View Comments

Nation’s Costliest “Taj Mahal” School Set to Open in L.A.

By Bridget Tyler on August 23rd, 2010

Taj Mahal SchoolsWith the current fiscal emergencies that schools all over the country are facing, it’s hard to imagine any school district spending $578 million dollars on a single campus.  Imagining that the more than usually belegured city of Los Angeles would spend that kind of money building a landmark campus with manicured parks and state of the art pools instead of on text books is even harder to imagine.  But that’s the budget of the new Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools – a K-12 facility that is build around the infamous Ambassador Hotel, where RFK was assassinated.

While the desire to provide kids with a place to learn that doesn’t feel like a prison is admirable, many critics feel like the Los Angeles school district, which has just opened three new high dollar schools, has bigger fish to fry. “New buildings are nice, but when they’re run by the same people who’ve given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they’re a big waste of taxpayer money,” Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution who sits on the California Board of Education told the Associated Press. “Parents aren’t fooled.”

The Los Angeles School District has three of the most costly schools in the nation, which is a sensitive subject for a district that has laid off 3,000 teachers in the last three years, slashed academic programs to the bone and faces a $640 million dollar shortfall.  To add insult to injury, the district also boasts some of the nation’s lowest performing schools.

To be fair, all three projects have been funded by a $20 billion dollar voter approved bond and were planned long before the current budget pinch.  They were also constructed during the years when building costs in Los Angeles were at their highest.  Good intentions were clearly at work here, but LAUSD clearly could have used that $500 million in different, more useful ways during their current budget crunch.  These “Taj Mahal” schools raise the question – how do we make sure our good intentions translate into things our kids actually need, not just impressive but overly complicated ideas?

  • Liz in SoCal

    I’m cool with it, as long as the first thing they teach is the spelling of “beleagured,’ and that the definition is “When someone sees problems everywhere that are amusing to more normal folks,” so it’s not exactly the correct word for the sentence. Or “built around” instead of “build around.” Or “many critics feel THAT” or even just “feel” (not “feel like”) — And I’ll just stop here. Three errors ends my reading of any blog, particularly one that is critical of any school.

  • Rob

    +1 to Liz

  • Los Angeles Parent

    I agree with Liz.
    Any argument against spending money on education, Should come from a person who has one.

    haha

    This article is proof that we should spend more money on schools and education.

    Thanks!

  • Bryce Chastain

    Rather than curse your darkness, Ms. Tyler, please allow me to light a candle and point out some questions that you need to provide to give this piece meaningful context:
    1) How many kids will be served by this school? Because, if there are thousands of kids at this school, the cost may be proportionate to the size of the student body.
    2) What is the price per square foot? This allows a more apples-to-apples comparison of the cost of differently sized facilities of similar types.
    3) How much of this cost was for enhanced energy efficiency? Such expenditures can pay off over time in reduced energy bills. That is, while the construction money came from bond funds devoted solely to building school facilities, using more of that money to make the facilities more energy efficient can cut the electricity bill – and that money goes back into the classroom.
    4) What kinds of advanced educational technologies have been included in the new facility? The fact is that there are many new technologies that have been demonstrated to enhance learning. Some of these technologies help some groups more than others – often groups of kids who need a little more help achieving their educational goals. So, part of the cost is almost certainly to try and provide better tools for the kids who need them most.
    5) What other kinds of possibly more than normally expensive architectural features (things like more natural light, for example) were included because they have been shown to increase kids’ academic performance? There is a growing body of scientific work demonstrating that the physical environment we provide for our kids has substantial impacts on their learning. This is completely aside from teaching tools – just the environment, itself – the light, the sound, the air… in fact, the attractiveness of the setting impacts kids’ sense of self-worth, their desire to learn, and the productivity of their educational experience.
    Perhaps, you should take a look at how many of California’s students are stuck in “portable” classrooms that cam into vogue in the ‘70s because they were cheap and because, at that time, the State did not typically pay for school facilities. Local districts were stuck having to come up with money locally, which lead to terrible disparities between communities. Those kids have been told, just by the environment we give them for their school, that they are only worth a mobile home – not even a permanent building. We have told those kids that they are not even worth a real classroom; so, what are we supposed to expect of them?
    Ms. Tyler, you clearly have not attacked this expenditure, yourself. For that, I applaud you. But you have raised only the negative questions raised about the expense of this school. Please take a look at all the very good reasons why a great school facility costs a lot, and why it is worthwhile to spend that money. We often hear about how investment in our kids pays us back manifold in the future. The same is true of the investment we, as a free society, make in the schools into which we send our kids. You would serve your readers well to have a look at this side of the equation.

blog comments powered by Disqus