Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Engaging communities in the planning of new urban public schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Engaging communities in the planning of new urban public schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ENGAGING COMMUNITIES IN THE PLANNING OF
NEW URBAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
by
Allison Jennifer Tom-Miura
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
December 2004
Copyright 2004 Allison Jennifer Tom-Miura
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3155487
Copyright 2004 by
Tom-Miura, Allison Jennifer
All rights reserved.
UMI
UMI Microform 3155487
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and organizations have helped me during my seven-year
journey to complete my Design Development Project and doctoral education. I
would like to first thank my committee chair, Dr. David Sloane, for sharing his
intellectual gifts and expertise with me, and his confidence in my ability to complete
this arduous task. Your gentle encouragement and patience helped me make it to the
finish line. I also want to thank my initial committee chair, Dr. Edward J. Blakely for
his mentorship and guidance. Without your vision for and creation of the DPDS
program, I would never have pursued my doctorate. Thank you to Dr. Laura Pulido,
for the support, sound advice and critical feedback you gave me over the years. I also
want to thank Dr. Denise Fairchild for your many years of mentorship, guidance and
support in my education and professional development. Thank you all for providing
me with invaluable academic and professional guidance and support during the
completion of my research project.
I would also like to thank my colleagues on the New Schools Project. I would
first like to thank Karen Bass, executive director of the Community Coalition for
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment for giving me the opportunity to learn
about and work towards the improvement of our public school facilities. It was a
privilege to work with you again. I would also like to thank Solomon Rivera, Mary
Lee, Dominique Mendez, Hector Sanchez, Payton Benson, Marqueese Harris-
Dawson, Joanne Kim and the rest of the coalition staff, members and youth for your
hard work and support. Your commitment to community empowerment and change
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is truly inspiring. I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to Margie Francia,
who was my dedicated and diligent assistant project manager. I also want to thank
Robin Hughes, Stephanie Klasky-Gamer and the other Los Angeles Community
Design Center staff for sharing your expertise and office space with me. Thank you
also to the rest of the design team who so generously gave of their time and expertise
to help make sure South Los Angeles got its fair share of new schools. I also want to
thank my former boss, Michael Banner, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Local
Development Corporation who trained me in commercial financing, economic
development and brownfield redevelopment, and who has been an invaluable
mentor.
My thanks and appreciation go out to the many participants in the study,
particularly the staff and community members from the thirteen school districts who
took the time to complete my survey, participate in phone interviews, share
documents and meet with me. I also want to thank the school principals and staff at
schools in LAUSD Local District G who generously spent time with me and shared
their invaluable experiences and observations about school facility, academic and
community challenges. I also want to extend my thanks and appreciation to Jane
Williams and Cynthia Babich for helping me understand the nuances of
environmental contamination, remediation processes and policies and the extra
protections children need.
Finally, I would like to thank a number of friends and family members who
have consistently encouraged and supported me during this seven-year journey. First,
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I would like to thank my mom for her emotional and financial support during my
graduate education. I could not have done it without you! I would also like to
acknowledge and thank my godmother, Megan Bergantz, who always encouraged
me to reach far and pursue my dreams. You planted the seed to pursue my doctoral
education. I would also like to thank my good friend and classmate, Kathy Kolnick
who has been supportive and encouraging throughout my writing process, especially
as my weekend writing partner during the last six months - generously sharing your
office space, food and academic advice.
Finally, I would like to thank and acknowledge my extraordinary husband,
Ramsey Miura, for your unconditional love and unwavering support during these
seven long years. I could not have finished without your willingness to take care of
our daughter and other family responsibilities while I worked many weekends and
evenings and took time off work to finish writing. My wonderful daughter, Malina
Miura, you were always there to lift my spirit with your smile and laughter. I
appreciated your patience and understanding while I worked instead of played with
you. And lastly, a hug and pat for my dog Boo, for your loyalty and good spirits. I
could always count on you for a nudge of your wet nose and wagging tail while I
worked long hours at home. Thank you all for your unconditional love and support in
helping me to achieve my dream of completing my doctorate and pursuing a research
project that is so close to my heart.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Preface x
Chapter 1 - Left Behind: America’s School Facilities and Educational Crisis 1
Chapter 2 - No Room to Learn: Overcrowding in LAUSD 52
Chapter 3 - Meaningful Community Engagement in the Planning of 97
New Urban Public Schools
Chapter 4 - LAUSD ’ s School Construction Program 13 8
Chapter 5 - Promising Practices and Guiding Principles 191
References 221
Appendix A 230
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 School District Participation in Survey and Interview 45
Table 2 Academic Achievement Related Characteristics 60
Table 3 Demographic Profile ofLAUSD’s Eleven Local Districts 62
Table 4 Percent Change in Enrollment from 1993 to 1997 65
Table 5 Comparison of Playground Acreage and Student Enrollment 72
Table 6 Overcrowding, Education Quality and Student Risk Factors pocket
Table 7 2000-01 LAUSD Student Data 91
Table 8 2000-01 LAUSD School Data 94
Table 9 Overall New Construction Program Summary 140
Table 10 Funding Status for New Construction Projects 146
Table 11 Budget Shortfall for New Construction Program 147
Table 12 Multi-track Year-Round Middle & High Schools Not 154
Relieved by New Schools
Table 13 Two-Semester Schools to be Relieved by New Schools 155
or Additions
Table 14 Community Vision Statement for New Schools 170
Table 15 Potential Obstacles to Public Receiving Accurate and 181
Timely Information on Contamination & Health Risks
at New School Sites
Table 16 Tenant Income Levels 186
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map of LAUSD boundary 58
Figure 2 Ethnic/Racial Breakdown of LAUSD Students 59
Figure 3 LAUSD’s Enrollment Growth from 1985-2000 65
Figure 4 Comparison of New Students and New Seats 68
Figure 5 Seat Shortages by Local Districts in Descending Order 83
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The quality of America’s K-12 public education system and students’
academic performance are suffering due to facility deterioration and overcrowding.
African American and Latino students, the majority of whom are low-income and
live in urban areas, have disproportionately suffered from these educational
inequalities. Due to the recent investment in public K-12 school facilities, school
districts across the country have the opportunity to reverse these longstanding school
facility and educational inequalities. This study examines how school districts and
communities can work together to address school facility and academic achievement
inequalities as part of their school facility construction programs. This study explores
the hypothesis that when school districts engage community stakeholders in a clear,
consistent and meaningful way in the long-range planning and site selection of new
public schools, they can build new schools more effectively and achieve better
academic outcomes and overall benefits for impacted communities, as well as
increased support.
A case study of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) sheds
light on the numerous challenges school districts face in engaging communities as
key partners in the long-range planning and site selection process for new urban
schools while trying to address educational and facility inequalities and community
development needs. From 1999-2001 quantitative and qualitative data on LAUSD
was collected through first-hand observation and from primary and secondary
sources. As it executes one of the most ambitious and expensive school facility
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
renovation and construction programs in the country, LAUSD provides rich
examples and lessons on the practical implementation of school and community
partnerships.
Qualitative research on the community engagement practices and policies of
thirteen school districts from nine different states was collected through the use of a
mail-back survey and follow-up phone interviews. Key guiding principles were
developed and promising practices were identified from these school districts,
chosen for their high rates of growth and active school construction programs. The
research provided invaluable insight on how school districts can more effectively
engage communities in the long-range planning, prioritization and site selection
process for new urban schools while working to reduce facility and educational
inequalities and support community revitalization and development needs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PREFACE
This document grew out of my experiences working with Los Angeles
community-based organizations involved in the Los Angeles Unified School
District’s (LAUSD) new school construction program. Karen Bass, Executive
Director of the Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
(CCSAPT), a not-for-profit organization in South Los Angeles, first introduced me
to the field of school planning and construction in the fall of 1999. At the time, she
was organizing a design team to advise her organization on its New Schools
Campaign. The design team consisted of volunteers with expertise in architectural
design, education, environmental investigation, affordable housing, economic
development and community development. Due to my expertise in economic
development and redevelopment of contaminated properties and personal interest in
the project, I was invited to join the design team. A few months later, I was asked by
Karen Bass, to serve as a full-time consultant/project manager of its New Schools
Campaign, overseeing the research and strategy development and project
management.
CCSAPT’s interest in and focus on LAUSD’s new school construction
program came on the heels of its successful research and advocacy campaign that
won an additional $198 million for renovations at South Los Angeles schools in
1997. Concerned that South Los Angeles schools were not getting their fair share of
bond funds that were approved by voters in 1997, the youth division of CCSAPT,
South Central Youth Empowered in Action (SC-YEA), conducted surveys of their
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classmates and took photographs of facility deterioration and health and safety
violations throughout South Los Angeles schools. Armed with their research and
support of fellow students and community members, SC-YEA members showed the
Prop BB Oversight Committee the facility and health and safety inequities that
existed at their schools and convinced them to allocate bond funds according to
health and safety needs.
Based on its experiences with LAUSD’s inequitable distribution of Prop BB
renovation funds, CCSAPT and its design team were concerned about the LAUSD’s
capacity to equitably distribute the bond funds for new school construction across the
district. Significant school facility inequities exist in LAUSD, with the oldest, most
overcrowded, deteriorated and obsolete schools concentrated in low-income
communities of color in the inner city areas of the district, which includes South Los
Angeles, the central city area, parts of East Los Angeles, and parts of the East
Valley. In addition to the facility inequities, these same schools and communities
suffer disproportionately from forced busing of students to less crowded schools in
the outlying areas of the district, poor academic outcomes, shortage of open green
and recreational space, as well as economic and social stressors in the community
such as poverty, unemployment, crime, and violence.
To CCSAPT, the construction of new schools not only represented the
opportunity to relieve longstanding overcrowding, but also to create better
educational outcomes and the revitalization of neighborhoods through the equitable
distribution of school construction resources and effective engagement of
xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
communities. Their vision incorporated the philosophy of the community school
movement, which defined educational excellence as combining “needed human
services, delivered through school, parent and community partnerships” (1997). Not
only would the new schools be state-of-the-art facilities, but they would also house
the best educational practices and resources that work in partnership with families
and community services, result in good educational outcomes and help reduce the
achievement gap between African American and Latino students and their white and
Asian American counterparts. Furthermore, the new school facilities would not be
built at the detriment of local neighborhoods, particularly of its low-income
residents. Thus, affordable housing and other community assets would be spared as
much as possible and neighborhoods would be revitalized by the removal of blight
such as vacant lots, abandoned buildings, liquor stores, and motels and replacement
by new schools. Instead of being mere bystanders and recipients of services,
students, families, and other residents and stakeholders would be active partners in
the planning, design, and operation of new schools, helping to create better
educational outcomes and revitalize communities.
While the vision of CCSAPT and its Design Committee may be ambitious
and challenging, it is not impossible to achieve. By moving beyond the rhetoric, this
study focuses on the practical implementation of bringing this vision a reality. A case
study of LAUSD’s school construction program and findings from surveys of
thirteen other school districts help illustrate some of the problems related to poor
community engagement and barriers to engaging communities as well as identify
xii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
some promising practices that could help address some of the challenges LAUSD
faced. Potential and real benefits of effective community engagement and the
equitable distribution of school construction resources in the planning and
development of effective community schools are also presented. Guiding principles
for effective community engagement leave the reader with practical tools for
bringing education and the community closer together and as partners in educational
excellence that support community empowerment and revitalization of distressed
communities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 1
Left Behind: America’s School Facility and Educational Crisis
African Americans, Latinos and other ethnic/racial minorities have long
suffered from educational inequities. Since the landmark US Supreme Court case
Brown v. Board of Education (347 US 483,1954) fifty years ago, numerous efforts
have been made to improve our nation’s public school system in providing equal
educational opportunities and outcomes for low-income students and those from
disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups. Sadly, despite these efforts, educational
inequalities and the gap in academic achievement continue to grow.
Educational inequalities are evident in both the inputs and outputs of our
public education system. The focus of my research is on the kindergarten through
twelfth grade (K-12) level. Educational achievement for African Americans and
Latinos continues to lag that of their white counterparts as evident in graduation
rates, test scores, school dropout rates and other indicators. Since 1990, the Annie E.
Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Book has served as an important resource
documenting the fundamental link between poverty and a range of negative
outcomes - illness, academic failure, early pregnancy, etc. - outcomes that can
diminish a child’s chances of achieving good health and success as an adult (AECF
2003a). African American and Latino children are overwhelmingly growing up in
poverty, 33.1% and 27.8% respectively, compared to 9.3% of non-Hispanic white
children (AECF 2003b). Poor children are more likely to be sick as toddlers,
unprepared for kindergarten, suffer from poor nutrition, fall behind in grade school
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or drop out of high school, and are less likely to be economically successful as
adults. A 1996 Carnegie Corporation report, Years o f Promise, found that poor
children have less access to quality preschool programs, attend less rigorous
elementary schools, enjoy fewer after-school programs, and have teachers with low
expectations for their students (Children’s Aid Society 1997). Given the inequalities
in school quality inputs, including rates of credentialed teachers, offerings of
advanced and college prep courses, access to computers and other educational tools,
and school overcrowding, the poor educational outcomes for African Americans and
Latinos are not surprising.
The negative outcomes linked to poverty are further exacerbated when
children live in severely distressed neighborhoods. Defined as census tracts with at
least three of the four following characteristics: 1) high poverty rate (27.4 percent or
more), 2) high percentage of female-headed households (37.1 percent or more), 3)
high percentage of high school dropouts (23 percent or more, and 4) high percentage
of working-age males unattached to the labor force (34 percent or more), conditions
in these neighborhoods further diminish children’s chances for healthy, happy and
successful lives (AECF 2003c). Although African American and Latino children
together account for about one-third of all children in the United States, they make
up more than three-fourths of the 5.6 million children living in severely distressed
neighborhoods (ibid). A growing body of research indicates that “children growing
up in severely distressed neighborhoods are less likely to perform well in school, are
more susceptible to teenage pregnancy, and are less likely to make a smooth
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
transition to the work force” (ibid). The high concentration of African American and
Latino children growing up in poverty and in severely distressed neighborhoods
indicates that a significant segment of our nation’s most vulnerable children are not
getting the kinds of support they need to survive and thrive.
Within the world of peers, a child has the choice to associate with kids who
support success or failure. Where one lives influences many life shaping factors such
as choice of peers and playmates, quality of schools, availability of amenities, role
models, personal safety and availability of jobs. Neighborhood norms can help
launch a child toward college and a stable work life, or increase the likelihood that
he or she will commit a crime or become a teenage parent. Like neighborhood
quality and norms, school quality and norms can influence a child’s academic
success, matriculation to college and school attendance. The quality of school
facilities is an important characteristic of overall school quality and can impact
academic achievement. While new, state-of-the-art facilities alone do not guarantee
better academic outcomes, aspects of school facilities have an affect on student
achievement.
SCHOOL FACILITIES CRISIS
The facilities crisis in our nation’s elementary and secondary public schools
is alarming. The combined effects of deteriorated and obsolete school facilities, a
booming school-age population and population shifts have created a state of
emergency in our public school system. Not enough new schools have been built to
accommodate the growth of and shift in our nation’s student population. An
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increasing number of students have been forced to attend deteriorating and
overcrowded schools or bused to distant campuses, which end up compromising
their learning environments and academic achievement.
Public concern regarding health and safety and the quality of learning
environments at public schools has increasingly been a top issue in national and local
political campaigns and has been well documented in various news publications in
recent years. A national level study conducted by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO 1996) on the conditions of public school facilities found that
approximately $112 billion in major upgrades and repairs was needed to bring
America’s school facilities to good overall condition and comply with federal
mandates. Schools across the nation reported facilities in substandard condition and
needing major repairs due to leaking roofs, plumbing problems, and inadequate
heating and air conditioning. Over one-third of our nation’s schools serving
approximately fourteen million students reported needing extensive repair or
replacement of one or more buildings and sixty percent of schools reported at least
one major building feature in major disrepair. Environmental problems, which
include poor indoor air quality, ventilation, and presence of hazardous substances,
were reported by fifty-eight percent of schools nationwide (ibid).
According to a 2001 report card on America’s public infrastructure
conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2001), public schools
were rated the worst, earning a D- grade. Based upon their assessment that seventy-
five percent of our nation’s school buildings are inadequate due to aging, outdated,
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or severely overcrowded facilities, the ASCE estimated the amount needed to repair
and upgrade school facilities as increasing from $112 billion to $127 billion. With
almost half of our nation’s school facilities constructed before 1950, ASCE
estimated that the average cost of capital investment needed is $3,800 per student,
more than half the average cost to educate that student for one year (ibid). Stricherz
(2000) noted that “student achievement lags in shabby school buildings - those with
no science labs, inadequate ventilation, and faulty heating systems” (Schneider
2002). From his review of the research, McGuffey (1982) concluded that “old and
obsolete buildings do have a negative effect upon the learning process of students,
and safe, modem and controlled environment facilities enhance the learning process”
(Earthman 1998). These conclusions are not surprising - as how can we expect
students to perform at high levels in school buildings that are substandard?
The deterioration of existing schools is further compounded by
overcrowding. In 1999, “twenty-two percent of public schools reported being
overcrowded (i.e. having enrollments more than five percent above the number of
students a school is designed to accommodate in its permanent facilities)” with eight
percent of schools reporting severe overcrowding (defined as enrolling more than
twenty-five percent above permanent capacity) (Wirt 2001). For more than two
decades, school districts across the United States have struggled with rapid growth in
student enrollment. Since the early 1980s, Baby Boomers’ children began filling our
public schools to capacity. In 1999, the national K-12 school population reached
forty-nine million, matching the record population first set a generation ago by the
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Baby Boomers themselves (DOE 2000a). Called the “Baby Boom Echo”, this
dramatic student enrollment growth began in 1984 at the elementary level and hit the
secondary school level in 1991. From 1994 to 1999, national K-12 public school
enrollments increased by six percent, with the greatest increase in secondary schools
at ten percent and five percent at elementary schools (ibid). All grades have
experienced steady enrollment increases every year since then and are expected to
continue at the secondary level through 2007. Annual birth rates have steadily risen
since 1977.
Existing overcrowding and continued population growth is expected to fuel
the demand for the repair, upgrade and re-opening of existing public school facilities
and the construction of new schools. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics public high school enrollment is expected to increase by nineteen percent,
while elementary school enrollment is expected to increase by twelve percent (DOE
2000a). Unlike the decline in student population that occurred after the previous
baby boom, the number of births is not projected to fall off, but remain fairly stable
at around four million. Births are projected to continue rising, reaching 4.2 million in
2010 and 4.9 million in 2030 (ibid). The number of school-age children is also
expected to steadily increase after 2010, reaching 94 million in 2100, about 42
million more children than in 2000 (ibid). Furthermore, the steady immigration of
adults younger than age thirty-five has contributed to the rise in the national student
population. Approximately “twenty percent of all students have at least one foreign-
born parent and five percent of all students themselves were bom in a foreign
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
country” (Rosenblatt and Helfand 2001). Nationally a greater number of children are
enrolled in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classes and more students are staying
in school and earning their high school diplomas.
Population shifts have also impacted demand for schools. For decades,
population shifts from the city to the suburbs have helped fuel the demand for new
schools in suburbs. Recently, several central city areas have experienced growth
spikes in public school enrollment. Even though our nation’s large central cities lost
population during the last few decades, many have gained in public school
enrollment. As more working class and low-income families migrated to central
cities to be closer to jobs and more affordable housing, their children filled public
schools beyond capacity as “low-income families are typically public school
adherents and have a higher percentage of school-age children then the families they
replaced” (Leu 1965). Higher housing densities in low-income central city areas are
consistent with higher housing densities found amongst low-income, immigrant and
refugee households.
Population growth, population shifts, smaller class sizes, and obsolete school
facilities have fueled the demand for new schools. At the same time, existing school
facilities have deteriorated and become obsolete. Due to tight budgets, school
districts have been unable to keep up with the demand for the construction of more
schools. The number of students in each class has been reduced to support better
academic achievement. K-12 public schools have been overwhelmed by the
increased demand to serve more students, with decreasing resources to house and
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teach them. Without adequate resources, school districts have been unable to build
new school facilities to accommodate the additional students. School districts have
worked hard to accommodate their student population with insufficient resources -
forcing many students to attend multi-track, year-round (MTYR) schools, ride the
bus to distant schools that are less crowded, and attend overcrowded classes in
deteriorating facilities. The resulting learning environment has compromised the
safety and performance of students and staff, as well as the quality of education.
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF OVERCROWDING
While overcrowding is not a new phenomenon, it has quickly become a
national crisis, as soaring student enrollments are overwhelming school districts
across the country. The creative efforts of school districts to accommodate more
students within existing facilities such as the use of double shifts, MTYR calendars,
larger class sizes, placement of temporary portable classrooms, etc. have contributed
to poor academic outcomes for students. The inability of our public school systems
to build enough schools to keep up with the pace of student population growth and
shifts has resulted in severe seat shortages, compromised the quality of education and
hurt academic outcomes.
Existing school facilities are deteriorating at a faster rate due to their more
intensified use. As student enrollments exceed the original capacities of existing
school facilities through the operation of multi-track, year-round schedules and
double shifts, facilities experience greater wear and tear and often receive less
regular maintenance and repair due to the year round use of schools. Teaching and
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other school operations are stressful and compromised as competition for adequate
space is intensified. Teachers are often not provided the appropriate facilities or
resources to effectively teach their courses. Despite the use of storage rooms, closets,
and cafeterias as classrooms, some teachers are still unable to have their own
classroom, requiring them to haul their equipment and supplies to a different
classroom each period. Sadly, the quality of education and students’ academic
performance continue to deteriorate along with the school facilities.
The development of larger and larger schools has been a trend in the US that
began as early as 1869 and continued through the post-WWII baby boom (Schneider
2002). While large schools were once favored for their perceived ability to deliver
education with major economies of scale, a growing body of research indicates “that
small schools may work better than large ones, especially for students with lower-
socio-economic status” (ibid). Furthermore, Weinstein’s review of the research
found that high student density “contributed to dissatisfaction, decreased social
interaction, and increased aggression on the part of the students” (Earthman 1998).
The impact on students attending large schools (more than fifteen hundred students)
that are overcrowded schools (accommodating more than five percent above the
number of students a school is designed to accommodate in its permanent facilities)
is even worse (Wirt 2001). Not only do these students experience the negative affects
of large schools, but their learning environments and academic outcomes are further
harmed by the overcrowded conditions.
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The harmful effects of overcrowded school facilities even hurt those students
that are supposed to attend the school but are bused to less crowded schools. These
students are forced to take long bus rides everyday to attend distant schools. Bus
rides can involve distances of 70 miles and two hours of travel each way in urban
and rural school districts alike. Public health experts, parents and educators have
expressed concern about the disadvantages bused students suffer from as well as
their failure to fully benefit from the same opportunities as local students. Bused
students suffer from higher rates of asthma and other ailments due to diesel pollution
from school buses. Due to the body’s immaturity, a child is far less capable of
defending himself from airborne pollutants and toxics (Campbell and Dobalian
1999). These students also waste many hours a day riding the bus that could
otherwise be spent studying and participating in sports and other extracurricular
activities. The parents of bused children are also less involved in their children’s
school activities and performance as the distance can be a significant hardship for
them to meet regularly with teachers and be involved in school operations and
activities. As Weinstein (1979), McGuffey (1982) and Lemasters (1997) have
documented, a growing body of research indicates that large, overcrowded and
deteriorated school facilities harm student achievement, performance and attitudes.
UNEQUAL IMPACTS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
Overcrowded and deteriorating facilities, inadequate learning and physical
education facilities, and out-dated technology contribute to the growing educational
inequalities in our nation’s K-12 public school system. School districts serving
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
distressed urban neighborhoods have been especially hard hit. Not only are these
schools often the most deteriorated, obsolete and overcrowded, but the students
attending these schools have poor educational opportunities as well as poor
outcomes. These students are overwhelmingly African American, Latino and poor.
These school systems serve the most vulnerable and disadvantaged students - those
with parents who have achieved very low levels of education themselves, are not
fluent in English, who have high rates of unemployment or underemployment, or are
stuck in low-paying, low-skilled jobs. These students and their families struggle to
survive while living in poverty and in neighborhoods with high rates of crime,
violence, unemployment and abandoned properties. Surrounded by depressed
economic, deteriorating physical and dangerous social environments inside and
outside of school, surprisingly these students lag far behind their white counterparts
who attend public schools in more affluent communities in educational achievement
and other indicators of well-being. The social and economic inequalities translate
into educational inequalities.
Urban educational facilities not only include some of the oldest schools in the
country, but are also some of the most deteriorated and overcrowded. Many of these
schools suffer from years of deferred maintenance where broken windows, toilets,
lights, and fences are common eyesores at these schools, creating unsafe and
depressing environments. Not surprisingly, our nation’s most vulnerable students
continue to academically underachieve as they must attend large, overcrowded,
deteriorating and obsolete schools that are unable to handle computers and other
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
high-tech equipment that are necessary for success in learning and education. In
1998, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that “schools
with the highest concentration of poverty (defined here as seventy percent or more of
the students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) were more likely to report that
their permanent additions were in less than adequate condition than were schools
with less than thirty-nine percent concentration of poverty” (Lewis et al. 2000).
NCES reported that central cities, large schools, schools with student populations of
at least 50.5 percent minority students, and schools with student populations of 70
percent or more poor students consistently had the greatest school facility problems
on every measure: proportion of schools reporting inadequate buildings, inadequate
building features, and unsatisfactory environmental conditions; and number of
students attending these schools (GAO 1996). In addition to physical deterioration,
“statistics from the General Accounting Office report on school facilities in 1996
directly confirm that schools serving poor and minority students do suffer
disproportionately from poor IAQ [indoor air quality]” (Schneider 2002). The
relationship between poor IAQ and increased student absenteeism has been
documented, supporting the logical assumption that “poor indoor air quality makes
students and teachers sick - and sick students and teachers can’t perform as well as
healthy ones” (ibid). Despite promises of equal educational opportunities, low-
income and minority students still receive inferior educations and facilities that
compromise their health and futures.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Inadequate facility conditions and overcrowding appear to go hand in hand,
as “overcrowded schools are more likely than under-enrolled schools or schools
within five percent of their enrollment capacity to have at least one onsite building
and one building feature in less than adequate condition” (Wirt 2001). Schools with
student enrollments of six hundred or more and minority student enrollments with
more than fifty percent are more likely to report severe overcrowding than those
schools with lower student enrollments and concentrations of minority students. In
California, “the 34 most overcrowded districts, including LAUSD, serve a total
student population that is less than 20 percent non-Hispanic white and more than 33
percent poor” (Roxana Godinez, et al. v Gray Davis, Governor of the State of
California, et al. 2000). In contrast, less crowded school districts in California that
operate traditional single track schedules serve a student population that is nearly 50
percent non-Hispanic White and about 15 percent poor.
A study conducted by researchers at the Institute for Urban and Minority
Education at Teachers College in 1996 found that overcrowding could have a dire
impact on learning at schools with a high proportion of students living in poverty.
When controlling for other variables, researchers found that “students in such
schools scored significantly lower on both mathematics and reading exams than did
similar students in underutilized schools” (Burnett 1995). Major results of the IUME
study found that “the proportion of students in overcrowded schools with low SES
who passed the minimum standards for the standardized reading exam was between
four and nine percentage points below that in schools not overcrowded” (Burnett
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1996). The findings in math were quite similar as “the proportion of students in
overcrowded schools who passed the minimum standards for the math exam was
between two and six percentage points below the proportion in schools that were not
overcrowded” (ibid). The absence of basic educational standards such as clean, safe
and uncrowded facilities, books for every student, a desk for every student, a
classroom for every teacher, and computers in the school contributes to the inferior
educational opportunities and outcomes for low-income students of color.
Overcrowding has been a longstanding problem for large urban inner city
school districts where funding per pupil has often been below state averages. New
York City Schools and Chicago Public Schools have been struggling with
overcrowded classrooms and campuses for over twenty years. For them, adequate
funding for the construction of new schools was not available at the time of
increasing demand. From 1984 to 1994, the New York City School District
experienced the largest enrollment increase in the U.S., adding 99,434 new students
with minimal investment in new school facilities to accommodate these students
(DOE 1997). While twenty-seven new school buildings were constructed during this
four year period, only 13,412 new seats were added to the district, leaving over
63,000 students to share existing space (Burnett 1996). The Neighborhood Capital
Budget Group in Chicago found that 152 elementary and 29 high schools,
representing 40 percent and 57 percent of Chicago’s public school students
respectively, were overcrowded in 1999 (NCBG 2001). Despite this overcrowding,
Chicago Public Schools has built only two new high schools since 1979, both which
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
opened in 1999 at a cost of almost $69 million. Sadly, poor and minority students are
disproportionately burdened by the horrific conditions of school facilities, harming
their health, academic performance and futures.
Overcrowded and substandard school facilities have prompted numerous
lawsuits against states and school districts. A lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union in California in 2001 alleged that the State of California “denies tens
of thousands of minority students an equal opportunity by allowing them to attend
substandard schools that lack textbooks, trained teachers and clean, modem
facilities” (Sahagun and Helfand 2000). The deplorable conditions of schools in the
Newark School District in the State of New Jersey resulted in a lawsuit filed in 1981
known as Abbott v. Burke. Almost a decade later, “the New Jersey Supreme Court
ruled in the case that the state’s school aid formula was not constitutionally adequate
for many of its poorest children” (Johnston 2001). Although it has taken almost
twenty years, the 44,000 students attending Newark public schools will get 45 new
schools built and 30 renovated over the next decade.
The impact of overcrowded, deteriorated facilities coupled with insufficient
teaching resources and other socio-economic disadvantages have further limited the
academic achievement and educational success of low-income minority students.
Sadly, little has changed since the 1960s, when “rising social upheavals and change
in demographics led to increased federal programs focused on improving the
environment of the poor, including education” (Hatton 1979). Noted author and
advocate Jonathan Kozol (1991) documented some of the continued educational
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inequalities disadvantaged students, predominantly poor minority students living in
inner cities experience in our public schools in his book Savage Inequalities. Despite
desegregation laws and efforts, African Americans and Latinos attended de facto
segregated schools in the inner cities that were overcrowded, deteriorating, obsolete,
and often unsafe. They are less likely to have fully credentialed teachers, adequate
number of current textbooks, well-stocked school libraries, adequate number of
working computers, and adequate sports and arts programs and facilities than their
white and wealthier counterparts. Other socio-economic disadvantages such as
higher family and community poverty rates, lower parental educational attainment,
limited English capacity, greater family and student mobility, and fewer community
assets and resources further exacerbate these inequities. Furthermore,
disproportionately large numbers of students in urban school systems do not stay in
one school due to their families’ financial instability.
Not surprisingly, with such significant disadvantages in educational inputs
and related socio-economic factors, the educational outcomes of African Americans
and Latino youth mirror these inequalities. The growing achievement gap between
whites and African Americans and Latinos is well documented. African Americans
and Latinos make up the majority of urban public school students, where basic
achievement is so poor that “60 percent of the children in urban schools failed to
achieve basic levels of competency in reading and mathematics on the NAEP test” in
1996 (HUD 1999). The academic success rates for urban students are depressing as
“one-half of all high school students in large city school districts fail to graduate in 4
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
years” (ibid). African American and Latino students that attend majority non-white
schools with high poverty rates and many of the above characteristics score
significantly below the national average in reading and math at all grade levels, have
high illiteracy and dropout rates, low graduation rates, and fewer students completing
college preparatory requirements. These students suffer from greater risk factors and
generally perform at lower levels in schools than their more stable counterparts
(Hentschke 2001).
NEW SCHOOLS, BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS AND IMPROVED
EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
Despite laws supporting equal educational opportunities, our nation’s public
school system has failed to reduce the inequalities both in educational inputs
(facilities, teachers, resources) and academic outputs for disadvantaged African
Americans and Latinos. The need to correct these educational inequalities has grown
“as increased skills are needed to compete in our increasingly technological society
and in the growing educational inequities for some groups” (Coleman 1990). Despite
the failures to provide equal educational opportunities and outcomes for
disadvantaged minorities, the school construction boom presents the opportunity to
correct these dire conditions and reverse the academic trends.
The construction of new public schools presents the opportunity to help
reduce educational inequities, improve school facilities, and revitalize communities.
Due to the increased availability of funds for school facilities in recent years, school
districts across the country are able to make needed repairs, technology and
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
infrastructures upgrades and build new schools to address existing overcrowding and
accommodate the increasing student population. School districts are expected to
spend the majority of total education construction spending which is estimated at $75
billion for the three year period, 2000-2003 (Agron 2000).
Funds for school facilities have come from the federal government and state
and local bonds. Increased public support for repairing and building new public
school facilities has translated into local, state, and federal legislation that increased
school construction funding. In 1994 Congress approved $1.2 billion for Qualified
Zone Academy Bonds, allocated over a five-year period to help school districts
located in Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities finance renovation and
repair projects at schools with at least thirty-five percent students eligible for free
lunch. A growing number of bond measures have also been put on the ballot for state
and local elections, asking voters to support new school construction and facility
improvements. Many school districts and states across the country have successfully
won voter approval of their school facility bond measures. On November 3,1998,
California voters passed the Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public
Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998, popularly known as “Proposition 1A.”
Proposition 1A provided more than $2.9 billion for new school construction in
California, the largest statewide school facility bond measure to date. A $13 billion
state bond and a $3.35 billion local bond for LAUSD will be on the March 2004
ballot to address the outstanding need for new schools.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The increased availability of school facility dollars presents an exciting
opportunity for school districts, especially urban districts serving low-income
minority inner city areas. Not only can school districts repair and upgrade old,
deteriorated facilities and build new schools to reduce horrific overcrowding and
accommodate growing student populations but they can build new school facilities
with attributes that support better academic outcomes for all students, especially
disadvantaged minorities. School facility planners see the school construction boom
“as an opportunity to enhance academic outcomes by creating better learning
environments” (Schneider 2002). McGuffey’s (1982) review of research on school
facilities revealed a correlation between “student achievement with better building
quality, new school buildings, better lighting, better thermal comfort and air quality,
and more advanced laboratories and libraries” (Schneider 2002). A more recent
review by Lemasters (1997) found higher achievement scores, fewer discipline
incidents and better attendance records at newer facilities (Earthman 1998). A study
conducted by Pricewaterhouse-Coopers in 2001 in Great Britain “linked capital
investment to academic achievement and other outcomes such as teacher motivation,
school leadership, and student time spent on learning” (Schneider 2002). In general,
existing studies on school building quality correlate improved student behavior,
academic performance and better teaching in higher-quality facilities.
With greater resources for school facilities, school districts can address the
educational, economic and social inequities disadvantaged minority students have
suffered under by prioritizing new schools for disadvantaged students, particularly
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
low-income African Americans and Latinos that help revitalize neighborhoods,
create better learning environments and result in better educational outcomes. New
school facilities can relieve overcrowding while also helping to revitalize a neglected
neighborhood. Old, deteriorating schools can be repaired and receive infrastructure
upgrades and additions to improve the learning environment and reduce
overcrowding. If planned appropriately, school districts can maximize their
construction resources by combining them with appropriate learning resources,
effective learning strategies and innovative planning practices to realize better
educational outcomes and experiences for these students. New schools, coupled with
innovative education and planning practices can help improve the quality of learning
and educational opportunities and reduce inequalities in educational resources,
opportunities and achievement outcomes.
The school construction boom has produced tremendous excitement and
synergy in the planning and construction community, as architects, educators,
parents, students, and politicians alike are helping to shape a new vision for schools.
There is growing hope that the significant financial and human investment in new
schools can achieve the greatest impact on students’ education, families and on the
neighborhoods themselves. The flourishing activity and involvement of a diverse
range of professionals and community and school stakeholders have helped
transform the old notions of the purpose of schools, the public’s role in planning and
designing schools, and the relationship between schools and communities. A
growing movement views schools as important civic structures, that not only serve to
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educate students but to serve the broader community twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week.
Former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley described new schools
as “healthy, energy smart, environmentally sensitive, using up-to-date technology -
that complement and enhance academic excellence: schools designed by the
community and with the students and community in mind” (DOE 2000b). The
emphasis on school construction has been on creating effective learning
environments that incorporate flexible learning space and technology and that
integrate community use and needs on site. Architects are integrating the lessons of
recent research that emphasizes the influence of good design on learning. Their
efforts have helped spawn new innovative designs that consider energy efficiency,
natural light, good air circulation, technology and non-conventional classroom and
building configurations that enhance the quality of learning as well as extend
facilities use beyond the traditional classroom education of children.
