Santa Monica and San Francisco: A Tale of Two Cities -- and Their Schools

By José J. Escarce

Earlier this year, the Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS), an independent, grassroots community organization, filed a measure with the City of Santa Monica that would amend the Santa Monica City Charter to require that the City allocate a specified amount of funds annually to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

The proposed charter amendment establishes the funding of local public schools as a local priority and a municipal affair, and the text of the measure underscores the numerous and varied benefits that excellent public schools bring to the city, including enhancing the overall quality of life of its residents. CEPS is currently gathering signatures to place the measure on the November ballot.

Santa Monicans are not alone in being asked to consider a key role for local government in maintaining the quality of local public schools in an era when state funding for public education seems hopelessly trapped in a downward spiral.

Last Tuesday, March 2, voters in San Francisco cast their ballots on Local Proposition H, a Charter amendment that would create a Public Education Fund to increase City funding for public education. In endorsing Proposition H, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote:

“Many voters want City Hall to help schools, though by law the separately elected school board calls the shots and draws up its budget. This measure formalizes what many voters desire: a link between the city budget and the health of public schools. Quality education is vital to this city’s economic health and its quality of life.”

San Franciscans responded, propelling Proposition H to a resounding victory with 71 percent “yes” votes.

There is a noteworthy difference between Santa Monica and San Francisco, however. The San Francisco measure was authored by Tom Ammiano, of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and was placed on the ballot by the Supervisors. In his report titled, "Great Schools for a Great City," Mr. Ammiano concluded that City government could not afford to remain a passive observer of efforts to educate the city’s children.

The Supervisors in San Francisco clearly comprehend the plight of the public schools and the value of excellent schools to their city. They proactively sought to assume a share of the financial responsibility for providing a high quality public education in the face of the state’s abdication, and the voters overwhelmingly agreed with them.

By contrast, the Santa Monica City Council has thus far opposed the CEPS measure even though there is no reason to do so. CEPS was meticulous in crafting its measure so that City and social services would not be jeopardized, the City would be protected in difficult economic times, and the Council’s basic fiscal authority would not be impaired. The CEPS measure is consistent with good government, would preserve educational opportunity for all students, and would benefit the community immeasurably.

In San Francisco local government officials led and the people followed. In Santa Monica it is the people who must lead, and we must expect, insist, and demand that our local government officials follow. The stakes could not be higher, for the future of our children and the quality of our city depend in large part on the excellence of our local public schools.

San Franciscans understand the relationship between great cities and great schools. Do we?

(Eds note: José J. Escarce is president of the School Board)