By Jim Jafee
For almost a year, the Santa Monica- Malibu Board of Education has been grappling with a SMASH dependent charter petition (that was eventually withdrawn), a memo of understanding with the Big Picture Company to provide staff development and other services for SMASH, and most recently an independent charter petition from the same Big Picture Company that would expand a SMASH-type program through the 12th grade, under the name Met-Santa Monica.
In light of the projected $3.5 million revenue shortfall for 2004-05, all attempts to super-size SMASH should be rejected. Instead, the savings from down-sizing the alternative school should be given serious consideration. A historical perspective for the creation of SMASH might be helpful in the board’s deliberations.
Just why is there an “alternative” in the Santa Monica Alternative School House name? About 30 years ago — raw and disillusioned from assassinations, drugs and Viet Nam — anything “traditional” was taking a big hit and the time was ripe for reform. The “traditional classroom” of the ’70s was — fairly or unfairly — characterized by having a female teacher standing at the front of the class over by the chalkboard giving a directed lesson to 30 or more students sitting at desks in straight rows all facing the teacher. So a group of local parents including Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden persuaded the board to establish a small, K-12 alternative school of choice for 120 students and their parents who were seeking instructional innovation in a relaxed atmosphere.
Over three decades, SMASH has added more students and teachers, changed locations, and reconfigured to its current K-8 structure while struggling unsuccessfully to meet one of the original board stipulations: “The school should run on the same cost per student as the other schools in the district.”
Fast forward 30 years and look at a partial list of progressive educational choices available in Santa Monica and Malibu schools today: Multiage strands, looping, team teaching, grade level cores, block and modified-day schedules, advisory, K-3 class-size reduction, technology, governance councils, assessment aligned with standards-based instruction, portfolios, PARS, conflict resolution, peer mediation, AVID, and a SAMOHI redesign. So for SMASH to take the position that it’s the last bastion of progressive education in our district is just simply no longer true. This, coupled with the rather arrogant belief that SMASH teachers need a different kind of staff development, smacks of elitism and is a slap in the face to hundreds of successful teachers across this district. It’s ironic that progressive education at SMASH is being touted as the “new tradition” that must be preserved at all costs.
So what are the cost implications associated with the SMASH experiment today? Using 2003-04 enrollment data (which is based on second-month enrollment), SMASH has a total of 189 students, including 57 out-of-district permits. That equals 30 percent permits of total SMASH enrollment as compared to just over 18 percent for the whole district. In its conception, SMASH was never meant to be so reliant on permit students. But as it became difficult to draw local residents into the program, a liberal inter-district permit policy evolved without formal board action. The 189 breaks down into 80 K-3 students, 46 fourth and fifth graders and 63 middle schoolers. State class size reduction requires a 20 to 1 ratio for all K-3 classes in the district, but the 23 to 1 at fourth and fifth is far below the 30 to 1 staffing at all the other elementary schools and is even lower than Edison’s 25 to 1. With a generous allotment of 2.5 teachers for SMASH sixth, seventh and eighth graders, the student/teacher ratio comes to 25 to 1, substantially lower than the classes in the 30s at the other middle schools. Given the limited revenue crunch, it would be fiscally irresponsible not to consider aligning the SMASH staffing formulas and permit policies with the rest of the district.
One example would be to “blend” — not move or close — the K-5 structure with the John Muir program right next door. The four teachers allotted to the K- 3 portion could become the multiage strand similar to the structure at Will Rogers and Franklin, and the fourth and fifth graders could be team taught by two of the current SMASH teachers. This configuration could be called the Santa Monica/Muir Multiage School House, or SMASH. These six teachers would remain in their assigned classrooms on the SMASH site but would receive administrative and clerical support from the Muir principal and support staff. The continuing middle school students would be given a choice to attend John Adams, Lincoln or Malibu High next year while “grandfathering” the 26 permit students if they wish to stay in the district. This reconfiguration of SMASH could reduce the need for one principal, two teachers, and possibly one clerical position, saving the district approximately $250,000 next year in personnel costs.
This is in stark contrast to the sketchy funding proposed for the Met-Santa Monica high school charter that leaves many unanswered questions: Has the financial oversight committee reviewed this proposal? What would be the compelling reason for the board to approve any charter containing contingencies on soft-money funding? Instead, shouldn’t the board require a budget proposal that guarantees full funding for the first three years before entering into a memo of understanding? How does the board justify approving a charter with a staffing pattern of 19 pupils per teacher when the class sizes at SAMOHI and Malibu High are in the 30s? What’s the relationship between the superintendent and the Big Picture Company? If enough local parents don’t want SMASH or the proposed high school charter, then why offer them?
The Met charter proposal was a discussion item last week during a special Board of Education meeting at the district offices but wasn’t taped for rebroadcast. Due to unfortunate timing, the board — by law — must approve or reject the charter petition at its April 1 meeting, 21 miles up the coast at Malibu High School. Given the long-term implications of its impending decision, the board should consider changing the meeting location to Santa Monica where the proceedings could be taped by City TV and where the potential for public participation would be increased.
Regardless, the bottom line is that SMASH is a small, expensive school to operate, and the proposed high school charter would further exacerbate the inequitable distribution of scarce resources. Since the petitioners have not met the financial criteria, the board must reject the Met-Santa Monica charter proposal. (Jim Jaffee is a retired Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School District teacher, a longtime Santa Monica resident and a graduate of Santa Monica High School).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 29, 2004. Read the original PDF.