The idea that schools should serve the broader community and address
educational inequities is not a new one. Since the early 1900s, there has been “a
growing interest in public school extension and for a fuller use of the public school
plant” (Perry 1915). With the help of the Mott Foundation in 1935, the concept of
community schools began to take root through an experiment in Flint, Michigan. The
Flint plan expanded the concept of extended public education beyond social
activities to a “center of an urban neighborhood, providing education and social
services for adults as well as children” (Hatton 1979). The community schools
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
movement helped expand the concept of public education to serve more than a
specific age group for a limited time at a specific location. Today community schools
are envisioned as centers of communities, involving parents, community members,
and organizations in students’ education and the delivering comprehensive services
such as childcare, health clinics, parent centers, adult education and other social and
cultural services to the broader community. The expanding usage of schools is driven
by two considerations:
1) escalating taxes move many citizens to expect more benefits for
their investment and 2) growing acceptance of lifelong learning and
the recognition that schools and society are inseparable give birth to
new values and beliefs such as community education which promotes
the use of all community resources including schools to address
community needs and improve community life (Kowalski 1989)
Today’s ideal community schools are educational institutions that combine the best
educational practices of a quality school with a wide range of vital in-house health
and social services to ensure that children are physically, emotionally and socially
prepared to learn.
The community schools concept provides the opportunity to maximize
limited educational resources with community ones - by bringing families, schools
and communities together in support of children’s readiness and ability to learn and
succeed. Despite the shortcomings of public schools, they remain the neighborhood
institutions with the greatest potential for regular access to and interaction with
children and their families. By providing educational courses for parents, health
services for families without medical insurance and intervention services for children
at-risk for gang involvement, schools can build effective school-community
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnerships that bring teachers, parents and community agencies together to ensure
that every child enters the classroom ready to learn and succeed in school. The
community schools movement has helped transform schools into new institutions -
institutions that are primarily focused on educating children, but that can also help
strengthen entire communities.
Many smart growth and school reform advocates have taken this vision even
further and recommend the co-location of schools with other organizations. A
growing number of schools share facilities with libraries, community health clinics
and other organizations. Smaller schools and schools that share facilities with other
organizations have been found to be safer, positive, challenging environments with
higher student achievement and graduation rates. By partnering with their neighbors,
these schools are able to offer broader learning opportunities and high quality
services to students and families at lower costs. Research has shown that community
schools that are co-located with other organizations can have enormous benefits for
students, their families and the broader community. These schools operate as lifelong
learning centers for the entire community. According to researcher Joy Dryfoos “a
growing body of evidence [shows] that community schools are beginning to
demonstrate positive effects on students, families and communities—many of these
modes have the capacity to produce multiple impacts that include and go beyond the
expectations of traditional education reform” (Nathan and Febey 2001). There is
growing support for joint-use and co-location as a strategy to redevelop underutilize
or nuisance land uses. By targeting vacant lots or nuisance land uses for new school
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sites, illicit activities and crime can be reduced and a safer environment created for
children and families. Furthermore, limited capital resources are maximized; often
creating multi-purpose space or other joint-use facilities that otherwise would not be
possible.
The growing support for small community schools and co-located schools
that serve the broader community has prompted discussion of the need for greater
involvement and ownership of public schools by residents and other community
stakeholders. As their connections with families and other community stakeholders
grow, schools are more able to effectively serve and involve the family in their
children’s educations as well as address broader community issues that affect the
safety and well being of students and residents. The growing trend in schools
actively engaging and involving families and the broader community in schools is
not a new phenomenon. Instead, it is based on decades of education research that
“recognizes the three spheres of influence on education success and life: school,
family and community” (Epstein 1997). Most educators acknowledge that they
cannot ensure the successful education and development of children without the help
of families and the community.
The holistic approach to education and child development and community
well being locates the child at the center of the school, family and community
partnership model. Educators are more easily able to view families and the
community as partners in the education and development of students when they view
students as children and members of a family unit and community. As partners, each
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is able to “recognize their shared interests in and responsibilities for children, and
they work together to create better programs and opportunities for students,” forming
a caring community around students that supports their academic skills and their
well-being and overall development (ibid). Effective school, family and community
partnerships can improve school programs and school climate, provide family
services and support, increase parents’ skills and leadership, and connect families
with others in the school and in the community.
The need to build new schools in established communities, particularly in
dense urban areas, has helped prompt the public’s demand for smaller,
neighborhood-based schools. This vision counters the recent trend of mega-schools
that have dominated the school construction field during the past thirty years. These
typically large, non-descript one-story facilities were primarily built in suburban
areas in anticipation of population growth and housing development. However, as
the student population continues to grow in central city areas, the need for smaller
schools is a practical one, as land prices are significantly higher and the availability
of land is more limited. Additionally, since smaller schools require less acreage,
fewer property owners, residents and businesses will be displaced.
Furthermore, a growing body of evidence argues that smaller schools provide
a better quality of education than large ones. A recent U.S. Department of Education
study found that
a higher percentage of students, across all socioeconomic levels, are
successful when they are part of smaller, more intimate learning
communities. Security improves and violence decreases, as does
student alcohol and drug abuse. Small school size encourages
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers to innovate and students to participate, resulting in...higher
grades and test scores, improved attendance rates, and lowered
drop-out rates (Kauth 2002).
Research has shown that “smaller schools reduce the negative effect of poverty on
school performance by as much as 70%” for low-income students of color living in
urban areas (Howley et al. 2000). However, despite evidence that shows
“disadvantaged students and minorities are more adversely affected—academically,
attitudinally and behaviorally—by attending large schools than are other students,”
low-income students of color continue to be concentrated in large schools (Posnick-
Goodwin 2001). Not only can the construction of smaller neighborhood schools help
improve the educational outcomes for disadvantaged students, but they can also
reduce community concerns regarding increased traffic and displacement.
Efforts to build smaller neighborhood schools are critical in helping reduce
the achievement gap and increase equity in educational resources, facilities and
opportunities. Smaller schools tend to be safer and create a greater sense of
community and belonging for students. Smaller schools coupled with class-size
reduction efforts help to reinforce personal relationships between students and
teachers throughout their public education careers. With more students engaged in
schools and other positive activities, they are less likely to see risky and anti-social
alternatives. Not only are students well known by their peers, teachers and other
school staff, but teachers also build a community with their colleagues, which fosters
greater collaboration and shared leadership.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
However, small schools in and of themselves do not make an effective
school. Smaller schools need to be “combined with high expectations for students,
relevant curriculum that connects studies with the real world, strong interpersonal
relationships between students and staff, and a high level of parental involvement”
(ibid). Although some may argue that the cost per student for districts to build and
operate smaller schools is greater than larger schools, they can actually be more cost
effective since fewer students drop out from smaller schools. Furthermore, many
small schools are able to operate cost effectively while also creating more equitable
facilities and learning opportunities such as smaller student-teacher ratios, smaller
student-computer ratios and more college-preparatory and gifted classes.
The idea of closer links between school and community is generally a
popular, uncontroversial one. Politicians, educators and parents alike are generally
sympathetic to the idea. Most supporters are attracted to the potential cost-savings,
the reduction of service duplication, the convenience of one-stop, comprehensive
services, improved educational outcomes, and the maximization of resources.
However, practical circumstances and the details of implementation can be
roadblocks to attaining these closer links. The construction of new schools that not
only reduce overcrowding and successfully educate and prepare children for
adulthood, but also strengthen families and revitalize neighborhoods, requires
innovative thinking, planning and implementation processes. School districts need to
work collaboratively with community stakeholders and institutions, residents, local
government and businesses to bring together the necessary resources and innovation
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to build new schools that improve academic outcomes while supporting and building
upon community assets.
The growing support for small community schools and co-located schools
that serve the broader community has prompted discussion of the need for greater
involvement and ownership of public schools by residents and other community
stakeholders. As their connections with families and other community stakeholders
grow, schools are more able to effectively serve and involve the family in their
children’s educations as well as address broader community issues that affect the
safety and well being of students and residents. The growing trend in schools
actively engaging and involving families and the broader community in schools is
not a new phenomenon. Instead, it is based on decades of education research that
“recognizes the three spheres of influence on education success and life: school,
family and community” (Epstein 1997). Most educators acknowledge that they
cannot ensure the successful education and development of children without the help
of families and the community.
The holistic approach to education and child development and community
well being locates the child at the center of the school, family and community
partnership model. Educators are more easily able to view families and the
community as partners in the education and development of students when they view
students as children and members of a family unit and community. As partners, each
is able to “recognize their shared interests in and responsibilities for children, and
they work together to create better programs and opportunities for students,” forming
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a caring community around students that supports their academic skills and their
well-being and overall development (ibid). Effective school, family and community
partnerships can improve school programs and school climate, provide family
services and support, increase parents’ skills and leadership, and connect families
with others in the school and in the community.
School reform efforts have been the catalyst for greater involvement and
growing leadership of parents, students, and community stakeholders in public
education. According to the California Department of Education (1990) "recent
research has shown that when parents are more involved in their children's education,
the children do better in school and the schools improve.” Under education reform
efforts, parents have received training in instructional and support roles, governance,
and leadership to become more effective stakeholders in decision-making at their
children’s schools. The increased capacity of parents to deal more effectively with
school administrators and teachers and operations of the school is easily transferred
to involvement and leadership in neighborhood affairs. The rise of parent councils,
school-based management, and presence of community-based services located at
school sites has increased the prominence and role of parents and other community
stakeholders in the governance and operations of schools.
Strategies to increase parent and community involvement and implement
comprehensive approaches to learning and education can be especially effective in
low-income communities of color. Evidence shows that “community participation,
particularly the participation of parents, appears to be one essential ingredient in the
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
behavioral orientations of minority and poor students toward schooling” (Hatton
1979). A study of parent involvement in Wisconsin schools found that
the success or failure of efforts to improve education in ghetto
schools through parent participation projects seems to depend largely
on four main factors: 1) the kind of understanding and skill that can
be developed among organized residents, 2) the resources and
capacity for persistence they can develop and maintain, 3) the
receptiveness or refractoriness of teachers and administrators to
efforts by parents to engage in what amounts to systematic evaluation
of the staffs effectiveness as educators and to enter into what has
normally been the staffs sole domain, and 4) the extent to which the
decision-making that can be affected is most relevant to underlying
causes of educational problems in the ghetto (Havighurst 1979).
The concentrated poverty, high crime, poor health, and blighted neighborhoods
contribute to the educational and community crises. These systemic crises require all
stakeholders, particularly parents, to work together on finding solutions that can help
reduce their negative impacts on children and families.
The promising practices of education reform combined with the growing
support for community schools have helped influence the planning and design
process of new schools. The emerging dominant view that schools need to be
responsive to student, family and community needs has helped extend the school,
family and community partnership model to current school planning practices. More
school districts across the country are working to involve families and community
members in meaningful ways in the school planning process. Educational facility
planner MacKenzie (1989) identified five important planning processes that support
community education:
1) systematically involve local citizens in the policy/decision-
making process of the community’s education system, 2) identify
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community learning needs and then organizing and coordinating
community learning opportunities to meet these learning needs, 3)
provide formal learning opportunities for persons of all ages, 4)
use the community’s fiscal, physical and personnel resources to
enhance teaching and learning opportunities throughout the
community, and 5) coordinate social agency efforts as they apply
to the community’s education or educationally-related needs.
The public purpose of schools, the role of schools in communities and the
educational process itself must be considered and incorporated into the design,
development and operation of every school. The planning process “becomes the
who-what-when and how of alternative courses of action with the final or ultimate
selection being that which best meets the needs of the community” (Havighurst
1979). These critical factors that contribute to the effectiveness and success of public
schools require that the planning and development process be treated as important as
the end product.
Involving the broader community in the planning and operation of new
schools has helped give rise to the term “community engagement.” Somewhat of a
buzzword, community engagement “re-establishes the connection between schools
and communities, creating more effective schools and healthier neighborhoods [and]
leads to school facilities that are central to the life and learning of the entire
community and that embody community values” (KnowledgeWorks Foundation
2003). Instead of school districts operating as the sole experts in the school facility
planning and design process, they work together as partners with a broad group of
community stakeholders, including parents, students, teachers, local businesses,
residents, community-based organizations and other governmental entities. Through
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
authentic community engagement, school districts solicit community input that
inform, connects with and influences local decision-making and official decisions
instead of winning community support for decisions that have already been made.
Instead of forcing external ideas on communities, school districts focus their efforts
on eliciting the community’s shared values and aspirations they have for their
schools and futures.
A new facility will not have a lasting impact or serve as an ongoing resource
to the community if it is not filled with qualified and well-trained teachers, effective
teaching methods and technology are not utilized, students are not given the tools
and opportunities to leam and contribute to society, and parents and community
members are not welcomed participants and contributors to the learning process.
Through effective community engagement, parents, students and other community
stakeholders can help shape strong academic programs, support services, high
quality technology and recreational facilities and resources for students, their
families and community residents. When a “school site [is] planned with community
participation [it] does provide more relevant facilities” (Dee 1973). Through
meaningful engagement, community stakeholders become educated on a variety of
issues involved with building new school facilities and improving the quality of
education and educational outcomes. As well-informed partners in the planning
process, community stakeholders are able to participate in meaningful discussions,
influence decisions and develop greater ownership of the school planning process
and outcomes, which are key factors in sustaining school improvement efforts.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Due to the infill nature of new school construction in dense urban areas, site
selection is an important issue for residents, community members and property
owners and other community stakeholders who may not want to displace existing
residents, businesses or other local entities with a new school or school addition.
Because a “school serves not only the educational needs, but the social, cultural, and
recreational as well,” effective community engagement is needed throughout the site
selection, program planning and facility design process to help ensure community
values are followed and respected to ensure compatible land use and responsible
development occurs (Caudill 1954). Meaningful community engagement early on
and consistently through the planning process can help ensure that the new school
builds upon instead of destroys the existing socio-economic, cultural, and familial
strengths and institutions of the neighborhood. School planners “cannot allow
themselves to forget that their school planning must be an integral part of community
planning” (ibid). Not only must the community help ensure the new school is
physically safe and conducive to the students’ and communities’ educational and
recreational needs, but that strong social and cultural foundations are established as
well. As schools continue to play a broad and often comprehensive role in the
community that impacts the health, recreation, cultural activities, and education of all
residents, the location of new schools is an important community decision.
In low-income communities of color, effective community engagement is
needed to help ensure meaningful participation and input of residents, students,
parents and community organizations. Especially since low-income residents are
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
typically economically, politically and socially disenfranchised and lack the
appropriate access to school and government institutions, they often need extra
outreach and support to enable them to participate and give their input. These
communities often lack the necessary social capital, defined as network and
relationships with those in power.
Henry Sanoff, professor of architecture at North Carolina State University
has been a leader in involving the community in meaningful ways in the planning
and design of schools through his research, teaching and professional practice. In
Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, Sanoff (2000) describes
the need for the users to be a part of planning successful schools, from open air and
natural light, to set up and design of classrooms. He views teachers, students and
parents as the experts and architects as the technical facilitators. He has developed
innovative tools that assist community members, basically non-architects, in helping
them identifying what works and does not work in their communities. Another
leading proponent of community engagement in the planning of new schools is
Steven Bingler, Principle of Concordia Consultants. He has helped popularize the
involvement of community stakeholders in the planning and design of new schools
in national education policy and school planning practice (Metropolitan Forum
Project 1999). Both men challenge the traditional paradigm for educational facility
planning that views architects and planners as the experts. They encourage planners
and architects to serve as facilitators to elicit community priorities and help create a
shared community vision with community stakeholders.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Despite the popular support for greater community involvement in the
planning of new schools, some educational facility planners and school districts are
not as supportive of the community’s expanded role. Some planners have
experienced community participation to be more of a “showcase than substance and
more of a learning experience for [the community] then, real contribution to the
project” (Earthman 1992). A number of school districts, especially large school
systems “exclude community involvement as a matter of policy” (ibid). Large school
systems complain of the overwhelming number of community stakeholders and
interest groups they must include in the planning process. Some school districts do
not want community participation as they fear “parents and community groups could
delay selection and acquisition of the site because of their objections to a particular
site” (ibid). Instead of significant community involvement, some planners prefer
conducting a public orientation of a new school after it is built and occupied,
presenting it as a community resource to parents and other community residents.
Unfortunately, many school districts and school planners lack the capacity
and expertise to effectively engage diverse communities in the planning of new
schools. Many planners lack the training and experience in working with community
members directly. The school planning process and tight timelines and schedules
created by competitive financing systems are obstacles to districts investing the
necessary time and energy in engaging community members in school planning.
Community stakeholders need time to digest discussions and information so that they
can make informed decisions and recommendations that are based on their
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community’s values. Thus, multiple meetings over a period of time are needed to
allow community participants time to form judgments and develop a solid
understanding of relevant information. Unfortunately, too many districts have lost
precious time and money needed to build new schools, failing to investing the
necessary time and resources to build community ownership of and consensus
around school planning projects. Sadly, instead of improving and reforming their
school facility site selection and planning practices to work more effectively with
communities, some school districts choose the path of least resistance and build new
schools where they can get it done fastest, often at the cost of neighborhoods in
desperate need of new schools.
Public education is a basic right and key component of our democracy, which
relies upon an educated, technologically astute, and socially connected citizenry. In
addition to expanding and maintaining the physical and economic structures, the
social fabric and civic culture also need to be nurtured. The building of new public
schools represents the intersection of physical and economic structures with social
and civic structures that are the foundation of thriving communities. Longtime
residents and community stakeholders can capitalize on this opportunity by bringing
their creative energies and interests together in helping to locate, design, and plan a
neighborhood school that effectively educates its children and provides appropriate
services to all residents. Without everyone involved, creative ideas go untapped and
needs of various parties are ignored. Especially since public schools are important
entry points into civic society and lay the foundation for one’s entry into the political
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and economic world, the effectiveness and sustenance of neighborhood public
schools are keys to the future of not only individuals and families, but entire
communities.
While this vision is a daunting one, it is one that our public school systems
and communities cannot afford to ignore. Closer links and greater collaboration
between school districts and local communities are needed to meet the growing
demand for new schools and other community resources. Schools cannot afford to
operate in isolation. Increasing poverty, educational inequity, reduced family
involvement and weak community supports are the new realities facing families and
children across the United States. These trends require schools to work in partnership
with other community institutions and organizations in order to help students and
their families effectively overcome these obstacles.
BACKGROUND AND FOCUS OF THIS STUDY
This study was inspired by my experiences working as lead consultant and
volunteer on the New Schools Project with the Community Coalition for Substance
Abuse Prevention and Treatment (CCSAPT), a community-based organization in
South Los Angeles, from August 1999 to September 2002. Through its youth
organizing project, the CCSAPT has been involved in facility equity issues at the
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) since 1996. Schools in South Los
Angeles have suffered from severe deterioration and obsolescence, overcrowding,
forced busing and multi-track year-round school schedules. Students attending
schools in South Los Angeles are predominantly low-income African American and
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Latino, have historically scored very low on academic achievement measures and
have very high drop out, absenteeism and suspension rates. Youth attending South
Los Angeles high schools identified poor school facility quality and overcrowding as
contributing factors to the poor quality of education and academic outcomes.
CCSAPT helped organize the youth to document their findings around poor school
facility conditions and education quality. Their research helped them develop a
successful organizing campaign against LAUSD that led to an additional $198
million in school bond funds (Proposition BB funds) being allocated to repair South
Los Angeles schools.
CCSAPT’s successful school facility renovation campaign led to their
involvement in LAUSD’s new school construction program. The construction of new
schools has been a longstanding need in South Los Angeles and many other
overcrowded inner city low-income neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles. For
many decades, low-income communities of color have disproportionately suffered
from severe overcrowding, multi-track schedules and forced busing in its schools
that have contributed to the deteriorating quality in education and students’ poor
academic outcomes. The combined effects of a booming student populations in these
communities, little construction funds and previously misguided facility construction
programs during the past three decades, have prevented LAUSD from building
enough new schools and effectively house and educate its students, particularly its
most vulnerable and disadvantaged ones.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Since the mid-1990s, LAUSD has been involved in the most ambitious
renovation and new school construction program in its history. In its 1998 Long-
Range Facilities Master Plan, LAUSD set out to build more than one hundred new
schools in a ten-year period. The announcement of LAUSD’s new construction
program elicited both hope and weariness amongst parents and community leaders
alike. On one hand, relief from longstanding overcrowding and deteriorating
facilities was sorely needed. At some schools, two generations of families have
endured forced busing to distant, less crowded schools in the outlying areas of the
district or overcrowded local schools that operate multiple tracks on a year-round
schedule. On the other hand, while these families and communities wanted relief
from these bad conditions, many are concerned that the social, economic and
physical costs to disadvantaged minority individuals, families and neighborhoods
would be greater than potential benefits.
Given the high density development and scarcity of available land in most of
the communities targeted for new schools, individuals and organizations throughout
Los Angeles were concerned about the impact new schools would have on existing
housing, businesses, parks and other important community assets. Many of the
district’s previous school expansion and new construction activities did not
adequately involve the local community stakeholders in the planning and site
selection process and ended up destroying community assets and displacing
vulnerable, low-income residents. In other cases, the LAUSD jeopardized student
and staff health by building on contaminated land or on sites adjacent to toxic
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
industries. This resulted in significant community opposition and resentment towards
the district and its current school construction plans. Concern has been especially
high in the most overcrowded and dense neighborhoods, which consists primarily of
low-income and limited English-speaking minority households.
At the same time, many people were skeptical that the neighborhoods that
needed new schools the most - those with schools that had multi-track year-round
schedules and forced busing, would get their fair share of new schools. The district’s
last major construction effort in the 1970s had built dozens of new schools in the San
Fernando Valley, the wealthy suburban area of LAUSD, even though student
population growth rates were higher in the inner city areas. The proposed distribution
of limited school renovation funds (Proposition BB) that was skewed towards
helping the newer school facilities in the San Fernando Valley more than the older,
deteriorating schools in the inner city provided more evidence that the district did a
poor job of investing its limited resources towards providing equitable educations for
all its students.
Despite these concerns, community stakeholders also saw many opportunities
and benefits associated with new schools. Many residents were looking forward to
playgrounds and recreational facilities on the new school sites. The possible co-
location of critical health and social services at schools attracted others. Still other
residents envisioned the replacement of nuisance uses so abundant in these
communities, such as motels, recycling centers and abandoned vacant lots. Many of
these sites attract prostitution, drug dealing, illegal dumping and gang activity, and
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
contribute to the declining local economy and the increase in crime and violence that
plagued these neighborhoods. Many parents were looking forward to their children
attending neighborhood schools where they themselves could also attend English
language classes or adult school. Other community leaders hoped that new schools
could be paired with new neighborhood libraries and parks, also funded by new bond
funds. The public hoped that new, less crowded, state-of-the-art schools would create
wonderful and challenging learning environments for students to thrive and succeed.
METHODOLOGY
While new schools represent some very exciting possibilities for students and
communities, working to bring them into reality can be a very daunting process. In
an effort to identify best practices to address the numerous challenges to building
new schools in overcrowded and disadvantaged urban communities, I focused my
research on the following question: How can school districts facilitate and support
meaningful community engagement in the long-range planning and site selection of
new public schools that build upon community assets and result in better academic
outcomes for disadvantaged students? In my research, I focused on the roles of local
community stakeholders and school districts in creating and implementing a more
effective planning and site selection process that resulted in positive educational and
community outcomes that benefited disadvantaged students and the community as a
whole.
I conducted my research for this project during a two-year period, from
August 1999 to September 2002. My research consisted of primary and secondary
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research, survey of twenty school districts, a case study of LAUSD, interviews of
school district staff and involved community stakeholders and a literature review.
For approximately six months during this period, I worked as a paid consultant to the
Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (CCSAPT), a
private, not-for-profit community-based organization involved in engaging
community residents and stakeholders in the prioritization, site selection and
planning of new schools in LAUSD. For a three-month period, I worked as a
consultant to the Los Angeles Community Design Center (LACDC), a not-for-profit
organization that was contracted by LAUSD to conduct community outreach to
residents regarding site selection and planning of new schools. For the remaining
time period, I conducted my own independent research and completed my writing an
unpaid student.
Due to my work with CCSAPT, the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) was the subject of my in-depth case study. My research efforts focused on
the various aspects and details of the district’s planning process, including their
definition of overcrowding, prioritization of new schools, selection of school sites,
application for state bond funds, and outreach and engagement of the impacted
communities. I collected first hand data and information for this case study primarily
from district staff and consultants who worked primarily in the New Construction
Program, Community Outreach Program within the Facilities Division and
Environmental Division. I participated in numerous in-house district meetings and
public meetings involving the district’s demographic projections, long-term facilities
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
plan, site selection and community outreach efforts. I gathered additional
information on the district from the LAUSD website, the California Department of
Education website, Board offices, public School Board meetings, and related third
parties. I also interviewed various staff of community-based organizations involved
in LAUSD’s new school facility planning process about their experiences in the
district’s new school planning and site selection process.
The case study of LAUSD also reflects my direct experience with LAUSD’s
Community Outreach Division, which is responsible for community engagement and
outreach for the district’s new school facilities. As both a paid consultant and
volunteer, I observed and collected information on LAUSD’s new school planning
activities and community outreach activities, which involved visiting existing
schools and proposed new school sites and attending numerous public meetings. As a
consultant to CCSAPT, I investigated and monitored LAUSD’s new school planning
and construction activities. This involved my reviewing and analyzing the district’s
long range facility plan, learning the State of California’s school facility bond
funding process, the school site selection criteria and process, the rules and process
for environmental investigation of new school sites, and the political issues and
process involving facility planning, approval and construction. I also contacted and
maintained regular communication with other community-based organizations
involved in advocating for new schools and monitoring the district’s new school
planning process and community outreach activities.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To help expand my understanding and perspective to a national one, I
targeted and contacted twenty other school districts across the nation to participate in
a survey and follow-up interview regarding their school facility master planning and
site selection processes. Table 1 lists the twenty school districts contacted and their
level of participation. Eleven of these school districts were amongst the top twenty-
five school districts in the U.S. that had the largest increase in enrollment from Fall
1988 to Fall 1998 (DOE 2000a). LAUSD had the second largest enrollment increase
during this period. The other nine school districts were selected due to their active
facility construction programs, urban characteristics, or strong community
involvement in their school facility planning process. Thirteen of the twenty school
districts (65%) from nine states completed the survey and/or participated in a follow-
up interview. Five of the nine (56%) participating school districts were among the
top 25 fastest growing school districts from 1988 to 1998.
I also surveyed and/or interviewed active community representatives from
four districts (30%) and visited two districts (15%). A copy of the survey is in
Appendix A. Some of the districts provided me with copies of their planning policies
and procedures to review. To complement my observations of LAUSD and findings
regarding the role of community stakeholders in the site selection and planning of
new schools I asked the school districts to provide me with contact information for
community members who were involved in the planning, monitoring, and advocating
for new school facilities. I successfully contacted and interviewed two community
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 1
School District Participation in Survey and Interview
School District State District
Representative
Community
Representative
No
Response
Survey Interview Survey Interview
Alexandria City
Public Schools
VA • •
Broward County
School District*
FL •
Chicago Public
Schools*
IL •
Clark County School
District*
NV •
Dade County School
District*
FL • •
Gwinnett County
School District*
GA •
Long Beach
Unified*
CA •
Mesa Unified School
District
AZ • •
Minneapolis Public
Schools
MN •
Montgomery County
Public Schools*
MD • •
New York City
School District*
NY •
Newark Public
Schools
NJ • • •
Oakland Unified
School District
CA •
Orange County
School District*
FL •
Palm Beach County
School District*
FL • • •
Philadelphia Public
Schools
PA •
Pittsburgh Public
Schools
PA •
San Diego City
Schools*
CA • •
Santa Ana Unified CA • •
Vista Unified CA •
Note: *Top 25 school districts with largest increases in enrollment from Fall 1988 to Fall
1998.
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
members who were involved with their respective school district, one by phone and
one in person.
In my surveys and interviews of staff and community members involved in
the planning and site selection of new schools for these targeted school districts, I
focused on how these districts encouraged and supported meaningful community
engagement in the long-range planning and site selection process while also
addressing educational inequities and overall community development. Due to
specific issues related to LAUSD schools, I also investigated the role of communities
in the environmental review and monitoring of new school sites and relocation of
displaced residents. The surveys and interviews helped illuminate promising
practices regarding community engagement in site selection and environmental
oversight of school districts across the country. The data and information identified
some promising practices used by school districts to engage and inform community
residents and stakeholders in the site selection and environmental investigation of
new schools with the aim of reducing negative impacts on local neighborhood
residents, building upon community assets, and building safe, state-of-the-art
facilities that designed and operated as community learning and service centers. By
limiting my research primarily to long-range planning and site selection, I identified
and analyzed major challenges and promising guiding principles and practices in
these areas.
As part of my learning about many of the issues and context of the planning
process and its numerous challenges, I also reviewed existing primary and secondary
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literature sources regarding school facility planning and construction, educational
equity, and community planning. I conducted a literature review of primary and
secondary literature regarding school facility planning and construction, educational
reform and community schools. Much of the school planning literature is focused on
the technical aspects of school facility planning with very little research on the roles
of the school district and communities in the planning process, and their relationship
to each other during that process. While some of the school planning literature
addresses student, parent and community involvement, their roles are primarily
limited to building design and curriculum issues.
I was greatly influenced by the writings and research of James Coleman and
Norman Krumholz. Their commitment to and focus on equity in education and in
planning was a great source of inspiration. Working under the direction of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, James Coleman conducted the first national “survey concerning
the lack of availability of equal educational opportunities for individuals by reason of
race, color, religion, or national origin” (Coleman 1966). His landmark report “Equal
Educational Opportunity” published in 1966 was the first to identify the relationship
between specific school characteristics and academic achievement, as well as
account for their different impacts on racial minorities and low-income students.
Coleman’s focus on reducing the inequalities in educational outcomes helped
shift the paradigm from schools equally distributing their “quality” or inputs to
schools increasing the quality of their students’ achievement. Due to the socio
economic differences and unequal educational opportunities that children are bom
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
into, Coleman stressed the need for schools to help disadvantaged children overcome
these deficiencies and “reduce the dependence of a child’s opportunities upon his
social origins” (Coleman 1990). He was able to envision educational equality at the
micro and macro levels. At the micro level, Coleman felt what mattered to a student
was “not how ‘equal’ his school is, but rather whether he is equipped at the end of
school to compete on an equal basis with others, whatever his social origins” (ibid).
His vision of educational equality at the macro level assumed that “what is important
is not to ‘equalize the schools’ in a formal sense, but to insure that children from all
groups come into adult society so equipped as to insure their full participation in this
society” (ibid). Coleman emphasized that education was a means to equality
achieved in adulthood rather than the end itself.
The concept of using planning to address inequities is grounded in the equity
planning efforts of Norman Krumholz, former city planning director in Cleveland.
He and his team of planners implemented an agenda of equity planning, based on
democratic ideals that prioritized improvements for low-income and disadvantaged
residents. As equity planners, they made “a conscious attempt to devise redistributive
policies in favor of the least powerful and to enhance the avenues of participation”
(Krumholz and Clavel 1994). Equity planning grew out of the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960s and became a particular force in the 1980s. The concepts of
equity planning remain very relevant today as inequities exist and the gap between
the haves and have-nots continues to grow. The democratic ideals, redistributive
policies and community participation that define the equity planning movement
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
helped form the foundation for approach used in this study regarding new school
planning and site selection. My premise is that by engaging community residents and
stakeholders in a meaningful way early in the planning process, school districts can
reduce overcrowding, address community needs and interests, build upon community
assets and win the support of residents upfront while building new schools that
provide effective and healthy learning environments.
While the activities documented in this document primarily occurred during
2000-02, they continue to be very relevant and important issues for the planning
field, public educational systems, communities, parents, and children. Research and
guidelines that address the role of community residents and stakeholders in the
school planning and site selection process would be helpful in addressing overall
community development issues. By engaging community residents and stakeholders
in a meaningful way early in the planning process, school districts help address
community needs and interests, build upon community assets, and win the support of
residents upfront while building new schools that provide effective and healthy
learning environments.
STUDY PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
My study helps shed light on the damaging effects of overcrowded, obsolete
and deteriorated school facilities have on students and communities. An in-depth
look at overcrowded conditions and their impact on students, families and
communities is provided in a case study of LAUSD in Chapter 2. Efforts to plan and
build new schools to relieve overcrowding, house the growing student population
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and replace and upgrade obsolete and deteriorating school facilities are discussed in
Chapter 3. The chapter also focuses on the roles school districts and community
stakeholders in the school planning and site selection process. My research examined
the roles and actions of school districts that facilitate effective community
engagement and leads to positive relationships and partnerships with communities in
the planning and site selection of new community schools. While school-community
partnerships are typically desired by all, achieving effective ones that are mutually
beneficial requires extensive engagement of and ownership by local community
stakeholders. Chapter 4 describes the numerous challenges encountered by LAUSD
in planning and selecting sites for new schools in its dense and developed
neighborhoods. This chapter provides many examples of LAUSD’s challenges to
engage its diverse communities in the school planning and site selection process
while dealing with a myriad of challenges including inadequate construction
resources, land use controversies and competition from other necessary uses such as
affordable housing, business and open space needs to name a few. Barriers to and
benefits from effective community engagement in the planning of new community
schools are also presented to help the reader understand the value of community
engagement in this chapter. Chapter 5 synthesizes some promising practices and
guiding principles school district leaders, school planners and community
stakeholders can use to engage with communities effectively in the planning and site
selection of new community schools. By working together more effectively, school
districts and community stakeholders can create high-quality community schools,
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reduce overcrowding, achieve better educational outcomes and contribute to the
revitalization and strengthening of communities.
This study aims to contribute to the research and practical guidelines that
address the role of community residents and other stakeholders in the school
planning and site selection process and to help address overall community
development issues. This study includes illustrations from a case study on LAUSD
along with the surveys and interviews of the other school districts regarding potential
benefits, barriers and promising practices for effective community engagement in the
planning and site selection of new schools. The data and information collected
helped inform the researcher on school districts’ promising practices in involving
community residents and stakeholders in the site selection and environmental
investigation of new schools. It provides school districts and communities with tools
and guiding principles on how to create effective community schools in the face of
complex and difficult issues and needs, such as equitable distribution of inadequate
resources, limited availability of appropriate land, competing land uses, educational
inequality and poverty. By engaging with communities in a meaningful way
throughout the planning process, I hope that school districts can build new schools
that are safe, state-of-the-art facilities that are designed and operated as community
learning and service centers, improve academic achievement, promote lifelong
learning and services, reduce negative impacts on local neighborhood residents and
build upon community assets.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
No Room to Learn: Overcrowding in LAUSD
Our nation’s public school facilities crisis has forced millions of students to
attend unsafe, undesirable, overcrowded schools. These horrific conditions have
created poor learning environments and lowered the quality of education. Our public
schools are increasingly segregated along racial and class lines, creating separate and
unequal school facilities. The majority of White students attend better, newer and
higher quality and higher performing schools while the majority of African
Americans and Latinos attend overcrowded, deteriorating, low-performing schools.
Low-income African American and Latino students have disproportionately suffered
under these conditions, which have hampered their joy of learning, harmed their
academic performance, limited their options and closed the door on viable futures.
The physical deterioration and low-performance of these schools have had
devastating consequences for its students, their families and their communities as the
increasing racial and income segregation of schools and communities have left our
most vulnerable and disadvantaged members with poor educational and limited
economic opportunities.
Facility deterioration and overcrowding have reached epic proportions in Los
Angeles. LAUSD’s oldest facilities are more than 130 years old (LAUSD 1993).
Due to budget constraints, many of LAUSD’s schools have suffered from deferred
maintenance, repairs and upgrades. For more than two decades, LAUSD has
struggled to successfully house and educate tens of thousands of students in
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
overcrowded and deteriorated facilities. The lack of sufficient funds to build new
schools and adequately maintain and renovate existing schools have contributed to
the horrific facility conditions and deteriorating quality of education, academic
performance of students and staff morale. With insufficient funding to adequately
maintain its facilities and build new schools for its rapidly growing student
population, LAUSD has been the leading innovator in accommodating more students
while building only a handful of new schools.
LAUSD was the first school district in the state of California and one of the
first in the nation to widely implement the multi-track, year-round (MTYR) school
schedule. Due to the spatial mismatch between the location of its schools and where
its students live, LAUSD operates the largest school busing program in the nation.
While facility deterioration and obsolescence and appropriate facility maintenance,
repair and upgrades continue to be major issues for LAUSD schools, the focus of this
study is on the construction of new schools. The passage of local bond measure
Proposition BB in 1997, provided $2.4 billion “for the repair and upgrade of existing
school facilities and the construction of new facilities to reduce school
overcrowding” (LAUSD 2001a). Of these funds, $1.5 billion was designated for
work on existing facilities and $900 million of new construction. However, given the
significant facility needs of LAUSD, these funds are insufficient to relieve existing
overcrowding and provide appropriate and effective educational environments for all
its students.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This chapter focuses on LAUSD’s overcrowding conditions and impacts on
students. The severe level of overcrowding in LAUSD provides a rich and diverse
set of problems and responses to overcrowding. In addition to looking at LAUSD’s
overall overcrowding challenges, disparities in quality and quantity of school
facilities geographically and at the different school levels across the district are also
identified. The existing disparities in the district’s facility overcrowding and
shortages have impacted the academic achievement and educational opportunities
and outcomes for students and communities differently. By identifying and analyzing
these disparities, I hope to provide a better understanding of the complex challenges
large urban districts face in reducing overcrowding, improving facility and
educational conditions, and improving the quality of education and academic
performance of under-performing schools, low-income African American and Latino
students. However, to fully appreciate the overcrowding and educational inequalities
LAUSD suffers from, one must understand the socio-economic and political context
of Los Angeles.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF LOS ANGELES
The demographic shifts in Los Angeles during the past thirty years created
significant challenges to and opportunities for the construction of new schools.
