‘Some of the most expensive schools are found in low-performing districts’

Quote of the day from the Associated Press on the mega-millions big (liberal) cities are spending on public schools:

LOS ANGELES – Next month’s opening of the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools will be auspicious for a reason other than its both storied and infamous history as the former Ambassador Hotel, where the Democratic presidential contender was assassinated in 1968.

With an eye-popping price tag of $578 million, it will mark the inauguration of the nation’s most expensive public school ever.


At RFK, the features include fine art murals and a marble memorial depicting the complex’s namesake, a manicured public park, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and preservation of pieces of the original hotel.

Partly by circumstance and partly by design, the Los Angeles Unified School District has emerged as the mogul of Taj Mahals.

The RFK complex follows on the heels of two other LA schools among the nation’s costliest — the $377 million Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, which opened in 2008, and the $232 million Visual and Performing Arts High School that debuted in 2009.

The pricey schools have come during a sensitive period for the nation’s second-largest school system: Nearly 3,000 teachers have been laid off over the past two years, the academic year and programs have been slashed. The district also faces a $640 million shortfall and some schools persistently rank among the nation’s lowest performing.

Los Angeles is not alone, however, in building big. Some of the most expensive schools are found in low-performing districts — New York City has a $235 million campus; New Brunswick, N.J., opened a $185 million high school in January.

Nationwide, dozens of schools have surpassed $100 million with amenities including atriums, orchestra-pit auditoriums, food courts, even bamboo nooks. The extravagance has led some to wonder where the line should be drawn and whether more money should be spent on teachers.

“Budget shortfalls”? What “budget shortalls”? :-?

Van Helsing sounds off:

Maybe Golden State bureauweenies know something we don’t — such as who will pick up the tab for this lunacy. We now live in a country where people who live within their means are forced to subsidize the lifestyles of those who don’t. Inevitably, responsible states like Texas will have to pay California’s bills. This will happen when a massive bailout is imposed to keep the frivolous spending going, while greedy educrats bleat about teachers losing their jobs.

Not only that, but think about all the jobs lost, and wages and benefits cut in states like California all while luxury “Taj Mahal” schools were/are being built. The “bureauweenies” responsible for this are grossly derelict in their duties as responsible stewards of the people’s money (no surprise there!), and – if not thrown out of office – at the very least should be deeply ashamed and apologetic, but that’s about as likely to happen as Barack Obama admitting he was wrong about the surge in Iraq.

When it’s YOUR money, liberals don’t give a rat’s patootie about costs. Unless we’re talking about funding for the military, of course. But I digress …

And let’s not forget about those who choose not to get health insurance coverage who will be forced to pay a “penalty” ( and if they don’t, possibly face jail time), just so ObamaCare can, in part, be “paid for.”

It’s hard to know whether or not to be amused or disgusted every time I hear local politicians claim that “the money just isn’t there” yet they turn around an demand we spend more. Case in point: I heard on the radio today that the Mecklenburg County Commission (where Charlotte is located) is debating whether or not to use taxpayer dollars to pay for the college educations of … illegal immigrants.

Bbbbbut I thought “the money wasn’t there”?


Comments are closed.