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

With an eye-popping price tag of $578 million, it will mark the inauguration of the nation’s most expensive public school ever. The K-12 complex to house 4,200 students has raised eyebrows across the country as the creme de la creme of “Taj Mahal” schools, $100 million-plus campuses boasting both architectural panache and deluxe amenities.

“There’s no more of the old, windowless cinderblock schools of the ’70s where kids felt, ‘Oh, back to jail,'” said Joe Agron, editor-in-chief of American School & University, a school construction journal. “Districts want a showpiece for the community, a really impressive environment for learning.” Not everyone is similarly enthusiastic.

“New buildings are nice, but when they’re run by the same people who’ve given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they’re a big waste of taxpayer money,” said Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution who sits on the California Board of Education. “Parents aren’t fooled.” At RFK, the features include fine art murals and a marble memorial depicting the complex’s namesake, a manicured public park, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and preservation of pieces of the original hotel.

Partly by circumstance and partly by design, the Los Angeles Unified School District has emerged as the mogul of Taj Mahals. The RFK complex follows on the heels of two other LA schools among the nation’s costliest — the $377 million Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, which opened in 2008, and the $232 million Visual and Performing Arts High School that debuted in 2009.

If I lived in California…I think I would just leave.




  1. deowll says:

    “If I lived in California…I think I would just leave.”

    This kind of wasteful brain dead extravagance reminds me of the excesses of Rome at its worst.

    TN doesn’t blow anything like that kind of money but our scores are a heck of a lot better and taxes are a heck of lot lower.

    The only thing wrong with California is the people running it and the people who live there who have made some massively, bodaciously, stupendously bad choices and I for one don’t want to waste my tax dollars trying to bail them out.

  2. LotsaLuck says:

    Barrack Obama (as ‘Presidentman’): Quick, Boy Wonder, to the Bailout-mobile!

  3. Heywood says:

    Are you guys just channeling the “DrudgeReport” now? Honestly I come here to get something different other than more of the echo chamber.

  4. McCullough says:

    Who say’s the Drudge report didn’t get this from us?

  5. ManBearPig says:

    I would be proud to have my child become dumber at such a campus.

  6. TooManyPuppies says:

    And the left/right cult wonders why our state is bankrupt…

  7. Mextli says:

    How can anyone find fault? It’s for the children and ah.. maybe a few contractors.

  8. Floyd says:

    i have no idea why the school was built so extravagantly, but my first guess is that somebody on the school board had a buddy in the construction industry that was a long time between contracts. The contractors out West got some gold plated contracts, I’m sure…

  9. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:

    The linked article is a bit confusing. Goes on and on about the cost of land and building supplies and so forth but if this is a renovated Hotel those issues should be irrelevant.

    It should also be noted that the cost of the building is “off budget/taxes” so to speak as funded by a bond issue years ago. Contra–the upkeep of the building is tax based.

    Does that much money need to be spent on a building to teach our kiddies? No. Were/are there other interests being served besides education? Looks Like.

    An entire State. A State the Size of California. Going Bankrupt. I think we’ll see it. Gnashing of teeth to follow.

  10. Steve S says:

    A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.
    You know, I always thought that California voters would not be quite as gullible if these ballot measures were more accurately termed “borrowing money with 100% interest” instead of “selling a bond”.
    Nah. Who am I fooling. They would still be just as gullible.

  11. Greg Allen says:

    Damn… this is going to be used FOREVER as “proof” that we are “throwing money at schools.”

    Nevermind that most kids in my schools don’t even have their own textbooks — the conservatives are going to keep claiming that we are “throwing money at schools.”

  12. sargasso_c says:

    I drove by the old hotel once, very centrally located in Los Angeles, but empty. Seems that after Bobby K got shot there nobody wanted to stay.

  13. Anon says:

    The moron voters of CA, approved this funding in a ballot. Legally the money can’t be used for anything besides the school. There is only one group of people at fault, the residents of this CA area.

    It sure is fun to sling mud at Obama and big government. God forbid voters have actual responsibilities to their communities, it’s just so much easier to blame it on everyone but yourself.

  14. ECA says:

    I really wasnt going to say anything..

    K-12?
    “features include fine art murals and a marble memorial depicting the complex’s namesake, a manicured public park, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and preservation of pieces of the original hotel.”

    Did the Kennedy’s GIVE any money?? DO THEY EVEN CARE?

    RFK, is so OUT of time line to the OCCURRENCES of the FAMILY.

    “both storied and infamous history as the former Ambassador Hotel, where the Democratic presidential contender was assassinated in 1968”

    I could have taken that amount of money and REBUILT 4-10 high schools in oregon.

  15. Dallas says:

    #13 true dat. I would need to study the origin and purpose of this but it sure sounds like a money pit that even Haliburton would salivate over.

  16. Skeptic says:

    They say the chalk is made of gold.

  17. Sea Lawyer says:

    If the state of California wanted to promote architectural masturbation, it would have been cheaper to buy the guy a bottle of KY.

  18. dusanmal says:

    @#11 “Damn… this is going to be used FOREVER as “proof” that we are “throwing money at schools.” ” – fact that you don’t like this proof has nothing to do with the clear-as-a-day fact that if Govt. is in charge money WILL be thrown at the schools wastefully.

    “Nevermind that most kids in my schools don’t even have their own textbooks — the conservatives are going to keep claiming that we are “throwing money at schools.” ” – And they’ll have factual right to claim so. You don’t like the facts – change them, don’t hide them. Fight to eliminate Federal Department of Education (as well as seize State level fund controls to local level) and related taxes so that you have more to give locally to your schools in need and CONTROL what is spent and how. Govt. bureaucracy
    is who is stealing your school money, not Conservatives.