While these shifts were consistent with national trends, Los Angeles experienced
some unique changes. In tune with the post-World War II trend of most major urban
centers across the United States, Los Angeles experienced the out-migration of white
middle class households from the urban center to newer, more desirable suburban
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and ex-urban areas, while the predominantly low-income, underemployed, and very
poor households, most of whom were people of color, remained in the inner city. At
the same time, a huge influx of immigrants arrived, primarily from Mexico, and
occupied the affordable housing market at even higher densities. The arrival of these
primarily low-skilled immigrants further widened the economic gap between the
haves and have-nots in Los Angeles. Divisions between residentially and
economically segregated neighborhoods grew more distinct as the poor population
grew at exponential rates. They became geographically concentrated in poor
neighborhoods with poverty rates greater than twenty percent.
The central core of the city of Los Angeles is a dense, high-poverty area.
However, instead of small ring in the center of the city, these poor neighborhoods
stretch from downtown, south to the Los Angeles harbor. Poor neighborhoods also
extend east of downtown into unincorporated East Los Angeles and northwest to
Hollywood and North Hollywood. Additional pockets of poverty also exist in
distinct communities in the San Fernando Valley, such as Van Nuys, San Fernando,
Pacoima and Sun Valley. However, while concentrated poverty spread to more
communities in the 1990s, “the more severe concentrations of poverty (forty percent
and above) remain largely an inner-city Los Angeles phenomenon” (McConville and
Ong 2003). While a large part of the city of Los Angeles consists of poor
neighborhoods, there are other parts of the city that are far from poor and share
characteristics with the suburbs. The non-poor areas include Westwood, West Los
Angeles, Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, Sherman Oaks, Encino and Woodland Hills.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These non-poor areas are concentrated on the western side of the city, along the
coast, and in the southern and western part of the San Fernando Valley.
During the last three decades, the number of poor neighborhoods also grew in
communities adjacent to the city of Los Angeles. The poverty ring extends along Los
Angeles’ southwest border into Inglewood and Hawthorne, and along its south and
southeast border into Compton, South Gate, Bell, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park and
Compton. Likewise, poor neighborhoods in Los Angeles County are
disproportionately minority and immigrant. However, the “racial-ethnic and
immigration characteristics of poor neighborhoods changed markedly over this
period, as the proportion of Latinos living in very poor neighborhoods
(neighborhood poverty rates of at least forty percent) increased more than threefold”
(ibid). The economic assimilation of immigrants in Los Angeles, particularly
Latinos, appears to be very slow, as “immigrants, both new (arriving within past ten
years) and established (arriving ten or more years before), are disproportionately
represented among the poverty population, composing sixty-one percent of the
region’s adult poor” (ibid). The low education levels of adults is a significant
indicator of poverty as “more than half (fifty to sixty percent) of adults in poor areas
lack a high school diploma compared with only nineteen to thirty percent of adults in
non-poor areas” (ibid). Immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants, “experience
high poverty for a variety of reasons, including issues of acculturation, English
language ability, and low skill and education levels that translate into lower earnings
and low economic mobility” (ibid). Despite high rates of workforce participation,
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most immigrants are employed in low-quality jobs that often fail to provide full-time
employment or require more than forty hours, and pay such low wages that families
are prevented from moving out of poverty.
Overview of LAUSD
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is the nation’s second
largest school district. It covers a 704 square mile area with more than 4.6 million
residents. The school district serves the City of Los Angeles, along with seven other
cities and portions of twenty other cities and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles
County. LAUSD is one of the region’s largest employers, with more than 78,085
employees, 36,721 of whom are teachers, representing 47% of the district’s
employees. In 2001, it operated on a $9.8 billion annual budget. Figure 1 shows the
boundaries of LAUSD and some of the cities and communities it serves.
As of October 2001, LAUSD enrolled more than 736,675 kindergarten
through twelfth grade students and operated 947 schools and centers (LAUSD
2001b). Hispanic students are the overwhelming majority in LAUSD schools,
consisting of 71.4% of the population. African Americans are the second largest
racial group, making up 12.4% of the district’s student population. White, non-
Hispanic students are 9.6%, Asian Pacific Islanders 6.3% and American
Indian/Alaskan Natives 0.3% of the student population. Figure 2 shows the
racial/ethnic breakdown of LAUSD students.
The district’s student demographics mirror those of most inner city public
school districts. A significant majority of the LAUSD’s students are ethnic/racial
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FIGURE 1
Map of the Los Angeles Unified School District
District Boundary Map
Los Angeles Unified School District
IHWiS&W
N
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FIGURE 2
Ethnic/Racial Breakdown of LAUSD Students
9.6%
12.4%
n. 0.3%
6.3%
O African American
■ Am. Ind./Alaskan Nat.
□ Asian/Pac. Islander
IS Hispanic
□ White
71.4%
Source: Data from LAUSD, Eleven Local Districts, One Mission: A Multiple
District Plan fo r Transforming the Los Angeles Unified School District, 2000.
minorities and come from low-income families. Almost 74% of its students were
enrolled in the federal free or reduced fee lunch program during the 2000-01 school
year. In contrast, only 61% of students in Los Angeles County and 47% of students
in the state of California were enrolled in the federal free or reduced fee lunch
program during this same period. Almost half (43%) of LAUSD students live in
homes where a language other than English is spoken and are classified as English
Language Learners. Table 2 presents key academic achievement-related data that
shows how LAUSD students perform worse than their county and state counterparts.
The educational opportunities and futures of California’s children depend on
LAUSD’s educational quality and outcomes, as it is responsible for educating one
out of every eight public school students in the state.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 2
Academic Achievement Related Characteristics
School Organization Students Scoring
at or above 50%
NPR in Reading
in 2001
Students
Scoring at or
above 50%
NPR in Math
in 2001
Graduates
Completing
uc/csu
Requirements
in 1999
4-year
Derived
Dropout
Rate in
1999
LAUSD 29% 36% 39% 5.5
County o f Los Angeles 37% 46% NA 3.5
State of California 44% 53% NA 2.8
Source: Data from CDE, Stanford 9 Test Results - Los Angeles Unified, 2 0 01 ; CD
H
U>
Numbers o f 12th Grade Graduates in California Public Schools Completing all Courses
Requiredfor U. C. and/or C.S. U. Entrance by District by Gender and by Ethnic Group fo r
the year 1999-00fo r Los Angeles Unified, County ofLos Angeles and State o f California,
1999; CDE, Dropout Rates fo r Grades 9-12 fo r Los Angeles Unified, 1999.
Note: NPR = National Percentile Rank
A seven-member elected School Board is the governing body of the district.
The Board is responsible for making policy, establishing and reviewing educational
programs and deciding budget matters for the district as a whole. Each member
represents a specific geographic district. There are no term limits for the LAUSD
school board members. The district has a Superintendent who is responsible for the
overall day-to-day operations of the school district. In the July, 2000 the School
Board voted to divide the district into eleven local districts to help decentralize
district operations and provide greater accountability and oversight to the local
communities. The new configuration was created to provide local districts greater
responsibility for fiscal operations, local control of schools, and efficiency
throughout the district. Each local district has its own local superintendent who
manages the day-to-day responsibilities and operations. The local districts are
identified by letters A-K and vary in land area, student population size, ethnic/racial
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
diversity, percent of low-income students, and number of schools and centers. The
local districts do not follow the school board member boundaries, but are instead
loosely based on school clusters and city and community boundaries.
Table 3 describes the demographic characteristics of each of the eleven local
districts in 1999. Enrollments range from a low of 51,731 in local district I to a high
of 77,045 in local district B. Local district J has the fewest number of schools (36)
and local district D has the greatest number with 76 schools. Local districts A, C and
D have the highest percentage of white students. Local district J is overwhelmingly
Hispanic1 , as they comprise 98.2% of that district’s enrollment. Local district G has
the highest percentage of Black2 students (47 percent). Local districts A, D, E, and K
all have more than ten percent Asian/Pacific Islander students.
The exponential growth of the number of immigrants and poverty in Los
Angeles has had a significant impact on the K-12 public school system, particularly
on overcrowding and academic achievement. From 1985 to 2000, LAUSD’s student
population grew more than 20 percent (Wohlers 2000). LAUSD’s student population
growth has been uneven. Its enrollment growth has mirrored the growth of the poor,
immigrant and minority population in the region. In the year 2000, over fifty-nine
percent of children living in the city of Los Angeles lived below the poverty level
and thirty percent of them lived in extreme poverty (less than two hundred percent of
the poverty level) (U.S. Census 2000). Inevitably, LAUSD schools located in the
1 Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably throughout this document, depending on the labels
used by the original data source.
2 Black and African American are used interchangeably throughout this document, depending on the
labels used by the original data source.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 3
Demographic Profile of LAUSD’s Eleven Local Districts
Local Oct. 1999 No. % % % % %
Districts Enrollment Schools AI/AN API Black Hispanic White
A 68,266 68 0.5 13.0 6.9 53.0 26.6
B 77,045 69 0.4 3.4 3.8 82.1 10.4
C 68,178 73 0.3 8.7 7.6 57.4 25.9
D 57,695 76 0.4 10.3 24.6 41.4 23.3
E 67,243 61 0.3 10.7 6.9 73.2 8.8
F 60,329 56 0.2 10.5 3.2 83.7 2.3
G 60,988 55 0.2 0.6 47.4 51.4 0.4
H 68,489 56 0.1 0.4 4.0 95.3 0.2
I 51,731 44 0.1 0.3 27.4 72.2 0.1
J 61,933 36 0.2 0.3 0.6 98.2 0.7
K 66,857 70 0.4 11.4 20.0 58.0 10.2
Source: Data from LAUSD, Eleven Local Districts, One Mission: A Multiple District Plan
fo r Transforming the Los Angeles Unified School District, 2000.
central city area of Los Angeles and adjacent communities to the east and south
suffered from severe overcrowding. Schools in these neighborhoods have had to bus
their students out to less crowded schools in the western areas of Los Angeles and in
the San Fernando Valley, as well as accommodate up to one-third more students by
operating their schools on multi-tracks in a year-round schedule. Schools in the most
overcrowded neighborhoods have suffered from overcrowding for more than twenty
years - some busing out more than a thousand students a day while operating multi
track, year-round schedules.
In addition to the overcrowding, LAUSD faces other social, educational and
economic challenges. Due to the concentration of Latinos at the bottom of the
income scale, the number of Latino children living in poverty grew exponentially as
the low wages of Latino immigrants, combined with high birth rates and the number
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of children per family, resulted in a very low per capita income (Waldinger 1999).
This trend has been bad news for the LAUSD as the volumes of research on poverty
demonstrate that growing up poor harms school achievement. In addition to extreme
poverty, Latino students are challenged with other acculturation issues, poor English
language skills, low parental education levels that contribute to poor academic
achievement and other poor health and social outcomes. In the 2000-2001 school
year, Latinos were 71.4% of the student population and almost 74% of all students
qualified for the free or reduced fee lunch program. Almost half (forty-three percent)
of LAUSD students lived in homes where a language other than English was spoken
and were classified as English Language Learners (ELL) (LAUSD 2002a).
The need to provide quality education to this population has grown even
more critical. As a whole, LAUSD students perform poorly on standardized tests and
have higher dropout rates than students in Los Angeles County and the state of
California. In 2001, fewer than forty percent of LAUSD high school graduates
completed the requirements to attend the University of California or California State
University systems. The poor quality of education, low academic performance and
inadequate college preparation that students receive within the LAUSD extends the
inequalities into the marketplace and post-secondary school system. Too many
LAUSD students do not receive the necessary skills and education that will enable
them to move up from the bottom end of the labor market and eventually fare better
than their parents.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
OVERCROWDING IN LAUSD
LAUSD schools have suffered from severe overcrowding for more than two
decades. The district has not been able to build enough new schools to address
population shifts and a rapidly growing student population. LAUSD’s extraordinary
growth was part of a national phenomenon, called the Baby Boom Echo. LAUSD’s
student enrollment has been characterized by booming enrollment during the 1950s
and 1960s, shrinkage during the 1970s, recovery in the 1980s and significant growth
in the 1990s. In 1969, the district’s enrollment hit a peak of 650,324 before declining
over a twelve-year period to 539,000. In 1996, LAUSD student enrollment surpassed
its 1969 high, reaching 667,305 students (LAUSD 1998).
LAUSD’s student enrollment grew by 147,169 students (20.5 percent) from
1985 to 2000 despite experiencing negative growth of less than one percent for a
two-year period (see Figure 3). During the 1990s, LAUSD’s growth was more than
four times greater than the growth of any other district in the state, making it the
second fastest growing district in the country (Wohlers 2000; DOE 2000a). Since
1995, LAUSD has added an average of 9,811 students each year. The largest gain in
student enrollment in a single year occurred in 1996, when 19,693 new students
enrolled in LAUSD schools, representing a three percent increase.
Table 4 compares LAUSD’s enrollment growth with selected southern
California urban school districts and California as a whole from 1993-1997.
Although LAUSD did not experience the fastest growth in its student population, it
experienced the largest increase in the number of students. The addition of over
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100,000 students during the 1990s was equivalent to adding a district the size of
Long Beach Unified, the third largest school district in California.
FIGURE 3
LAUSD’s Student Enrollment Growth from 1985-2000
25000
20000
15000
I 10000
9
£ 5000
u
Z
0
-5 0 $ f
-10000
Sources: Data from LAUSD, “Historical Ethnic Percentages o f LAUSD Enrollment 1985-
1998,” 1998 and CDE, District Enrollment by Ethnicity, 1999; CDE, District Enrollment
by Ethnicity, 2000.
TABLE 4
Percent Change in Enrollment from 1993 to 1997
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Los Angeles Unified -0.1 -1.0 2.3 3.0 2.0
Long Beach Unified 1.8 1.8 3.1 3.1 3.5
San Diego Unified 1.7 1.0 1.4 2.6 1.9
Santa Ana Unified 0.8 1.0 2.9 3.7 3.3
All unified districts 1.7 1.2 2.5 2.7 2.6
Statewide 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.7 2.0
Source: Data from Little Hoover Commission, To Build a Better School, 2000.
65
School Year
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When the second baby boom began in the 1980s, most school districts,
including LAUSD, were in a downsizing mode, as student populations had leveled
off and even declined in many areas during the mid-1970s. For many districts, the
idea that they were soon to be overcrowded seemed very unlikely, as many were
forced to consolidate campuses, close schools and lease or sell them. Although
LAUSD as a whole experienced steady, uneven growth during the 1980s, the growth
was concentrated in particular communities. The population surge occurred mostly at
schools located in the central city area - LAUSD’s oldest schools with the smallest
acreage in the district. While the central city schools were severely overcrowded and
rapidly deteriorating, students attending schools in the urban fringe area, particularly
in the San Fernando Valley, enjoyed newer and less crowded school facilities. Due to
the geographical mismatch between school facilities and the growing student
population, some schools in the San Fernando Valley were closed or leased, while
schools in the inner city areas operated multi-track year-round schedules and bused
their students to less crowded schools nearby.
Student enrollment growth at LAUSD is expected to continue through 2020.
Los Angeles County is estimated to “grow by between half a percent and one percent
a year until at least 2006, growing by a total of 5.6% between 1999 and 2006”
(Wohlers 2000). The district serves the majority of children in Los Angeles County.
Based on this estimate, LAUSD projected that its student population will continue to
grow by at least one percent a year until at least 2006, resulting in the addition of
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
another 50,000 students from 1999-2006, representing an overall seven percent
growth rate (ibid).
LAUSD’S SEAT SHORTAGE
Across the nation, the increase in student population and demand for more
school facilities grew despite a sluggish economy and during a time of increasingly
scarce public resources and declining willingness by voters to take on more debt for
school construction. As the majority of school districts relied upon their local tax
base to fund school facility construction and repair, the lack of voter support during
the 1980s prevented school districts from raising the necessary capital to build
schools. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 in California gravely impacted
school districts’ budgets. Proposition 13 limited the property tax rate that could be
levied and gave the state control of distributing revenues to school districts. As
school districts competed with the state, cities, counties and special districts for
shrinking property tax revenues, fewer funds flowed to California schools.
Fortunately some states, including California, provided state funding for
school facilities. However, these funds were sorely insufficient in meeting growing
demand. LAUSD gained 147,169 new students from 1985-2000, but created only
30,682 new seats. While LAUSD was able to secure some funding for new school
construction during this period for schools, the number of new seats represented less
than 25% of the number of new students entering the district during this fifteen year
period. From 1983 to 2000, LAUSD built 24 new schools and 44 additions at
existing schools, creating an additional 34,096 new two-semester seats. Sixty-six
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
percent of these new two-semester seats (22,417) were for elementary students (pre
kindergarten to fifth grade). Only two high schools, both of which were special
medical magnet programs, were built during this period, representing only 9.4% of
all new seats created during this period. Only one new middle school was built
during this same period, creating 2,220 new two-semester seats (6.5% of new seats).
Figure 4 shows the annual differential between new students and new school seats
created from 1985-2000. By the end of the 2000 school year, LAUSD had more than
116,000 new students than new seats built during this fifteen year period.
FIGURE 4
Comparison of New Students and New Seats
25000
20000
-10000
Y ear
•New Students New Seats
Source: Data from LAUSD, K-12 New Schools and Additions that Added Permanent
Classroom Seats, 2000.
Through its massive busing program, LAUSD was able to transport students
from overcrowded campuses to less crowded ones that had seats available. Even
after filling all available seats through busing, LAUSD was still short 77,256 seats in
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2000. To illustrate the severity of LAUSD’s overcrowding problem, if these 77,256
without seats were its own district, they would constitute the fifth largest school
district in the state of California, ahead of San Francisco Unified School District.
LAUSD’S RESPONSE TO OVERCROWDING
In order to accommodate the students that did not have a seat, LAUSD
implemented several options to fulfill its legal mandate to accept and educate
children living within the district. According to Gordon Wohlers (2000), Assistant
Superintendent for Policy, Research and Development for LAUSD, the district
implemented the following options:
1. Bused students over long districts beginning at young ages
2. Added portable classrooms to boost school density above state
standards
3. Put schools on multi-track, year-round calendars
4. Dispensed with or weakened retrieval efforts for students that
drop out of school or are at high risk of dropping out of school
While it was not the desired outcome, LAUSD has acknowledged that its various
responses to educate its students in the absence of sufficient school facilities have
had detrimental impacts on the district’s educational program, students’ academic
achievement, school operations, and facilities. Students involuntarily bused due to
overcrowding have the lowest test scores in the district. The addition of “temporary”
portable classrooms has increased school density and taken away needed physical
education place and other open space where student gardens and other outdoor
learning environments used to be. The multi-track, year-round (MTYR) calendar the
district most often uses, not only shortens the school year by eighteen days, but
requires longer class periods that challenge students’ attention and has multiple mid-
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
year disruptions. Sadly, as the district has valiantly worked to provide each child a
seat in a school, it has created school environments that are detrimental to students
learning and academic performance. The following is a short discussion of the
general operation and impact on students’ educations and academic achievement of
each of the four options LAUSD has used to address overcrowding.
Involuntary Busing
Without adequate funding for facilities during the last twenty years to pay for
the construction of new schools to accommodate their growing student population,
LAUSD has attempted to utilize all available seats at its existing schools. Due to the
mismatch between where students live and available seats, the district implemented a
massive busing program to transport students from the overcrowded central city
areas to the under-enrolled schools in the urban fringe. The district operates one of
the largest and most expensive busing programs in the country, transporting more
than 15,000 students who are unable to attend their home schools due to
overcrowding to less crowded schools outside their neighborhood. As schools that
are closest to these students fill up, students are bused greater distances to less
crowded schools in the outlying areas of the district. Students as young as five years
old must travel up to two hours each way. Since kindergarten is only half a day,
these students often end up spending more time traveling on a bus than they spend in
kindergarten class each day.
For many years now, LAUSD has documented the effects of involuntary
busing on its students. These students have consistently had the lowest California
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Test of Basic Skills and Stanford 9 scores in the district (ibid). Busing students long
distances, often one to four hours a day not only fatigues them, but the distance
between home and school effectively prevents parents from becoming involved in
their children’s schools. Especially since most of the parents of involuntary bused
students are low-income, many parents do not have private transportation or jobs that
allow time off with pay that would typically enable parents to make the long trip to
their children’s school on a regular basis. Thus, these parents are unable to connect
with their children’s teacher and participate in school functions, ultimately limiting
their ability to effectively support their children’s education and development.
Furthermore, some kindergarten-aged students are losing out on school completely.
The district has documented a trend where approximately 2,500 students arriving
first graders from overcrowded neighborhoods have not completed kindergarten
(ibid). The district believes that the unwillingness of parents to send children as
young as kindergartners on long bus rides to school contributes to this trend.
Temporary Portable Classrooms
Unfortunately, busing students to less crowded campuses has not solved the
district’s classroom seat shortage. LAUSD, like many other districts, found that
adding temporary portable classrooms to existing campuses was a cheaper
alternative to building new schools. By 2000, over one in four classrooms at many
LAUSD campuses were temporary portable buildings. Originally intended as a
temporary solution, many of these temporary classrooms have been on campuses for
over twenty years. One of the major problems associated with the plethora of
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
temporary portable classrooms at LAUSD schools is that they utilize precious
playground and open space, resulting in some of the highest playground densities in
the state. Table 5 highlights some of the playground areas in comparison to student
enrollment at some of the district’s most overcrowded campuses.
Table 5
Comparison of Playground Acreage and Student Enrollment
School Enrollment Playground Acreage
Wonderland Elementary 200 0.2
Monte Vista Elementary 500 Less than 0.5
Rosemont Elementary 900 0.5
Victoria Elementary 1,000 Less than 1.0
Hoover Elementary 1,500 1.0
Source: LAUSD, LA USD Students per Acre Adjusted for Multi-Track Enrollment, 2000.
Overcrowded physical education facilities also exist at the middle and high
school levels. With up to 50 percent more students on campus beyond original
facility capacities, there is not enough space for teachers to conduct fully functional
physical educational exercises, activities and games. Whereas one P.E. class might
use the gymnasium to play basketball or volleyball, now two or three classes must
share the gym, making it too difficult to engage all students in a game. More classes
and students must share limited outdoor space as well. Due to overcrowded
conditions, students are not able to play sports that utilize large space such as soccer
and softball. Due to space limitations, many teachers resort to having students walk
or run the track or sit or stand on the blacktop, which are hardly engaging physical
education activities.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Due to school overcrowding, P.E. classes have had to accommodate more
students. At many schools, P.E. classes often exceed 70 students, making it difficult
for a single instructor to conduct manageable, fun or fulfilling exercise or sports
activities even though national recommendations for student-teacher ratios is 25:1.
(DiMassa 2003). Even though these classes have more than twice the number of
students recommended, they lack the space and equipment to adequately engage the
students. The stress, frustration and boredom of physical education at overcrowded
facilities discourage many students from developing important exercise, athletic and
sportsmanship skills. The academic and health impacts on students are devastating.
Many students end up not dressing for P.E., participating in the activities or
attending class at all, resulting in poor grades and failures. Last year, only 17% of
♦ V i
LAUSD 7 graders were deemed physically fit (ibid). Students attending older, inner
city schools where campuses are smaller and more overcrowded face even more
challenges to completing enjoyable exercises and sports than students attending
larger, newer and less crowded campuses.
Multi-Track Year-Round (MTYR) Schools
LAUSD has led the way in developing creative solutions to increasing seat
capacity at its existing schools. In addition to busing students and adding temporary
portables to campuses, the district also instituted MTYR schedules at its most
overcrowded schools. Schools are switched to multi-track year-round schedules only
after other alternatives such as increasing class size, adding temporary portable
classrooms, busing, and changing attendance boundaries are implemented. When a
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school surpasses its busing threshold, it is recommended to switch to a multi-track
year-round calendar. The busing threshold for elementary schools is 50 students, 200
for middle schools, and 250 for high schools.
For the 1999-2000 school year, 27.7 percent of the district’s 773 schools
operated on multi-track, year-round calendars (ibid). According to the California
Year-Round Education Directory for 1997-1998, published by the California
Department of Education, LAUSD operates the largest MTYR system in the world
(ibid). For the 1999-2000 school year, 47 percent of the district’s students attended
MTYR schools, an increase of two percent from the previous year. The majority of
students attending MTYR schools are elementary school students (56%), followed
by high school (40%) and middle school students (30%). Sadly, an entire generation
of LAUSD students has attended MTYR schools or was involuntarily bused to
schools outside their neighborhood during their entire K-12 education.
The majority of the district’s MTYR schools (82%) utilize the Concept 6 or
Concept 6 modified calendars. This calendar “shortens the school year by four weeks
to permit every pair of classrooms to be used by a rotating group of three classrooms
of students” (ibid). The Concept 6 calendar interrupts school for two months, twice a
year. The Concept 6 modified calendar interrupts the school year for one-month, four
times a year. LAUSD uses the Concept 6 and Concept 6 modified calendars more
than other multi-track, year-round calendars because it increases the school capacity
by 50 percent, whereas other multi-track calendars boost it by only 33 percent.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The most overcrowded schools must bus students out even after
implementing a multi-track year-round schedule. The severity of the overcrowding
crisis in the central city areas of the district is evident by the massive busing of
students from MTYR schools. At severely overcrowded schools in LAUSD, schools
such as Virgil Middle School are still overcrowded even after implementing many of
the strategies to increase school capacity. Despite implementing a multi-track year-
round school schedule, placing temporary portable classrooms on campus, and
requiring teachers to travel to different classrooms each period at Virgil Middle
School over 1,150 students are involuntarily bused to other schools in the outlying
areas of the district. The stress on campuses such as these is extremely high. Further
exacerbating the overcrowding problems at Virgil Middle School, one of the oldest
schools in the district, is that its campus is one of the smallest in the district (9.7
acres) and accommodates 892 students beyond its original two-semester capacity.
The use of MTYR schedules is by far the most damaging to students’ learning
environments, academic performance, and health. The following are short
descriptions highlighting the impact of MTYR schedules on teaching, learning,
student services and school facilities and operations.
Impact o f MTYR Schedules on Teaching and Learning
While MTYR schedules have helped overcrowded districts provide students
with seats, they have had a detrimental impact on teaching and learning. In order to
make up the loss of four weeks in the school year on the Concept 6 calendar, the
school day is lengthened by thirty-three minutes. Advocates of MTYR calendars
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
justified the shortened school year by ensuring that students had the same number of
minutes in school. However, the use of compressed calendars has backfired, as every
day lost to holidays, construction, teacher training, registration, etc. - is a
disproportionate loss of instruction time. With three tracks of students leaving and
returning two to four times a school year, the transition time involved with departing
and returning students uses up precious instruction time. Furthermore, students often
forget what they had learned while off-track. The multiple disruptions and long
periods of time out of school require teachers to review and repeat lessons, often
preventing them from covering all required material.
The stress on teachers also takes its toll. All teachers on Concept 6 have to
pack up and unpack their classrooms twice a year when they go off track, to make
room for the incoming teacher and class. Because each classroom is used by at least
two sets of teachers, often not the same grade or subject matter, teachers must put
away textbooks, educational visual materials, supplies and other classroom
decorations and equipment. Furthermore, at least one out of every three teachers on
Concept 6 is without a permanent classroom while on track. District officials
estimate that “most secondary campuses have 15% to 20% of teachers switching
classrooms.. .[and] at the most crowded campuses, 30% of teachers—or more—do
it” (Hefland 2001). These traveling teachers must pack up their materials and move
even more frequently. They are like temporary squatters, using the classrooms for a
few weeks at a time, until a teacher permanently assigned to that classroom comes
back on track. Then they must move again to a classroom being vacated by another
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teacher going off track. These traveling teachers often lack the necessary equipment
and visual materials needed to complement their teaching and instruction. The
classroom dislocations required by Concept 6 are disruptive, draining and distracting
to teachers and students alike. These conditions make it extremely difficult for
students and teachers to remain focused and productive and utilize their precious
instructional time effectively.
Student academic achievement is further compromised at overcrowded
MTYR schools through the use of non-instructional spaces such as auditoriums,
former storage rooms, and hallways as classrooms. It is a common sight in LAUSD
schools to see an auditorium divided by a curtain or partition to create multiple
classrooms. Storage rooms and closets have been renovated to accommodate smaller
classrooms for special education or other specialized courses. Since inclement
weather is a rarity in Southern California, some classes are even assigned outdoor
spaces such as sheltered lunch benches as their classrooms.
Furthermore, students that need remedial help are difficult to accommodate at
MTYR schools. Since schools are heavily used all year round, there are not enough
available classrooms to offer students adequate academic intervention programs or
full courses they might need to make up during their off-track periods. In contrast,
students attending traditional two-semester schools are able to take tutorial courses
and make up entire school courses during their summer breaks. LAUSD has tried to
provide alternatives such as after-school and Saturday academic intervention
programs. However, these alternatives are not conducive to effective learning and
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teaching with fresh and focused teachers and students. After-school intervention
classes extend already long school days by at least one hour and Saturdays interfere
with much needed recovery time for both teachers and students. These alternatives
also do not permit sustained daily focus like a student would receive during a
traditional summer break. Furthermore, these extended schedules often interfere with
teacher training or schooling. When intervention classes are conducted, they are done
with teachers and students that are facing difficult challenges under significant stress
and strain. While high school students that need remedial assistance at overcrowded
MTYR are often able to attend adult school classes, difficulties in transportation and
mismatch between the courses offered and classes needed create more disincentives
for the already challenged students to get the help they need. Sadly, for the most part,
intervention is basically not provided to students on the Concept 6 calendar.
Impact o f MTYR Schedules on Support Services
Another major problem with the MTYR schedule is that it impedes with “the
provision of vital intervention services for struggling students; and it significantly
complicates the administration of the school and the provision of counseling and
other student support” (Wohlers 2000). At Concept 6 schools, the principal is away
from campus for at least three to four weeks out of the year. Support staff such as
nurses, psychologists, special education teachers, social workers and speech
pathologists are also not available for substantial periods throughout the year, as
these staff must juggle different schedules across multiple campuses. Due to the
multiple breaks throughout the year, too many students fall through the cracks, as
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
both students and staff go off-track. Students at MTYR receive poor support in the
most basic services such as class scheduling. Too many students end up repeating
classes and not taking the necessary courses required for them to graduate.
The situation is even worse for the most vulnerable students. Those students
that may be transferred to a school due to a move to a different foster home may end
up on a different track schedule and repeat the same classes over again. Instead of
providing stability and consistency, MTYR schools are often the source of additional
stress and crises for students and their families. While most MTYR schools try to put
children from the same families on the same track, they are not always able to do so.
Especially if children from one family attend different grade level schools that
operate MTYR schedules, it is often too difficult for these separate schools to
coordinate the children’s schedules. Thus, parents struggle to find adequate and safe
after-school care for their children or plan family trips and vacations when their
children are on different schedules. Older siblings are unable to watch younger
siblings that are on different school schedules, often resulting in greater instances of
children left at home unsupervised or imposing greater costs to families.
Unfortunately, most full-day sports or academic enrichment programs are still
offered only during traditional summer months, leaving children who are off-track
during non-summer months with very few safe and productive options.
Impact o f MTYR Schedules on operations & facilities
The year-round use of schools by up to 50 percent more students and larger
staff and faculty populations create additional havoc on school operations and
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
facilities. While more classrooms have been added with portables and multiple
tracks, the major support services and shared facilities remain unchanged. Thus, a
cafeteria that was built to serve a total of 1,000 high school students and a
proportionate number of staff and faculty must now accommodate approximately a
third larger population every day. Since the lunch period cannot be extended to
accommodate the additional students and staff as it would reduce instruction time,
lunch is served in staggered shifts. The use of staggered lunches means that some
students eat lunch as early at 10am and as late at 1pm. However, despite the
staggered meal schedules, lunchtime is still so crowded that many students are still
unable to get through the lines to get their food. Many go hungry or resort to eating
unhealthy junk food they purchase from the vending machines on campus. Low-
income students enrolled in the free or reduced fee meal programs are often unable
to get their meals due to the long lines and crowded food service areas.
At MTYR schools, nutrition breaks are eliminated, making lunch the only
time students have to eat, drink or use the bathroom. As students must attend three to
four classes in a row without a break, they lose their attentiveness, energy, and
effectiveness in the classroom. Since there are no formal breaks between periods,
students often leave class to use the bathroom, losing out on more precious
instructional time. Students have complained that the few minutes between classes is
insufficient for them to use the bathroom and get to class on time because the
hallways and bathrooms are overcrowded and congested.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An incredible amount of administrative coordination, time, and resources are
spent on ensuring a MTYR school runs smoothly. All communication and school
functions are staggered or repeated, as there is no room for the entire school
population to come together. School identity and cohesiveness is very difficult to
foster, as the different tracks of students are never all together for assemblies,
graduations, and social events. Students and staff at multi-track year-round schools
suffer from increased stress due to overcrowding and inadequate facilities for
academic programs, athletics and parking. Many overcrowded elementary schools
are unable to conduct proven academic programs due to overcrowding. Even though
there is a lot of demand from parents of pre-school-aged children to enroll their
children in the School Readiness Language Development Program (SRLDP), many
overcrowded MTYR schools have had to eliminate these programs due to demand
for classrooms by required classes. Sadly. LAUSD schools are unable to serve
thousands of eligible children, most of whom are low-income, non-English-speaking,
in these programs due the overcrowding in our elementary schools.
OVERCROWDING AND EDUCATIONAL QUALITY DISPARITIES
While overcrowding in LAUSD is a longstanding and pervasive problem, it
has impacted some schools and communities more than others. Students attending
MTYR schools or involuntarily bused to less crowded schools must endure greater
hardships than students attending less crowded, traditional two-semester schools.
School districts generally consider seat shortages to be the primary variable in
determining overcrowding. Seat shortages were calculated for each local district by
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
adding together the seat shortages of each individual school. Each school’s seat
shortage was calculated by combining the number of students over its original two-
semester capacity with the number of students involuntarily bused to another school.
As shown in Figure 5, the local districts had varying levels of seat shortages. At one
end of the scale, local district E was short more than 17,000 seats. At the other end of
the scale, local district D was short fewer than 800 seats. Local districts with higher
seat shortages have suffered disproportionately from school overcrowding. Their
students have had to attend schools with poor and inadequate learning environments
and resources compared to students attending less crowded, traditional two-semester
schools. Although seat shortages are an important indicator of overcrowding, they do
not fully characterize the extent and impact of overcrowding on a campus. There are
other factors that help characterize and measure the severity of overcrowding and its
impact on academic performance and education quality.
Overcrowding Factors
In addition to the use of seat shortages, the use of MTYR school schedules,
length of operation of a MTYR schedule and school density (average students/acre)
are other variables that help provide a more complete picture of the extent of
overcrowding. Since schools can involuntarily bus students to another school when
operating either a two-semester schedule or MTYR schedule, data on the number of
involuntarily bused students is not a useful variable by itself. Overcrowding is most
severe at schools that operate on MTYR schedules and bus students to other schools.
Schools that have operated on MTYR schedules have suffered from overcrowding
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
longer. Schools with higher student densities (average students/acre) tend to suffer
from more student discipline problems, problems with noise as there are more
students to serve in a smaller space.
FIGURE 5
Seat Shortages by Local Districts in Descending Order
t,
e
JS
(fl
N
V
t * 3
18,000
16,000
14.000
12.000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4.000
2.000
t
I
JF H E B IG A C K D
Local Districts
■ Bused students
B Students Over 2-
sem capacity
Sources: Data from LAUSD, Continuing and New CAP Students, 2000; LAUSD,
2000 School List, 2000; and LAUSD, Seats Short to Outreach Firms, 2000.
Education Quality Factors
In addition to overcrowding factors, education quality characteristics and
student risk factors further compound disadvantages and hinder students’ academic
performance. While building age is not always a reliable measure of building quality,
it can be a useful one for LAUSD schools. Due to deferred maintenance and overuse,
LAUSD schools are seriously deteriorated and in need of significant upgrades and
renovations. As discussed in Chapter 2, older, deteriorating and obsolete school
facilities can negatively impact student performance.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two other variables that characterize education quality are average school
enrollment and percent of permanent, credentialed teachers. According to the
research discussed in Chapter 1, smaller schools support higher student achievement
than large ones (Nathan and Febey 2001). Given the high percentage of low-income
students served by LAUSD, this variable is especially important as there is strong
evidence linking the effects of small school size and higher performance in
communities having low socio-economic status (Schneider 2002). Another important
factor measuring education quality is the percent of permanent, credentialed
teachers. A growing body of research indicates that well-trained, permanent teachers
are more effective and linked to higher student performance than substitutes and
teachers who lack teaching credentials (McCabe 2004). The use of less experienced,
non-credentialed teachers by school districts has been shown to contribute to lower
student achievement (Asimov 2002).
