SMMUSD Board Restores Measure BB Funding Cuts to Malibu

Members Agree to Change Rules on Interdistrict Student Permits to Help Fill Classrooms

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously last week to bring back an action item reallocating money for Malibu that is part of the BB Measure funding.
The board’s move followed on the heels of the BB Measure Advisory Committee recommending BB funding be restored to the middle schools, including $14 million to the Malibu campus, $16 million to Lincoln Middle School and $12 million to Adams Middle School.
The committee and board’s tentative actions are being taken after Malibu parents called foul when the money had been reallocated by the committee and the board voted to reduce the school district staff–recommended allocation for Malibu and voted to raise the amount allocated for Santa Monica.
Some board members last week stressed the recommendation and future action would still need to be considered tentative because projections of declining enrollment in future years coupled with the expansive nature of the capital projects envisioned by using BB funds could ultimately mean the school district would end up overbuilding.
Declining enrollment was much on the minds of the board members, who were reminded by Superintendent Dianne Tallarico that the enrollment report that was discussed at the board’s last meeting “clearly demonstrates that student enrollment in the district is expected to decline over the next five years.”
“We are a shrinking district,” said board member Jose Escarce. “Maybe we can slow down the decline in enrollment.”
Despite all of the emphasis on reducing class size in public advertising by unions and other education system elements, the board did not appear to see fewer students per classroom as something that might be beneficial to students.
The primary concern appeared to be maintaining current personnel levels and one of the main ways the board perceived maintaining the staus quo was by changing the policies related to interdistrict transfers in the hope of “capturing” more students and keeping enrollment numbers up.
The board took up where it left off at its last meeting, when it decided to take action on interdistrict transfers by voting last week to change the policies to facilitate more transfers, and thereby possibly impact the declining enrollment projections presented by the consultants.
Board member Kathy Wisnicki said she wanted to see fewer restrictions to help fill classes. “If we wait too long we will not be able to fill the classes,” she said.
Wisnicki was referring to a staff recommendation giving children of individuals employed within the City of Malibu first priority.
Consequently, the board spent a considerable amount of time discussing how students are picked and what criteria apply for the permits.
After being told the staff does not accept permits on a first come, first serve basis—a lottery is used after any other priorities are considered—that there are also waiting lists and other criteria apply, the board wanted to make some of its own rules.
Board members agreed to drop the students of parents employed in Malibu as a priority, but instead said that one criteria they wanted to see is students must have been in the school district for the last three years.
Board members were told it is hoped that the loosened regulations could add up to 200 more students.
Most of the discussion focused on Malibu, where there are openings and classes are running short of students, but there were no specifics on how many additional students might be allocated to Malibu schools.
“The intention is not to open new classrooms, but fill the spots within,” said Timothy Walker, deputy superintendent. “We could do away with split classrooms.”
Talarico said expanding enrollment by 200 students could help out in terms of planning for staffing.
However, one board member made it clear he did not want to see staffing levels to be exceeded if the policy is successful. “If the staff levels are exceeded, we would not allow the student [permits],” added Escarce.
When it came time to talk about staffing allocations and reductions, board members were less certain in what direction they wanted to go, and instead talked about taking second looks at various programs and about how classes can be scheduled for staffing purposes and other ideas.
But they will not come up with anything solid until the staff looks at several programs for possible reductions.