SMMUSD Board Restores Measure BB Funding
Cuts to Malibu
Members Agree to Change Rules on
Interdistrict Student Permits to Help Fill Classrooms
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.