Student Risk Factors
In addition to factors related to school facilities and teachers, student risk
factors further impact student achievement. The racial isolation of African American
and Latino students, concentration of low-income students, and percent of English
language learners (ELL) are some of the variables used in this study that measure
student risk factors with regard to student achievement. Data on percent of students
enrolled in the federally subsidized free or reduced fee lunch program is a commonly
used proxy for poverty. Students are eligible for this federally subsidized lunch
program if their household income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
line. Concentrated poverty is defined as 75 percent or more students eligible for the
free/reduced fee lunch program (Orfield and Luce 2002). The incidence of
concentrated poverty in schools and neighborhoods is an important factor, as it
further compounds the problems faced by poor individuals. Numerous “studies have
found that poor individuals living in concentrated poverty are far more likely to
become pregnant as teenagers, drop out of high school, and remain jobless than if
they lived in socio-economically mixed neighborhoods” (ibid). These types of
outcomes dramatically diminish the quality of life and opportunity for adults and
children living in poverty.
English language learners face significant obstacles to English language
fluency, a building block of student achievement. Recent results from the California
English Language Development Tests conducted by the California Legislative
Analysts Office found that California students who speak Spanish as their first
language take nearly seven years to master English (Hayasaki 2004). On the other
hand, Mandarin speakers take 3.6 years, the shortest time of the nine major language
groups assessed. Family socio-economic levels are largely responsible for the time
gaps, as “poor children who come from families that are less educated have a harder
time learning another language” (ibid). With nearly 42% of LAUSD students not
completely fluent in English and more than 90% of them Spanish speakers, the gap
in English fluency is an example of compounding factors that hinder students’
academic success (ibid).
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Analysis
The data in Table 6 (see pocket) provide a more comprehensive picture of the
disadvantages local districts, individual schools and students are burdened with, with
regard to overcrowding, education quality and student risk factors. The local districts
are organized in descending order by seat shortages. In addition to the data
calculations, Table 6 includes the rankings of the local districts for each variable -
with the lower ranking representing worse conditions and higher level of need or
disadvantage. While the data and rankings of the different variables presented in
Table 6 are not statistically weighted or correlated, the ranking of local districts by
each variable highlights the disparities across local districts and illuminates the
compounded disadvantages encountered by some of the local districts.
The data in Table 6 shows the severe overcrowding conditions and
compounding disadvantages experienced by local district J. Almost every school in
local district J (97%) operates on MTYR schedules. These schools have also
operated MTYR schedules an average of 16 years, the longest average in LAUSD.
Local district J schools are so severely overcrowded, as they currently house more
than 16,000 students beyond their original two-semester capacities. One hundred
percent of its involuntarily bused students are bused from MTYR schools. Local
district J schools have the highest average student enrollment per school campus in
the district - an average of almost 2,000 students at each school and the second
highest student density average of 174 students per acre. It serves the second highest
percent of low-income students (88%) and concentration of minority students
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(99% Latino). Local district J also has the third lowest percent of permanent,
credentialed teachers and fifth highest percent of English-language learners.
At the other end of the scale, local districts A, C, D, and K have the fewest
seat shortages and the least overcrowding. Except for local district K, fewer than 20
percent of the schools in these districts operate on MTYR schedules. Even those
schools that operate MTYR schedules have done so for shorter periods of time than
schools in other local districts. With so few MTYR schools, these local districts
accommodate fewer than 9,500 students beyond their original two-semester
capacities collectively (less than local districts J and F individually). Students
attending schools in these local districts enjoy less crowded campuses with fewer
students per acre, smaller school enrollment averages and newer school facilities.
Not surprisingly, these four local districts enjoy higher levels of education quality
and lowest rates of student risk factors/disadvantages - translating into higher
student achievement. They serve the lowest percent of low-income students and
African American and Latino students. These local districts enjoy the highest rates of
fully credentialed permanent teachers in the district. Local districts A and D also
serve the lowest percent of English language learners.
The comparison of local district rankings for each variable helps broaden the
measurement of a local district’s level of need or disadvantage beyond seat
shortages. For example, even though local district F is short almost 3,000 more seats
than local district H, it fares much better on the education quality and student risk
factors. Local district F is ranked lower (better) than half of the local districts on
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
percentage of credentialed teachers, percentage of low-income students, and
percentage of minority students. In contrast, local district H serves the highest
percent of low-income students and English-language learners and has the highest
average building age in LAUSD. It also has the second highest average school
enrollment and percent of minority students and the third lowest percent of
credentialed teachers.
By considering these other overcrowding, education quality and student risk
factors together with seat shortages, a more complete picture of a local district’s or
individual school’s needs and disadvantages is provided. This set of data helps
illuminate some of the complexities involved with overcrowded schools and its
relationship to improving student achievement and education quality. Since the end
goal of new school facilities is to reduce overcrowding and improve academic
achievement, the factors that contribute to both outcomes should be considered in a
school district’s facility construction plan. This requires school construction plans to
create new seats to reduce overcrowding while also reducing existing disparities in
education quality, student disadvantages and student achievement levels.
IMPACT OF OVERCROWDING ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
LAUSD’s overcrowding conditions have also created educational outcomes
that are similar to the national trends and research findings discussed earlier. Not
only are the district’s most vulnerable students (low-income, racially isolated
minority, limited English-speaking students) disproportionately concentrated in
overcrowded facilities, but these conditions also appear to contribute to these
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students’ low levels of academic achievement. The following data represent a
comparison of select variables contained in the 2000 Academic Performance Index
(API) Base Data File from the California Department of Education (CDE). These
variables include information about test scores, school characteristics, students and
teachers. The 2000 API is a numeric score between 200 and 1000, reflecting a
school’s performance on results of the 2000 administration of the Stanford 9 test.
The Stanford 9 test is administered annually to California public school students in
grades 2 through 11 as part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
program. The interim statewide API performance target for all schools is 800.
Schools receiving an API score are ranked in ten categories of equal size (deciles)
from decile one (lowest API score) to decile 10 (highest API score).
Table 7 consists of data from the 2000 API Base Data File that compares
LAUSD’s lowest performing schools (decile one) with its highest performing
schools (up to decile ten) at the elementary, middle and high school levels. For the
elementary and middle school levels, data are divided into two categories:
ethnic/racial data and income data. The high school level has an additional data
category on academic performance, that includes data regarding the Scholastic
Achievement Test (SAT), a commonly used test to determine college admissions.
The following data includes only the specific school data made available from CDE.
Schools that are not included in the following data sets are those that did not have at
least 100 valid test scores, LAUSD special schools of choice (magnet schools), and
non-traditional grade span schools (i.e. K-12, K-8 schools). In Table 7, none of
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LAUSD middle schools were ranked in the top 10% decile, although there were four
middle schools that were ranked in the top 30% decile. With regard to high schools,
no LAUSD regular high schools were ranked in the top 10% decile. However, one
high school was ranked in the top 20% decile.
Similar to our earlier findings regarding overcrowded school conditions, low-
income, African American and Hispanic students are concentrated in the lowest
performing schools at all three school levels. Low-income students are
overwhelmingly concentrated in the lowest performing schools at all three school
levels, represented by data on families enrolled in California’s welfare program
(CalWORKS) and students enrolled in the federally subsidized free or reduced fee
lunch program. For all three school levels, only one percent of white students and
less than three percent of Asian and Pacific Islander (A/PI) students attend the lowest
performing schools. In contrast, white and (A/PI) students represent at least 40% and
14% of the student population respectively, in the highest performing schools at all
three school levels. A significantly larger percent of Hispanic students attend the
lowest performing schools at all three school levels. At the highest performing
schools, they represent less than 33%, compared to over 81% in the lowest
performing schools. For all three school levels, a higher percentage of African
Americans attend the lowest performing schools than the highest performing schools.
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 7
2000-01 LAUSD Student Data
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (420 schools: 359,345 Lowest 10% Highest 10%
students) Schools Schools
Ethnic/Racial Data
Percent American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.2% 0.5%
Percent Asian Pacific Islander 1% 21%
Percent African American 11% 6%
Percent Hispanic 87% 11%
Percent White
1% 62%
Income Data
Percent Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students 31% 3%
Percent Reduced Fee or Free Lunch Students 94% 11%
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (68 schools: 145,662 students) Lowest 10%
Schools
Highest 30%
Schools
Ethnic/Racial Data
Percent American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.1% 0.4%
Percent Asian Pacific Islander 2% 16%
Percent African American 16% 10%
Percent Hispanic 81% 33%
Percent White 1% 40%
Income Data
Percent Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students 27% 7%
Percent Reduced Fee or Free Lunch Students 77% 30%
HIGH SCHOOLS (49 schools: 167,697 students) Lowest 10%
Schools
Highest 20%
Schools
Ethnic/Racial Data
Percent American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.16% 0.0%
Percent Asian Pacific Islander 3% 14%
Percent African American 14% 8%
Percent Hispanic 82% 25%
Percent White 1% 52%
Income Data
Percent Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students 21% 6%
Percent Reduced Fee or Free Lunch Students 70% 11%
Academic Performance
Percent 12th Graders Taking the SAT 37% 57%
Percent SAT-takers that scored 1000+ 12% 61%
Source: Data from CDE. SAT-IReport LAUSD. 2000-01,2000; CTA, Comparison Between
the State and LAUSD Under the 2000 API, 2001; and SES, 2000 LAUSD API Data, 2001.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Not surprisingly, 20 percent fewer 12th graders at the lowest performing high
schools take the SAT college entrance exam than their counterparts at the highest
performing high schools. An even more dismal statistic is that only 12% of SAT-
takers at the lowest performing high schools score 1000 or more points, the
minimum score needed for admission to most colleges and universities. SAT-takers
at the highest performing high schools are much more likely to gain admission to
college, as 61% score 1000 or more points on the SAT. Sadly, the current levels of
academic achievement characterized by API and SAT scores represent very poor
educational and employment opportunities for low-income African American and
Hispanic students attending LAUSD schools.
The inequities in educational outcomes in LAUSD schools are even more
pronounced when we look at data on school characteristics in Table 8. There appears
to be a relationship between overcrowding conditions and academic performance, as
the lowest performing schools have worse overcrowding and facility conditions than
the highest performing schools at all three school levels. A significant finding is that
none of the MTYR schools in LAUSD are amongst its highest performing schools at
any of the three school levels. The lowest performing schools have higher school
densities, larger average school enrollments, and significantly higher school building
age averages than the highest performing schools at all three school levels. The
lowest performing schools consistently have smaller school acreage averages and
lower percent of fully credentialed and qualified teachers than the district’s highest
performing schools. Table 8 shows the academic disparities related to overcrowding
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and school conditions for each of the three school levels. There were no LAUSD
middle schools ranked in the top 10% decile and four middle schools that were
ranked in the top 30% decile. No LAUSD regular high schools were ranked in the
top 10% decile, but one high school was ranked in the top 20% decile. The year the
school facility was opened was used as a proxy for building age.
The concentration of low-income non-API minority students in overcrowded,
low performing schools exposes the unequal educational environments and
opportunities in LAUSD. The data shows us that there are two very different
educational realities in LAUSD, one for White and A/PI students and another for
Black and Hispanic students. Inequities in overcrowding, facilities, educational
resources, and educational outcomes based on race and income exist at the
elementary, middle and high school levels as well as the district as a whole.
LAUSD’s failure to successfully build new schools to relieve its most overcrowded
and lowest performing schools has resulted in its most vulnerable students being
denied equal educational environments, opportunities, and outcomes. The district’s
failure to provide all its students with clean, safe, uncrowded and effective learning
environments not only affects the students’ and schools’ success and well-being, but
also the stability and vitality of their communities. When the performance and
perceived quality of a school declines, “it can set in motion a vicious cycle of
middleclass flight and disinvestment” (Orfield and Luce 2002). Thus, the
construction of new schools must not only relieve overcrowding, but also help all
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 8
2000-01 LAUSD School Data
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (420 schools: 359,345
students)
Lowest 10%
Schools
Highest 10%
Schools
Enrollment 154,826 8,584
Number of Schools 136 15
Average School Size 1,138 572
Average Building Age 75 59
Average School Acreage 6 5.8
Density (Students/Acre) 205 98
Percent Multi-Track Year-Round (MTYR) 73% 0%
Average Number of Years Schools MTYR 14 0
Percent Fully-Credentialed Teachers 65% 92%
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (68 schools: 145,662 students) Lowest 10%
Schools
Highest 30%
Schools
Enrollment 63,208 8,233
Number of Schools 27 4
Average School Size 2,341 2,058
Average Building Age 67 42
Average School Acreage 15 21
Density (Students/Acre) 161 96
Percent Multi-Track Year-Round (MTYR) 41% 0%
Average Number of Years Schools MTYR 17 0
Percent Fully-Credentialed Teachers 63% 82%
HIGH SCHOOLS (49 schools: 167,697 students) Lowest 10%
Schools
Highest 20%
Schools
Enrollment 68,678 3,501
Number of Schools 18 1
Average School Size 3,815 3,501
Average Building Age 69 years 33 years
Average School Acreage 23 28
Density (Students/Acre) 169 126
Percent Multi-Track Year-Round (MTYR) 67% 0%
Average Number of Years Schools MTYR 13 0
Percent Fully-Credentialed Teachers 74% 79%
Sources: Data from CTA, Comparison Between the State and LAUSD Under the 2000 API,
2001; LAUSD, History of Schools: 1855-1993,1993; LAUSD, LAUSD Students per Acre
Adjusted for Multi-Track Enrollment, 2000; LAUSD, 2000 School List, 2000; and SES,
LAUSD 2000 API Data, 2001.
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students and communities thrive by reducing educational inequities and improving
the educational outcomes for our most disadvantaged students attending our lowest
performing schools.
School districts can maximize their limited construction funds by prioritizing
those schools that are overcrowded, hampered by poor education quality and serve
students with poor academic achievement and other disadvantages. Not only do new
schools provide better learning environments, but they must also improve the quality
of education and effectively support student success and learning. Especially since
there is not enough funding to eliminate all overcrowding, school districts can help
reduce the achievement gap by prioritizing school construction projects according to
local district and individual school need or disadvantage level and provide new
schools and create better learning environments for its most disadvantaged and
under-performing students. By failing to provide new schools and improve the
quality of education for their most disadvantaged students and overcrowded schools,
school districts will only contribute to the widening achievement gap between
Whites and minority students, between rich and poor students and between English-
speakers and non-English-speakers.
The following chapter discusses the challenges and opportunities school
districts encounter when attempting to build new schools in dense urban
neighborhoods. Due to limited resources, the allocation and distribution of
construction funding and the prioritization of new schools projects are very
important, as not all communities that need new schools will get them. The chapter
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
focuses on the pre-construction activities of long-range planning, site selection,
environmental investigation, relocation, and community engagement, as these
activities involve complex challenges to building new schools as well as
opportunities for building effective learning communities with the help of
community stakeholders. By ensuring that community stakeholders are included and
engaged in the long-range planning and site selection process early and throughout
the entire process in a meaningful way, school districts have a better chance of
successfully building new schools on time, on budget and with the support of
communities.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3
Meaningful Community Engagement in the Planning of
New Urban Schools
Severe facility overcrowding, growing student populations and influx of
school construction funds have put tremendous pressure on school districts to build
new schools as quickly as possible while improving or maintaining high educational
outcomes for students. School districts have responded to these demands and
opportunities by hiring additional staff and consultants to help them plan and
implement their school facility projects. However, there are not enough funds for
school districts to relieve existing overcrowded schools and accommodate growing
student populations. Therefore, they must compete for limited funds and choose
which communities get new schools. School districts often rush to develop their
long-range facility plans which identify new school projects and potential school
sites to meet funding deadlines. Unfortunately, while this competitive funding
process has helped disburse construction funds out to school districts fairly quickly,
it has resulted in some communities being left out of the planning and prioritization
process and failed to ensure that new schools are built that relieve severely
overcrowding and underperforming schools.
Fierce debates and legal challenges have occurred over the prioritization and
funding decisions that determine which school districts and communities get new
schools. Unfortunately, school districts and school construction funding entities have
failed to adequately address the educational equity issues involved in the
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
prioritization and funding of new schools. Even though improved academic
performance and opportunities for low-income minority students are desired
outcomes for new schools, the criteria for prioritization and funding of new schools
do not facilitate the achievement of these touted benefits. By not considering the
concentration of minority and low-income students, severity of overcrowding and
levels of academic performance in the prioritization and funding of new schools,
school districts and funding entities continue to inadequately fund or build new
schools for the most disadvantaged students and overcrowded schools. The mismatch
between desired outcomes for new schools and the prioritization and funding criteria
has helped maintain two distinct school systems; one with high-performing new
schools for affluent, predominately White students and the other with old,
overcrowded, low-performing schools for low-income minority students.
A poorly designed allocation process for school construction bond funds has
helped maintain unequal public schools in California. Upon the passage of
Proposition 1A in November 1998, over 350 school districts filed eligibility
applications for over $7 billion in state funded school construction bond monies for
new school facilities, totaling more than twice the $2.9 billion in bond funds that
were available. Unfortunately, California’s State Allocation Board (SAB), the
agency responsible for allocating the school construction bond funds, failed to award
funds according to a need-based priority system as dictated by the legislation.
Instead, SAB allocated the funds on a “first-come, first-served” basis that resulted in
lower priority school districts with minimal or no overcrowding, receiving
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
construction funds ahead of higher priority and severely overcrowded school
districts. Dense urban school districts experienced significant delays in completing
and submitting their funding applications due to the environmental, land availability
and site assembly challenges they faced. With more vacant and undeveloped land
available, suburban and rural school districts have the advantage over urban districts
in identifying, assembling and gaining site control of potential school sites as
required by the funding application.
Due to the failure of SAB to establish and follow a need-based allocation
system and its unfair and onerous application requirements, high priority and dense
urban school districts lost school construction bond allocations to less dense, smaller
urban and rural districts. The failure of the State “to adopt a system of regulations
and practices that ensures a rational, needs-based allocation of facilities funds and
avoids gross disparities in expenditures and education quality” (Roxana Godinez, et
al. v Gray Davis, Governor o f the State o f California, et al. 2000) resulted in
California’s most vulnerable students continuing to have their rights to equal
educational opportunities as guaranteed by the State Constitution violated. By
favoring efficiency over need, California’s school construction bond allocation
process failed to adequately fund new school projects to relieve the most
overcrowded schools. Since it was imperative that school districts completed and
submitted their applications as soon as possible to get in line for the limited state
bond funding, many school districts chose to submit school projects that had few
development challenges or little controversy and would be quickly approved and
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
funded ahead of higher priority/higher need school projects with complex
environmental, social-political and other challenges.
In 2000, a coalition of civil rights organizations and students attending
overcrowded and dense urban school districts successfully sued the State of
California and its related entities for violating basic constitutional principles and the
over-arching legislative framework of Prop 1A and failing to allocate the limited
facility bond funds according to priority based on need. Through their extensive
research, the plaintiffs showed that the SAB’s pattern of allocations since 1989
resulted in “districts that are in dense urban areas, that have a significant number of
poor children or that have been on multi-track calendars for ten years continue to
receive disproportionately low allocations” (ibid). Unfortunately, even though the
Godinez lawsuit successfully halted SAB’s unfair funding practices, insufficient
funds remained to adequately fund the high priority/high need school projects in the
state by the time the lawsuit was settled.
The impact of SAB’s unfair and illegal funding process has been far-reaching
and continues to affect the viability and completion of high priority/high need school
construction projects throughout California. The intense competition and restrictive
time periods imposed by the bond allocation process hampered community
engagement efforts in many school districts. Some school districts chose to reduce or
eliminate their community engagement efforts as they found the process to be too
burdensome, expensive and time-consuming. School districts that decided that less
community engagement would save them time, money and stress in the short-term,
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
may have hurt themselves in the long run by failing to work with community
stakeholders and residents as partners to adequately address development concerns
and social-political challenges of new school projects. Without sufficient resolution
and collaboration, these challenges will contribute to longer delays, preventing
needed new schools from being built to relieve overcrowded and underperforming
schools. Due to the complexity of issues and challenges faced by high priority/high
need schools and communities they serve, effective community engagement is
needed more than ever to help these school construction projects receive the
regulatory approvals as well as the social-political support needed to get them built.
MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Despite the perceived upfront costs of engaging communities in the planning
of new schools, there are benefits to investing in effective community engagement,
particularly in the long-range planning, prioritization and site selection of new
schools. By engaging community stakeholders early in the process, there is greater
likelihood that they will develop ownership for the project and feel that their ideas
and needs are valued and see that some of them get incorporated. Through multiple
discussions and planning meetings, community stakeholders learn about the big
picture regarding community needs and benefits. Through this process, they begin to
buy into the big picture and support the greater community good instead of their own
individual projects or interests. The engagement process helps individuals develop
new knowledge and skills and relationships with their neighbors, city officials,
school staff, local business owners, and students. New leaders emerge, helping to
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
share the workload and involve more community stakeholders. The community’s
social capital grows through the increased number and depth in interpersonal and
inter-group relationships, leading to a shared vision, goals and values and greater
trust, collaboration and mutual support. Not only does the increased social capital
translate into greater cooperation and support for a location and design of a school,
but it can lead to greater community stability and well-being as neighbors work
together to care for each other and improve their neighborhood.
Despite the limited exposure and acceptance of engaging communities in the
planning of new schools, it is not a new concept. The concept of community
engagement was described in the 27th edition of the American School Buildings, a
journal published by the American Association of School Administrators in 1949. It
has recently received greater attention largely due to the public’s awareness and
demand for it as school construction monies have increased and school construction
projects have become more complicated and controversial and involved a more
diverse set of stakeholders. Furthermore, the increased need and focus on building
new schools in dense urban neighborhoods with a high percentage of low-income
people of color has propelled the construction and planning of new schools into the
community redevelopment and reinvestment arena. The potential displacement of
existing residents and businesses and the opportunity to redevelop and replace
blighted or underutilized sites with new schools has galvanized community
stakeholders in these communities to demand a say and partnership role in the
planning of new schools. The involvement of community stakeholders from the
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
beginning and consistently throughout the planning process can help ensure that the
new schools address their needs and build upon community assets.
Authentic community engagement is an essential part of working effectively
with low-income urban communities. Many of these communities have colorful
histories of community organizing and activism concerning equitable and
responsible community development. Previous and current residents have been
victims of past urban renewal efforts, where local government had displaced large
numbers of low-income minorities from their homes and businesses under
community beautification and revitalization efforts. Many of these communities have
been taken advantaged of, abused and neglected by both government and private
enterprises. Financial institutions and businesses have redlined and disinvested in
these communities, polluted these neighborhoods, and discriminated against their
residents. Given their experiences, many community stakeholders are not
surprisingly weary of and often distrustful of both government and private
institutions wanting to develop or redevelop their neighborhoods. Thus, it behooves
school districts to gain the trust of community stakeholders by involving them early
and consistently throughout the planning process, respecting and incorporating their
ideas and helping them strengthen their knowledge and skills. By investing in the
social capital and leadership development of these communities, school districts can
help these communities protect themselves and realize their goals for healthy,
thriving neighborhoods with high quality schools and well-educated students.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Community engagement is not only needed to help get individual school
projects approved, but also to address broader educational equity and appropriate
community development issues. The consistent engagement of community
stakeholders that advocate for these issues in the long-range planning, prioritization
and site selection of new schools can help ensure that new school projects and long-
range plans help reduce gaps in educational opportunities and achievement between
minorities and low-income students and more affluent and White students. Even
though school districts may have the best intentions to reduce inadequate and
overcrowded school conditions and gaps in educational achievement and
opportunities through their school construction program, community stakeholders
need to be at the table to participate in the planning and decision-making process to
ensure that their interests are realized.
School districts and community stakeholders share the responsibility for
effective community engagement. The realization of a good process and desired
outcomes requires that both parties value community engagement and invest the
necessary time and resources to do it well. However, school districts should not only
accept and value community engagement, but integrate it into their planning process
and provide appropriate financial and human resources to ensure its appropriate
implementation. School districts, especially large ones, will find that when done
well, authentic community engagement has both short-term and long-term benefits.
As school construction programs continue to involve complex land use,
environmental, displacement, social-political and educational equity issues, it
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
behooves school districts to learn how to effectively engage and build partnerships
with community stakeholders and constituents. As the public’s demand for better and
more cost-effective educational systems and outcomes and student population grows,
school districts will continue to feel the pressure to do more and achieve better
outcomes with limited resources while minimizing negative impacts on
communities.
A national movement that supports integrating schools more closely with the
community is growing. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education, the Council of
Educational Facilities Planners International and the American Institute of Architects
identified and adopted the following set of national design principles for educational
facilities that will help realize the vision of schools as centers of communities:
• Enhance teaching and learning and accommodate the needs of
all learners;
• Serve as centers of community;
• Result from a planning/design process involving all
stakeholders;
• Provide for health, safety and security;
• Make effective use of all available resources;
• Allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing needs
(Metropolitan Forum Project 1999).
The remaining portion of this chapter describes the current state of school
facility planning as it relates to community engagement. The following section
focuses on the early part of the school facility planning process, specifically on long-
range facility planning and prioritization, site selection, environmental contamination
and relocation. It includes highlights of school facility planning literature that
specifically addresses community engagement as well as the policies and
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
requirements of some states and school districts regarding community engagement in
their school facility planning processes.
LONG-RANGE PLANNING
Public school districts across the country, facing increasing enrollments and
overcrowded schools, need to build new schools and expand or renovate existing
facilities. School districts have the primary responsibility to address their facility
needs and “must analyze enrollment trends, assess their facility needs, plan for new
facilities, provide local financing, and carry out their own construction projects”
(CDE 2001b). As public school construction projects must comply with state and
federal laws and regulations, there are numerous state agencies that are involved in
the approval and funding of local school construction. In the state of California, five
state entities play a major role in approving and funding local school construction.
Depending on certain conditions, seven other state agencies that operate
approximately 40 programs may also be involved in this process.
One of the first steps in the planning of new schools is the development of a
long-range facilities plan, or Facilities Master Plan. Long-range facilities plans are
essential for helping school districts conceptualize and plan a total educational
system and use a systems approach to planning and problem solving. In California,
the School Facilities and Transportation Division of the California Department of
Education (CDE) recommends that long-range plans include the following basic
components: educational program, educational facilities, demographic study,
implementation plan and evaluation plan. Other educational facility literature
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommends that community analyses, school building utilization and evaluation of
building adequacy also be included in long-range plans.
Much of the educational facility planning literature recommends the
involvement of a broad group of stakeholders in the development of long-range
facilities plans (Earthman 1992, 2000; Metropolitan Forum Project 1999; Sanoff
2000,2002). The California Department of Education recommends that the school
district’s staff, parents, students and community members develop a comprehensive
facilities plan that meets their needs. It also recommends that Boards of Education
“establish a planning organization made up of various stakeholders including
students, parents and community members with the responsibility and support to
develop and implement the plan” (CDE 1990). Although there are practical and
technical limitations of suggestions from persons not technically trained in school
planning and design, school boards are cautioned about making sure that the
“suggestions of teachers, maintenance and custodial staff, and citizens be treated
with sincerity by the board and architect” (AASA 1949). School boards that expect
the public’s rubber-stamp approval of highly development long-range and immediate
phases of planning can hardly be considered to be encouraging meaningful
community participation.
One of the first steps in developing a long-term facilities plan is the
assessment and survey of existing school buildings in terms of their educational
adequacy, capacity and utilization. The evaluations of these factors along with the
projected future enrollments help determine the future school building needs. Many
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school districts conduct school building surveys to 1) develop recommended long
term school building program, 2) formulate recommended first steps in achieving the
long-term program, and 3) create community understanding of and desire for
improved educational programs and facilities (Leu 1965). Students, educators,
parents, citizens, and policymakers can help make decisions regarding the future of
schools by using checklists and surveys to observe and assess existing school
facilities (Sanoff 2000). A school plant survey is a thoughtful and engaging activity
that community members can participate in planning a portion of their overall
community needs, in this case school facilities.
The superintendent can play a major role in educational statesmanship by
facilitating and encouraging community engagement in the school facility planning
process. By engaging the public in a meaningful role in the planning of school
facilities upfront, the public can develop a shared vision of education and schools
with the district and feel greater ownership of the facilities plan. The success of any
public enterprise such as building public schools “requires joint participation in
crystallizing beliefs - participation by parents and non-parents, classroom teachers,
principals, pupils, custodians, superintendent, school board, and civic and business
groups” (AASA 1949). Especially since the successful implementation of a public
school building program is so dependent on effective partnerships and coordination,
school districts should coordinate their building program with the "major socio
political unit of an urbanized society-the city as a whole, or perhaps the
metropolitan planning agencies which are concerned with the economic, commercial,
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and cultural development of the area" (Havighurst 1979). This coordinated effort can
help bring together community stakeholders into the process as partners rather than
alienating them and setting them up to oppose the new school.
Public involvement is especially helpful in identifying a wide variety of
community uses for the possible inclusion in the design of educational facilities. Not
only will there be a considerable difference in the kind of school buildings that are
built, but also in the support of the community for future building programs. In
Orchard Park, New York, after parents and other lay citizens participated in the
remodeling of an existing elementary school and planning of educational programs, a
local bond measure for schools passed with an overwhelming majority when it had
failed twice before (AASA 1949). By creating a process that involved the
community in the planning early and in meaningful ways helped them develop a
better understanding of the need for more schools and greater ownership of the
outcomes, resulting in the public’s support of a local bond measure.
In the community of Hayward, CA, more than 100 parents, educators,
students and other stakeholders participated in an eighteen month long community-
based planning process for new educational facilities. This diverse community
consists of 88 different ethnic groups and 43 different languages. Through this
planning process, the residents decided to celebrate their rich cultural diversity
through their new schools. A new elementary school for 400 students will be
developed as a fine arts multi-cultural museum, academy and cultural center
(Metropolitan Forum Project 1999).
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Unfortunately, too many school districts fail to take the time to engage civic
partners and community stakeholders in the assessment of existing school facilities
and the long-term planning of new schools. Some large school districts claim they
are overwhelmed and understaffed to effectively assess their hundreds of school
buildings, let alone include the public in these evaluations. Some small districts also
point to inadequate number of staff that can complete the necessary technical tasks
and effectively engage the public. Thus, many school districts end up developing
“hastily-conceived and ill-planned program[s] of construction expedience”
(Holcomb, 1995). This type of school construction program rarely meets the needs of
the school district or the public, but is often justified by short funding deadlines or
facility emergencies. When the public is not involved in the assessment or planning,
school districts must work hard to “sell” and get support for building funds and
programs from the public. Instead of investing time and energy up front to seek ways
of broadening citizen involvement in the planning of new schools, school districts
waste precious resources trying to convince the public to support plans they have
very little knowledge of or vested interest in.
Too often the planning efforts of school administrators and professional staff
fail to accurately assess public needs and priorities. Instead of calculating schools’
building capacities based on the educational program designed to serve the
individual differences of each student and community, some school districts tend to
make school capacities the same for similar sized and types of schools. For those
schools that are serving disadvantaged students and resource-poor communities, their
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
use of specialized programs typically reduce overall student capacities. Schools
“serving the culturally [and socioeconomically] disadvantaged typically require
larger amounts of space for their unique curriculum needs” (Leu 1965). For example,
a school serving a majority of low-income, non-English speaking students would
need to set aside classrooms for special English language learning classes, parent
education and English learning classes, and early childhood classes for preschoolers
in order to provide these students with the same educational quality level program as
a school serving middle class, English-speaking students. Unfortunately, school
districts that fail to accurately calculate individual schools’ capacities based on equal
quality educational programs often do not offering specialized programs that would
benefit disadvantaged students and instead create unequal educational opportunities
and outcomes for their students.
With the quality of education and millions of dollars at stake, school districts’
long-term facilities plans need to be accurate and viable. School districts will
ultimately pay for any shortcuts they take, whether they manifest in inaccurate and
inadequate long-term building plans or failed local school bonds. A successful
school building program “requires the participation of many persons, the careful
coordination and scheduling of a great diversity of activities, and sufficient time to
plan carefully and execute the program” (ibid). By valuing the ideas and expertise of
community stakeholders and involving them in the long-range planning process,
school districts can develop more accurate and viable long-range facility plans.
I l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SITE SELECTION
One of the most significant challenges school districts face early on in their
planning process for new schools is finding appropriate and available sites. Even
though some districts are able to acquire and hold sites for future use others may not
have the funds to do so. Oftentimes, the sites purchased end up not being in the area
where a new school is needed. The lack of available and appropriate sites is
especially critical in dense urban areas, where communities are almost entirely built-
out. In contrast to their suburban and rural counterparts, inner city school districts
have to operate as infill developers rather than master plan developers. They do not
have the luxury of locating and planning new schools in vacant and undeveloped
areas or as part of comprehensive master plan developments. Instead, they must try
and fit a new school into fully developed and mature communities that often
resemble an uneven and illogical patchwork of existing land uses.
Most urban districts built their original schools during a time when there was
vacant and undeveloped land available in the central city areas. In the early
development and growth of cities and communities, housing and businesses were
usually built around schools and other important civic infrastructure. As cities grew
outward, new school construction followed the population growth and was typically
built on vacant and undeveloped property further away from the city center.
Especially in established and dense urban communities where virtually all land has
been built out, there are few appropriate and available sites for new schools. Fewer
sites are available for school systems to choose from due to the natural growth in
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
housing, industry and commercial sites and the growing program demands by states
that has increased the size of schools (Earthman 1992). As school districts must build
new schools to relieve overcrowding in these dense central city areas, they struggle
to find appropriate and available school sites they can afford. With less open space
and available land, site selection and acquisition is more contentious and
complicated then ever, as school districts face greater competition from competing
development interests and other infrastructure needs and community opposition in
urban areas across the country.
On the whole, very few vacant parcels of appropriate size and location are
available for new schools in dense urban communities. Operating as infill
developers, urban school districts must acquire land that has been previously
developed as housing, commercial or industrial uses. Land is typically divided into
smaller parcels in older parts of cities. The likelihood of each parcel having separate
owners extends negotiations and transaction costs. Development is further
complicated by the presence of existing structures that may trigger historical
preservation and safety restrictions. The historical status of structures can prevent a
school district from demolishing them or restrict significant modifications and
upgrades needed for school use.
Due to the likelihood that the land is occupied, districts usually must displace
someone or something and take away a current use from the community. Older,
established communities are more likely to have long-term residents and business
owners that often span multiple generations. These property owners and residents
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tend to have significant ties to their land, home and community. They usually have
extensive family, social, cultural and business networks that are not easily
established or replaced if they are relocated. Given their long tenure, these residents
usually resist their displacement and the personal sacrifices they are being asked to
make in order to accommodate younger families with children that are usually
newcomers to the community.
Finding appropriate, available, and affordable sites that cause the least
amount of negative socio-economic and political impact on local neighborhoods is
one of the most difficult challenges. The target area for a new school in dense urban
areas almost always involves existing development and occupants. Determining what
development should be sacrificed or protected and what occupants should be
displaced requires extensive review and negotiation to minimize negative socio
economic political impacts on residents, property owners, businesses and other
stakeholders. The site selection, design and construction of a school in a built-out
and crowded neighborhood require greater community engagement and consensus
building with residents, other local jurisdictions, and stakeholders. Due to the large
amount of land schools require, there are usually numerous landowners involved in
the negotiation and sale of properties to the district that take extra time and often end
up in court. The preparation of bid-ready plans and specifications are also more
challenging and time-consuming due to the smaller school sites and the complexities
presented by the surrounding urban environment.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In general, school districts are looking for school sites that are “safe,
healthful, attractive, and properly located with respect to student homes” (Castaldi
1987). Accurate student enrollment projections are critical for the locating new
school sites where the majority of students live. If a new school site is located
“outside the pupil attendance area (center of pupil population), the school may find it
necessary to transport almost all of the pupil population,” increasing direct costs of
getting children to and from school” (McClurkin 1964). Finding the appropriate
sized site is critical for the effective delivery of the school program. The acreage
requirements for new schools make it difficult for school districts to find appropriate
sites. These size standards are typically set by the state, and rarely consider the land
use realities of local communities. A typical standard is “one acre of land for ever
100 students plus 10 acres for elementary school, 20 acres for a middle school, and
30 acres for a high school” (Beaumont 2002). Due to the larger amount of acreage
required of secondary schools such as middle and high schools, appropriate-sized
sites are difficult to find as they require significant effort to assemble the land and
relocate existing businesses and residents. While the intention of the school acreage
standards is to ensure students have adequate play and sports area, they are not very
feasible in dense urban areas where land prices are very high and the displacement of
existing businesses or residents would be involved. While a number of states have
begun to reconsider and revise their standards, the revision process is very time-
consuming and costly.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Limited Available Land
In California, urban districts are working in collaboration with the California
Department of Education (CDE) to create new program standards for schools that
reflect the requirements of urban schools. For example, CDE now recognizes joint-
use facilities in verifying program compliance. The department’s recognition of the
important role and function school facilities provide communities has resulted in new
specifications that require “all sites provide secured, flexible access for community
use after hours and weekends” (CDE 2001b). Joint-use agreements also benefit
school districts when they locate a new school near an existing park or recreational
facility. Communities benefit from new or expanded recreational facilities that
school districts build to use during the day for students but which are available to
residents in the evenings and weekends. By saving money on the purchase of
property or relocation of residents and property owners, schools districts can use
their funds to improve or expand existing recreational and park assets. Many school
districts and local jurisdictions have partnered together to use limited land efficiently
and resources to maximize benefits for communities. Other common joint-use
agreements have involved libraries, housing developments, museums and even
shopping malls. School districts have even created non-traditional design features in
schools to maximize limited land area by building more underground parking, multi
story structures, and rooftop playgrounds. Improved efficiencies and cost-savings are
also gained through the construction of single building or multi-story structures,
which are more economical in terms of first cost and lifecycle costs.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
However, even with these modified school size standards and efficient
designs, middle and high schools still require significant acreage. Despite schools’
efforts to offer less land intensive physical education and sport opportunities such as
dance and yoga, full-service middle and high schools still require access to soccer,
baseball and football fields. Unfortunately, joint-use opportunities with existing
recreational facilities are not always possible. Extremely dense and low-income areas
typically have fewer parks or adequately sized recreational facilities. In these cases,
the denial of traditional physical education and sport facilities would reinforce the
facility, recreational and programming inequities of low-income urban schools and
communities.
