Email List
Shows
Sections
Classifieds
Directories
Contact
News, Santa Monica, Education
What Does The Passage Of Prop. 30 Mean For Santa Monica-Malibu USD?
Posted Nov. 23, 2012, 12:18 am
Special To The Mirror
By Laurie Lieberman - SMMUSD Board Member
I am grateful to the voters for their support of Proposition 30 and our local school bond measure – ES.
The passage of Proposition 30 enables the Santa Monica-Malibu School District to stave off dramatic cuts in operating expenses, while ES will allow for needed repair and safety improvements to our aging facilities, modernization of classrooms, and continuation of the vital re-building of Santa Monica High School for the 21st century.
The passage of Proposition 30 means that school districts throughout the State will avoid damaging cuts – shortened academic calendars, increased class sizes, teacher layoffs, cuts to core programs along with music, arts, and physical education – which would have occurred if the measure had not passed.
The SMMUSD would have faced budget cuts of approximately $5 million, effective virtually immediately.
However, it is important to understand that Proposition 30 did not provide schools with new revenues; California’s schools continue to receive less than the minimum guarantee made years ago by Proposition 98.
Even with Proposition 30’s success, our District projects an operational deficit in the current and future years, which is ultimately unsustainable. With dwindling reserves, we must continue discussing budget priorities and how we can maintain a strong, exceptional educational program for all students.
In Santa Monica-Malibu, we are fortunate to live in a community that values education so highly that it has voted time and again for local school funding measures.
Our cities have weathered State funding cuts to a great degree by passing local measures that enable our schools to continue to provide music and art, strong athletics, and reasonable class sizes, where other districts have already been forced to make dramatic cuts in these areas and more. This is an untenable situation for the State, since most districts are unable to fill in the gaps in State funding with local support.
Proposition 30 is a stopgap measure that enables the State’s public schools to avert further catastrophe and will hopefully provide the impetus for education finance reform to begin in earnest.
Educators are hopeful that the Governor’s January budget will reflect a stronger California economy and additional good news for schools.
Comments
Nov. 23, 2012, 2:32:53 am
Earl Richards said...
A private watchdog organization is needed to oversee the disbursement of Prop 30 funds to ensure that all of the funds are spent on education, and does not go to Wall Street, does not go into the pockets of the Regents and does not go into the general fund, and from there to who knows where. The Governor of California cannot be trusted with Prop 30 funds, because his sister works for Goldman Sachs, and because Brown is on the Board of Regents for the University of California. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs appear to be the major "vampire quids" in the swaps scam.
Nov. 27, 2012, 8:10:04 am
Thomas Carter said...
When might you ask staff what has been done to reduce the 33% SMMUSD Student Truancy rate last year?
Nov. 27, 2012, 4:09:16 pm
Jon said...
How much of the lottery money is going to the schools? Very little. Prop 30 is no different. Sure, the schools will be thrown a bone here and there but without constant auditing, the revenue will flow into this general fund and disappear from there.
Jan. 6, 2015, 11:39:30 am
Thomas said...
Good day LA Residents: Might you ask your current LAUSD Board members and City Council members how they are "Protecting L.A.'s Children", as reported in the LA Times they are not; thus need we have E-SCARS to the rescue, as an alternative to a "CZAR" for LA and vote out those up for re-election in March 2015? For the record, the California Department of Education (CDE) reported that within LA County there were greater than 500,000 student truants in the streets last year, not in school during school hours, unexcused, dubbed “Habitual Truants”, as was reported thru June 30, 2014, of which about 300,000 of them per year were from LAUSD. How many of them might have been abused as a child; and maybe have stopped going to school; or might be currently out robbing a house in your neighborhood? Thus, I ask is there truly a need for a “CZAR”, when in 2006 the LA County Board of Supervisors approved E-SCARS to thus implement “better protocols for coordination among DCFS, law enforcement, the schools and numerous county departments” as stated in your Opinion section today? Therefore, might you go ask the current Board members and City Council members up for re-election why has E-SCARS not been implemented countywide, thus including LAUSD, as was made known by The Blue Ribbon Commission in excess of a year? And, for the record, E-SCARS was approved for implementation in 2006 to be an Electronic System for Suspected Child Abuse Reports (E-SCARS) process to allow for “collaboration” in LA. Therefore, why not investigate if E-SCARS can become the Electronic “CZAR” and thereby becoming an “early warning system”, with ZERO new costs needed to be spent, requiring that schools data share student truancy information. Do we truly need more government oversight with ZERO results? Below is how in LA County via E-SCARS electronic “collaboration” using a 1975 California promulgation, the Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) process can be implemented at ZERO new costs needed, assuming that five Independent LA County Supervisors can agree they wish to see that staff is “Protecting L.A’s Children” as reported by the L A Times they are not. In closing, this proposal below is what LAUSD proposed was to begin in 2005, that has never been implemented, that now can be processed, using 21st Century tools of automation – get the picture? Thomas D. Carter, CPA – AKA Mr. Flashlight shining his light on the truth after Dugard, Miramonte and now a young boy who died in Palmdale and all we heard from past elected and staff is “not my job” to meddle in the affairs of schools. Sherman Oaks, CA After three truancies continue to send SARB letter # 1 on School Letterhead to Parents and now share electronically information with Government After six truancies send SARB letter # 2 on City Letterhead to Parents and data share electronically information with Government and commence a SARB hearing After nine truancies send SARB letter # 3 on County Letterhead to Parents and data share electronically information with Government and have County investigate if child abuse or welfare fraud After eighteen truancies Schools send the Parents and the City a notice electronically and share information with the County having the City initiate Penal Code Sections 270.1 and or 272, currently ignored (LCFF Priority # 5 - Chronic Truancy Enforcement)