over!
rstein9 (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Drug sniffing dogs are highly fallible and ignore the fourth amendment of our Constitution.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/17...
This article actually proves Moniq Limon's statement to be beyond true.. Not only will it increase the PERCEPTION that latino students are being targeted, it is very likely that latino students WILL be targeted. This is due to dog's ability to sense the perception of its handler, who will likely have a different perception at the 90% latino school than the 40% latino school:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/21...
loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
and they say they're broke!
spacey (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Make Cash, Heron and Parker pay for the care of these beasts; and clean up after them. And be personally responsible when someone eventually gets bitten, not the taxpayers.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2012 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear School Board,
If you want criminals, just treat them like criminals.
How long before the lawsuit begins?
Georgy (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's probably better to have a kid who is on drugs in school instead of not in school out of fear of being arrested...
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course the irony of all this is that this is being conducted in a community where booze...oops, I mean "fine wines" is the drug of choice.
Adults drink (and drive) but want kids to remain drug free; absolutely hilarious.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 21, 2012 at 2:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To fix the root of the problem, how many parents and older students could learn English with the same money spent here?
Too bad this news article did not report that the length of the school teaching day would extend to compensate for the distractions and time consumed by the dog visits. That extension is gonna happen, right?
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
February 21, 2012 at 4:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The school district is laying off teachers, increasing class sizes and shortening school days, yet it has enough funds to pay for drug sniffing dogs?
The dogs have been proven to be inaccurate and the constitution of California grants the right to privacy. I don't see how this will pass the legal test and it sure doesn't pass the sensible test in my opinion. Schools should stick to educating and leave law enforcement up to the police. If the police have probable cause to search the kids on their way to and from school, then that would be the time to search them. Wasting precious teaching time to do law enforcement is counterproductive and not what schools are all about.
sbs124 (anonymous profile)
February 21, 2012 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What would George Orwell Say? Or for that matter George Washington! Police State,Control Freaks,Smashers of the United States Constitutional Amendment regarding UNREASONABLE SEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND OUR BELOVED FREEDOM GOES DOWN THE DRAIN.
All because somebody WRONGFULLY feels entitled to tell you what is right and what is "wrong".
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
February 21, 2012 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done! Ventura, Camarillo, Bishop Garcia, and other schools have this. This is not a constitutional issue - marijuana and children is a problem.
40% of California High School kids have used marijuana, and 9% will use daily. Marijuana is much more potent than in past times, with much attendant psychological problems, medical concerns, increased pregnancy and STD, poor job performance, not to mention reduced lifetime earnings and accomplishment. Anything to reduce this will benefit our kids.
Thanks to the school board for all they do on behalf of our kids, and for having the courage to do the right thing.
Our community found 750 million dollars for a new hospital building, but can't find 6 million dollars to maintain our schools and our kids' education?
meneush (anonymous profile)
February 22, 2012 at 5:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bishop Diego has used drug dogs for years and they work. Of course, one difference there is that in spite of the fact that most families at BD are poor and receive tuition assistance these families actually know what their kids are doing and take care of their kids. Oh yea, BD is 50% Latino.
No doubt they are only procuring canines specially trained in racially profiling illegal alien Mexican kids. Of course PUEBLO and La Raza and their ilk are gearing up for a blast of their typical race baiting ignorance. I suggest restorative justice for Chicano's and jail for every other kid...
Oh yea, I don't like drug testing or drug dogs, but the courts don't agree with my opinion...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2012 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting two Mexican board members voted against this. Pretty ignorant people if what is suspect is accurate.
I suspect the majority of persons involved in drug activities in SB are Mexican. Prove me wrong! Call the PD and find out the percentage of Mexican, Hispanics or whatever you choose to call them that are involved in narcotics activity based on arrests versus the non-Hispanic. If there are many more south of the border people being arrested and convicted could it be simply that these are the people primarily involved in illegal narcotics activity?
Police (and definitely not the dogs) don't "target" people for any reason other than the fact they are involved in or are suspected of involvement in illegal activity! Unfortunate some clowns want to declare there are racial issues involved when this is not accurate. Are Mexicans, black or orientals (primarily involved) in the transportation of illegal drugs from Mexico? Probably Mexicans, correct? So, are police involved in racial profiling if it is persons of Mexican descent that are being arrested for this specific crime? There was similar whining about this issue in the past and it will undoubtedly continue in the future - "the police are picking on the Mexicans." Again, are the police picking on them or is it that Mexicans are the primary race of people involved in this activity and are brought to the attention of the police (probably by an informant of Mexican descent).
Not many Mexicans or blacks arrested in southeast Asian countries for illegal drug activities would you agree? Most arrested are Asian I will presume. Are the police in those countries profiling the offenders, or again, is it because most of the offenders in these countries are of Asian descent. Quit your damned whining and start doing things that will help the kids that will be in charge of our future. Those that voted against this are ignorant followers and definitely not leaders!
whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)