While residential relocation is a site clearing method used by most school
districts, it is not the only option. In the early 1970s, the Mantua Project helped
create mini-schools to avoid the displacement of thousands of people in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Guidelines for site selection for these mini-schools were as follows:
• Minimum displacement of occupied residential or livable non-
residential buildings
• Proximity to public transportation and to other neighborhood
facilities
• Minimum acreage of .20 acres per school
• Geographic relationship to the proposed "feeder area"
• Compatibility with adjacent land uses (Dee 1973).
In order to address the constraints of their smaller school sites, the school district
identified the following four solutions to address their school-site space problems:
1. Fragment components on small parcels of land
2. If all the desired facilities aren't available, adjacent facilities
can be shared
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Cleared land may be used for site facilities & facilities
integrated into the community without destroying buildings
that occupy large areas
4. Students can be bused from mini-schools or from schools
lacking extensive athletic facilities to those that have them
(ibid).
Community Opposition and Competition
In general, unless the existing use is considered a community nuisance,
someone will usually oppose the development of a new school. In many established
communities, existing residents, business owners and property owners resist almost
every kind of development for the basic reason that they do not want anything
changed in their neighborhood. Even though they may see the need and benefit of a
new school, they resist the building of a new school in their neighborhood. Coined
NIMBYism, (Not in My Back Yard), this kind of community opposition is generally
viewed as selfish and self-interested. However, depending on the political clout of a
community, NIMBYism can be an effective obstacle to development.
Community opposition to new schools is well documented. Even though
“everyone wants a new [school] building, no one wants a school located next to their
house or business” (Earthman 1992). In general, adjacent residents and property
owners often hold a negative view of school users and operations, as they fear
increased traffic, noise and crime committed by unsupervised juveniles. Few
residents and business owners look forward to hundreds or thousands of teenagers
“invading” their neighborhood five times a week. In Santa Ana, residents opposing a
new elementary school last year expressed their concern regarding the loss of their
tranquil neighborhood due to the influx of predominantly low-income Latinos
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attending a new school in their upper income, predominantly white neighborhood
(Palacios 2002). One way to foster greater community acceptance and support of
new schools is the inclusion of recreational services and facilities useful to and
accessible by the broader community. An article in the American School Board
Journal “reported that the construction of community recreation centers as part of
schools is a solution for building community support for public education among a
growing number of community residents who do not have children in school”
(Moore and Lackney 1995). By engaging a diverse set of community stakeholders in
the planning process, design and service incentives can be included in the new
school facility that meet some of the needs of local residents who do not have
school-age children.
Even when land is available for sale, urban school districts face difficulty in
acquiring and assembling the property due to the high land cost, competing
development interests and other development restrictions. The average price of land
in central city urban areas is generally higher than land in the urban fringe or rural
areas. In the last twenty years, “school districts have been priced out of the real estate
market, as land prices have increased 100-400%” (Earthman 1992). The close
proximity to existing jobs, businesses and civic and government centers creates
greater demand and higher prices. Furthermore, the existing infrastructure in place
for utilities, waste and transportation also makes the central location more desirable.
Due to the dearth of vacant and undeveloped land in dense urban areas,
controversy over the location of new schools pits property owners against renters,
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
business owners against residents, and even the community against the school
district. As they compete for limited school construction funds, school districts must
move quickly to find and acquire sites and secure the necessary financing to build
new schools or they risk not being able to build them at all. With billions of dollars
and the educational opportunities and futures of thousands of children at stake,
school districts must find effective ways to build community support for its school
building programs and consensus around new school sites.
Competing land uses and developers often win out over schools, as school
districts tend to take longer to acquire or gain control over available sites. Public and
private interests need land for other public infrastructure projects such as parks and
libraries as well as development that will provide jobs, shelter and tax revenue for
local jurisdictions. While local governments are generally sensitive to maintaining a
balance between jobs, housing and schools, their dependency on tax revenue from
local sales tax sometimes makes schools less desirable to them. In some cases, a city
may favor a new retail outlet for its tax revenue over a school. Thus it is
recommended that school districts consult or coordinate their facility plans with their
local planning commissions before school sites are selected. When there is consistent
communication and coordination between school districts and local planning bodies,
“there is a noticeable tendency of the schools to become woven into the total fabric
of the community planning” (AASA 1949). With good coordination other public
agencies, school districts can identify more joint-use opportunities and avoid
incompatible land uses, such as schools located near expanding industrial uses.
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Relocation
As school districts are forced to target occupied sites for new schools, they
face tremendous conflict and controversy around the displacement of property
owners and users. This situation often pits a school district against local residents,
especially when residents consider the current use an asset. In California, school
districts have the power of eminent domain, which gives them the legal right to
displace existing owners and users for a public use such as a school. However, this
option is considered a district’s last resort as it is very costly and time-consuming
and has difficult political, public and personal ramifications.
Even when school districts pursue property through friendly negotiations, site
assessments can become complicated, time-consuming and contentious process. In
California, residents, business owners, and property owners are fortunate to be
protected by the California Relocation Law that requires school districts “to provide
relocation assistance to all qualifying displacees when it acquires land for school
projects” (LAUSD 200Id). This law requires California school districts to pay fair
market value for the property and provide financial assistance for relocation of
occupants to equal or better housing.
When individuals targeted for relocation are asked to make personal
sacrifices for a project they do not see themselves benefiting from, they are more
likely to resent and resist their relocation. With regards to new schools, families and
individuals without school-aged children who are targeted for relocation are typically
the least supportive of the project. The elderly, poor and residents of color are most
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
likely to experience the greatest difficulty when they are forced to give up their
homes. These individuals and families usually have fewer resources to relocate to an
equal or better housing situation. Even though public agencies provide financial
assistance for displacement and relocation, these funds are usually a one-time benefit
or for a limited time. Furthermore, low-income and elderly residents are typically
more dependent upon their social, economic, cultural and familial support systems in
their present neighborhoods for their well-being and livelihood. Residents of color
and low-income residents often face housing discrimination, making it difficult to
find appropriate housing. The shortage of affordable housing makes displaced
families and individuals vulnerable to becoming homeless or living in unsafe or
overcrowded situations.
The displacement of residents and businesses for a new school also has
political, economic and social costs. Despite their public purpose, new schools often
harm the very people they are supposed to serve. Although families with school-aged
children may be more sympathetic to the need for a new school, their relocation can
be very disruptive to families’ stability and their children’s education as they often
are unable to attend the same school due to having to move out of the area. Although
businesses are not the targeted users and beneficiaries of public schools, their
relocation can end up harming families with school-aged children as they may have
to relocate out of the area, too far away for their local workers to continue their
employment or suffer from losses due to the move that results in employee layoffs.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
With all these challenges and negative impacts on families and communities, the
displacement of residents is often viewed as last resort for many school districts.
Building New Schools in Low Income Neighborhoods
Urban school districts often face complex planning and site selection
challenges when building new schools in low-income and disenfranchised
communities of color. Many residents are alienated from and frustrated with their
public schools after generations of children have endured poor educational quality
and academic outcomes and overcrowded, deteriorating school facilities. Decades of
disinvestment have contributed to depressed local economies, extensive blight and
high rates of absentee property owners that complicate real estate and community
development efforts and activities. Despite good intentions associated with efforts to
revitalize neglected communities, “the cost of community change most often falls on
the shoulders of those least able to afford it” (Cannon 2002). Previous public
redevelopment and urban renewal efforts in low-income inner city neighborhoods of
color destroyed neighborhoods and forcibly displaced tenants, homeowners and
locally-owned businesses, leaving many with feelings of ill will and distrust towards
any development, especially those led by public entities. Due to the high level of
need for community investment and revitalization and improved educational
opportunities and outcomes, the planning and construction of new schools is an
important and controversial issue in these communities.
While school facilities must support the educational programs and
achievement of students, they must also serve the social, cultural, and recreational
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
needs of the students and broader community as well (Caudill 1954; MacKenzie
1989). Historically, school buildings have been viewed as comprehensive
community service centers that can support and care for the educational and social
service needs of local communities, not just limited to school-age children. Schools
are often focal points in a community and are one expression of a community’s
commitment to education (Kowalski 1989; Leu 1965). Especially in low income
communities, public school facilities are important assets, as there are few private
resources to meet the social, cultural, recreational needs of the community.
While new schools represent the possibility of better educational
opportunities and revitalized neighborhoods, they also represent the possibility of
destroyed community assets and dislocated businesses and residents. Due to the high
level of community development and educational needs in these communities, the
planning and site selection of new public schools must help build livable and
economically viable communities while improving educational opportunities and
outcomes for disadvantaged students, families and other residents. These outcomes
are so intertwined that in order to achieve and sustain any one of them, the others
must be in place as well. While this vision is bold, it is not impossible. Through a
comprehensive and meaningful community engagement and planning process greater
trust and effective partnerships between school districts and community stakeholders
can be developed to help realize these outcomes.
Due to the significant human, political and financial capital school districts
invest in building new schools; it is easy for school districts and planners to lose
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sight of the fact that new schools are part of the means and not the end goal. The end
goal of successfully educating and preparing all students to be productive and
responsible adults, especially the most disadvantaged students, should not be
sacrificed in order to build new schools on time and within budget. Without focused
effort and commitment to incorporating critical educational reforms into the school
facility planning process, school districts may end up with the unintentional and
undesirable reality of disadvantaged students attending new schools but continuing
to underachieve. By building new schools that help reduce educational inequalities
and support effective educational and community programs, school districts are
contributing towards the development of responsible and productive citizens and
vibrant communities.
Unfortunately, most urban school districts lack the capacity to engage
residents and stakeholders of low-income communities in a process that takes into
consideration the public’s negative perception of and relationship with the school
district and works towards rebuilding trust and forming a partnership with
communities. Instead, many school districts view community engagement or
participation as a burdensome task instead of adding value and helping to build
effective partnerships. However, even when school districts view community
participation in a positive way, many lack the capacity to fully engage community
stakeholders in a meaningful and effective way. Instead of working with existing
community organizations and stakeholders, many school districts heavily rely upon
Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) to serve as the vehicle for parent and
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community support. Especially if the school does not have a positive or effective
relationship with the communities it serves; parents and other community
stakeholders are highly unlikely to be involved with the PTA or other similar school
committees. By relying upon school-based vehicles as their community participation
vehicle and failing to partner with existing community-based organizations, school
districts struggle to engage the broader community in the planning process and build
support for a new school.
Despite the complex challenges involving new school site selection, there is
veiy little literature and few tools available to school districts working with
communities in reaching consensus on new school sites. For the most part,
traditional site selection literature focuses primarily on the physical and
environmental characteristics of a site as they pertain to impacting children’s
learning and safety. The State of Georgia’s site selection guide emphasizes that “the
school site should contribute positively to the health, safety and social aspects of a
child’s life at school” (Georgia Department of Education 1999). School district
manuals rarely mention the assessment and impact a new school would have on the
social, cultural, economic, housing, and political structures of communities. Instead,
much of the literature assumes that a new school only has positive impacts on
communities, even though in reality, a new school may displace residents and
businesses and may become a nuisance to neighbors once in operation.
The State of Alaska is one of the few states that acknowledge school siting
“as a serious public policy decision” (Alaska Department of Education 1997). Its site
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
selection guidelines addresses the issues of land availability, land use, public
sentiment, and other community issues as having important influence on school site
selection. Its guidelines clearly state that “local involvement and judgments
regarding the relative significance of selection criteria are important” in any site
selection process (ibid). Alaska’s guidelines clearly addresses both the educational
and health and safety of its students and school personnel and the impact of a school
on the economic and natural resources of the state and local communities.
Those guidelines establish a set of basic site selection criteria and suggested
evaluation criteria for rating the elements. The selection elements are into three
major categories: 1) social and land use factors, 2) construction cost factors, and 3)
operations and maintenance cost factors. The State recognizes that it does not include
every possible criteria element or that all selection elements apply to every proposed
site. It also does not prescribe the importance of most selection criteria, instead
providing the tools for each community or district through a very clear weighting
system that enables them to evaluate the elements for each site based on its own set
of local values. The State of Alaska emphasizes the community’s role in the
assignment of the weighting factors for each element to ensure its local values are
reflected in each site’s evaluation. They also encourage the use of “community
surveys, public meetings, and other such forums for developing consensus among the
parties affected by the school project” (ibid). By providing clear guidelines and set of
tools, the State of Alaska empowers local communities to identify and select safe and
appropriate sites themselves.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The State of California’s site selection guide also emphasizes the important
consideration of selecting a new school site for a school district and school
community. Its guidelines suggest that school districts form selection teams to select
school sites, consisting of an architect, community members (both with and without
children in the district), teachers, administrators, and public officials. However,
community involvement is deemed voluntary and suggested, as the guidelines
acknowledge that many districts may choose to use only district staff in identifying
and selecting school sites. While California’s site selection guide acknowledges the
need for each site selection team to weigh and consider site characteristics that may
adversely or positively affect a school site, it fails to provide tools in weighing the
different criteria and transferring the values of the selection committee and
community into the process. Similar to the Alaskan guidelines, the California
guidelines suggest a public comment period for the district to review broader
community information and support for preferred and alternative sites. However, the
guidelines fail to provide suggested tools and processes for these community
involvement activities.
Sadly, the ability of school districts to make schools vibrant centers of
communities is limited by their lack of capacity and availability of appropriate tools
to help them effectively engage the community throughout the planning process. As
more school districts find community engagement and partnership an essential and
valuable aspect of school facility planning and site selection, greater community
consensus and support for new school facilities will be realized. By broadening state
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and school district guidelines for school site selection to include the analysis and
consideration of socio-economic, political, and cultural impacts on communities,
more school facility projects will be well-integrated, supported and successful in
achieving the desired outcomes.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
Due to the dearth of vacant and available sites in dense urban areas, a
growing number of new schools are being built on contaminated land as they are
often viewed as the only options for keeping schools in close proximity to the
community served. Called brownfields, the Environmental Protection Agency
describes them as “abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial or commercial
[properties] where expansion or development is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination” (CHEJ 2001). Experts estimate that there are more
than 500,000 brownfields nationwide with the majority located in inner city areas as
vestiges of the old industrial and commercial cores of our nation’s large
manufacturing centers (Bartsch and Collaton 1997). While brownfields are attractive
to school districts and the community alike for their size, location and relative low
impact of dislocation of occupants, they also present significant risks to the health
and safety of students and school staff. While new technology has helped clean up
and redevelop brownfields safely and cost-effectively across the country for reuse as
parks, commercial, industrial, residential and even schools, each brownfield is
different, requiring extensive investigation, testing and assessment to ensure
accuracy of the extent and type of contamination and availability of safe and
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effective ways to clean up, remove and contain the contamination to ensure the
safety of the site’s users and neighbors.
Especially since virtually all targeted new school sites in dense urban areas
involve previously developed land, there is a greater likelihood that the soils,
groundwater, and existing structures contain toxins dangerous to human health.
While the likelihood of environmental contamination existed before, the extent and
regulation involving clean up of contamination is by far more complicated and
controversial today. Due to previously unchecked and unregulated environmental
degradation and contamination and poor record keeping from earlier development
and business practices, knowledge of existing contamination is limited. Developers
often start digging up a site and discover unregistered leaky underground storage
tanks. Urban school districts must typically spend more time and money and require
a higher level of expertise environmental assessment and remediation when
identifying and analyzing proposed new school sites.
With regard to new school sites, “the safety of those occupying a school
building is of prime concern to the architect, educators, and boards of education”
(Castaldi 1987). Thus, when school districts pursue new school sites they want to
make sure that the “environment of every school should provide to the greatest
degree, safe and healthful conditions for the pupils and teachers while on the school
grounds, in the building, and in the immediate neighborhood of the school” (AAS A
1949). The need to investigate and ensure that prospective school sites can be
cleaned up and made safe for children is a growing requirement for all school
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts. Just as “smaller class sizes and access to modem technology are critical to
improving children’s opportunity to learn, so is minimizing health risks posed by
unsafe school renovation, construction, and siting in contaminated areas” (CHEJ
2001). Since laws compel children to attend school, they have the right to receive a
free, equal and good public education in a clean and safe learning environment that
does not jeopardize their health.
The environmental risks related to the use of contaminated land complicate
the siting of new schools. Low-income communities of color are often faced with
two horrible choices: overcrowded, old, and dilapidated schools or new,
technologically advanced schools located on contaminated sites. Environmental
justice advocates are especially concerned about children’s increased exposure to
contamination at new schools as low-income children of color “already suffer
disproportionately from asthma, lead poisoning, and developmental disabilities”
(ibid). While new environmental detection and cleanup technologies that have come
on the market in recent years have helped make some commercial and industrial sites
viable for new schools, harmful health risks exist for children and staff of schools
located on contaminated sites. One example involves a $7 million elementary school
built atop a former dump in New Orleans, GA. After parents demanded soil testing,
test results documented high levels of contamination including arsenic and lead. The
school and surrounding neighborhood were placed on the Superfund list and the
school was closed. Another example involves a new $76 million high school planned
in Houston, TX. The proposed site is located a quarter mile from industries that spew
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nearly five million pounds of toxic pollution into the air annually. Students who train
on the track will be next to property where a chemical flare bums gasses released by
the plant (ibid). These examples are just two of the many cases nationwide that have
documented real or potential harmful impacts on children’s health at existing and
new schools built on or near contaminated sites.
The complexity and controversy surrounding contamination and school sites
involves the level and type of acceptable exposure government, school districts and
the public are willing to accept for children. Public concern regarding the
redevelopment and reuse of previously contaminated sites involves the inadequacy
of science to thoroughly investigating the impacts of contaminants on children.
Research has shown that “children are more susceptible to adverse health and
developmental outcomes from exposure to chemicals than adults” (ibid). Thus, the
use of risk calculations “based on health effects found in adults weighing 160 lbs.,
exposed for a lifetime (70 years), and behaving like adults is totally inappropriate for
children” (ibid). Because children’s organ systems are still developing, they “absorb,
metabolize, detoxify, and excrete poisons differently from adults,” making them
more vulnerable as they are less able to deal with environmental toxins (ibid). In
instances of lead exposure, “children absorb about 50% of the lead to which they are
exposed, while adults absorb only 10-15%” (ibid). Furthermore, children do not have
the same levels of risk as adults, as their behavior often increases their risk to
exposure to contaminants. Young children’s tendency to crawl and play on the
grown or floor and outside increases their exposure to contaminated dust and soil and
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other potential hazardous substances” (ibid). With inadequate research on the
interactions between chemical exposure and growing children, we need to err on the
side of caution instead of risking children’s health and well-being.
Due to the vulnerability of children to toxic poisoning, demand for
investigating polluting sources and hazards that are adjacent or in close proximity to
the potential school site is growing. There is increasing scrutiny regarding school
safety with regard to its surrounding environment, both physical and chemical. More
school districts have expanded their safety assessments beyond street traffic to
include proximity of power lines, hazardous waste sites, oil refineries, and landfills
to name a few. As contaminants from adjacent or nearby polluting sources can travel
through the air, water, and soils, an assessment of land uses surrounding and near the
school site must be done to identify potential contamination. Despite the evidence
showing the need for increased vigilance for identifying environmental hazards, the
identification of polluting sources is difficult. While specific polluting sources and
hazardous wastes are regulated by different regulatory agencies, many of them do
not coordinate their monitoring or reporting efforts. School districts must hire trained
consultants or staff that can effectively identify and search databases that track
hazardous waste and the release of contaminants. With multiple polluting sources,
children are more likely to be exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously. Since the
calculation of risks based on health effects are done for individual toxins, children’s
risk of exposure to multiple contaminants can be underestimated, as the calculations
do not account for the cumulative effect on the human body. To help ensure that
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students will not be oversaturated with pollutants at a new school site, school
districts should work with environmental health experts during site selection in
conducting these tests and assessments.
Whether or not contamination exists on a property targeted for new school
development, school districts should spend the extra time and money to
appropriately investigate a site’s history. A historical title and land use document
search of a commercial or industrial property is rarely considered adequate.
Oftentimes, commercial and industrial properties skip the initial historical land use
document review and go straight to a physical testing of the soils and underground
water to adequately characterize the type, extent and risk for exposure to the
contamination. This on-site testing and investigation adds tens of thousands of
dollars and many months and sometimes years to a project’s time and costs
depending on the extent and type of contamination and proposed use of the site.
Although it is more costly, accurately identifying contaminants’ type, amount and
risk to human exposure are important in assessing the risk levels to humans and the
environment. While chemicals can generally be ranked according to their harm and
impact on humans, the extent and type of contamination of the site can raise or
minimize the risk of exposure to site users.
However, even with the best contamination experts and toxicologists
available, there are still limits to science and current technology to accurately assess
sites as well as make them safe for children. High costs are a major barrier to school
districts getting complete and accurate site assessments and necessary testing and
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
removal of the contamination. The use of special equipment and laboratory tests
require a high level of expertise, resulting in high staff and contracting costs. In
situations where the contamination cannot be removed, the monitoring of the
contamination and its safety system are expensive and require a high level of
expertise that most school districts cannot provide themselves or afford. Although no
site can ever be made one hundred percent safe, the type and extent of contamination
makes some future uses of sites more and less risky for its users.
The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ), a well-respected
environmental justice and health organization, conducted a nationwide study on the
extent of contaminated schools and their threat to communities and children. The
following are their recommendations for site selection, investigation and clean up of
proposed schools sites to protect children from chemical contamination in air and
soil surrounding schools and on school grounds:
• Participation in the site selection and acquisition of new school
sites by parents, appropriate students, teachers and community
members
• To ensure precautionary approaches are taken when locating new
schools, a complete site history, site visit, survey of surrounding
potential sources of contamination, and testing and evaluation of
potential health risks to children should be part of every site
investigation
• No school should be built on top of hazardous waste, garbage or
landfilled property
• No source of contamination, such as a landfill or containment
facility, should be within 1,000 feet of a school. No industrial or
other facilities releasing chemicals be within 2 miles of a school
(ibid).
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Their recommendations are consistent with the new environmental regulations
required in California. In 1999, the California legislature with support and assistance
from environmental justice advocates passed two laws requiring state oversight in
the environmental review process for the proposed acquisition and/or construction of
school properties utilizing state funding. California’s environmental review process
involves extensive investigation, assessment and testing to determine if the selected
properties are free of contamination, or if the property is contaminated, that it is
cleaned up to a level that is protective of the students and faculty who will occupy
the new school. So far, the new environmental review processes has resulted in
greater consistency in environmental investigations and clean up of sites as well as
improved public notification and involvement.
When planning new schools, communities and school districts want to ensure
that new schools are built where they are needed most and on clean, safe and
appropriate land that does not require the destruction of community assets. However,
due to financial constraints and short timelines for project development, school
districts often do not invest the time and money to engage communities in the long-
range planning and site selection process in a meaningful way. When community
stakeholders are not involved early in and consistently throughout the process, they
are not able to give their input to prioritization and site selection of new schools that
reflect their interests and needs. Especially since new schools planned for dense
urban areas will usually require the displacement of an existing use and users,
extensive community engagement and time are needed to bring together community
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stakeholders to help identify ways to minimize and mitigate negative impacts of a
new school on impacted parties as well as the community as a whole. Although it
may take more time and money during the planning process, strong community
support of a new school can result in greater social, political, economic and academic
benefits.
In an effort to help illustrate some of the challenges and promising practices
in engaging communities in a meaningful way in the planning and site selection of
new urban schools, the following chapter focuses on LAUSD’s new school
construction program from 1999 to 2001. During this period, LAUSD developed and
began implementing its ambitious 1999 Long Range Plan for new school facilities.
The chapter specifically focuses on how LAUSD worked with and engaged its
diverse local communities in planning and building 158 school facility projects
during this period.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 4
LAUSD’s School Construction Program
As described in the preceding chapter, urban school districts face incredible
challenges in planning and implementing their new school construction programs. In
particular, pre-construction activities such as long-range planning, site selection and
environmental investigation and remediation require meaningful community
engagement to help school districts successfully implement their school building
programs. This chapter continues the case study on LAUSD, with a particular focus
on how it has engaged the community through its long-range planning, site selection
and environmental investigation processes for new schools during 1999 to 2001. By
focusing on LAUSD, I hope to illustrate its challenges, lessons learned and
promising practices for successfully building new schools in dense urban
communities.
As described in Chapter 2, LAUSD has had a severe facility and educational
crisis that has impacted low-income and minority students significantly for more
than two decades. The significant financial resources it has received recently to build
new schools and repair existing ones provides the district with the opportunity to
address its facility and educational inequalities. The district faces multiple and
difficult challenges that disproportionately impact its low-income and minority
students such as: 1) overcrowded, deteriorated facilities, 2) poverty and low literacy
and skills of students and families, and 3) dense, distressed, crime-ridden
neighborhoods that lack adequate institutional and social structures, have limited
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assets and limited available land. By working with community stakeholders as
partners in its planning and construction process, the district can build new schools
that help improve student performance, serve and strengthen families and contribute
to the safety and revitalization of neighborhoods.
LAUSD’s LONG-RANGE FACILITIES PLAN
The Los Angeles Unified School District is currently engaged in the largest
building program in its history. Its school construction program is guided by its 2000
Master Plan. This plan describes the district’s primary goal of providing a two-
semester, K-12 neighborhood school seat for every student in LAUSD. Through
2007, the district plans to complete the construction of 158 school facility projects to
relieve severe overcrowding and accommodate projected growth in its student
population. According to the district’s Strategic Execution Plan for Delivery of New
Schools, a companion document to its 2000 Master Plan that was drafted in
November 2001, the district will create 76,831 new two-semester seats by building
3,230 new classrooms in 78 new schools and 60 building additions at existing
schools (LAUSD 2001c). The district’s new construction program will create 29,345
new high school seats, 9,264 middle school seats, and 38,222 elementary and
primary center seats, increasing the existing seat capacity by 11.52% (ibid). The
district has estimated that these new schools and expansions will require the
acquisition o f433 acres of land, consisting of 934 parcels. Table 9 summarizes the
type of seats created and anticipated costs under the district’s Comprehensive New
Construction Program as of November 2001.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 9
Overall New Construction Program Summary
Description Projects 2-Sem
Seats
Total Budget Anticipated
Budget
P R IO R IT Y P L A N F O R N E W SC H O O L SE A T S
Primary Centers 78 1,976 $73,928,943 $74,406,021
Elementary Schools 13 8,935 $323,358,656 $338,023,671
Middle Schools 6 8,994 $302,392,681 $337,646,785
High Schools &
Continuation Schools
21 27,441 $1,178,629,952 $1,264,230,776
Additions 12 3,594 $96,250,258 $102,300,807
Other Program Costs $149,587,926 $149,587,926
PRIORITY PLAN TOTAL 59 50,940 $2,124,148,416 $2,266,195,986
ESC U TIA P L A N F O R N E W SC H O O L SE A T S
Primary Centers 19 6,920 $264,913,269 $261,408,442
Elementary Schools 12 9,241 $272,243,444 $280,071,087
Additions 28 6,880 $107,640,087 $112,529,546
Playground Expansions 20 0 $44,196,434 $45,606,576
Other Program Costs $28,085,987 $28,085,987
ESCUTIA TOTAL 79 23,041 $717,079,221 $727,701,638
C LA SS-SIZE R E D U C T IO N & GROKVTH P L A N F O R N E W SC H O O L SE A T S
Additions 20 2,850 $38,766,827 $50,231,776
CSR/GROWTH TOTAL 20 2,850 $38,766,827 $50,231,776
N E W C O N STR U C TIO N TO TALS
Primary Centers 26 8,896 $338,842,212 $335,814,463
Elementary Schools 25 18,176 $595,602,100 $618,094,758
Middle Schools 6 8,994 $302,392,681 $337,646,785
High Schools &
Continuation Schools
21 27,441 $1,178,629,952 $1,264,230,776
Additions 60 13,324 $242,657,172 $265,062,129
Playground Expansions 20 0 $44,196,434 $45,606,576
Other Program Costs
i S K M I S
$177,673,913 $202,475,513
TOTAL 158 76,831 $2,879,994,464 $3,068,931,000
Source: Data from LAUSD, Strategic Execution Plan fo r Delivery ofN ew Schools, 2001.
Since 1997, the district has changed its Master Plan three times, revising the
list and priority of schools to be relieved by new schools, the number and priority of
new schools, new seats and additions to be built and the overall costs and budget.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These revisions reflected the district’s changing priorities, cost overruns and budget
shortfalls. The 1998 Facilities Master Plan, developed in support of the Prop BB
initiative, “identified 83,000 seats required to provide an opportunity for all LAUSD
students to attend a neighborhood school on a multi-track calendar” (ibid). In order
to improve the accuracy of the Master Plan as well as integrate funding from Prop
BB and Prop 1 A, district staff clarified and adjusted cost estimates, educational
program requirements and district specifications. Upon completing this assessment,
district staff determined the district could not build the total number of seats included
in the 1998 Master Plan with the currently available funds. The district then began
modifying its Master Plan to reflect its near-term goals and developed a priority list
of new school projects that would be built that included a smaller number of new
seats to be built for each grade level across the eleven local districts. These revisions
became the 2000 Master Plan and Priority List and were presented to and approved
by the LAUSD Board of Education on June 29,2000 and presented to the Prop BB
Oversight Committee at its July 2000 meeting.
As of November 2001, the district anticipated total project costs to be over $3
billion. Although the district’s planned new 76,831 new seats will help ease a
significant amount of overcrowding and student population growth in the district, it
will not relieve all school overcrowding. Many of the district’s schools, particularly
high schools, will continue to operate on multi-track year-round calendars. The
district’s overcrowding problems will become even worse if it is unable to secure the
necessary funding for the schools planned in its 2000 Master Plan. The funding of
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
new schools has been and continues to be a major obstacle for the district in
achieving its goals and facilities master plan.
In the last five years, LAUSD has been allocated a record amount of funds
for the repair and upgrade of existing facilities and the construction of new schools.
These funds have given LAUSD its most significant opportunity to reduce unsafe
and overcrowded conditions and improve obsolete educational facilities. In April
1997, Los Angeles voters approved a local bond measure, Proposition BB (Prop
BB), providing $2.4 billion for the repair and upgrade of existing LAUSD school
facilities and the construction of new facilities to reduce school overcrowding. Of the
total, $1.5 billion was designated for work on existing facilities and $900 million for
new construction. Over a year later in November 1998, California voters approved a
state bond measure, Proposition 1A (Prop 1 A), providing $2.3 billion for school
facilities modernization and $2.9 billion for new school construction statewide. This
bond measure also included $278 million for LAUSD under the “Escutia” program,
which designated funds for the construction of new facilities to relive excessive
campus density at elementary schools resulting from the reduction of class sizes in
kindergarten through third grade.
Although LAUSD has received more construction funding than any other
district in the state, it still has not received its fair share based on student enrollment
and its school construction needs have always been higher than its funding.
California school districts compete for Prop 1A funds, which require a 50 percent
match from the district. Although LAUSD was originally eligible to receive more
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
than $1 billion of the Prop 1A funds, it stood to receive no more than $25 million
under the SAB’s allocation system. By the time a lawsuit was filed challenging
SAB’s allocation system, over $1.25 billion of Prop 1A new construction funds had
already been allocated to school districts. In August 2000, a Los Angeles judge
“ruled that the law required the State Allocation Board to use a priority system
ensuring the remaining $750 million went to districts with the greatest need” (Smith
2002). In September 2000 SAB set aside $750 million of the remaining Prop 1A
funds for California’s most overcrowded school districts. These funds would not be
made available until June 2002 when LAUSD expected to have completed
environmental investigations and gain site control on a number of new school
projects and submit their applications for funding. In response to the lawsuit, the
SAB revised its allocation system making it easier for the neediest districts to qualify
for the remaining bonds funds and receive points based on need rather than
timeliness of applications. In September 2002, the State Allocation Board (SAB)
voted to commit the remaining $468 million from the 1998 Prop 1A state school
bond to LAUSD.
Not only has the district not received its fair share of construction funds, but
it has not maximized the funding it did receive. Due to higher management,
environmental investigation and remediation and real estate acquisition costs, the
district has not built as many new schools or additions as it originally planned with
the funds it has already spent. The management of its construction program has been
hampered by political infighting, fiscal mismanagement and shifting priorities. Over
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a two year period, four different superintendents have been hired to manage LAUSD,
numerous staff have left, and a major reorganization of the district into eleven local
districts created tremendous chaos and uncertainty and contributed to the district’s
poor reputation.
Public confidence in the district’s real estate and facilities division to manage
the massive construction program has also waned (LAUSD 2000b). Their limited
capacity during the last twenty years resulted in the construction of only a handful of
elementary schools and primary centers and not a single high school since 1971. The
districts’ environmental fiascos at the nearly completed Belmont Learning Complex
near downtown Los Angeles and the 40-acre site for the new South Gate high school
led to an entire reorganization of the environmental and real estate divisions. The
majority of senior staff were either fired or took early retirement, resulting in the loss
of the division’s most experienced staff and significant institutional memory. Private
consultants were brought in to reshape the division with very little knowledge of
district and state policies governing the school district and school construction. The
efforts of consultants and new staff resulted in a tumultuous year filled with
confusion and frustration, resulting in very little progress being made.
By early 2000, almost three years after the passage of the district’s local Prop
BB bond measure, the district’s new school construction program experienced such
serious problems in the implementation of its 1998 Master Plan that they jeopardized
its success. The district’s own assessment found that “no new school sites had been
selected, few new building had begun design and concern over the Belmont Learning
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Center had resulted in the institution of a new set of State environmental review
processes with which the district was ill-equipped to comply” (LAUSD 2000b).
Furthermore, the district was behind in submitting its applications for the 50 percent
funding match from the state’s school bond, Prop 1 A, jeopardizing it chances to
receive its fair share of funding. In February 2000, several new key staff members
and consultants were hired by the district to help turn around its construction
program and conduct “a complete reassessment of the Prop BB program, including
its management structure, personnel, plans and budgets, and its approach to real
estate acquisition, environmental review and community interaction” (ibid). The
newly hired turnaround team focused its work on putting the Prop BB program back
on track, establishing achievable objectives, developing effective project
implementation strategies, maximizing the award of state funds, and the creation of
an effective management structure and controls and procedures necessary to
successfully implement the program.
While the district has gotten on track with its funding applications and
pursuing the development of more than 158 school projects, it still does not have all
the funds in hand to complete its school construction projects. Even though the
district reduced the number of new seats and schools when it revised its 1998
Facilities Master Plan in 2000, the budget is still $188 million (6.6%) more than the
budget for the 1998 Master Plan. Table 10 shows that the district needs more than
$1.3 billion in funding to complete its projects and build the seats it has planned.
Table 11 provides a summary of project costs and anticipated funding from the
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district’s Five-Year Capital Forecast in Support of the District Facility Plan reported
to the Augmented Facilities Committee in September 2001.
TABLE 10
Funding Status for New Construction Projects
Func ed Unfunded Funds
Local District Projects Seats Projects Seats Required
A 4 3,532 3 3,326 $119,643,752
B 10 5,281 3 1,919 $82,582,156
C 2 519 2 2,000 $75,057,200
D 6 1,105 1 230 $1,652,780
E 13 4,940 5 1,874 $28,243,220
F 11 3,953 14 12,423 $409,006,728
G 6 2,514 4 2,889 $120,392,196
H 8 4,064 11 9,727 $368,657,248
I 1 184 3 1,068 $7,674,648
J 13 7,118 11 6,165 $127,678,461
K 5 736 2 1,264 $9,083,104
TOTAL 79 33,946 59 42,885 $1,349,669,493
Source: Data from LAUSD, Strategic Execution Plan fo r Delivery o f New Schools, 2001.
The district has been working to solidify its anticipated funding from existing
sources for new construction. Due to the successful lawsuit against the State
Allocation Board (SAB) last year, the district received an extended deadline of June
2002 to submit its applications for the remaining $750 million in Prop 1A funds. The
district was able to submit applications for $916 million of new construction funds
from SAB by the June 2002 deadline. In September 2002, SAB notified the district
of another $468 million allocation, bringing the total amount of Prop 1A bond funds
apportioned to LAUSD to $693 million. While the district claims that it has more
than half the money needed to complete its planned 158 school projects, the Prop 1A
allocation is $14 million less than the district originally anticipated last year.
