AMPS Pushes for District Separation on 2016 Ballot

0
289
Advocates for Malibu Public Schools

Representatives from the L.A. County Office of Education (LACOE) came to address the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) Board of Education during its Thursday, Sept. 18 meeting about possible stumbling blocks toward district separation, noting that the timeline for the formation of an MUSD (Malibu Unified School District) may be many-fold longer than the hopes of Advocates for Malibu Public Schools (AMPS) leaders.

“We’re looking at a timeline that’s multiple years at a minimum,” Dr. Allison Deegan, Regionalized Business Services Coordinator at LACOE, said, speaking to the Board of Education.

Despite what appears to be a gloomy outlook for those pushing for an independent Malibu school district, community stakeholders are staying positive about the possibility of separating the districts within the next couple of years.

 

LACOE presentation woes

Deegan spoke to the board about time lines and possible issues in the process of district separation, stating that depending on which issues the County Committee on School District Organization chooses to investigate, the process could take years.

“The easy answer is, we don’t know [the precise timeline]. It takes a long time. We know that’s not a sufficient answer,” Deegan told the board.

The four anticipated stumbling blocks for separation are: the California Voting Rights Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the local control funding formula and the current parcel tax scheme.

Of these, CEQA was the primary concern raised, along with the voting rights act.

“We are seeing school districts, cities, hospital districts, water districts… just about every type of district is facing litigation,” Deegan warned. The act in question could make it hard to separate if it appears one demographic of the community will become underserved in a new school district.

According to the separation study published this summer by AMPS’ consultant West Ed, diversity population is not anticipated to be an issue.

“The population of non-white students, especially Hispanics [in the new Santa Monica district], will certainly grow, but based on the data … it will not grow to such a level as to merit concern about segregation,” the study read.

Even knowing which hurdles to overcome may not help the separation effort completely.

“Is even the process by which they do it subject to judgment calls and so forth?” asked Board Vice President Jose Escarce.

“I would say it’s subjective,” Deegan replied.

 

Stakeholders continue work, remain positive

The LACOE presentation came just 24 hours after the Malibu City Council meeting approving an official council petition for district separation. 

This petition, according to Mayor Pro Tem Laura Rosenthal, will be submitted to LACOE simultaneously with the AMPS petition, assuming their drive is successful. 

“I think it shows that we are united — both the residents and the elected officials — in an official way,” Rosenthal said.

Malibu school board representative Craig Foster was also hopeful the SMMUSD Board of Education would submit an official petition to go along with the other two. 

“The county committee process, I think, will go smoothly and quickly with all stakeholders in place,” Foster said. “All of those, I think, go better and smoother with all stakeholders in agreement.”

AMPS hopes to have its paper petition signed by 4,500 registered Malibu voters and prepared by Nov. 1. Foster stated he hopes the school board’s timeline for an official petition might not lag far behind. The board has two upcoming meetings scheduled in Malibu — one on Oct. 1 and one on Nov. 5.

“I hope to have it agendized as soon as Nov. 5,” Foster said. “It would be super logical for this to be done in Malibu.”

As for timeline, Foster said having all groups in agreement should make the process much faster than average.

“I continue to hope we can have it on one of the elections of 2016: April, June or November,” Foster said.