I think we all need to take another look at the whole South Region High School #15 (SRHS 15) issue, before we run headstrong towards the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) meeting scheduled for March 13, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Dana Middle School auditorium.
I undertook too many hours in the middle of last night pondering many issues, concerning the proposed school. I feel sharing some thoughts and asking for input for readers of this blog, may help me and others to be able to answer the tough questions, that are all over this debated issue.
I still continue to write that I think San Pedro PROBABLY needs a new high school campus, but I’d certainly listen to and ponder thoughts from folks who think San Pedro needs another campus.
One thing I am now more certain than ever though, is that Alma Street will NOT be used as even a primary access to any new high school, no matter if or where they build it!
I think a bit of refreshing of what some folks propose for SRHS 15 is in order.
Any new campus, built anywhere is being considered, by many levels of administration in LAUSD as an annex to San Pedro High School. It may have a different name, but the thought is to build classrooms and SOME other amenities a distance away from San Pedro High School, but still be administered by the folks who lead and manage the largest high school in San Pedro.
It is thought that if and when classrooms are constructed, 810 students will move, WITH EXISTING TEACHING STAFF, to the new location. At this point there is apparently no active plans to allow the teaching staff in San Pedro, to grow as the number of classrooms grow.
This, dear readers, is a real conundrum for me and my ever failing algebra and math skills. If no new teachers are added, wouldn’t we just be moving problems from one place to another?
I am going to use a math problem as an example. I have no idea whether the statistics are what I imagine.
Consider the volume of the number of teachers now teaching at the San Pedro High School campus to be “1X”.
After the 45 classrooms are added, wherever, “6/7X” number of teachers stay at the giant campus.
“1/7X” of the teachers move to the new site. “6/7X” plus “1/7X used to equal “1X”, didn’t it?
If no new teachers are added to the combined faculty, then it would seem that the number of students per faculty member would either stay the same, or increase, with the increased seats being given to the large campus.
The school district is currently in a $460 MILLION DOLLAR budget crunch. On the front page of today’s Daily Breeze were articles dealing with the potential loss of teaching staff members.
If San Pedro High School loses teachers, then I would suspect that class sizes would probably increase or programs are eliminated.
But might we all just be moving problems from one place to another? If LAUSD has such a high dropout rate and test scores that drive Eastview parents to send their kids to Palos Verdes Unified School District schools rather than LAUSD high schools, how can anyone claim that adding more seats into a failing system, will actually cause a turnaround?
Let’s try and figure out what improvements were made in the dropout rate and test scores when the $2Billion Dollar+ Proposition BB allowed for schools to be built.
I don’t have any real facts on this yet, but are we now watching LAUSD call for even more schools and Proposition approvals, after that giant hunk of money was spent by the school district.
When do we say when, with our tax dollars? With the Govenator taking Proposition 98 money that should go for schools, for other uses, why should we consider that any new proposition funds be spent where we expect them to be spent?
There is another ugly issue, I’m afraid. Some members of OUR community think that “San Pedro students” should be considered more than all the rest of the students of LAUSD.
While I was a student of LAUSD, in San Pedro, do we have the right to single out our students over other students who may be in more dire straits, as far as their education goes.
I thought the portion of my property taxes that go for schooling; go to the entire district, not just Harbor Area schools. There is a high school in L.A. that has about 4,000 students, might they be in more need of relief than students in San Pedro?
And about “San Pedro students”, did you know that Dodson Middle School buses in about 600 students each and every day?
I am also still confused by this “annex” issue that puts a group of classrooms almost out of walking distance from the main campus.
Won’t seniors and juniors at the annex need to speak with the College Counselor, or other members of the administration? Have the folks pushing for the “annex” done all their due diligence concerning the movements of students, faculty, and staff during the course of any particular school day?
I feel you should know that one of the reasons SRHS 15 is currently designed to be a 810-seat school is that there is not enough money in the current budget for the school to allow for the 405-seat “Academy #3”. But be warned, as soon as money becomes available, “Academy #3” will be built.
And here is another little beauty. Some administrators in LAUSD are considering that down the road, in perhaps 10-15 years, the little annex, currently proposed for Angel’s Gate, can grow in number of seats to the range of 2,000 or so.
Now what about the Milken Outdoor Experience Center that has an approved Environmental Impact Report and is slated to be built next door to the proposed SRHS 15 site?
This education center is proposed to have up to 160 students, faculty, and staff members coming to it on Monday, and staying over until Friday afternoon, during the school year.
What about the weekend you may wonder? Up to 120 students, faculty, and staff will spend from Friday afternoon until Monday morning at the site.
The Outdoor Experience Center is designed to allow fifth grade students and their teachers, from more inner city schools than our 12 elementary schools perhaps, the chance to study science and nature, overlooking the blue Pacific.
But wait a minute! That site may not get redeveloped if the needs of “San Pedro students” trump the needs of a greater number of students and the Center could give way to that up to 2,000 seat campus already being mentioned in hushed, “don’t quote me” rooms.
It is now time to mention that San Pedro High School has only about 370 or so “permitted” students that come from other areas to attend school. The vast majority of students at S.P.H.S. do live in the area.
You also should know that if any new academy at any new campus is slated to welcome existing numbers of students in both the Law Enforcement Academy and the Marine Sciences Academy, more students can easily find seats in any 405-seat academy site.
The two programs mentioned are nowhere near a 405-seat limit, currently.
Please come prepared with written comments to the CEQA meeting.
Some folks in LAUSD are so arrogant, they not only will not listen to oral comments, but they will state as fact, things that haven’t be proven or tested yet.
Also don’t be too alarmed if some folks talk to you like you are third graders.
Just present your facts, issues, and opinions in writing, and they just MIGHT read some of it.
It’s useless and hopeless to argue with certain folks in the Facilities Division of LAUSD, just save your breath and use your passion when you put your thoughts into writing.
The third illustration shows the Milken Outdoor Experience Center from the Final Environmental Impact Report, published in March, 2006 and it too, is superimposed over a Google Earth photo of the same area.
Now Mr. or Ms. Phelps, your mission is to do what the blogmaster of this site has not been able to do; adjust the SRHS 15 illustration to fit with the illustration of the Milken Outdoor Experience Center, into the same area of land, without losing space for either of the purposed facilities.
M Richards recognizes that is may be impossible to accomplish such a task and he wants to know which of the two purposed facilities will suffer loss of space, or if both will need to share losses of valuable educational land.