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 11
Budget Shortfall for New Construction Program
Anticipated Funding from Existing Sources for Construction of New Seats
Prop BB $734 million
State Prop 1A $707 million
Escutia Interest $46 million
Other state $94 million
Developer Fees $80 million
Federal renovation $16.6 million
Total $1,677 billion
Anticipated Project Costs for New Construction as of 11/01
Total Project Costs $3.03 billion
Budget Shortfall
Project Costs Less Anticipated Budget $1.36 billion
O ther Capital Costs
Capital Costs Not Due to New Construction $731.2 million
Total Capital Budget Shortfall
All Capital Costs Less Anticipated Budget $2,088 billion
Source: Data from LAUSD, Strategic Execution Plan fo r Delivery o f New Schools, 2001.
With many of its planned projects underway, the district needs to identify
additional funding sources to pay for the completion of its projects. Presently, the
district is depending on the passage of a state school facility bond for $13 billion and
a local bond for LAUSD for $3.35 billion on the November 2002 ballot. The district
expects to receive a $650 million from the state bond if it passes in November. While
the district expects to use all the bond funds it is allocated from the new state bond to
complete its current 158 planned projects, it has earmarked $1 billion of the local
bond for future projects that will relieve MTYR schools. At the direction of
Superintendent Romer, the district’s long-term plan to eliminate MTYR involves the
construction of another 140 to 160 additional schools. If the local bond passes, the $1
billion will help the district bring its long-term plan into reality. However, for the
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
time being, the district’s priority is getting its current 158 projects fully funded and
completed. While the district is hopeful that one or both bond measures will pass in
November, it needs to develop a strategy and contingency plan for the defeat of
either or both bond measures.
Despite the improved management and implementation of the district’s new
facilities construction program, it faces significant obstacles and challenges ahead.
There are reasonable doubts concerning the passage of either bond measure. First,
the $13 billion state bond measure is larger than Proposition 1A, which is currently
the largest statewide bond measure to be passed by Californians in state history.
Second, prior to the passage of Prop 1A in 1998, the largest bond measure to win
approval was for $5.9 billion in June 1994, when California was emerging from a
recession. Furthermore, “a sluggish economy, an uninspiring gubernatorial race, and
bids for San Fernando Valley and Hollywood secession could jeopardize their
passage” (Moore 2002). Public confidence in the district’s management and
implementation of the $1.8 billion Prop BB bond has been low in the past, primarily
due to the district’s poor handling of the Belmont Learning Center and South Gate
Learning Complex fiascos. Controversy over the Belmont Learning Center continues
to make the news headlines on a regular basis. The district’s disclosure of $600
million excessive management costs and other inefficiencies from the its school
repair program, funded by Prop BB, a $2.4 billion local bond passed in 1997 also
contributes to poor public confidence in the district. Other public controversies over
school sites and relocation of over 1,000 residents are also expected to bombard the
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district with more negative publicity. Without a significant number of new schools
and improved school conditions at existing schools to show their success in spending
Prop BB funds, the district faces an uphill battle in winning over public confidence
and votes for both bond measures.
Community Engagement in Long-Range Planning
Absent from LAUSD’s long-range planning process was the meaningful
engagement of community stakeholders. Instead of actively soliciting community
review and input of its long-range plan, prioritization of projects, criteria and policy,
the district developed and revised its Master Plan behind closed doors with select
staff and consultants. While the plans were presented and approved by the School
Board and open to public input at School Board meetings, the public and impacted
stakeholders were largely unaware of the district’s plans. Without the involvement of
community stakeholders to provide input and oversight of the district’s plans and
policies, the district’s 2000 Facilities Master Plan and priority list did not truly
reflect the legislative intent of Propositions BB and 1A for new school construction
that targets the relief of existing overcrowded schools that utilize MTYR schedules
and involuntarily bus students from their overcrowded neighborhood schools.
LAUSD’s 2000 Master Plan does not adequately address academic and
facility inequities amongst its schools and students. Nor does it consider other
facility and educational inequalities, such as low-income status, minority population
and academic performance as additional criteria in the prioritization of new schools.
For the most part, the lead staff and consultants that drafted the 2000 Facilities
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Master Plan and priority list did not include educators, parents of current LAUSD
students, people of color, low-income persons, or people familiar with educational
and facility inequity issues concerning minority low-income communities. Even the
Prop BB Citizens’ Oversight Commission, whose responsibility is to oversee the
planning and implementation of the Prop BB new construction program was not
involved in the revisions to the Master Plan and the development of the priority list.
Even though the district had identified “community engagement at all steps of the
process” as one of its guiding principles for the strategic execution of its New
Facilities Master Plan and priority list, it failed to follow its own principles in the
development of the 2000 Master Plan and priority list (LAUSD 2001c). Sadly, even
though the district has utilized community input and engagement strategies when it
considered dividing up the district into eleven local districts, it failed to utilize these
strategies and seek the input of its constituents when millions of dollars and new
schools were at stake. By failing to engage a more representative and broader group
of community stakeholders upfront during the key policy and budget decisions, the
district missed invaluable input to its Master Plan and priority list and key
community supporters for its construction program.
The ramifications of this closed-door planning process on the district’s school
construction program and policies are significant. Upon the recommendation of
district staff and consultants, the district decided to abandon the previous
overcrowding and “need” criteria based on current multi-track, year-round (MTYR)
schools and involuntary busing to determine the prioritization of new seats. Instead,
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the staff decided to prioritize new seats based on two criteria: “the seat shortfall in
each attendance area in its peak enrollment year and the number of years schools
have been on multi-track, year-round calendars” (ibid). This policy change resulted
in projected future overcrowding in less crowded schools considered an equal need
to existing and longstanding overcrowding.
This change was significant, as the district had received construction funds
based on its historical and current overcrowding at MTYR schools, not its projected
growth and overcrowding. While most of the MTYR schools were still at the top of
the priority list, less crowded schools that operated on single-track two-semester
calendars made the priority list ahead of some of the MTYR schools. By choosing to
prioritize new schools that would relieve projected seat shortages in the peak year of
student enrollment rather than currently overcrowded schools, less crowded
communities, particularly those in the urban fringe and suburban areas would get
new schools built ahead of dense, overcrowded communities in the inner city.
Although district demographers defended the accuracy of their projections,
which are based on county birth records, boundary changes and cohort advancement,
their projections are not foolproof. According to the district’s projections, parts of
the San Fernando Valley, one of the least crowded areas in the district, appear to
grow faster and have greater seat shortages than some of the dense inner city areas
during the next ten years. Unfortunately, the district’s decision to relieve potential
overcrowding in the San Fernando Valley that is projected to occur over the next ten
years does little to remedy the severe overcrowding and unequal facilities and
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educational opportunities and outcomes that have existed in the inner city areas for
over two decades.
LAUSD’s prioritization of projected population growth and overcrowding
over existing overcrowding is very similar to the State Allocation Board’s (SAB)
criteria and ranking system it used to award and distribute Proposition 1A bond
proceeds up until 2001. Under their old ranking system, the SAB funded a number of
requests for new school construction that accommodated projected future student
growth over requests to relieve existing and longstanding overcrowding. Instead of
awarding school construction funds based on current need and overcrowding, the
SAB violated the legislative framework of Prop 1A by awarding funds to districts to
build new schools for students that did not yet exist. The SAB’s former ranking
system resulted in smaller, wealthier suburban and rural school districts that were
projected to experience rapid growth from new housing construction, receiving
construction funds over poorer, older and denser inner city communities and school
districts. A coalition of civil rights organizations, community groups, and students
from Los Angeles successfully sued the state as the court found that the need to
relieve existing overcrowding was greater than the need to relieve projected or
potential overcrowding.
The district’s decision to prioritize projected future growth over existing
overcrowding ignores the harmful effects of involuntary busing and the use of
MTYR schools for extended periods of time on students, families, and communities.
By prioritizing and building new schools in less crowded urban fringe areas ahead of
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
overcrowded MTYR schools in the inner city areas, the district will continue to
maintain inferior educational conditions and opportunities in its dense, low-income
communities of color. This policy change appears to prevent the use of MTYR
schedules and involuntary busing in less crowded, urban fringe communities that
have higher incomes and larger populations of white and Asian and Pacific Islander
students while maintaining overcrowding and involuntary busing in low-income non-
API minority communities. Even though the implementation of MTYR schedules
and involuntary busing is more feasible in the less crowded urban fringe areas as
they have more schools that operate on traditional two-semester calendars, they will
not have to endure these horrific educational conditions that the overcrowded dense
inner city areas have for decades.
The impact of the district’s policy change is most evident and significant at
the middle and high school levels. There are nine multi-track, year-round middle and
high schools and 78 MTYR elementary schools that will not be relieved due to this
policy change. Table 12 describes the characteristics of the seven MTYR middle and
two MTYR high schools that will not be relieved by new schools. Together, these
schools have operated on MTYR schedules for 57 years. They are 1,490 seats short
and are projected to be 276 seats short in the peak year of enrollment. In addition to
the chronic overcrowding, these schools are academically ranked at the lowest ten
percent or twenty percent lowest deciles in the state. With regards to projected seats
short, three of the schools, Franklin High, Washington Prep High and Bethune
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Middle School all have projected seat shortages in their respective peak year of
enrollment, ranging from 16 seats to 320 seats.
TABLE 12
Multi-Track Year-Round Middle & High Schools Not Relieved by New Schools
Local
District
MTYR
School
# Years
MTYR
API State
Decile
Rank
Current
Seats Short
Projected
Seats Short
B Byrd MS 7 2 26 -119
B Maclay MS 9 1 116 -61
E Franklin HS 6 2 716 16
E Le Conte MS 2 2 487 -22
E Mt. Vernon
MS
19 1 278 -40
G Washington
Prep HS
5 1 360 145
I Bethune MS 5 1 49 320
I Drew MS 9 1 420 -38
I Edison MS 19 1 383 -111
TOTAL 57 1,490 276
Sources: Data from LAUSD, Multi-track Year-Round Schools, 2000; LAUSD, Seats Short to
Outreach Firm, 2000; and SES, 2000 LAUSD API Data, 2001.
In contrast, there are eleven two-semester middle and high schools that are
going to be relieved by new schools or additions in large part due to the change in
criteria for prioritization. Together, these schools are currently 660 seats short, less
than half the current overcrowding in the MTYR middle and high schools that will
not be relieved. The district has projected that these two-semester schools will be
3,889 seats short in their respective peak years of enrollment. However, upon a
closer look at Table 13, we find that four of these schools do not meet the new
prioritization criteria, as they are projected to have a surplus of seats in their
respective peak years of enrollment. While these four schools are only receiving
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
additions, they still account for 660 new two-semester seats and utilize some of the
scarce construction funds.
TABLE 13
Two-Semester Schools to be Relieved by New Schools or Additions
Local
District
MTYR
School
# Years
MTYR
API State
Decile
Rank
Current
Seats
Short
Projected
Seats
Short
Planned
New
Seats
A Fulton MS 0 1 0 475 810
B North
Hollywood
HS
0 4 194 1,555 1,392
B San
Fernando
MS
0 NA 11 133 162
B Sun Valley
MS
0 1 67 842 810
C Madison MS 0 2 0 318 810
C Van Nuys
HS
0 5 255 2,022 1,071
D Hamilton HS 0 4 123 503 459
D Palms MS 0 6 3 -601 108
D Venice HS 0 4 4 -620 216
E Wilson HS 0 2 2 -714 216
G Crenshaw
HS
0 1 1 -24 216
TOTAL 0 660 3,889 6,270
Sources: Data from LAUSD, Proposition BB Report Card: New Construction,” 2001;
LAUSD, Seats Short to Outreach Firms, 2000; and SES, 2000 LAUSD API Data, 2001.
While the MTYR schools that will not be relieved are concentrated in local
districts E and I, the two-semester schools that will be relieved are predominantly
located in local districts B and D. With regards to academic achievement, the two-
semester schools that will be relieved by new schools or additions on average have
significantly higher API state rankings than the MTYR schools that will not be
relieved. Based on research previously discussed in chapter one, students attending
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MTYR schools would significantly benefit from a new school where they can attend
less crowded and newer facilities with the latest educational features that support
effective learning and academic achievement. A new middle school in local district I
could relieve three MTYR schools, which currently have a combined 852-seat
shortage. While two of these MTYR middle schools are projected to have small seat
surpluses in the peak year of enrollment, Bethune Middle School is projected to have
a 320-seat shortage. Instead, a new middle school is planned to relieve two
traditional, two-semester middle schools, Madison and Sun Valley, which currently
have an 820-seat shortage.
The master planning and prioritization of new schools are important aspects
of every school construction program. While LAUSD has done its best to utilize
demographic data to guide its planning and priorities, it has failed to consider
academic and socio-economic data that are also important factors regarding the
reduction of overcrowding and improvement in the educational achievement of its
most vulnerable students. Instead, the district chose not to consider the impacts
poverty, overcrowding and racial isolation have on the educational achievement of
students when it planned new schools. The district also chose to go against research
that documents the academic benefits of smaller schools. Due to high land
acquisition costs the district chose to consolidate the smaller schools it had originally
planned in its 1998 Master Plan. When the district revised its facilities plan in 2000,
it “launched an aggressive effort to consolidate some of the smaller schools (8 to 10
classroom schools became 16+ classrooms)” (LAUSD 2001c). Despite the
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demonstration of good academic outcomes for underachieving and disadvantaged
students for specific school facility by specific school planning designs, LAUSD has
chosen not to invest in many of these proven strategies.
By prioritizing the projected seat shortages of existing schools during the
next ten years, the district chose to prevent students at less crowded schools from
experiencing the educational hazards of overcrowded MTYR schools. While student
enrollment projections are not entirely accurate or reliable, the research on the
harmful effects of overcrowding, deteriorating facilities and MTYR schools on low-
income non-API minority students is well documented. Likewise, research showing
that these students also benefit the most from improved facility and overcrowding
conditions is also well documented as discussed in chapter one. By considering the
MTYR status of schools only as secondary criteria, the district missed the
opportunity to make up for the deficiencies and inequities in educational
opportunities and outcomes its most vulnerable students have suffered during the last
two decades. Based on its 2000 Master Plan and priority list, the district’s facilities
services division does not appear to be meeting its mission to “develop new schools
that provide an excellent environment of educational achievement in the areas of
greatest need” (ibid). Unfortunately, while the district may have some new facilities,
it may not achieve its intended goals for improved academic outcomes for its most
vulnerable and disadvantaged students.
Furthermore, due to different site selection, land assembly and environmental
contamination challenges, lower priority schools in less dense communities often
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
progressed much faster in the development and funding process than higher priority
schools. These factors, combined with the limited accuracy of student population
growth projections and finite amount of construction funds, help maintain unequal
school facilities and educational environments across the districts as construction
funds for new schools planned to relieve overcrowded MTYR schools on the priority
list will be run out long before these schools get built. Previously, Table 10 described
the funding gaps by seats and local districts. The local districts with the largest
number of unfunded seats are those with schools that suffer from the greatest
overcrowding and highest rates of MTYR schedules and forced busing.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN SITE SELECTION
The identification and acquisition of new school sites in dense urban areas is
one of the most difficult and controversial phases of school development. As part of
the implementation of its new Facilities Master Plan, the district needs to identify
and acquire 85 new school sites. This task is extremely difficult in an area that is
densely populated and built out. Due to the sensitive nature of acquiring property
from willing and unwilling owners and the removal of existing occupants, the
identification and selection of new school sites require political skill, excellent
communication, collaboration, coalition-building, and sensitivity.
Historically, LAUSD has had a poor track record in working collaboratively
with other government agencies and communities (LAUSD 2000b). The district is
notorious for failing to inform other local jurisdictions, school councils, residents and
other key stakeholders until the important decisions have already been made or when
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
too much time has passed to delay the process without jeopardizing funding. In 1999,
LAUSD received a public reprimand from the State of California when the
California State Auditor conducted an audit of the district’s site selection procedures.
The audit concluded that the “site selection process the district uses to choose
locations for new schools does not ensure that it will acquire the most appropriate
and safest sites for the communities the schools will serve” (California State Auditor
1999). The audit concluded that the district’s flawed process contributed to thirteen
school buildings and the new construction of three others on or in close proximity to
hazardous waste. Furthermore, the audit found that the district failed to effectively
involve the community in the selection of new school sites, which angered
community members and delayed the selection of some sites.
Under new district leadership, commitments were made to reverse the
district’s previous orientation and instead work toward effective and meaningful
community engagement in the new school construction program. Due to the large
number of properties LAUSD needs to identify and acquire for its 158 new school
projects, the district took proactive steps in developing a site selection process that
integrates community participation. The district’s acknowledgement and recognition
of this often-controversial activity led to their drafting of the LAUSD Site Selection
Procedure and Community Participation Program in January 2000. It was designed
to:
1. Communicate to all constituencies the steps involved in the site
selection process
2. Provide a means for meaningful community participation in the
process
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Provide consistent evaluation criteria
4. Assure the public that the process includes adequate
environmental review (LAUSD 2000d).
The district’s statement of purpose lays out a very ambitious vision for their
site selection process that encourages community involvement throughout the
process. Additionally, the district also recognized the challenges regarding housing
density in low-income areas and reiterated their commitment to minimize their
impact on valuable housing stock. The district intended to “create a cooperative,
community-driven approach to site selection and development, centered upon
professional Community Organizers providing information and soliciting comment
from local communities and nearby residents, city planning and zoning officials,
parents and instructional staff’ (ibid). LAUSD recognized schools as important
centers of community that provide important family and child support services in
addition to educational and learning centers.
The district identified a set of activities that would facilitate the
implementation of their community-driven site selection process. It committed to
providing substantial research and preparation to do the following:
1. Build a collaborative relationship between the District and
Community Organizers/Stakeholders
2. Provide sufficient background data and information for
community and board decision-making
3. Maximize the quality of sites identified and their potential for
moving unimpeded through construction to occupancy
4. Ensure that LAUSD is capable of developing schools that will
remain quality, flexible, learning environments for a minimum
of 50 years
5. Publish and utilize a site selection criteria based on the current
CDE guidelines modified to reflect the dense urban
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
environment in which LAUSD will be constructing school
facilities
6. Assign a case manager to each potential project at initiation
(who will continue through project completion) in order to
provide a means of accountability, facilitate prompt decision
making, allow for timely reporting and tracking, ensure all
concerned parties are involved and informed on a timely basis,
and that site selection criteria and procedures are consistently
utilized (ibid).
Upon approval of their site selection procedure and community participation
program by the School Board in January 2000, the district’s new facilities division
created its Community Outreach Branch to facilitate community involvement and
input on site selection and planning of new schools. The mission of the community
outreach branch is to “engage the communities in which the district will be
constructing new schools and to provide open and accessible forums for information
to be shared by the district to the greatest public and for the greatest public to be
heard” (ibid). The initial staffing structure of the community outreach branch was
based on the contracting with community-based organizations experienced in
organizing community residents and planning to conduct outreach and engage
residents and community stakeholders throughout the planning process1 .
From the start of the community outreach contracting program with
community-based organizations, the contractors and district staff experienced high
levels of dissatisfaction and frustration with each other and the program. Regular
changes to the priority list, insufficient information, and unclear site selection criteria
frustrated the contracting organizations who were working with the public and
1 The author served as lead consultant for the Los Angeles Community Design Center on its
community outreach contract with LAUSD during this period.
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
impacted schools. These community organizations often had to go back to their
various community contacts to correct misinformation they were provided by the
district or stop efforts on new schools that the district later took off the priority list.
Furthermore, the district failed to publish modified site selection criteria in a timely
manner to facilitate the identification of feasible school sites by community
stakeholders. The delay in site selection criteria wasted many people’s time and
increased their frustration with the district. Additionally, the district also failed to
hire enough qualified and appropriate case managers that were to provide leadership,
accurate and timely information, and accountability to the community organizers.
District staff became frustrated with their contractors because they were not solely
beholden to the district as they were not full-time employees and often served as
community advocates.
After three months of operation, the district staff decided to terminate the
contractors, claiming that the district’s interests would be better served by hiring its
own dedicated staff. This decision reversed the reforms community stakeholders had
worked so hard to implement with the hope of creating a more effective community-
oriented school planning and construction program that was based on district and
community partnerships. Despite protest from community advocates, the district
received School Board approval to change the staff structure of the program and
instead hired its own full-time community outreach staff beginning in December
2000. The responsibilities of the district’s community outreach organizers included
“the planning, organization, structure, and management of community meetings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
where staff with appropriate expertise (instructional, real estate, environmental,
design, construction management) can present information, answer questions, and
obtain feedback” (LAUSD 2001c). The district organized its outreach staff by
geographic area and assigned projects to individuals within the team. Each district
community outreach staffperson was assigned about 20 school projects in a specific
geographic area.
Although the district was much happier with its own community outreach
staff that it could control, it failed to maintain effective partnerships with
community-based organizations and other key community stakeholders. Its new
community outreach staff was fairly young and unfamiliar with the communities and
political terrain they were assigned. Despite their hard work, their inexperience and
heavy workload made it virtually impossible for them to effectively coordinate with
and engage all appropriate community stakeholders (residents, school community,
community-based organizations, elected officials, etc.) as well as appropriate district
staff (instruction, environmental, real estate) in site selection for the new school
projects.
The district’s lack of coordination with various local jurisdictions resulted in
it pursuing potential school sites that city or county agencies had taken years to
assemble for new libraries and parks. The district found itself out of the loop of
major land use and real estate market, preventing it from taking advantage of few
feasible joint use opportunities for its schools. It clashed with a number of city
council members and county board of supervisors over specific sites it targeted. Due
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to the lack of coordination with the City of Los Angeles, the largest local jurisdiction
within the district, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution demanding that
the Superintendent make a formal presentation of its Master Plan and priority list to
the full city council and follow up with individual council members regarding
specific school sites. Although the district had initially partnered with then-Mayor
Riordan’s office to identify a number of one-two acre Primary Center sites across the
city, it had failed to engage the 15 city council members about specific school sites
that were in their districts.
As the district outreach and real estate staff and consultants proceeded to
conduct new school information and planning meetings in the community, they were
ill-equipped to provide meaningful data and information regarding site selection
criteria, development timelines for new schools, environmental clean up standards,
and relocation procedures that are necessary for community stakeholders to
participate effectively. Without meaningful information or avenues for regular and
consistent participation, residents and community stakeholders became frustrated by
the district’s ineptitude, closed-door tactics and withholding of key information. To
make matters worse, the poorly organized community meetings the district
conducted primarily involved one-way communication, with district staff giving
residents limited information of their plans. District staff were consistently unable to
provide residents with answers to their specific questions and concerns involving all
aspects of the planning, development and relocation process.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Furthermore, outreach tactics of the district were controversial and largely
ineffective. Initially they attempted to utilize the communication methods of local
schools, which primarily involved sending a letter home with students. However, the
district soon discovered after poorly attended community meetings that few parents
actually received the letters from their children. There were also complaints from
other community stakeholders that were not part of the existing school community.
Since these stakeholders did not have children attending the impacted school, they
did not receive notices or information about new schools. In response to this
complaint, the district hired mass advertising companies to drop off meeting notices
at homes. However, their methods were also ineffective, as the fliers were often
stuck in fences or confused with junk mail, ending up as litter instead of in the hands
of residents. Especially since the majority of neighborhoods targeted for new schools
are dense communities with lots of multi-family housing complexes, the advertisers
had difficulty getting the fliers to individual households due to limited building
access.
Although the district’s site selection and community participation program
clearly states that “communities affected by school siting decisions will be the first to
be involved in the process,” this was not the case for most school sites (LAUSD
2000d). Instead, the district’s real estate staff identified potential school sites for
most of the new schools to present to the community for their input. Due to the
district’s inadequate outreach and their sharing of site selection criteria with the
public in a timely manner, most impacted communities did not have the appropriate
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information, tools or opportunity to suggest sites to the district prior to their site
selection meetings.
The patronizing attitudes of district staff and consultants further incensed
community stakeholders. Even though the District’s outreach staff said they wanted
community input, they did not allow for any real discussion o f residents’ ideas and
suggestions and failed to adequately consider and incorporate them into the district’s
plans. Many public statements by district consultants and staff were patronizing
towards, intimidated and alienated residents and other community stakeholders
instead of embracing their input and valuing their ideas. At a number of public
meetings held in local districts E and G during 2000, district staff and consultants
made the following statements: “this is the district’s preferred site”, “we understand
your concerns, BUT we’re moving forward” and “this school will not be built if
there’s any resistance,” further straining the relationship between the district and
communities. The token efforts of the district to allow real community input and
selection of school sites further frustrated community residents and stakeholders. The
“take it or leave it” attitude of district staff alienated many community residents and
stakeholders, pushing them away from participating in the planning of new schools.
Few residents and community stakeholders participated in the district’s community
meetings as they grew tired of being disrespected, given insufficient information, and
relegated to a passive, rubber-stamp role.
The lack of community participation in site selection resulted in significant
delays in the planning of new schools for the most overcrowded neighborhoods. As
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district staff and consultants identified potential school sites with very little
community input and feedback, a number of sites they selected tended to be
undesirable, unsafe, or in direct conflict with community development plans and
requiring significant residential dislocation. While the district staff attempted to
identify school sites that met state standards and criteria, they failed to solicit
community criteria that considered impacts on jobs, housing, economic
development, joint use, and social-cultural systems of neighborhoods that are
necessary for the sustenance of healthy families and thriving communities. While the
district has the legal right to utilize eminent domain to “take” the property for new
schools, their inability to establish effective partnerships with community
organizations and residents and minimize the negative impact on neighborhoods set
the stage for poor relationships between the new schools’ administrations and
parents, students and community stakeholders.
For example, after spending nearly $1.9 million on predevelopment work for
the district’s preferred site for the new East Los Angeles High School, the district
withdrew this site in March 2002 after significant community protest and pressure
from area elected officials (Helfand 2002). A month earlier, another critically needed
high school site in the South Park community in Los Angeles was the target of
protest by 300 residents led by Congresswoman Maxine Waters and legendary singer
Barry White (Hayaski and Solomon 2002). The district’s preferred site for this high
school would require the destruction of more than 70 homes, which many residents
claimed have historical significance. While residents want a new school, they do not
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
want it at the expense of affordable housing and historically significant homes.
Residents along with Rep. Water accused the City of Los Angeles and LAUSD of
neglecting the South Park community for so long and felt the district’s plan to build a
new school and refurbish the existing park to help rejuvenate the neighborhood was
the wrong solution for the community. Although the proposed high school site in
South Park had not yet been approved by the School Board or reached the point of
property acquisition, the district had spent a significant amount of time investigating
and preparing the site for a new high school. If the district loses this site for its high
school, there is the strong possibility they will be too far behind in the process to
secure the necessary funding to build the new high school.
In general, district staff and community stakeholders appeared to have
different interests and agendas regarding new school sites. On one hand, district staff
tended to have a short-term view of new school sites, as they preferred to find the
cheapest and easiest sites to develop into new schools. On the other hand,
community stakeholders, especially those residents and professionals that had long
term investments in the targeted communities wanted to make sure the new school
sites had the minimal negative impacts and the greatest benefits to the community. In
South Los Angeles, community residents organized by Community Coalition, a
community-based organization launched its new schools campaign in 1999. As most
of its constituents are low-income, immigrants and people of color who are
frequently overlooked and locked out of traditional avenues of public participation,
the Community Coalition worked to involve them in affecting public policy and the
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
decision-making process pertaining to LAUSD’s school construction program as it
affects their homes, neighborhoods and their children’s education. Working in
conjunction with its GROW (Greater Resources through Organizing and Working)
project, the Community Coalition helped advance the vision of constructing schools
in locations identified by neighborhood residents. By marrying these two projects
together, the Coalition envisioned replacing nuisance uses and blight properties with
new schools. The principles that guide this approach to site selection are 1)
minimizing the destruction of housing and 2) redeveloping nuisance properties into
new schools. Through its organizing efforts, training activities and community
meetings, the Community Coalition and its members envisioned ways new schools
could transform Los Angeles neighborhoods in Table 14.
Coalition members and staff recommended to the district that it identify
nuisance land uses such as liquor stores, motels, recycling centers, and vacant lots as
new school sites. They argued that the redevelopment of such nuisance uses into new
schools would create safer communities and help facilitate more positive
development. With the help of the Coalition’s staff, these residents were able to
identify and suggest feasible school sites, some of which the district considered and
ended up selecting for new school sites. However, this situation was not the norm
across the district. Community-based organizations and stakeholders in other parts of
the district, especially in low-income communities that did not have the resources to
pay for staff to organize community stakeholders and help identify and recommend
school sites that would help improve neighborhood economic or safety conditions or
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 14
Community Vision Statement for New Schools
New schools can revitalize neighborhoods struggling with neglected and
______________________ deteriorated land uses:______________________
1. Schools can replace nuisance sites, such as liquor stores or motels that
are havens for crime, abandoned houses used for drug sales, vacant
lots, decaying buildings, alleys
2. Using schools to replace nuisance sites will reserve scarce affordable
housing and increase safety by reducing crime
3. Schools are community assets, and can combine with parks and
libraries (which are often underutilized because of security concerns or
neglect) for joint use projects
4. Schools increase property values
5. School facilities - new buildings, grounds, landscaping make
neighborhood more attractive and increase community pride
6. New and successful schools will attract retail and commercial
development.
7. New schools will attract new homeowners
8. New, successful neighborhood schools will overcome the perception
that residents of our community have to leave their neighborhoods in
order to get a good education___________________________________
New schools can provide neighborhoods with community centers:
1. Schools can serve an expanded constituency, beyond students
2. School grounds can be available after school hours, for sports and
recreation, community meetings, etc.
3. Schools can provide an array of services on site, such as health
services, social and cultural services and computer classes
4. Expanded education can be made available to everyone - seniors,
working adults, parents
5. Schools can build alliances within the community - between churches,
business, government, residents_________________________________
New schools that are academically successful can build a stronger, more
productive workforce:______________________
1. Schools can create successful learners who go on to be successful
employees, entrepreneurs and professionals
2. Schools can offer job training and career counseling to community
members
3. Schools can foster partnerships with corporate entities to increase
investment in schools and the larger community, including internship
and mentoring opportunities____________________________________
Source: Data from Community Coalition, A Call for Equity and Accountability in
Building Effective Schools and Revitalizing Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, 2001.
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reduce displacement of residents. While this approach may not seem remarkable, in
actuality it is unprecedented. Government agencies don’t typically ask residents
where to locate something; they tell the residents where it will go. But the Coalition
recognized what LAUSD failed to see - that strategically placed schools could
dramatically revitalize inner city neighborhoods, replacing negative land uses with
constructive ones.
While most communities do not have grassroots organizing groups to
mobilize residents such as the Community Coalition, many residents are
sophisticated enough to contact their local and state elected officials that represent
their communities to voice their complaints regarding the district’s site selection
process and school sites. Although these elected officials do not have legal
jurisdiction over the school district, they still have substantial influence over School
Board members and their policies and decisions regarding new schools. While the
district attempted to adequately inform all impacted elected officials regarding their
site selection process and potential school sites, a few claimed that the district had
failed to do so with them. Residents in East Los Angeles that opposed the district’s
selection of a vacant parcel next to their beloved Belvedere Park called upon County
Supervisor Gloria Molina for help in opposing this site. Working on behalf of some
of her constituents, Supervisor Molina withdrew her support of the site for a new
high school that would relieve severe overcrowding at Garfield and Roosevelt high
schools which together currently serve more than 9,000 students (Helfand 2002). The
district’s inability to win community and political support for this school site cost the
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district more than $1.9 million in predevelopment work, hundreds of staff hours and
delays in delivering a new school to this overcrowded community.
Initially envisioned as a model of innovative land use and cooperation
between public agencies - LAUSD and Los Angeles County, the park’s owner,
community opposition and flawed planning and public relations blunders doomed
the new high school site. The school district wanted to use half the park for some of
its physical education facilities during the day in exchange for improving facilities
and adding basketball courts and other amenities, estimated at $24 million. The high
school’s gym, library and auditorium would be open to the public after school hours.
While community opponents of the school site claimed they supported a new high
school in the community, many opposed the district’s joint-use of the park which had
already been cut in half thirty-five years ago to make way for the Pomona freeway.
Due to the district’s failure to adequately engage residents, complete an accurate
environmental impact report, and win the support of elected officials and residents, it
ended up wasting its investment of $1.9 million in this high school site when it
withdrew it from further consideration in March 2002.
Other proposed high school sites that would relieve the most crowded high
schools are also in jeopardy. The district is still negotiating with the federal
government over development rights for the former Ambassador Hotel in the mid-
Wilshire community where the district intends to build a new school to relieve
Belmont High School. The federal government wants to build a new social security
office building on the site and has threatened to use the power of eminent domain to
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
take the site from LAUSD. The district has been trying to acquire this site for more
than five years, as it is the only parcel of significant size in this densely populated
and developed area. Like many of the other school sites in jeopardy, community and
political controversy have delayed the district’s efforts to approve, apply for
construction funds and acquire sites for schools in its most critically overcrowded
communities. Until the district is able to effectively engage communities in site
selection and foster community and political support for school sites early in the
process, they risk increased community backlash and losing needed school sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT LAUSD SCHOOLS
Ensuring that school sites are safe and relatively free of toxins harmful to
adults and children is a major activity and responsibility of school districts. Due to
the increase in environmental hazards found at existing and new school sites across
California, the state government has increased regulations for and monitoring of
school sites. Especially with the construction of new schools on previously
developed and former industrial sites, increased environmental monitoring and
regulations are necessary to help ensure students, staff and residents are not exposed
to toxins harmful to their health and development.
During the last several years, LAUSD’s school construction program has
been plagued by environmental fiascos regarding existing and new schools. In 1995,
the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) found out that a new
middle school being built by LAUSD was being constructed across the street from a
State Superfund Site. Located in South Central Los Angeles, Jefferson New Middle
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School was being built in the heart of Los Angeles’ old industrial core. Despite the
significant risk of encountering contamination at large parcels that were formerly
used for industry, LAUSD had proceeded to build this new middle school to
accommodate the growing school-aged population in the area. Although LAUSD had
the authority and staff expertise to investigate and self-certify the clean up and safety
of its new school sites, subsequent investigations under DTSC’s supervision
discovered that the new middle school “site had never been properly characterized
for contamination prior to acquisition and construction, and that many questions
remained unanswered regarding cleanup activities that had been performed at the site
prior to construction of the school” (DTSC 1999).
By March 1999, other cases of new schools being built on contaminated sites
prompted action by the State Legislature to conduct legislative hearings,
investigations, and audits on LAUSD and other school districts’ school site
acquisition practices and environmental due diligence. However, the greatest
attention was focused on LAUSD, as it continued its efforts to build the Belmont
Learning Complex on an oilfield in downtown Los Angeles. Data and information
from the hearings and reports revealed gaps in the California Education Code
regarding proper procedures and oversight that protected the public’s health and
welfare, particularly school staff and students, at new and existing schools built on
contaminated sites. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee’s investigation found that
the “Department of Education consistently signed off on the acceptability of
properties for acquisition before a complete site characterization had been
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conducted” (ibid). This report also found that each school district could self-report to
the Department of Education of existing contamination at a proposed school site and
self-certify that it had been properly cleaned up and made safe for the construction
and operation of a school. Not only did districts self-certify that a site was clean and
safe, but it was also discovered that the Department of Education lacked the
appropriate staff expertise to adequately review and approve of the districts’
environmental investigations, characterizations, and clean up plans and activities.
Upon further investigation of LAUSD’s site acquisition practices, the
environmental documentation of seven additional school sites was investigated by
DTSC. All of these sites were found to have deficiencies in their site
characterizations. They included: Belmont Learning Center, New Jefferson Middle
School, Monroe Primary Center, Francis Polytechnic High School, Town Avenue
Elementary School, Third Street Elementary School, Valerio Primary Center, and
South Gate Learning Center. Eventually construction was halted at Belmont
Learning Complex and acquisition activities were halted at the South Gate Learning
Center, costing the district hundreds of millions of dollars after environmental
investigations found extremely contaminated parcels both at the proposed school site
and adjacent land users. After investigating and determining that there was not an
immediate health threat at New Jefferson Middle School, DTSC required that
LAUSD conduct further investigation of the subsurface and complete a remedial
investigation/feasibility study of the school property. Contaminated soil and
equipment were removed and further sampling and testing conducted under DTSC
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
supervision at the two primary center sites before DTSC determined that both sites
did not pose a risk to human health. One high school and two elementary schools
were investigated due to their close proximity to existing landfills. After DTSC
supervised investigations and sampling, data showed that the landfills did not pose
an imminent threat to the schools, staff, and students.
Since the Belmont Learning Center and South Gate School environmental
fiascos, LAUSD has suffered from the lack of credibility and faith from the public in
its ability to conduct thorough and accurate environmental assessments and site
characterizations and build schools that are safe for its students and staff. The
questions raised and new information discovered through the various hearings and
reports resulted in greater public and legislative interest in addressing the
deficiencies in then-current state law and policies regarding proposed school sites
within the greater Los Angeles area, existing school sites, and about the prevalence
of the problem statewide. In an effort to correct deficiencies in the State Education
code, two bills were signed into law in 1999 and went into affect January 1, 2000
that changed the way California school districts investigate and acquire school sites.
These bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 387 sponsored by Assemblyman Wildman and
Senate Bill (SB) 162, sponsored by Senator Escutia, were borne out the concern and
frustration by parents, students, teachers, local communities, and the Legislature’s
effort to help ensure that new schools were built on clean and safe sites. These bills
made changes and additions to the California Education code that formalized the
oversight role of the Department of Toxic Substances Control in assessment,
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
investigation, and clean up of proposed school sites to ensure that selected properties
are free of contamination, or if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned up to a
level that is protective of the students, staff, and other users of the school (DTSC
2000).
Since these two new laws went into affect in 2000, school districts must now
operate under the authority and supervision of DTSC with regard to environmental
hazards just like other purchasers of contaminated property. These laws require
school districts to enter into enforceable agreements with DTSC if they pursue
acquisition and construction of new schools on contaminated sites. DTSC received a
budget increase to implement this program as well as established a School’s Unit
within its Site Mitigation Program and district office located in Glendale, CA. The
level of investigation, risk analysis and human health risk assessments for new
schools built on contaminated school sites now must meet the most rigorous clean up
standards, which are applicable to residential uses. Furthermore, since the law went
into effect, the State Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) no longer accepts district
self-certification requests related to all school sites and plans, including
modernization and new construction projects. Compliance with these laws is
required to obtain funding through the State School Facilities Program. It was the
intent of AB 387 and SB 162 to provide a comprehensive program to ensure that
hazardous material contamination issues are adequately addressed prior to school
development.
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In response to the new environmental regulations and the large number of
parcels the district is involved in investigating and acquiring, LAUSD created an
Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) in 2000. One of its key missions
is to support the district’s New Construction program providing the management and
execution of DTSC “requirements for site approval, development and management
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, and management
and execution of asbestos and lead removal in acquired properties prior to
demolition” (LAUSD 2001c). The OEHS staff are co-located with the new
construction team to facilitate effective communication, cooperation, and efficiency.
The district was also able to co-locate its key DTSC contacts with its OEHS staff,
enabling greater integration and support of project schedules that are critical to
successful project completion. Additionally, DTSC staff conduct separate
community review processes of environmental documents that complement the
efforts of the district’s OEHS and community outreach staff.
In addition to greater environmental investigations, analysis, testing, and
cleanup of school sites, members of the public voiced their concerns regarding their
increased role and participation in the school site acquisition process and ability to
hold school districts more accountable for safe and appropriate school sites. In
response to this concern, Assemblyman Calderon sponsored Assembly Bill 2644,
which was signed into law and became effective on September 13,2000. This law
built upon the changes in the California Education Code made by AB 387 and SB
162 and helps to ensure that all necessary information on the environmental
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessments of proposed school sites is relayed to the public and all interested parties
before final approval of the new school sites. This law made significant changes in
the public review and approval process of Preliminary Endangerment Assessments
(PEAs), requiring that draft PEAs be reviewed along with draft CEQA documents
and that the public is given the opportunity to give input during a public hearing. It
also clarified the roles, responsibilities, and time frames for school districts and
DTSC in completing environmental reviews than they previously done by AB 387
and SB 162 earlier in the year.
However, even with the passage and implementation of these new laws,
students and parents are still faced with various challenges to ensuring safe new
schools are built in Los Angeles. While these new laws require DTSC to review and
provide oversight to new school sites and mandates public notice if the district is
conducting a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment or starting clean up and
mitigation, local residents and potential students and their families do not have to be
informed about what contamination was found, what risks exist, and how the site
will be made safe. The continued controversy over Belmont Learning Center and
New Jefferson Middle School continue to fuel the public’s confusion over
environmental contamination and their distrustfulness of both the district and DTSC
(LAUSD 2000b). Especially since the district and DTSC publicly conflict each
other’s environmental assessments of schools’ contamination and cannot clearly
define the health standards to reassure parents on the human health risks to their
children, the public is still vulnerable to misinformation, misguided trust and fear
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
regarding the safety of schools. The following chart identifies some of the potential
obstacles that the public, parents, students and school staff may encounter in getting
accurate and timely information about contamination and health risks throughout the
environmental investigation and clean up process for new school sites in California
based on information cleaned from the environmental legislation and LAUSD
environmental procedures in Table 15.
For the most part, the district has greatly improved its environmental
procedures and coordination through the creation of its Office of Environmental
Health Services (OEHS). This office’s hiring of more staff and its co-location and
integration with the new facilities division has enabled it to work more closely with
the DTSC in following proper investigation and clean up procedures for new school
sites in a timely manner. The district has also improved its communication and
coordination with oversight bodies, other government jurisdictions, and local
communities. Fortunately, the district now has the capacity to deal with various
environmental challenges regarding both new and existing school sites.
The district is taking extra environmental precautions with one of its new
East Valley High Schools. The district currently has a refundable deposit to purchase
an office building from the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power
(DWP) that they plan to convert into a new high school (Pierson 2002). However,
the discovery of toxic mold this past February caused the district to delay the
opening of this high school until July 2003. Learning from its expensive mistake
with the Belmont Learning Complex, the district is taking extra precautions and
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 15
Potential Obstacles to Public Receiving Accurate and Timely Information on
Contamination and Health Risks at New School Sites
______________________ Site Selection & Initial Review______________________
1. Does not require investigation or identification of adjacent or nearby toxic
releases up front
2. Does not require screening of sites using DTSC & EPA hazardous waste,
underground storage tanks, and toxic storage databases & permitting agencies
3. None of the potential hazards are presented to community when selecting sites
(environmental, safety, traffic, etc.)______________________________________
________________________________ Phase_I________________________________
1. No public opportunity to review Phase I
2. School districts are not required to use REA II certified engineers to conduct
Phase I & II’s - registered engineers, geologists and certified engineering
geologists are not as qualified or sensitive to risks facing children____________
________________ Preliminary Environment Assessment (PEA)_________________
1. PEA public notice is too limited and too generic and vague. Only sent to
residents and property owners “in the line of sight” of a proposed school site 3-
5 days prior to testing (implementation of PEA). Does not inform residents of
potential environmental risks investigating
2. The public is only informed of significant environmental effects which may
result from the project in a general public notice of availability to review draft
PEA
3. When a district chooses to drop a proposed school site, it is not obligated to
inform the public about the type, extent and if contamination found during PEA
_________ Public Notice for Review of Draft PEA & CEQA Documents__________
1. The public notice on the availability of a draft PEA along with either a draft
EIR or draft Negative Declaration does not specifically include key
stakeholders unless they have specifically requested to be on mailing list
2. School districts are not required to mail public notices unless individuals and
organizations specifically asked to be on public notice list for specific site
(therefore adjacent residents can be excluded)
3. Given LAUSD’s policy to pursue Mitigated Negative Declarations whenever
possible, public input is limited to written response, due to the lack of a
required public hearing.
4. If a PEA is not required and district pursues Mitigated Negative Declaration,
districts are not required to conduct a public hearing._______________________
Response Action____________________________
1. Additional Public Participation activities based upon level of community
interest/concern only - placing burden on public again______________________
Source: Data from DTSC, DTSC Public Participation Manual, 2001.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conducting additional environmental tests to determine whether the mold has been
permanently eradicated or whether they must demolish the building and build a new
school from scratch. The district has maintained that their main concern is the safety
of the kids and the public’s confidence in them. Thus, the district is seriously
considering incurring the greater costs and delaying the school’s opening again by
razing the existing building and building a new school from the ground up.
While the new environmental legislation regulating school sites are not
perfect, they have helped improve the process and outcomes for safe schools in
California. Overall, there appears to be greater compliance with health and safety
standards as well as public participation requirements. There are now better policies
and procedures and staff support to conduct more rigorous investigations and
mitigations of school sites. The state’s expanded oversight role requires greater
coordination and cooperation between school districts and DTSC. Overall the loss of
school districts’ total authority over environmental investigations and clean up of
school sites and increased project costs are small sacrifices compared to the harm or
loss of human life from unsafe and unhealthy school sites.
RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS
Another controversial activity in the planning and development of new
schools in dense urban districts is the dislocation and relocation of homeowners,
residential tenants and businesses. In October 2001, LAUSD anticipated displacing a
total of 1,377 households and businesses from proposed school sites, consisting of
215 single-family homeowners, 1,000 tenant households and 250 non-residential
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(primarily business) occupants (LAUSD 200 Id). In the state of California, school
districts are required to provide relocation assistance to all qualifying displacees
when it acquires land for school projects. LAUSD estimated spending over $60.7
million on all relocation related activities and planned to initiate relocation efforts in
early 2002. The district expected relocation activities to continue through 2004 and
anticipates having between 1,200-1,500 open relocation cases during its peak
acquisition time in mid-2002.
In its Strategic Execution Plan for Relocation, the district identified the
following key guiding principles of its program:
• The district recognizes and respects the disruption that our
proposed projects will cause in displacees’ lives
• The district shall make the relocation process as “user-friendly”
and predictable as possible for displacees and for its own staff
• The district shall inform and educate displacees as early as
possible, in a way that is understandable and useful to them
• The district shall empower displacees to be partners in their
dislocation
• The district shall help residential tenant displacees define and
pursue their short-term and long-term individual housing needs
• The district shall engage in partnerships with housing agencies
and others so as to offer displacees enhanced assistance and
benefits beyond the minimum required by law
• The district shall work to provide resources to replace some of
the low-income rental housing that will be lost to school
construction
• Office of Housing and Relocation staff shall maintain a
thorough and complete audit trail for all relocation-related
claims and payments (ibid).
Overall, the district’s 2002 Relocation Plan was quite different than its
previous relocation policies and practices. The district’s reputation regarding
relocation was considered heavy-handed, insensitive and ineffective
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(LAUSD 2000b). Like many other governmental agencies with eminent domain
powers, the district struggled to maintain a balance between following the legal
requirements regarding relocation and adequately meeting the needs of displacees
while staying within budget. While the 2002 Relocation Plan aims to maintain
minimal exposure to budget and schedule risks for the district, it is also sensitive to
the needs of displacees and attempts to empower displacees to take as effective a role
as possible in their own relocation. In many areas, the district’s relocation plan goes
beyond the minimum legal requirements in helping to ensure that displacees are
placed in equal or better housing situations. Its early partnership with housing
advocates and other related entities has resulted in the development and
implementation of its Enhancement Program for residential displacees. At the urging
of its partners, LAUSD will provide residential tenant displacees with special access
to additional housing and educational resources including free training in financial
literacy, homeownership activities and/or long-term rental opportunities for the first
time.
The need for the district to go beyond the minimal legal requirements is
based in the socio-economic and political reality of Los Angeles. First, Los Angeles
suffers from a profound housing crisis, as there simply isn’t enough housing to meet
demand. According to the 2000 report of the Los Angeles Housing Crisis Task
Force, Los Angeles’s supply of affordable housing is many thousands units short
(ibid). In 2001, more than 750,000 Angelenos lived in housing that was too
expensive, inadequate, unsafe or overcrowded - or they had no housing at all
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Grunwald and Bass 2001). The Southern California Association of Governments
estimates that the greater Los Angeles area needs 28,400 new affordable housing
units by 2005 to meet years of unmet demand. LAUSD is planning to demolish 900
to 1,000 affordable rental-housing units in the midst of a severe housing crisis.
Second, an estimated 90 percent of the 1,000 tenant families the district will be
displacing are considered low-income, earning below 80 percent of the Los Angeles
County area median income (90 percent of LA County’s area median income for a
family of four is $43,560 per year). Thus, while there are sufficient numbers of units
available to house the 1,000 displacees, few of them would be able to afford the
market-rate units in the area without significant levels of assistance from the district
and its housing partners.
Similar to the school population that the new schools will be serving, the
majority of the residential population anticipated to be displaced is Latino. Based on
the preliminary interviews conducted with potential displacees, the district estimates
that there are approximately 3.5 occupants per household (LAUSD 2001d). Table 16
shows the estimated income levels of the tenant displacees based on preliminary
interviews. Due to their low incomes, a large number of tenants may be eligible for
subsidized housing under the Section 8 program. Under its Enhancement Program,
the district intends to work with its housing partners and help tenant displacees
receive priority access to Section 8 vouchers. The district intends to provide those
tenants that are eligible for and desire Section 8 housing with this opportunity in
addition to the cash benefits they will receive as part of the standard relocation
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
benefits and not as a substitute for them. While the district should be acknowledged
for this creative partnership and attempt to maximize housing benefits for low-
income tenant displacees, its housing partners have impressed upon the district that
this benefit should not harm the housing opportunities of other low-income
applicants that are not being displaced by the district. Furthermore, the real benefits
of this partnership are yet to be realized, as the Section 8 housing market is
experiencing its own crisis, as more and more rental housing building owners are
opting out of the program in Los Angeles, thereby reducing the supply of Section 8
housing.
TABLE 16
Tenant Income Levels
Income Percent of Displacees
Under $ 1,000/month 18.3
$1,000 - $ 1,500/month 27.3
$1,500 - $2,000/month 21.8
$2,000 - $2,500/month 17.4
$2,500 - $3,000/month 7.0
$3,000 - $4,000/month 8.1
$4,000 - $5,000/month 1.8
$5,000 - $6,000/month 1.5
$6,000 + /month 1.8
Source: Data from LAUSD, Relocation Plan fo r the Proposed Priority and Escutia Plan
Schools, 2002.
Given this grim scenario, the district must identify and commit to creative
and effective relocation assistance programs that will stabilize displacees in equal or
better housing situations during this housing crisis. With its housing partners and
creative efforts, the district should not end up forcing the public to choose between
educating children and putting roofs over their heads. Under the district’s
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Enhancement Program, low-income tenant displacees will receive priority access to
Section 8 housing vouchers. Those residents that wish to own a home will receive
assistance with improving their credit, training on home buying and a lump sum of
cash that can be used as a down payment on a house. In order to help replenish
Section 8 housing, the district will contribute $25,000 into a housing fund managed
by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles for every displacee re-housed
through the Section 8 program.
While the district’s relocation program started off well, there is room for
more creative ideas that can enhance the relocation benefits and minimize the
negative impacts of relocation to the displacees. As the district proceeds with its
demolition of scarce affordable housing, it needs to be a significant partner in
helping to fund replacement housing that is operated by both government and
private, not-for-profit entities. Furthermore, the district needs to follow through with
its promises to provide accessible, culturally and linguistically appropriate relocation
experts that will assist the displacees. An early concern raised by community
residents was the district’s decision to house its relocation office in a high-rise office
building instead of in an office located in a community that will have a significant
relocation of residents. Residents felt that the office would not be easily accessible to
them due to the distance as well as the intimidating environment.
The district’s partnership with housing advocates and developers can
facilitate resource sharing and the implementation of integrated strategies aimed at
improving the health and well being of our most vulnerable communities. This
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnership has helped leverage existing resources and achieves a whole that is
greater than the sum of its parts. As LAUSD continues to carry out its role and
responsibility as a full partner in the planning of healthy communities, it joins other
key stakeholders in “collaborating to achieve overall community health and well
being, above and beyond simply fulfilling single-purpose missions” (ibid). With
stable housing, communities and families are more likely to be thriving and healthier
and foster the growth and development of happy children who are effective learners.
Despite significant improvements to their new construction program,
numerous challenges and risk factors continue to impact the district’s ability to
successfully build new schools. In particular, challenges regarding site selection,
environmental investigations, relocation, and financing hamper the district’s efforts
to build new schools on time and within budget. A year after the reorganization and
streamlining of the new facilities services division by Chief Facilities Executive
James McConnell in the fall of 2001, the staff and programs have had time to
establish more efficient and effective operations. However, while communications
and coordination have improved overall, the division still faces various management
and implementation challenges and risks.
The district’s new facilities division must still deal with the consequences of
prior management lapses and the difficulty of securing environmentally clean land in
urban Los Angeles. The district’s inability to effectively coordinate and provide
comprehensive project management support for each of its new school projects,
especially those targeted to relieve the most overcrowded schools in the dense
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
neighborhoods, early in the planning process has jeopardized the construction of
these new schools. Instead of providing more resources and intensive support to
identify feasible and appropriate school sites in the dense and environmentally
challenged inner city areas of the district, the new facilities division chose to pursue
the easier school sites which tend to be in less dense areas first. New schools planned
for the central, south, southeast areas face the greatest risk because more of the
unfunded projects are in those highly urbanized areas, where the lack of vacant land
slowed down the planning. Despite the new facilities division’s current efforts to try
and keep these projects on schedule, they are so behind in the approval, funding and
acquisition process that their efforts may be too little too late.
The case study on LAUSD provided an in-depth look at the significant
challenges of building new schools in urban areas and the opportunities they bring to
engaging community stakeholders, revitalizing neighborhoods and improving
academic achievement. In particular, good long-range planning and effective site
selection practices are essential elements of any district’s facilities plan. While the
LAUSD case study portrayed more challenges and lessons learned than promising
practices, there are other school districts across the countiy that are responding
differently to the similar challenges of severe overcrowding, soaring student
population booms and limited land availability. The following chapter synthesizes
my findings from surveys and interviews of promising practices used by thirteen
other school districts across the country that are building new schools in response to
overcrowding and student enrollment growth. By learning from school districts’
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
challenges, mistakes and promising practices, I hope that more new schools can be
successfully be built through the meaningful engagement of community stakeholders
while improving the academic achievement of underperforming students and
building upon the assets of neighborhoods.
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 5
Promising Practices and Guiding Principles for Effective
Community Engagement
The massive school construction efforts of school districts have created a
flurry of activity on school campuses and in neighborhoods across the U.S. Parents,
students and other community stakeholders are both excited and weary about the
development of new schools. On one hand, many look forward to relief from
longstanding overcrowding and substandard learning environments. On the other
hand, many fear the destruction of community assets and displacement of residents
and local businesses that have often accompanied previous school construction and
urban renewal efforts. As Chapters 3 and 4 presented, school districts encounter
numerous challenges in communicating with and engaging communities throughout
the school facility planning process. School district representatives often express
frustration with late community input, inconsistent community participation, and
community resistance against district construction plans. Community members
typically complain about not receiving information in a timely manner or being
excluded from early policy discussions and decisions that limit their role in the
planning process.
These challenges can slow down and restrict school districts’ efforts to plan
and build of new schools - costing them precious time and money. Community
opposition to proposed new school sites can sometimes result in school district’s
abandoning plans for new school, further neglecting neighborhoods that sorely need
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
new schools. Some school districts have been known to ignore community
opposition and build unwanted, controversial new schools. While these new schools
get built, they can sometimes delay or prevent desired trends and outcomes. Students
may resist attending a new school that was once the site of a treasured community
building or park. Parents may be less willing to attend classes, visit the school or
volunteer at a school that reminds them of a battle lost. Other community members
may avoid a new school simply because they are unaware of its services, facilities, or
other resources. Oftentimes, new schools have failed to include special space or
services that address family and community support needs critical to student
attendance and academic success.
While school districts may succeed in building new schools, new buildings
alone do not guarantee desired outcomes. Without effective engagement of
community stakeholders, involvement and ownership by students and parents, and
collaboration with other community partners, new schools may fail to live up to their
full potential or achieve their desired educational outcomes such as improved student
attendance, greater parent involvement, delivery of comprehensive family and
community services, improved educational equity, and increased campus and
neighborhood safety. It is my contention that through effective engagement of
community stakeholders early and throughout the planning process, new schools can
be built while improving educational outcomes, strengthening the capacity of
families and communities, and contributing to the health and vibrancy of local
neighborhoods. While no process is perfect or able to please every person, the
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
planning process can be significantly improved to facilitate effective community
engagement that results in new schools that provide better educational outcomes and
broader community benefits.
My research efforts, which include an in-depth study of and involvement in
LAUSD’s new school construction program and survey of thirteen other school
districts in nine states, have identified promising practices that focus on improving
the engagement of communities and collaboration between school districts and local
communities in the planning of new schools. The promising practices highlighted in
this chapter reflect efforts by some school districts to create a fair, consistent, and
transparent planning process that integrates meaningful community engagement
from beginning to end. They are primarily focused on planning activities prior to
school design, which have typically not involved the public and communities,
addressing address long-term facility planning, assessment of existing planning,
planning and site selection of individual school projects, and community outreach
and communication. The promising practices of some local communities aimed at
increasing their role and capacity to serve as effective partners in the planning of
new schools are also included.
PROMISING PRACTICES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS
The following promising practices are examples of how some school districts
have integrated community engagement into their new school planning process.
Many school districts have created various policies and vehicles that enable
community stakeholders to play a major role throughout the school planning process.
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These promising practices have been gleaned from my interviews and surveys of
district staff and community volunteers involved in the planning of new schools at
thirteen school districts across the country as well as various facility planning
documents provided by some of these districts. They address the overall school
facility planning process - from the development of a long-range master plan to site
selection of specific school sites. For most of the promising practices, I have
included examples from more than one district, as many of them have implemented
similar practices or policies.
1. Engage the community in an inclusive long-range facilities planning process.
A school district’s long-range facilities plan sets the priorities, plans, and
budgets for its school facilities over a multi-year period. Some school districts call
them Capital Improvement Plan, Facility Strategic Plan, Facility Master Plan,
Facility Long-Range Plan or other similar variations. These long-range facilities
plans serve as the guiding document for school repair and construction activities and
investments. The elements of most long-range facilities plans include demographic
data and projections, facility utilization and assessment, planning priorities, and
attendance boundaries. Because of the importance of these elements in dictating the
investment and plans for school facilities, community review and input is needed to
ensure the information is accurate and reflects the general public’s values, concerns,
and priorities. Consistent with the familiar mantra, “garbage in, garbage out,” it
behooves school districts to ensure that the community validates and supports the
data that goes into the long-range plan and ultimately the plan itself.
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ultimately, the participation of community stakeholders, students, parents,
and other residents in the data collection, analysis and validation improves the
quality and accuracy of information that help shape facility planning priorities.
Furthermore, their participation allows other important factors that impact student
achievement to be addressed in school facility repairs and construction. Especially
since this information leads to decisions that dictate where a child goes to school,
impacts the learning environment, and determines which neighborhoods get new
schools, it is even more important that community stakeholders be a part of this
process. Instead of relying solely on district staff and consultants to complete their
long-range facility plan, school districts should tap the expertise of the community,
gain their support and create value-added and feasible plans.
The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland adopted its
Long-Range Educational Facilities Planning (LREFP) policy to provide direction on
how the planning process should be conducted and prescribes criteria and standards
to guide planning. This process was “designed to promote public understanding of
planning for MCPS and to encourage community members, local government
agencies and municipalities to identify and communicate their priorities to the
superintendent and Board” (Board of Education of Montgomery County 1999). The
policy clearly states that the
PTA or other parent and student representatives along with
appropriate district facility and program staff should be
involved in the facility planning process for site selection,
school boundary studies, school closings and consolidations
and aspects of facility design (including modernization
planning, new school planning and architectural selection)
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
[and that] district employees, municipalities, local government
agencies, civic and homeowner associations and county-wide
organizations contribute to the facilities planning process
(ibid).
By informing the public upfront about the purpose and role of community members
in the long-range planning process, the district encourages and values public input.
2. Establish an annual calendar for the long-range facilities planning process to
create transparency and facilitate meaningful community engagement.
The adoption of an annual calendar for the planning process helps make the
public aware of the key deadlines and milestones that will be addressed well ahead
of time. A set schedule gives the public the opportunity to help develop, review and
give input on the district’s long-range facility plan, ponder its impact on the overall
community, and hold school district accountable for millions of dollars of
infrastructure/big capital development projects. With advance notice, community
stakeholders can collect information, give input, meet with key decision-makers, and
advocate for their point of view. Instead of community members finding out about a
new school when it is already set to be built in their neighborhood, school districts
can get community buy-in and support for new schools years in advance. The clear
and transparent process identifies key players (staff, consultants and elected officials)
as well as staff roles and responsibilities, taking the mystery out of who the key
decision-makers are as well as the timing of decisions. By informing the community
early and consistently in the process, they can help plan feasible, value-added
schools.
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland follows an
annual calendar with clear public and staff participation dates and opportunities. The
calendar identifies public hearings and meetings and advisory committees which the
public can participate in. The annual calendar also makes it easier for the school
district to coordinate its planning with other local jurisdictions. Both MCPS and
Mesa Unified School District in Arizona use timelines for its advisory committees.
The committee timelines provide committee members and the public with clear a
beginning and end to the process as well as a date that they can expect decisions to
be made. Both districts also integrate community participation opportunities within
their committee timelines. They directly solicit parent-teacher associations (PTAs),
civic groups, local jurisdictions, student governments and other community groups
informing them when their long-range facility plan is available for review and input.
The Palm Beach County School District in Florida and Newark Public Schools in
New Jersey conduct community workshops and meetings on the different elements
of their respective long-range facilities plans to solicit community input prior to
drafting the plan for the School Board’s review.
3. Engage the community in a public review and assessment of demographic data.
While some might argue that the general layperson would not understand the
data, it can easily be simplified and presented without the usual jargon so community
members can understand and analyze it. Community members can easily review and
verify current enrollment at the different schools. They can also review and discuss
the assumptions used to project future enrollment. The validation of the assumptions
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for demographic projections is necessary to ensure that both demographers and
community members agree that the assumptions are appropriate and accurate. For
example, the local economy and housing costs can impact a particular community
very differently, causing student enrollment to increase or decrease. Therefore,
assumptions for demographic projections need to be appropriate for different
communities to ensure the most accurate estimates possible.
The Mesa Unified School District in Arizona and Chicago Public Schools in
Illinois involve the community in the review of student demographic data. Both
districts conduct public hearings on student projections for the next school year and
review the growth of the previous year as well as related information concerning
changes in enrollment patterns and overall growth of the district. Input from school-
based staff such as principals and teachers are also solicited, especially from those
working at impacted schools. Since they work at the site on a daily basis, their ideas
reflect some of the operational issues related to overcrowding, busing, multi-track
schedules, and possible school closures.
4. Engage the community in a public review and assessment of existing school
facilities.
Community members can provide valuable insight regarding the review and
assessment of existing school facilities. Especially since parents, students, and school
staff experience the operational challenges on a daily basis, they have a unique
perspective. The involvement of the broader community residents and stakeholders
and businesspersons provides the opportunity for those with expertise in construction
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and electrical, architectural, etc. systems to identify infrastructure problems or less
expensive repairs. Parents, students, school staff, residents, community and business
leaders in the San Diego City Schools district in California were asked to help
evaluate and identify repairs and improvements they believed were needed at their
schools. A Facilities Steering Committee and five Area Planning Committees (each
comprising of approximately 25 people representing the five geographic areas of the
district) also participated in this process. The complete list of needs was reviewed
and prioritized by each School Site Governance Team, as well as the general public
through a series of neighborhood meetings held at area high schools. The finished
product represented thousands of hours of work in identifying the individual repair
needs of each school in the district. The broad representation and inclusiveness
helped ensure that persons from different backgrounds and all geographic areas of
the district were involved. By conducting neighborhood meetings, other members of
the community in addition to the school staff, students, and parents, could lend their
expertise in the identification and prioritization of repairs and improvements for each
school.
5. Engage the community in a public review and assessment of school attendance
boundaries.
A number of school districts involve the public in the formation and
modification of school attendance boundaries. Students and families care deeply
which school they attend for a variety of reasons ranging from continuing family
tradition, better sports or academic program, or close proximity. However, school
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts must balance socio-economic and racial/ethnic makeup of its school
populations as well as try to maintain natural neighborhood boundaries, major transit
arterials, avoid crossing gang boundaries. The Montgomery County Public Schools,
MD; Palm Beach County School District, FL; Dade County School District, FL; and
Mesa Unified School District, AZ integrate the review of attendance boundaries into
their long-range facilities planning process. Citizen-appointed attendance boundary
committees assist in the development of school service areas with support and
assistance from district staff. Public hearings are held to solicit input on attendance
boundary changes or creation of new attendance areas
The Montgomery County Public Schools’ citizen-appointed attendance
boundary committee develops guidelines, criteria and priorities based on the factors
outlined in the district’s Guidelines for Development of Facility recommendations
that guide staff in developing boundary options for consistency and objectivity. The
boundary committee evaluates the options created by staff and solicits broader
community input, outreaching specifically to the PTAs, community groups, and
other interested individuals in the development of their recommendations to the
Superintendent. Upon approval or revision by the Superintendent, the boundary
changes are once again distributed to the public for review prior to a public hearing
conducted by the School board. All boundary changes or school closures and
consolidations receive a public hearing before the Board takes any action. In an
effort to inform and encourage community input on the attendance boundary revision
process, the Montgomery County Public Schools and Mesa Unified School District
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
notify parents, civic and homeowner groups, parent reps, PTAs and high school
student representatives by first class mail about the meetings, proposed options, and
public hearings. Even parents of children that are at least three years behind the
affected grades are notified.
6. Let academic and educational goals drive facilities planning and design.
Most districts have more facility repair and construction needs than they can
ever afford. Therefore, repair and construction projects need to be prioritized and
precious resources used wisely. By prioritizing those repairs, renovations,
improvements and new construction that improve academic achievement, school
districts provide students with safe and supportive learning environments. The
distribution of limited resources for school facilities also involves the issue of equity.
Many districts have adopted minimum standards for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of facilities’ operating systems and infrastructures. These districts work
to create equitable learning environments, ensuring that all students, regardless of the
school they attend, can enjoy the same clean and safe facilities and resources such as
computer labs, bathrooms, cafeterias, playgrounds and sports facilities.
Creating a shared vision for academic success with the broader community
helps provide the school district with the support and resources needed to achieve
their educational goals. Integrating the broader educational goals into the long-range
facilities plans helps focus the maintenance, repair and construction of school
facilities on the larger goal of effectively educating and training our young people.
The Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland conducted sixteen community
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
forums to solicit the community’s input on priorities and strategies to improve
academic achievement. This input served as the foundation for five academic
priorities adopted by the School Board and reflected in the document “Our Call to
Action,” which described the district’s four-year plan to raise the achievement levels
of all students. This plan served as the guiding document for the district’s facilities
planning, design, academic programs, and budgets.
The Alexandria City Public Schools in Virginia developed clear academic
goals and philosophies for each school type (elementary, middle, and high school).
Similar to Montgomery County Public Schools, these goals and philosophies drove
the budgeting, academic programs and facilities planning and design for the
Alexandria City Public Schools. Instead of soliciting community input upfront, the
Alexandria School Board achieved consensus on facility goals and priorities by
school type and develop options for growth and overcrowding by school type and
areas. Community input was then solicited on the options for growth and
overcrowding by school type and area that the School Board had developed through
public work sessions. The options presented by the School Board included new
acquisitions of school sites and conversion of existing schools. The district
conducted targeted outreach to parents, school staff, civic associations and residents
to attend and participate in the review of proposed options and to suggest additional
options. Interested community members including parents, school principals,
facilities staff, instruction staff, financial staff, board members, and other community
residents and stakeholders formed study groups by school type to investigate the
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
creation of additional space in accordance with the educational goals and
philosophies adopted by the School Board that would help create academically
supportive environments for all students.
The San Diego City Schools District convened the Facilities Review Public
Working Committee (FRPWC) -to review school facilities issues. The FRPWC was
charged with assisting district staff in prioritizing and validating repairs and upgrades
identified by individual school communities and compiling a comprehensive
inventory of repairs and upgrades needed at all San Diego schools over the next 15
years was completed. They recommended that a plan be implemented to ensure the
maintenance repairs and infrastructure replacements (roofing, paving, electrical
systems, etc.) be completed on a timely basis as systems and structures reach the end
of their serviceable life. The Committee recommended that a long-range facilities
plan include funding to fix existing buildings and classrooms and allocate the
necessary resources to ensure they are adequately maintained and never allowed to
deteriorate to sub-standard levels again. The Committee strongly recommended that
the district not build any new schools until it could demonstrate the preservation of
its current capital assets (San Diego City Schools 1998).
Once the needs of existing facilities were addressed, the Committee
recommended that the San Diego City Schools’ long-range facilities plan focus on
improvements that enhance the overall teaching and learning environment. They
evaluated the following five key policy issues, each considered to have student
achievement implications as well as significant capital, operating and maintenance
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
costs. The policy issues evaluated by the Committee were 1) class size reduction, 2)
multi-track year-round schools, 3) neighborhood schools, 4) school enrollment size,
and 5) single-session kindergarten. Upon evaluating each of the policy issues, the
Committee reviewed 48 long-range planning options developed by district staff and
consultants and selected two that would have the broadest possible impact on
improving student achievement. Not only would new construction projects be aimed
at supporting academic achievement, but existing schools would be brought up to
district-wide standards to ensure equity across all schools. Although this process
required a lot time and money to engage the broader community in the review and
update of long-range facilities plan, the San Diego City Schools have a solid 15-year
facilities plan matched with broad community support and partners to help with the
implementation.
7. Create and support broad community planning teams for each new school
project.
As new school projects begin specific project planning and implementation,
the involvement of community residents and stakeholders helps maintain open
channels of communication between the district and the community. With
community residents and stakeholders involved in the program planning, design, and
construction oversight of a new school, they can help keep other community
members informed about the progress of the project, potential environmental risks,
and obstacles involving the project. Especially since the pre-development and
construction of a new school takes many years, consistent community involvement
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
can help control rumors and suggest creative solutions to various obstacles or project
changes. Involved community members can also keep community residents informed
about job or business opportunities, helping to facilitate greater community benefits
from the new school.
The School Board for the Newark Public Schools in New Jersey appointed a
diverse set of steering committee members (city staff, parents, educators, residents,
and businesspersons) to serve on the selection committees of architectural firms and
for each new school project to review and approve plans and give input on all aspects
of project development (program planning, pre-design, site design, etc.). The
Minneapolis Public Schools in Minnesota conducted broad public community
meetings where residents, parents and key stakeholders were invited and encouraged
to join planning teams for new school projects to assist with program planning and
building design. According to its policy on long-range educational facilities
planning, the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland establishes planning
advisory committees for each school project involving modification, modernization
or new construction.
The San Diego City Schools in California is committed to a community-
based, decision-making process for the design of new schools and major additions at
existing sites. In order to involve the broader neighborhood in the planning process,
the district works with the city’s area planning committees, using them as the main
vehicles for community members to participate in the planning of new schools. Since
these committees already involve a broad cross-section of community and address
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community development issues, new schools can be considered as part of a local
neighborhood’s overall development. The incorporation of new schools into the
city’s area planning committees also helps people view new school construction as a
neighborhood and revitalization issue.
The San Diego City Schools identifies stakeholders within the school
community and broader community to be represented on a site-based design task
force through established and recognized organizations having jurisdiction on land
use planning and input on school development (i.e. community planning groups,
committees, associations, city planning, city parks and recreation, city council,
redevelopment agencies, chambers, professional organizations). The district creates a
site-based design task force for each major construction project. The Office of the
Superintendent drafts and disseminates clear and simple policies and procedures for
new school development timelines, new school design task forces, and new school
site selection procedures. The district educates task force members about the
planning process, their roles and responsibilities, planning guidelines, and the
specific planning phases that they will be addressing such as the development of
educational specifications, site selection and site specific designs. By providing this
framework and structure to community task forces, the district addresses the
concepts of site-based shared decision-making, involvement of key stakeholders and
establishes a connection between the community and other agencies involved in the
project. By implementing a comprehensive and collaborative planning and design
effort for each new school project, the district works to bring new schools in
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
alignment with academic programming, community services and economic and
social functions of neighborhoods and create appropriate educational facilities that
support teaching and learning.
The amount of staff support the district provides is significant. District staff
conduct numerous community meetings to educate the attendees about the funding
for new schools, the planning process, the planning and development schedule, site
selection criteria and role of city and other local jurisdictions. After presenting the
basic information about new schools, district staff conduct additional community
meetings with breakout sessions addressing attendance boundaries, existing land
uses, community goals, possible school sites and task force formation. District staff
are assigned to every site-based design task force, including architects, classified
staff, school-based staff, and other specialists. They provide staff support for a
minimum of five and maximum of seven design planning meetings. By providing a
significant investment early in the process, San Diego City Schools build community
trust, informed participants, and numerous partners who have buy-in and support for
new schools.
8. Conduct extensive community outreach and communication early and
consistently throughout the process.
Informing affected persons and the broader community about the planning,
location and development of new schools is an important step towards developing
trust, cooperation and partnerships with the community. People tend to more open to
new things when they have been informed early and upfront, before the plans have
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
been set, a site selected, and drawings completed. The Vista School District in
California places door hangers on all residences and businesses in a 1.5 mile radius
of a target area informing occupants about upcoming community planning meetings
for the new school. They also supplement the door hangers with mailed postcards
notifying residents about site selection and community meetings. The San Diego
City Schools sends notices home with all students and mails notices to city area
planning and community groups operating in the target area. They also send notices
via first-class mail to all residences and property owners within the boundaries of the
affected school attendance area. For one affected school, they sent over 8,000 notices
to residences and property owners. The district also conducts quarterly community-
wide meetings to provide progress reports, findings, and recommendations of the
site-specific design task forces.
