Page 1 of 8
Posted on November 5 at 9:59 a.m.
SBCC hasn't even used all of the Measure V money yet
On Capps Survives; Measures P and S Flame Out
Posted on November 4 at noon
Dropping tennis was a huge mistake on the part of Dr Gaskin and the PE/Athletic department with repercussions for long to come. Why didn't the other people in this department step up and oppose this move? While I know there are a lot of great teachers and coaches, there have been other problems with the college not supporting their teachers, and apparently especially in this department. Thanks, Mr Sanford, for bringing this subject to light.
On No SBCC Tennis Team
Posted on November 2 at 2:34 p.m.
I am voting no on S, but I want to say, stop bashing physical education. It weakens your argument. A well-rounded education includes health and fitness. Every class a student takes does not have to only be in the subject of their career. A community college serves people who are looking for life enrichment and to be better, more educated contributing members of society. The mind, spirit and body are all important aspects of education.
On Measure S: SBCC Should Focus on S.B. Students
Posted on November 2 at 10:07 a.m.
I agree with most of what is said here. However, some of the negative comments that this and other writers have made about PE and Athletics are way off base. Physical Education is an important aspect of any education program. A community college educational environment that doesn't include education of the physical self is shortchanging it's students , especially nowadays when our population demonstrates a lack understanding about how to be healthy and fit. Perhaps there are a high number of "out-of-towners" participating in the sports teams, I don't know. But that could be said for other programs and classes, too. (ESL, anyone?) The PE buildings are in disrepair and barely useful in some respects. These areas are used by thousands of students, not a few hundred as stated in this letter.I'm voting no on S, but it has nothing to do with the overstated negative comments about SBCC PE and Athletics.
On Measure S: Try Again Soon
Posted on October 9 at 10:01 a.m.
SBCC has fallen behind on serving the local community and much of the disgruntlement expressed re: 'No on S" is evidence of that. The credit part of the college has grown too big and proportionally doesn't serve local students as much as it used to. The non-credit college has shrunk drastically mainly due to the president and the board deciding to cut Adult Ed way down unnecessarily, and that was a gem in the community. Be a better neighbor, SBCC, by limiting your enrollment and addressing the problems the public is concerned about first. Then you'll be in a stronger position to ask for our money. Now is not the time for measure $.
On City College's Sprawling Impact
Posted on September 11 at 7:53 p.m.
I agree with ddjim and georgy. The college enrollment should be managed better, and SBCC should aim to serve the local community. Instead it seems like they want to grow and use what used to be Adult Ed facilities for more credit classes. Too much money and too soon after Measure V.
On Democrats Split on SBCC Bond
Posted on September 1 at 9:26 p.m.
Gaskin is a definite improvement over Serban - anyone would be - but she has made some big blunders since in office, most of which the average public person wouldn't know about. Serban put the knife into Adult Ed, but Gaskin happily took that knife and chopped it up into pieces and now those pieces are hemorrhaging. Don't believe the optimistic spin some people put on the non-credit programs! Measure S will undermine those struggling programs, making way for credit classes to take over both the Wake and Schott Centers.No on S.
On Measure S: The $288 Million Question
Posted on September 1 at 6:39 p.m.
Indyholio, you hit it in the head with your 3 excellent points. I hope you write a letter to the editors of all the papers and make those same points. Also, Georgy, thanks for reminding us about how Dr Gaskin, the PE Chair and the Athletic Director at SBCC shafted a stellar tennis program. It's shameful what happened behind the scenes with SBCC tennis last year. Another example of Dr. Gaskin not knowing the community.
Posted on August 29 at 5:52 p.m.
I'm getting pretty tired of President Gaskin's pat phrases she throws out. I've heard her say something like "there are so many moving parts" too many times for too many situations. She is a newcomer to Santa Barbara so she doesn't know that SB residents are "on it" too. We ask questions, we pay attention and we want real answers. I believe SBCC facilities need updating. But there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. For instance, if the Schott and Wake Centers are upgraded, is that in order to house more credit classes, and thus more (outside) students? Will the new Center for Lifelong Learning (CLL) be put out, right at a time when they are struggling to establish themselves? Instead of growing, the college should be limiting it's enrollment so that the impact it has on the surrounding area is minimized.Another point: I don't understand how a college that decimated the best Adult Ed program can now ask that same voting community to put out more money for a school that forsake them.
Posted on July 7 at 6:51 p.m.
Georgy makes some good points.Trying to draw a straight line from a CC to a UC is a flawed effort. Most people do not go to SBCC to get an advanced degree yet the majority of students still benefit tremendously from attending the college. The state government, the chancellor's office, the SBCC board of trustees and the new SBCC president need to recognize that fact and not try to push and rush students through the conveyer belt of higher degrees. Many community members attend the college to improve their lives and become better and more engaged citizens. I applaud them for their efforts, along with the minority of CC students who are going for a higher degree.
On Skewed Distribution in Transfers to UC