  19. Still Right says:

    Why should RFK’s assassination site become a school in the first place?
    Why did they turn the school into an assassination memorial?
    #11 You kind of made a point you are unaware of…the waste was the building, and the kids could have had so much more if a simple school was built elsewhere.
    And, of course, all illegal Mexican kids are going to be going there, no doubt.
    I am moving to another state in two years. California is fucked up.

  20. canuck says:

    Any old building and selected teachers, funded with the interest on that money would attract kids who want to learn would kill to get in.

  21. Glenn E. says:

    I see this as possibly one of two things. Although it could also be both.

    1. Collusion between the LA District and the building contractors. So they got paid tons of cash to build what they claim is a primo school. But is it really? Or just a lot of hype to justify the cost of the gravy train deal the builder(s) got. Are any “journalists” looking into who knows who, on the planning board?

    2. Once again, the Nouveau Riche are spreadin the wealth around. Not to pay for these schools. That would hurt their wallets too much. But just enough to grease the political and bureaucratic gears, to get these expensive schools built for their own precious darlings to attend. And screw all those poorer school districts, getting none of this money. That LA has a totally separate financial channel, just for building new schools, apart from equipping all the schools with needed materials. Should be a big red flag, of a slimy bureaucratic trickery.

    So it’s Ok that these Tiffany Schools get built, because the funds for it are apart of what’s used to pay for materials to all of them? Yeah, that’s sounds like something some lawyers worked out, to cover what they wanted to do for their own brats. But needed some clever dodge and mumbo-jumbo to make it sound correct.

    I believe I heard that some private funding was involved. But I’ll bet it doesn’t cover the bill 100%. And of course, huge tax breaks could go to whoever helps fund these new schools. Interesting that they get to choose what their money goes into. While the rest of us DON’T!

  22. Bob says:

    Well this was approved by the voters, its their white elephant. I always believed school control and responsibility should be as close to the local level as possible (The Department of Education was the worse thing that our parents did to us and we just continued the same mistake with our children).

    Since this was a local decision, then its their baby. Who knows maybe they are onto something, perhaps such an expensive school really will help the kids learn better, probably not, but hey, its their kids and their money, more power to them. Just as long as the city of LA doesn’t come crying to the feds for a bailout when they go bankrupt.

  23. Lee says:

    Just for argument’s sake, how many typical physical school buildings would it take to house 4200 students for all grades K-12? That’s elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Taking it further, if you break down 4200 students into each of those school types, how many typical physical school buildings would it take to accommodate each school type? Perhaps this one, single complex will obviate the need for 6 to 10 physical school buildings. I don’t know how much it costs to build a traditional school building for each of the grade classifications, but I can see it at least approaching the $578 million cost for construction of this single complex.

  24. ilivenearthere says:

    C’mon Dvorak do some checking. At least get the picture right. That picture is a different school that has been opened for over a year. Of course, I notice there is no mention of the overcrowding which is why the new schools were created. There used to be a year-round rotation system where students were assigned to one of 3 groups. Yet, it was still too crowded and there were students who had to be bussed to schools an hour away. If your class was not near the cafeteria, forget it if you wanted a hot lunch.

  25. ECA says:

    http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/9825/slide_9825_129588_large.jpg?1282632889383

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/22/robert-f-kennedy-communit_n_690497.html#s129588

    #24..
    BUT THAT how THEY WANT US TO LIVE.
    Condensed Living in TALL buildings, and 1,000,000 people in a square mile.
    ITS THE CORPORATE IDEAL..
    keep you all in 1 spot.
    Why generate many locations for stores when we can BOX you all in 1 cesspool..

    Im old enough to remember that a STORE was within 1-3 miles.. NOW anything closer then 10, is a Jiffy mart/7-11/plaid pantry and costs twice as much.
    Homes and building not much over 3 stories. SPREAD OUT with real yards.

    Think of the fun, of dividing up classes for LUNCH..3 sections, of over 1000 each.
    YOU STILL need classes and not more then 40 per class.

  26. Benjamin says:

    I read about this school. Enrollment dropped. I wonder why. The razed hundreds of houses under eminent domain to make room to build this school. Everyone else is fleeing the state to find jobs and avoid paying the the massive property taxes to pay for said school.

  27. jman says:

    good job kalifornia. Why build 10 schools when you can build one with the same amount of money? No doubt there was some sort of rare worm living in the ground at the site that need to be “saved” by relocation at a mere 100 million…..

  28. O'Really says:

    Way to go…now we can give kids a mediocre (at best) education in the most opulent setting in the nation.

    The article doesn’t say but I’d be willing to bet that the architects and engineers were foreign born and educated (at least up to high school) professionals. The only American professionals were probably the bean counters that think budget deficits and increased taxes without limiting government spending are a good thing.

    “America…Fuck Yeah!”

  29. BuzzMega says:

    Horrors! That works out to almost $2800/year per student over a 50-year life of the school.

    Wait a minute. That’s not so bad. Unless you consider the little punks not worth it.

  30. Traaxx says:

    Looks like a space ship. Someone got a lot of kick back money for that. In Oregon they just had to close a 10 year old government building that cost even more, because of the messed up construction.

    We vote them in and we get what we deserve. We need to be more vocal and confrontational, just like the Globalist Leftist/Commies (Republicrat or Demoncrat) if we ever hope to prevail.

    Whatever……………………………
    Traaxx


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 9952 access attempts in the last 7 days.