9. Solicit and utilize community criteria and values as guiding principals for site
selection.
Typically, site selection criteria evaluates whether a site is appropriate for a
school. The criteria tend to be one-sided, focusing primarily on the health and safety
of students and the learning environment. The impact of a new school on a
community and the loss of the existing land use are often not adequately addressed in
the site selection criteria and assessment of proposed school sites. Much of the
community resistance to a proposed school site stems from the inadequate
consideration and processing of a schools impact on a community or displacement of
existing uses. Community’s values, interests and concerns need to be heard,
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
considered and incorporated into site selection criteria to facilitate trust-building,
cooperation and partnerships for the new school.
The Dade County School District in Florida takes its role and relationship
with the community very seriously. It views schools as integral and inseparable part
of the total community. As community institutions they should reflect this
relationship physically and ideologically. When appraising a proposed site’s
adequacy, the Dade County School District assesses the site’s potential for
contributing to the school’s educational needs, cultural, and other educational
functions in the community, to the preservation of the county’s fragile environment,
and to the development of harmonious multicultural neighborhoods.
The Palm Beach County School District in Florida tries to avoid dictating to
the community where a new school will be built without significant community
input. District staff conduct extensive outreach, solicit the community’s values and
input regarding site selection criteria. Before evaluating any potential sites, the
district asks the community what properties they want to protect and exclude from
consideration for new schools. In neighborhoods where there are limited community
capacity and land use options, district staff contact and work with community
stakeholders and gatekeepers and bring them into the planning process early and
upfront. These efforts help the district limit community resistance to new schools.
One member of the boundary committee related her experience of visiting and
touring Riveria Beach, a predominantly low-income Black community with some of
the community leaders to get a better understanding of community needs and
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
preferences for new school location. Since Riveria Beach did not have any
community representatives on the boundary committee, they made sure its members
were familiar with their community before making decisions on changing attendance
boundaries.
As part of its community engagement efforts, the San Diego City Schools
established a comprehensive and collaborative process between the district and
community to select new school sites that provide safe and secure environments for
students and staff so that effective teaching and learning can occur. Community
meetings are held at least two years prior to construction. The district solicits and
incorporates community criteria such as the evaluation of potential displacement of
homeowners, rents and businesses, competing land use and development plans, and
the protection of community assets for protection and into site selection criteria and
analysis. After the criteria have been set, the site-based task forces identify and
evaluate alternative sites for each new school and make their recommendations to the
School Board over a three-month period. During this period, alternative sites are
identified through community-wide meetings, individual Task Force meetings and
staff analysis. For each new school site, the task forces select a minimum of one
preferred and one alternative site. Although this process does not guarantee complete
community agreement/consensus, good process and majority of community support.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SUPPORTING
MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The following five guiding principles attempt to help school districts improve
their school facility planning processes by supporting collaborative, community-
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
centered planning of public schools (AASA 1949; CDE 1990; DOE 2000b;
Metropolitan Forum Project 1999; Sanoff 2000, 2002). They attempt to shift school
districts from acting alone in building new schools to a new paradigm where they
realize educational outcomes and broader community benefits by sharing power with
communities and working with them as partners throughout the planning process.
This paradigm shift would require most school districts to change their values,
priorities, policies and practices. A new paradigm based on collaborative, community
centered planning of new public schools would involve school districts embracing a
broader community building agenda, facilitating effective community engagement,
addressing broader community benefits, and working with communities as partners
in their school construction programs. These simple, yet meaningful guiding
principles are a combination of promising practices identified in my research of
thirteen other school districts from nine states as well as a response to the problems
and gaps I observed through my consultant work and research of LAUSD’s school
facility planning and community outreach policies and practices for its new schools.
1. Value, support and facilitate meaningful community engagement throughout the
school planning process.
Public schools are among the most important neighborhood institutions. They
are often the first community institution to engage a child and their family. Schools,
teachers and other staff are often a child’s first significant relationship outside of
their nuclear family. School employees build trust with families and serve as
important resources. The relationship between a child and their family and a school
and school district can span multiple decades. The positive experiences of students
211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and families at school help instill pride in and loyalty to their respective school.
Thus, it makes logical sense that when a school district embarks on such a significant
endeavor as building a new school, its extended family - students, families, other
residents, and other community institutions, would want to be informed upfront and
invited to share their ideas and participate in the planning process. By engaging
members of their extended family early and in a meaningful way, school districts can
help create a set of supporters at the beginning of the planning process and reduce
feelings of exclusion and alienation.
In order for someone to value meaningful community engagement one must
view the community as having important information and expertise. By viewing the
community this way, it is easier to have patience and willingness to make the extra
effort to ensure their participation and input. Informing and engaging with
community stakeholders early, often and regularly and treating them as equal
partners in the planning process enables them to share power with the school district
and play a meaningful role in the decision-making process. By focusing on the
“public” in public schools, staff are reminded that new schools are for the public and
that they have the privilege to serve them.
Facilitating meaningful community engagement requires ingenuity,
perseverance, and dedication. School districts need to develop effective outreach
methods, provide transportation and childcare, and educate community stakeholders
so they can contribute in an informed and meaningful way. School districts that
succeed in facilitating meaningful community engagement go beyond fulfilling the
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
minimum mandatory public participation requirements. Simply posting public
notices and holding public meetings does not ensure community stakeholders will
attend and be informed enough to provide valuable input. Since community members
are participating during their own free time, they must feel the effort is worthwhile,
that their participation and input is valued and will be utilized. Furthermore, the
community needs assurances that they will not be retaliated against for speaking out.
School districts need to embrace and encourage their input whether or not it is
compatible with the view of the district. Encouraging the community to monitor the
district’s actions helps ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place, an
essential characteristic of democracy.
When school districts invest in meaningful community engagement
throughout the school planning process, they help build trust, cooperation and allies
with communities. Although this process can be both frustrating and challenging,
school districts are often rewarded with value-added projects, stronger partnerships
and extensive allies and partners that are committed to providing children with the
best education and skills possible. Instead of alienating or instigating public anger
and resistance, they allow the public to valued stake and ownership in all aspects of
district. The need for community engagement is greater for large school districts
where parents, students, and other community stakeholders may be less connected
with the large bureaucracy and need more comfort and assurances that the public’s
interests are being pursued and protected. While LAUSD’s new Site Selection
Procedure and Community Participation Program, approved in 2000 is a good start,
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
it does not have an adequate budget and is not well integrated into the site
identification process to ensure community members have the appropriate
information needed to participate in meaningful decision-making on new school
sites.
2. Build new schools that contribute to overall neighborhood revitalization and
community building.
A new school can contribute to the overall community development - helping
to generate new housing, business development, recreational and open space,
transportation and other public services. A new school not only benefits its students,
families, and staff but other residents, community stakeholders, and other community
institutions benefit as well. It provides new, safe playgrounds and other recreational
facilities for children and other residents after school and on weekends. Parents and
other residents may attend English, citizenship and other continuing education
classes. Community, clubs, or other volunteer member organizations may hold
meetings or other events at schools. A new school may house a community library,
computer center or swimming facilities that the broader community may use during
non-school hours. A new school can help create significant educational benefits such
as improved student attendance and community and parent involvement. The
removal of a former nuisance use such as a motel used by drug-dealers and
prostitutes and debris-filled vacant lot and replacement by a new school can help
create a safe and vibrant environment for students, families and other residents to
learn, work, and play.
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Unfortunately, the educational and community benefits generated by
engaging the community in the planning of a new school are often ignored and
underutilized. Often deemed too difficult or time-consuming, engaging communities
upfront and in a meaningful way can help build social capital in local neighborhoods
and local support for new schools. Especially when community members are
engaged in the overall planning and site selection of new schools they can develop
feelings of ownership and attachment to the project, helping to ensure its completion
and success. As parents, students, seniors, business owners, teachers, other school
staff, other residents and community stakeholders get involved in the planning, they
inevitably get to know each other and develop a cooperative working relationship
with each other that often leads to new partnerships and projects that can support the
operation of the new school and the overall development of the community.
Furthermore, participants learn leadership skills and become involved with the
educational programs, leading to greater academic success for the students and
increased social capital of a community.
3. Integrate school facility plans into local and regional planning processes to
ensure compatibility with local general plans and community development plans.
Building upon the idea that schools are an integral and inseparable part of the
total community, the planning, prioritization, and site selection of new schools
should be compatible with local community development plans. The coordination of
new school developments with other uses can help create joint uses and partnerships
and avoid wasteful duplication and competition for scarce land. While this
coordination often requires early, upfront and extra communication with various
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partners, money is usually saved in the end and the partnerships create value-added
outcomes. Instead of forcing the public or government officials to choose between
the development of essential assets such as housing or libraries, the coordination and
co-location of schools with other uses can help maximize limited resources and
community benefits. Coordinating public transportation routes and roadways will
help the flow of traffic, ensure pedestrian safety, and maximize scarce funding. By
integrating new school facility plans within existing regional or neighborhood plans,
helps ensure a win-win situation for everyone.
4. Establish and implement a comprehensive and collaborative process between the
school district and community stakeholders in the selection of a new school site.
Similar to their approach of working with parents, businesses, and other
community resources as partners in the successful education of children, school
districts should approach these same parties as partners in the planning and site
selection of new schools. Instead of operating from the old paradigm of “doing for”
or “knowing what’s best” for students, parents and the broader community, school
districts should adopt the partnership paradigm that works in collaboration with the
end users. While school districts and their real estate staff may be the experts with
regard to many aspects of the planning and site selection process, students, parents
and other community stakeholders are also experts in important areas of the planning
process. For instance, they can usually easily identify nuisance land uses that should
be replaced as well as important community assets that should be protected. By
identifying sites that the community wishes to protect early in the process, engaged
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community partners can help prevent the school district from entering a potentially
protracted and costly battle.
Elements of a comprehensive and collaborative process may involve having
the community stakeholders identify additional criteria that should be assessed and
analyzed as part of the site selection criteria. By broadening the traditional site
selection criteria, school districts have the opportunity to leam about and consider
aspects of the school development that is important to the community. These criteria
may not be required by law, but they provide insight into the values held by
community stakeholders. By giving community stakeholders the opportunity to
participate in establishing site selection criteria and weighing the different criteria
gives them a meaningful experience and lets them know that their opinions and
values really count in the process. So even though they may not always get what they
want on every single aspect, they know they were listened to, their opinions and
ideas were included and their meaningful participation was valued and respected.
5. Respect and support the greater upfront costs required by effective community
engagement that results in lower overall costs and fewer delays.
Engaging people in a meaningful way takes time, good listening skills,
diplomacy and patience. While community stakeholders want and should have a say
in the development of a new school and ultimately their neighborhood, they are
participating on their own time. Unlike school district board members, staff and
consultants, community residents and stakeholders are not being paid or
compensated in any way. They could be seeing a movie, mowing their lawn, playing
with their children instead of spending hours in meetings in the evening or on
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
weekends. Their sacrifice of their free time needs to be respected, valued and
appreciated. Especially since community stakeholders are participating on their own
free time, extra time is needed to give them adequate opportunities to participate. Not
everyone is going to be able to attend a Saturday morning meeting due to work or
family obligations. Therefore, some meetings needed to be conducted more than
once and alternative opportunities to participate need to be offered.
They also need assistance with and support that facilitates their meaningful
and consistent participation. That means being provided with accurate information
about next meetings or decisions with as much advance notice as possible.
Duplicative communication via the phone, email and first class mail are often needed
to disseminate information effectively. It also means providing transportation,
childcare, refreshments, and public acknowledgements. These efforts are essential to
creating a dedicated group of volunteers that want to see a new school built and
children provided an exceptional learning experience and environment.
CONCLUSION
There is a crisis in America’s K-12 public schools and educational system.
School facilities are overcrowded, obsolete and deteriorating. There is not enough
room to house current or future students. Low-income, minority and urban students
have disproportionately suffered under these conditions that have maintained
separate and unequal school facilities and academic outcomes. Our educational
system, national economy and communities can no longer afford to do the same
thing and simply hope for different results. If school districts want different
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
outcomes - new schools that are truly centers of communities for continued learning
and services and higher academic achievement for its low-income, disadvantaged
minority students, then they must change how they plan and build schools and
educate their underperforming students.
This study has provided ample evidence of the facility and academic
problems in our K-12 educational system. By focusing on the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD), the study provides specific examples of the many
challenges of building new schools in dense urban areas while protecting community
assets and addressing severe educational and facilities inequalities. A review of
educational facility planning, school reform and community participation literature
has revealed the existence of very little documentation, resources and tools for
school districts and communities to address these educational and facility
inequalities in the context of school facility planning. Due to the increased
investment in school facilities in recent years, the development of guiding principles
and promising practices for school districts and communities to work together in
planning new schools while addressing educational and facility inequalities is timely.
While there is generally agreement that new schools need to be built, there is
much debate about how, where, when and in what order they should be built. School
districts and community stakeholders generally envision and approach new school
planning and development from different ends of the same spectrum. On one hand
school districts are under pressure to find an appropriate site that they can afford and
build a new school on time and under budget. On the other hand, community
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stakeholders are generally concerned over where a new school would complement
and maximize existing development and assets, help replace nuisance land uses,
serve the broader community (not just students) and successfully educated the
students.
School districts tend to solely focus on the students that will be housed at the
new school and to a limited extent on their parents in planning new schools and
educational programs and services. This approach tends to result in school districts
suffering from tunnel vision and losing sight of the overall educational outcomes and
broader community benefits of new schools and the importance and value of
engaging community stakeholders as partners in a meaningful way to plan and locate
new schools. Community stakeholders often get frustrated with the school district
because they are often not invited or given a clear and meaningful way to provide
their input and participate in the planning process, particularly the long-range plan
which includes prioritization of new schools and in site selection. These dynamics
contribute to adversarial relationships between school districts and communities. By
using the recommended guiding principles and implementing some of the promising
practices described earlier in this chapter, school districts can achieve better
educational, facility and community outcomes by engaging with communities as
partners in a collaborative and meaningful planning process that respects and
incorporates their interests and needs.
220
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
Agron, Joe. 2000. “Through the Roof.” American School & University. May: pages
30-54.
Alaska Department of Education. 1997. Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation
Handbook. Juneau, AL:Education Support Services/Facilities.
American Association of School Administrators (AASA). 1949. American School
Buildings. Washington, DC.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2001. 2001 Report Card for
America’s Infrastructure, [http://www.asce.org/reportcard/pdfrreportcard.pdf].
Accessed 24 July 2004.
Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF). 2003a. The High Cost o f Being Poor: Another
Perspective on Helping Low-income Families Get By and Get Ahead.
rhttp://www.aecf.org/publications/data/2003%20essav%20book.pdf|. Accessed 17
February 2004.
. 2003b. African American Children Pocket Guide.
[http://www.aecf.org/publications/data/african american pocketguide.pdf].
Accessed 17 February 2004.
. 2003c. The Growing Number o f Kids in Severely Distressed
Neighborhoods: Evidence from the 2000 Census, by William O’Hare and Mark
Mather, [http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/distressed_neighborhoods.pdf]. Accessed 17
February 2004.
Asimov, Nanette. 2002. “More Uncredentialed Teachers’ Students Fail, Seniors
Likely to Flunk Exit Test, Study Says.” sfgate.com. [http://sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/l 1/M91373.DTL]. Accessed 24 July 2004.
Bartsch, Charles C. and Elizabeth Collaton. 1997. Brownfields. Westport, Conn.:
Praeger.
Beaumont, Constance E. 2002. “Don’t Destroy Neighborhoods to Educate Them.”
Planetzin.com. [www.planetzin.com]. 16 January. Accessed 18 January 2002.
Board of Education of Montgomery County. 1999. Long-Range Educational
Facilities Planning. Resolution No. 27-86: amended by Resolution 581-99 September
14,1999. Montgomery County, VA.
Burnett, Gary. 1995. “Overcrowding in Urban Schools.” Eric Digest. No. 107.
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. 1996. “Enrollment Growth and Overcrowding in New York City Schools.”
IUME Briefs. Volume 6.
California Department of Education (CDE). 1990. Schools fo r the Twenty-First
Century. Sacramento.
. 1999a. Dropout Rates for Grades 9-12 for Los Angeles Unified.
[http://datal.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/DistRpt.asp?cChoice=EthOnly&cYear=1999-
00&cSelect=1964733—
LOS%5EANGELES%5EUNIFIED%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E
%5E&cTopic=Dropouts&cLevel=District]. 28 January 2002.
. 1999b. District Enrollment by Ethnicity.
[http://datal.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/DistEnr2.asp?cChoice=DistEnrEth&cYear=1999-
2000&cLevel=District&ctopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&TheName-
los+angeles&cSelect=l 932276—LOSANGELESCOCYADIST&submitl=Submit].
Accessed 28 January 2002.
. 1999c. Numbers of 12th Grade Graduates in California Public Schools
Completing all Courses Required for U.C. and/or C.S.U. Entrance by District by
Gender and by Ethnic Group for the year 1999-00 for Los Angeles Unified, County
of Los Angeles and State of California.
[http://datal.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/DistGrad.asp?cSelect=1964733%A0-
%AOLOS+ANGELES+UNIFIED&cChoice=DstGrdEth&cYear=1999-
00&cLevel=District&cT opic=Graduates&myT imeFrame=S&submit 1=Submit].
Accessed 28 January 2002.
. 2000a. District Enrollment by Ethnicity.
[http://datal.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/DistEnr2.asp?cChoice=DistEnrEth&cYear=2000-
01&cLevel=District&ctopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&TheName-
los+angeles&cSelect=1932276—LOSANGELESCOCYADIST&submitl=Submit].
Accessed 28 January 2002.
. 2000b. SAT-IReportLAUSD, 2000-01.
[http://data 1 .cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/S AT-13 .asp?cSelect=1964733-
LOS+ANGELES+UNIFIED&cChoice=SAT3&cYear=2000-
01&cLevel+District&cTopic=SAT&myTimeFrame=S&submitl=Submit]. Accessed
28 January 2002.
. 2001a. Stanford 9 Test Results - Los Angeles Unified.
[http://www.eddataonline.com/star/report.idc?co=19&dist=64733&schl=0&grpl=2&
gropucat=l&gropuYear=2001]. Accessed 28 January 2002.
222
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. 2001b. A Primer on the Public School State Approval Process. Sacramento.
California State Auditor. 1999. Los Angeles Unified School District: Its School Site
Selection Process Fails to Provide Information Necessary fo r Decision Making and
to Effectively Engage the Community. Sacramento: Bureau of State Audits.
California Teachers Association (CTA). 2001. Comparison Between the State and
LAUSD Under the Academic Performance Index. Sacramento: 22 March.
Campbell, Todd R. and Lesley Dobalian. 1999. Failing the Grade: How Diesel
School Buses Threaten our Children’ s Health. Los Angeles: Coalition for Clean Air.
Cannon, Greg. 2002. “Developers Face Urban Challenge.” Contra Costa Times. 5
February.
Castaldi, Basil. 1987. Educational Facilities. 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Caudill, William W. 1954. Toward Better School Design. New York: F.W. Dodge
Corporation.
Center for Health, Environment, and Justice (CHEJ). 2001. Poisoned Schools:
Invisible Threats, Visible Actions. Falls Church, VA.
Children’s Aid Society. 1997. Building a Community School. New York, NY.
Coleman, James S. 1966. Equality o f Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
. 1990. Equality and Achievement in Education. Boulder: Westview Press.
Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (CCSAPT).
2001. A Call for Equity and Accountability in Building Effective Schools and
Revitalizing Neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Los Angeles.
Dee, Richard, ed. 1973. Site Development Goals for City Schools. New York:
Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 1999. Schools WhitePaper.
Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency.
. 2000. Fact Sheet: New Environmental Requirements fo r Proposed School
Sites. Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency.
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. 2001. D ISC Public Participation Manual. Sacramento: California
Environmental Protection Agency.
DiMassa, Cara Mia. 2003. “Campus Crowding Can Make PE a Challenge.” Los
Angeles Times. 19 November.
Earthman, Glen I. 1992. Planning Educational Facilities for the Next Century.
Reston: Association of School Business Officials International.
. 1998. The Impact o f School Building Condition and Student Achievement,
and Behavior. Paper presented at the European Investment Bank/Organization for
Economic Coordination and Development International Conference, 16-17
November, Luxembourg.
. 2000. Collaborative Planning fo r School Facilities and Comprehensive
Land Use. Paper presented to the Stein & Schools Lecture Series: Policy, Planning,
and Design for a 21st Century Public Education System, 31 January, at Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
Epstein, Joyce, L., Lucretia Coates, Karen Clark Salinas, Mavis G. Sanders and Beth
S. Simon. 1997. School, Family, and Community Partnerships. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Georgia Department of Education. 1999. A Guide to School Site Selection. Atlanta:
Facilities Services Unit.
Grunwald, David and Karen Bass. 2001. “Be Solomon-Like in Housing vs.
Schools.” Los Angeles Times. 13 November.
Hatton, Barbara R. 1979. “Community Control in Retrospect.” Community
Participation in Education. Edited by Carl A. Grant. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Havighurst, Robert J. 1979. “Local Community Participation in Educational Policy
making and School Administration.” Community Participation in Education. Edited
by Carl A. Grant. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Hayasaki, Erika. 2004. “Report Details Long Road to English-Language Fluency.”
Los Angeles Times. 14 February.
Hayasaki, Erika and Solomon Moore. 2002. “Barry White Sings Out for His Old
Neighborhood.” Los Angeles Times. 11 September.
Hefland, Duke. 2001. “Have Books, Must Travel.” Los Angeles Times. 27 August.
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. 2002. “School Site Axed Where Need is Dire.” Los Angeles Times. 24
March.
Hentschke, Guilbert C. 2001. Student Transciency, School Accountability, and
Achievement in Large Urban School Districts, [www.usc.edu]. Accessed 1 October
2001.
Holcomb, John H. 1995. A Guide to the Planning o f Educational Facilities. Lanham:
University Press of America.
Howley, Craig, Marty Strange, and Robert Bickel. 2000. “Research About School
Size and School Performance in Impoverished Communities.” ERIC Digests.
Charleston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Johnston, Robert C. 2001. “Urban Renewal.” Education Week. 13 June.
Kauth, Ann. 2002. New Schools for Older Neighborhoods. Sacramento: Local
Government Commission.
KnowledgeW orks Foundation. 2003.10 Principles o f Authentic Community
Engagement. [http://www.kwfdn.org/ProgramAreas/facilities/10Principles.pdf].
Accessed 20 December 2004.
Kowalski, Theodore J. 1989. Planning and Managing School Facilities. New York:
Praeger.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’ s Schools. New
York: Crown Publishing.
Krumholz, Norman and Pierre Clavel. 1994. “Reinventing Cities: Equity Planners
Tell Their Stories.” Conflicts in Urban and Regional Development. Edited by John
R. Logan and Todd Swanstrom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lemasters, Linda. 1997. A Synthesis o f Studies Pertaining to Facilities, Student
Achievement and Student Behavior. Ph.D. diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Leu, Donald J. 1965. Planning Educational Facilities. New York: The Center for
Applied Research in Education, Inc.
Lewis, Laurie, Kyle Snow, Elizabeth Farris, Becky Smerdon, Stephanie Cronen,
Jessica Kaplan and Bemie Greene. 2000. Condition o f America’ s Public School
Facilities: 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Little Hoover Commission. 2000. To Build a Better School. Sacramento.
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). 1993. History o f Schools: 1855-
1993. 4‘ ed. Los Angeles: Facilities Planning and Analysis Branch.
. 1998. Historical Ethnic Percentages o f LAUSD Enrollment 1995-1998. Los
Angeles.
. 2000a. Continuing and New CAP Students. Los Angeles.
. 2000b. Eleven Local Districts, One Mission: A Multiple District Plan for
Transforming the Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles.
. 2000c. K-12 New Schools and Additions that Added Permanent Classroom
Seats. Los Angeles: Independent Analysis Unit.
. 2000d. LAUSD Students per Acre Adjusted fo r Multi-Track Enrollment. Los
Angeles. 14 February.
. 2000e. LAUSD Site Selection Procedure and Community Participation
Program. Los Angeles: Facilities Services Division.
. 2000f. 2000 School List. Los Angeles: Community Outreach Branch. 18
May.
. 2000g. Seats Short to Outreach Firm. Los Angeles.
. 2001a. Proposition BB Report Card: New Construction. Los Angeles:
Facilities Services Division.
. 2001b. Fingertip Facts 2001-02.
[http://www.lausd.kl2.ca.us/lauds/offices/Office_of_Communications/2000-
fingertip.htm]. Accessed 26 January 2002.
. 2001c. Strategic Execution Plan fo r Delivery o f New Schools. Los Angeles:
Facilities Service Division.
. 200 Id. Strategic Execution Plan for Relocation. Los Angeles: Office of
Housing and Relocation.
. 2002a. 2000-01 English Language Counts. Los Angeles.
. 2002b. Multitrack Year-Round Schools. Los Angeles.
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. 2002c Relocation Plan for the Proposed Priority and Escutia Plan Schools.
Los Angeles: Office of Housing and Relocation.
McCabe, Melissa. 2004. “Research Shows that Good Teaching Matters.” Education
Week on the Web. [http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=50].
Accessed 24 July 2004.
McClurkin, W.D. 1964. School Building Planning. New York: MacMillan Company.
McConville, Shannon and Paul Ong. 2003. The Trajectory o f Poor Neighborhoods in
Southern California, 1970-2000. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
McGuffey, C. W. 1982. “Facilities.” Improving Educational Standards and
Productivity. Edited by W. Herbert. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.
MacKenzie, Donald G. 1989. Planning Educational Facilities. Lanham: University
Press of America, Inc.
Metropolitan Forum Project. 1999. What If. Los Angeles: New Schools Better
Neighborhoods.
Moore, Gary T. and Jeffery A. Lackney. 1995. “Design Patterns for American
Schools: Responding to the Reform Movement.” In Designing Places o f Learning.
Edited by Anne Meek. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Moore, Solomon. 2002. “Two School Bonds Get Donations.” Los Angeles Times. 9
October.
Nathan, Joe and Karen Febey. 2001. Smaller, Safer, Saner, Successful Schools.
Minneapolis: Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Neighborhood Budget Capital Group (NCBG). 2001. Overcrowding in Chicago
High Schools. Chicago.
Orfield, Myron and Thomas Luce. 2002. California Metropatterns. Minneapolis:
Metropolitan Area Research Corporation.
Palacios, John. 2001. Telephone conversation with the author. 20 September.
Perry, Clarence Arthur. 1915. The Extension of Public Education: A Study in the
Wider Use of School Buildings. No. 28. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Education.
227
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pierson, David. 2002. “Mold May Force Razing of Planning High School Site.” Los
Angeles Times. 1 October.
Posnick-Goodwin, Sherry. 2001. “Where Everybody Knows Your Name.”
California Educator. November: pages 6-19.
Rosenblatt, Robert A. and Duke Helfand. 2001. “A New Boom in U.S. Student
Population, Census Finds.” Los Angeles Times. 23 March.
Roxana Godinez, et al. v Gray Davis, Governor o f the State o f California, et al.
2000. Case No. BC 227352. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Superior Court. 25 May.
Sahagun, Louis and Duke Helfand. 2000. “ACLU Sues State over Conditions at Poor
Schools.” Los Angeles Times. 18 May.
San Diego City Schools. 1998. Final Summary Report. San Diego: Facilities Review
Public Working Committee.
Sanoff, Henry. 2000. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
. 2002. Schools Designed with Community Participation.
[http://www.edfacilities.orgpubs/sanoffschools.pdf]. Accessed 3 July 2004.
Schneider, Mark. 2002. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?
Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Smith, Doug. 2002. “Funding Set, L.A. Unified Plans to Build.” Los Angeles Times.
2 September.
Strategic Education Services (SES). 2001.2000 LAUSD API Data. 20 February.
Stricherz, M. 2000. “Bricks and Mortar Boards.” Education Week 20 (14): pages 30-
32. Quoted by Mark Schneider in Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?
Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. 2002.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data.
[http://factfmder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=77724215539]. Accessed 31 July
2003.
U.S. Department of Education (DOE). 1997. A Back to School Special Report on the
Baby Boom Echo. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
. 2000a. Growing Pains: The Challenge o f Overcrowded Schools is Here to
Stay. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
. 2000b. Schools as Centers o f Community: A Citizen’ s Guide for Planning
and Design. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1999. The State o f
Cities. Washington, DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1996. School Facilities America’ s Schools
Report Differing Conditions. Washington, DC.
Weinstein, C.S. 1979. “The Physical Environment of the School: A Review of the
Research.” Review o f Educational Research, 49 (4), p. 577-610. Quoted in Linda
Lemasters, A Synthesis o f Studies Pertaining to Facilities, Student Achievement and
Student Behavior. Ph.D. diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Wirt, John. 2001. The Condition o f Education, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Wohlers, Gordon. 2000. “Declaration of Gordon Wohlers” as part of Roxana
Godinez, et al. v Gray Davis, Governor o f the State o f California, et al. 2000. Case
No. BC 227352. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Superior Court. 25 May.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
SURVEY OF URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT’S COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION PROCESS IN SITE SELECTION & ENVIRONMENTAL
INVESTIGATION OF NEW SCHOOLS
The following survey was designed by Allison Tom-Miura, a graduate student at the
University of Southern California to collect information on the “best practices” of
urban public school districts in involving community residents and stakeholders in
the site selection and environmental investigation of new schools with the aim of
reducing negative impacts on local neighborhoods residents, building upon
community assets, and building safe, new, state-of-the-art schools that are effectively
designed and operated as community learning and service centers. The findings of
this survey will be incorporated into her Design, Development, and Planning Project
as part of her doctoral coursework at the School of Policy, Planning, and
Development at USC.
Please return your completed surveys to Ms. Tom-Miura by fax at (310) 559-8755 or
email at aitom@earthlink.net. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at (310) 559-8755 phone/fax or email. Thank you for your participation and
support.
School District Name & Address
Contact Name & Title
Contact Phone Number & Email Address
• & Type of Existing School Sites
• Primary Center (Pre-K-3)
• Elementary (K-5)
• Middle (6-7)
• Senior High (9-12)
• Mixed
# & Type of New Schools Built in the Last
Year
Prior Land Uses
• Primary Center (Pre-K-3)
• Elementary (K-5)
• Middle (6-7)
• Senior High (9-12)
• Mixed
# Residtl Cml Indust Undev
230
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
# & Type of New Schools
Planned/Proposed
Prior Land Uses
• Primary Center (Pre-K-3)
• Elementary (K-5)
• Middle (6-7)
• Senior High (9-12)
• Mixed
# Residtl Cml Indust Undev
Contact Information for Community
Organizations & Individuals Involved in
New School Site Selection, Environmental
Oversight & Planning
Identification & Prioritization o f New Schools
• Is there a policy regarding notification &
participation parents & residents about
new schools planned for their
neighborhood?
• How are parents & residents in the
neighborhoods targeted for new schools
informed about upcoming school site
selection activities?
• How is a broad spectrum of parents &
community residents and stakeholders
encouraged & allowed to participate?
• How is the broader community kept
informed on an on-going basis about the
project’s development?
• With regards to representative policy
making and oversight committees, how
are its members identified?
• What communication methods and
outreach activities does your district use
that are effective in making residents &
community organizations aware of the
need for new schools and their
construction plans and priorities?
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Site Selection
• Is there a policy regarding notification &
participation of parents & residents about
new school site selection?
• What types of attitudes, communication
methods and outreach activities do district
staff & Board members use that are
effective in keeping residents &
community organizations well informed
and provide a meaningful way for them to
participate in identifying and selecting
new school sites?
• What types of attitudes, communication
methods and outreach activities do district
representatives use that you feel are NOT
effective in making residents feel their
needs and concerns are important,
considered, and incorporated into the
district’s plans and priorities?
• What criteria are used to evaluate
potential school sites (state, local district,
federal, community)?
• Are community economic (jobs) &
cultural assets protected & valued? How?
• Is an effort to protect/preserve housing,
especially affordable rental housing
made? How?
• How does the district replace affordable
housing they choose to take?
• How are joint use opportunities created &
implemented? (parks, hospitals, colleges)
• Are nuisance land uses identified &
prioritized? If so, how are they
identified?
• What strategies & methods does the
district use that are effective in creating
community consensus and compromise on
a new school site?
232
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Environmental
• How is the broader & impacted
community kept informed about
environmental investigations, findings,
and actions?
• How does the community get to review &
give input to health & safety standards,
testing, and mitigation procedures?
• Does environmental investigation include
the following?
> Site history
> Site visit
> Resident/business interviews
> Soils, ground and surface water and
air & noise sampling
> Adjacent land uses (polluting sources)
> Survey of hazardous waste facilities
w/in 2 mile radius (TRI, chemical
storage, waste treatment & landfills)
• Do the environmental health standards
used by the district address the specific
vulnerabilities & health risks of children?
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 6
Overcrowding, Education Quality and Student Risk F
Overcrowding Factors
Building
Quality
Local
Dist
Students
Over 2-sem
capacity
Bused
students
Seats
Short
[rank]
% MTYR
[rank]
Avgyrs
MTYR
[rank]
% Bused
student from
MTYR [rank]
Avg stdt/
acre [rank]
Avg bldg
age
[rank]
J 16,396 607 17,003
[1]
97
[1]
16 100 174 62
F 9,540 5,130 14,670
m
69
[2]
13 98 186 84
H 9,395 1,409 10,804
m
54
[6]
11 95 170 127
E 9,199 1,594 10,793
[41
60
[4]
13 72 168 82
B 8,405 1,056 9,461 T 5 1 61
P I
11 59 107 58
I 6,136 672 6,808 [61 56
P I
10 71 138 71
G 5,779 748 6,527 [71 52
m
9 66 147 75
A 4,302 1,834 6,316 [81 19
P I
6 78 87 46
C 2,059 1,211 3,270 [91 14 [10] 10 37 94 53
K 2,559 102 2,661
[101
35
[8]
•6 88 118 62
D 515 261 776 [111 8
r n i
9 4 99 65
Sources: Data from LAUSD, Seats Short to Outreach Firms, 2000; LAUSD, Continuing and CAP Students, 200C
Eleven Local Districts, One Mission: A Multiple District Plan fo r Transforming LAUSD, 2000; LAUSD, 2000-01
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 6
:rcrowding, Education Quality and Student Risk Factors
actors
Building
Quality
Education Quality Student Risk Factors
Avgyrs
MTYR
[rank]
% Bused
student from
MTYR [rank]
Avg stdt/
acre [rank]
Avg bldg
age
[rank]
Avg
school
enrlmt
[rank]
% Perm/
Cred
teachers
Trankl
% African
Am &
Latino
Trank]
% Red/
free lunch
[rank]
%
ELL
[rank]
16 100 174 62 1975 62 99 88 10
13 98 186 84 1357 67 87 79 1 1
11 95 170 127 1527 62 99 90 13
13 72 168 82 1182 65 80 80 10
11 59 107 58 1299 63 84 79 12
10 . 71 138 71 1401 53 100 86 8
9 66 147 75 1346 59 99 85 6
6 78 87 46 1217 69 60 52 7
10 37 94 53 1174 66 65 62 8
6 88 118 62 735 70 78 65 11
9 4 99 65 867 75 66 49 5
2000; LAUSD, Continuing and CAP Students, 2000; LAUSD, History o f Schools: 1855-1993, 1993; LAUSD,
m for Transforming LAUSD, 2000; LAUSD, 2000-01 English Language Counts, 2002.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Faith -based organizations, international development agencies, and environmental management
PDF
Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors
PDF
Institutional analysis of evolution of housing cooperatives in India
PDF
Education reform: Variables associated with establishing policies and authorizing funding for elementary and secondary education
PDF
Differences in the development of citizenship: Residents' motivations and capacities for participating in neighborhood associations in Los Angeles
PDF
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
PDF
Factors associated with length of stay on welfare: Toward a theory of context for addressing long -term dependency
PDF
Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California
PDF
"Are we really in charge?": An analysis of the principal -agent relationship
PDF
In this nature: Culture, place, and attitudes toward marine animals
PDF
A preliminary assessment of the influence of certain variables on the implementation of recommendations by scientific -technical advisory committees
PDF
Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand
PDF
Development of a family risk-factor measure that predicts imminent risk of placement and appropriateness for family-based, wrap -around services
PDF
Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control
PDF
Banking on the commons: An institutional analysis of groundwater banking programs in California's Central Valley
PDF
Detecting the effects social and business pressures on small California trucking firm tax compliance
PDF
Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies
PDF
Evaluation of professional services consultants in rural government
PDF
Essays on commercial real estate and commercial mortgages
PDF
Do uses of human resource information technology (HRInT) tools in federal organizations improve their human resource management productivity?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tom-Miura, Allison Jennifer
(author)
Core Title
Engaging communities in the planning of new urban public schools
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Planning and Development Studies
Degree Program
Planning and Development Studies
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest,Urban and Regional Planning
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Sloane, David (
committee chair
), Pulido, Laura (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-327114
Unique identifier
UC11335852
Identifier
3155487.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-327114 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3155487.pdf
Dmrecord
327114
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Tom-Miura, Allison Jennifer
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, administration