We can all agree that the students at Malibu High School are the priority. To that end, the discussion of where the school district has spent its funds wisely should be fact-based. The trend toward enrollment decline is well documented in a 2013 DecisionInSite Report. As reported by the Santa Monica Daily Press under conservative projections, the Malibu student population will drop by 100 students over the next three years.
It has also been recently argued that the Ed Foundation and the “Bring on the Lights” campaign are distinct fundraising organizations. This begs the point, if the district-through its affiliate the Ed Foundation and the Shark Fund, and through its affiliate “Bring on the Lights” campaign-is spending both public funds and private donations on stadium lights, Malibu High as a whole suffers. According to the Malibu High Focus On Learning Report 2012- 2013, “Only 43.5% of parents state that they agree or strongly agree that the campus is clean. 32.6% of teachers echo similar sentiments.” If the district has insufficient funds to provide basic maintenance of the campus, but has money to spend on athletic field lights, why wouldn’t the public question the district’s judgment to use funds wisely?
AMPS has also argued that it would better serve the priorities of Malibu students rather than the district. That may be the case. Certainly there is incredible potential in the student body at Malibu High. However, what are AMPS’s priorities? Many of those at the forefront of the “Bring on the Lights” campaign are also in leadership roles in AMPS. Laura Rosenthal and Lou LaMonte are listed as council liaisons for AMPS. For those of us who deeply care whether our students are college ready and benefit from small classrooms and a first rate education, it’s fair to question whether the same figures who urged the district to spend more than one million dollars for athletic lights should be entrusted with the future of our schools.
Cynthia Kesselman