Santa Monica Next is urging a “yes” vote on Measure ES. Since much of our coverage the past couple of years has focused on some of the school district’s controversies (HVACs, turf, Safe Routes to Schools) a reader might be surprised by this endorsement, but we believe that the experience of the district’s students will get worse if the measure doesn’t pass.
That’s a good enough reason for us.
Enrollment at school districts throughout California is struggling. Prop. 13 and other tax policies have created uneven funding streams. Demographic trends and competition from private and charter schools have led to declining enrollments. Many districts have responded by cutting staff, closing campuses, and other changes.
Santa Monica hasn’t had to do that, in large part because of the ongoing generosity of the voters to support the district. And they’ve been rewarded with excellent schools. SMMUSD earned strong academic recognition in recent years. Niche, a private organization that ranks schools throughout the country, ranked the district among California’s top 20 school districts in 2025, while individual schools at all levels have earned multiple California Distinguished School and National Blue Ribbon honors.
The two arguments against supporting ES are that the district doesn’t spend money as efficiently as it could and that only Santa Monica taxpayers are being asked to pay this new fee even though the money would be spent in Santa Monica and Malibu.
Let’s take those two arguments separately. First, if you believe the district isn’t spending money the best way it can, the answer is to change leadership not give them less money. Next does not endorse in candidate races, so we’re not urging you to vote one way or another on school board races. Instead we’re urging you to separate the issues of giving money to support the students and how you feel about school leadership.
Second, the new tax replaces money that the district raised through an agreement with the City of Santa Monica. In short, the new tax would replace funding that the city currently gives SMMUSD. Should Malibu schools break out of SMMUSD, all of the money would be spent locally according to the ballot measure.
Yes, the district has problems. Just yesterday, Samohi students walked out to protest the broken air conditioners throughout the high school, but in the end our endorsement really does come down to what’s best for the students. They’re better off with ES passing, and that’s good enough for us.
More on Measure ES
Measure ES would impose an annual $495 parcel tax on each taxable parcel in Santa Monica, with the amount adjusted annually for inflation. Qualifying seniors, affordable housing, nonprofits, religious organizations and schools would be exempt. The city would collect the money and provide all of the revenue to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District for educational purposes. The measure has no expiration date and is intended to provide a permanent local funding source for money the city currently provides to SMMUSD through the Master Facilities Use Agreement, which expires June 30, 2027. The tax is expected to generate approximately $12 million a year.
Because Measure ES is a citizen-initiated special tax, it requires approval from a simple majority of Santa Monica voters casting ballots on the measure. Supporters, including the SMMUSD Board of Education and Santa Monica-Malibu PTA Council, argue that the measure would provide reliable local funding for public schools at a time when the city’s financial problems put the existing $12 million annual contribution at risk. They describe the measure as a way to maintain funding for teachers, educational programs and services without relying on annual City Council decisions.
Opponents argue that Measure ES effectively shifts a longstanding city responsibility onto property owners through a permanent tax, that the money would go into the district’s general fund rather than being restricted to the facilities-use agreement, and that Santa Monica taxpayers would help fund a school district that also serves Malibu residents, who would not pay the tax. Some opponents also object to the annual inflation adjustment and the lack of a sunset date.
