File this one under misallocation of precious resources.
Or alternatively, under yet another reason why government should not run schools.
There's never a shortage of political reasons to justify building Taj Mahals like this. But is there a valid educational reason? So consider what trumped what in this case.
9 comments:
So are you back, or is this just a tease?
Parry
It's beautiful and inspiring. I'd love to teach there, or even be a student.
Sorry, but that's not a picture of the new RFK complex; it's the Visual and Performing Arts High School, which cost about half as much and is ugly as sin besides. It opened in 2009. (The LA Times story using this photo is perfectly clear, but at least one other blog made the same mistake.)
Google Images has pictures of both.
Wait - you mean you're saying that the private sector exercises restraint in the building of buildings?
I give you, for your counterexample, only one of many buildings I could name: Xanadu. http://nymag.com/realestate/features/56938/
Believe me, if any sector has a lock on ostentatious buildings, it's the private sector. No contest. This school building makes the news only because it's the exception, not the rule.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Instead you would rather the new high school down the road that is easily mistaken for a jail?
No false dichotomy there, Andrew.
What I would like is for the money to be spent on things that make a difference education-wise.
In Iowa we have a 1% sales tax that must be spent on infrastructure. Consequently, we're laying off teachers and constructing new buildings at the same time. This is even happening in districts with small and declining enrollments. It's a tragic waste. Hope the LA Performing Arts School at least gets well used.
What I would like is for the money to be spent on things that make a difference education-wise
Spoil Sport!
Post a Comment