Our School Board Gambled. Our Children Lost.

By Chris Bley

An editorial published in the Santa Monica Daily Press showing budget cuts that could have been made this year instead of the 58 teaching and other student-serving positions that the board did cut.

By Chris Bley

In 13 years of teaching, I have never assigned the "What I Did on My Summer Vacation" essay. During my 10 years as a student in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, I never had to write it either. But now I want to report on my summer vacation: I am exploring a labyrinth--the SMMUSD budget.

Along with hundreds of community members, I worked hard to pass Measure A, the emergency parcel tax. We were told the board would have no choice but to make drastic cuts if the tax didn't pass. When it didn't pass, the cuts were made: 58 teachers laid off; class sizes increased; 10 instruction days cut; third grade music, counselors, librarians, and reading specialists eliminated.

Saddened by the unraveling of the district that had been so good to me, I asked myself, did those cuts really have to be made?

On a superficial level, yes. If the dire predictions made during the campaign had not come to pass after Measure A failed, the board and superintendent would have been justifiably accused of making empty threats just to mobilize the community to pass the measure.

On a deeper level, no. I found that those cuts could have been avoided if over the past few years the school board had exercised some leadership and taken the initiative to find other ways to balance the budget--ways that would not inflict such damage on our children's education.

By looking into the budget themselves, instead of simply rubber-stamping from a menu of cuts served up by the superintendent and staff, the board could have made cuts "far away from the students"--the goal they kept repeating but ultimately ignored. They wouldn't have had to gamble on the risky proposition that voters--many financially strapped and disillusioned with the school board already--would impose a second parcel tax on themselves.

After about a week of exploration, I found several areas where the SMMUSD's expenses are millions of dollars per student higher than what a nearby comparable district, Las Virgenes Unified, spends. One area is administrative expenses. Even with all the teacher layoffs, SMMUSD's 2010-2011 budget item General Administration Expenses is $6.9 million--4.5% higher than last year. It comes to $621 per student. Las Virgenes Unified School District budgeted $4.5 million, $387 per student--$2.4 million less (the most recent numbers available for Las Virgenes are for 2008-2009, but it is not likely they've risen: http://www.cde.ca.gov).

On personnel-related costs, the SMMUSD spent more than three times as much in 2009-2010--$2.05 million to serve 11,100 students, compared to Las Virgenes' $633,000 for 11,600 students.

I admit I don't have the specifics of where all this extra money went, because the district makes me file a public information request and wait a week whenever I want more detail than what is on the Internet. But even this much information shows that SMMUSD spending is way out of whack. During all the hand-wringing budget sessions, not one of the seven board members asked about disparities with comparable districts such as this $2.4 million. We could rehire 30 teachers with that money. Or restore the 48% cut in materials and supplies--instead of leaving it up to teachers to stock their classrooms.

But these financial problems are all really the state's fault, right, for cutting funding? No. It's true that state funding has been cut substantially in the last two years, requiring reduced spending or, as the board's financial oversight committee recommended, new revenue sources. The board knew well ahead of time that state, federal, and local revenue would decrease by millions. Their response: Make some cuts in 2009-2010, but mostly avoid the issue by depleting the reserves from more than $20 million to $5 million by 2012. Then depend on the voters to bail them out by taxing themselves more.

That response--really a non-response--didn't work, so dedicated parents and student lemonade-sellers raised $1.5 million and the federal government provided funds to make up for some of the $7.1 million in cuts that "had to be made." But that was a one-time bail-out. Next year the district will be in the same position, or worse.

Our school board has been asleep at the wheel for years. If they would only rouse themselves, they will find much more intelligent, less damaging, ways to balance their budget. Otherwise, even more of our district's valued teachers and programs will be run off the road.