Not a grain mill on acid, but a $230 million LAUSD high school | Eric Richardson

For a long time, one of California school districts' main complaints was the financial inability to build new schools.

Starting in the early 80s, the result of Prop. 13 and the subsequent Reagan and post-Reagan political climates, school funding tanked, making LAUSD, among many other districts, unable to build schools. That meant classroom overcrowding, overworked teachers, year-round scheduling, and busing disputes, among many other distractions from the business of education.

But now, after a political shift that has seen conservatives embrace the notion of public schooling, and a spate of state and local bonds to fund public schools, the LAUSD is building schools again.

That seems like it should be a good thing. Until you look more closely at how the district has been handling its role as school-builder.

LAUSD has built a bunch of new schools in the past few years – driving west-to-east on any major street will show you that. And the district says that, even with enrollment declining, schools are still way overstuffed and yet more are needed. Let's grant them that.

What's worrisome to me is not their claim of a need for schools, which may indeed be real, nor the inherent compromise of spending on new buildings instead of (say) new teachers.

No, the thing that bothers me is the way they're going about rebuilding the district. Why is LAUSD eminent-domaining low-rent neighborhoods? Why is the district dropping $100 million more than necessary on an (admittedly cool-looking) high school? Couldn't they build new schools without making these sorts of moves, which do little more than damage public trust?

Maybe I wouldn't be as concerned about that if the district was doing a great job under its other charges – like educating students. But there's no question that the district is doing its typically poor job of that, too. Even looking past standardized test scores, a new study shows that many L.A. students don't even know about state-required college prep classes.

And let us not forget last year's payroll disaster that dramatically underpaid some teachers and overpaid others.

Reacting to the questionable management of both the educational and infrastructural sides of the district, Mayor Villaraigosa has quietly wrested control of LAUSD's operations away from the school board's elected superintendent, David Brewer, and handed it to some dude in his office, named Ramon Cortines.

It's too early, of course, to know what difference that's going to make, but I hope Cortines has the mettle to get LAUSD's runaway mine cart back on the rails. As part of that, maybe he can make the LAUSD's construction initiatives justifiable again.

Going to Get Ugly

photograph by mirandapablo

The Associated Press scooped all the L.A. papers this morning, following up on a rumor that the gang member who stands accused of killing high school football star Jamiel Shaw might be – wait for it – an illegal alien.

A spokesperson for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said the alleged killer may or may not be an illegal alien, and that they may not know for sure for awhile.

The accused killer, Pedro Espinoza, had just finished serving a four month prison term the day before Jamiel was shot. He was serving a sentence for brandishing a weapon and resisting arrest.

So, just to recap, this story now

• Has a youth-on-the-right-path narrative
• Has a youth-on-the-wrong-path narrative
• Contains brown-on-black violence
• Includes a gang member
  
• Includes a star athlete
  
• Has an immigration thread
• Has a prison system thread
  
• Is happening during a spike-in-crime
  

and to top it all off with a big dollop of symbolism, the victim was a student at a high school named Los Angeles.

With the new information about the accused's immigration status, it would be naive to think that Shaw's death will not immediately become a rallying point for anti-immigrant hatred. I predict Lou Dobbs will begin to talk about it in approximately 14 seconds.

Never mind that Espinoza has not been, you know, convicted.

Another aspect likely to be overlooked, due to a combination of Los Angeles's current fog of fear and the coming tsunami of talk show immigration rhetoric, is the total uselessness of the prison system. If Espinoza is indeed the killer, this is someone committing a murder the day after he got out of jail. Taking him as an example – though he's certainly not unique in this sense – it's pretty clear that our prisons do little to discourage recidivism.

It seems to me that the whole concept of imprisonment as a solution to criminal behavior is based on a principle that imprisonment prevents people from committing crimes again. If prisons are not discouraging repeat offenses, what's the point?

Maybe one might think the reason for prisons is just to satisfy a sort of primal need for revenge. But if that's all we require of a post-conviction system, we could put convicts in the stocks and throw rotten fruit at them and then be done with it.

No, imprisonment must have some other goal. But whatever that goal is, it's not being accomplished – and at a cost to California taxpayers of over $10 billion per year, growing 9% annually.

That's one tenth of the state's revenues.