Closure of One Malibu Elementary School Is Part of the Budget Debate Now Going On

• SM Parents Want to Spread the Pain

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

As the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District continues to grapple with what its staff describes as “a potentially massive budget problem” in the form of a projected $12 million shortfall over the 2009-10 FY, Santa Monica parents are crying foul.
The board of education voted as expected at its June 4 meeting to approve increases in class sizes; cut contract services accounts in districtwide departments by $300,000 and to “realign” the Special Education budget “to reflect historical expenditure patterns” by a $700,000 reduction; and scale back Tier II and III categorical funding by five percent for 2009-10; but it was the vote to eliminate one of the six houses in Santa Monica High School’s house system that caused a storm of outrage.
“Staff makes this recommendation knowing very well that this is a critical issue to teachers, parents, and students. Staff also believes that the house system has been very successful at Santa Monica High School, particularly in the area of personalizing education for students. It is staff’s intent to continue to support this very successful house system,” the staff report stated. The change is expected to save the district approximately $500,000.
Parents, students and teachers and representatives of the PTA council vehemently refuted the house restructuring plan, calling the proposed cut “devastating,” and “a knife in the heart.” One speaker accused the board of “breaking your promise.” Another questioned the staff report’s enrollment numbers, implying that the district deliberately misinterpreted Samohi’s statistics. “I have a problem with the enrollment numbers. To imply that we have fewer students than we actually have is really disingenuous and dishonest.”
“[This is] a bad decision that should be not voted upon this evening,” education activist Richard Mckinnon said, blasting the plan. “I believe it hurts the students who need these schools most. We don’t run public schools for people who are high achievers, who can make decisions and choices and go elsewhere, people such as yourselves. Your kids will always be OK. It’s the kids who have no choice about our school who the houses help most. It’s never the AP classes that get bigger. It’s always the kids at the other end who need the most help.”
A number of Santa Monica parents accused the district of unfairly burdening Samohi with the majority of the cuts. “Why are you picking on Samohi?” One outraged parent demanded to know. “You need to look at the elementary schools, the Malibu schools, they can be consolidated.” His views were echoed by others during the lengthy and emotionally charged public comment period.
In the end, the board voted to go ahead with the plan to eliminate House A. However, two advisers and one outreach specialist from the house received a reprieve and will retain positions in the district for at least one more year. Wendy Wax Gellis, the principal of Samohi’s House A for the past six years, who has also been involved in the school’s special education program, will take a pay cut and be reassigned to Malibu Middle School as assistant principal.
The plan to transfer Wax Gellis also received extensive criticism. Many special education parents protested that she was needed at Samohi. Others criticized the district because notice from Superintendent Tim Cuneo went out on the Friday before the board met to officially vote on the issue, indicating to district observers that the decision had already been made and that the vote was a formality only.
The issue of school closure or consolidation is unlikely to go away. Longtime education activist Jim Jaffe and Samohi Alumni Association president is a vocal proponent of closing one of Malibu’s three elementary schools and consolidating two of the Santa Monica campuses. He asked the district in an open letter following the June 4 meeting if the Proposed FOC Focus for FY 2009-10 will include “the possible closure of a Malibu elementary, combining the SMASH and Muir operational budgets.”
“There is nothing that won’t be reexamined” Jan Maez, the district’s assistant superintendent and chief financial officer, stated at the start of the June 4 meeting. “This is certainly not the end.”
In his letter, Jaffe also asked the district to “revisit the need for building a new Edison school and other BB projects in light of pessimistic enrollment projections and economic conditions, continue to evaluate the administrative costs at district headquarters, and (given that adjusting staffing to the current levels of enrollment is essential to all future budget planning) explore establishing clear certificated and classified staffing formulas.”
Ironically, at the June 4 meeting the board voted to approve $156,597 in Measure BB funding for projects ranging from photovoltaic energy development to environmental screening services. Measure BB funds can only be used for safety and construction. Some critics of the districtwide renovation and building plan are questioning how BB funded new facilities will be staffed, or even if there will be enough students to make use of them as enrollment declines and the budget crisis continues to plague the district.
Some members of the board of education appear to be pinning their budget salvation hopes on additional parcel taxes. “We need to look at some revenue enhancement models,” board member Oscar de le Torre said on June 4. “There has to be a way to do some fundraising or go back to the voters for a limited parcel tax. If not, we’re going to have to make some huge cuts.”
School districts across California will be asking residents to approve parcel taxes this summer. Palos Verdes, South Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge and Rowland Heights are already planning vote by mail campaigns, although critics predict that getting enough votes to pass the proposals may be difficult, especially in communities where foreclosures and job loss continue to spiral out of control. Voters in the communities of Pleasanton, Mt. Diablo and Redwood City have already defeated emergency parcel tax initiatives.
In the meantime, Jaffe has more questions for the board of education: “Have board members reviewed the individual school and department expenditure budgets proposed for 2009-10 and compared them to last year’s? If not, then why not? Shouldn’t Board decisions be driven more on data and less on politics and emotion? If the Board has reviewed the individual expenditure budgets, then why were they excluded from public review for the first time in four years? What happened to the promise for more transparency; not less?”
“Wait until next year,” Jaffe told the Malibu Surfside News, referring to the deteriorating budget situation. “You haven’t seen anything yet.”