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. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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…..

  8. 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!”

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. FRAGaLOT says:

    Damn! So is any money left over to actually TEACH kids anything?

  12. ECA says:

    #27,
    and the costs of Busing students 20 miles??
    10 schools SPREAD out into the districts?? would keep control over smaller areas..A few extra jobs, and little busing.

  13. david michel says:

    people are stupid

  14. jman says:

    yes, yes it would. Works great here where i live. lots of small elementary schools that cover neighborhoods and feed into larger mid high and sr high schools

  15. JimD says:

    Well, “Panache” does tend to cost !

  16. ECA says:

    #34,
    Agreed..
    Smaller, SPREAD OUT schools can help keep kids CLOSE to where they live.
    Less problems and hassle..
    NO buses needed..no fuel, no maintenance..At least LESS of it.
    A few more Janitors..
    Probably the same 100+ teachers..

  17. nunyac says:

    Here is all I got to say about this school.
    http://drinkingwithbob.com/?p=246



Bad Behavior has blocked 26073 access attempts in the last 7 days.