This past week, Q-line asked: Is the creation of up to five new high schools in Santa Monica a good idea?
Here are your responses: TIMES BY LLOYD GARVER ✆ “High schools have become an enormous industry that produces a shoddy product. After reading, writing and arithmetic, students are bored to tears with the academic curriculum that is forced upon them. However, I do subscribe to a new high school district for those students who are entering into the high school level from middle school. Then Samohi would be reduced in size by its graduating class each year without the influx of new students.” ✆ “Yes, I think it’s an excellent idea to have five new high schools in Santa Monica. Because my son attends Santa Monica High School, and I think it’s wonderful because I happen to be a long-time resident of Santa Monica. I think its great because I went to a private school up in Monterey and my son doesn’t have that possibility. And I say good so he can be with every class of people, which I think is better in the long run. So, I think it’s an excellent idea to have more individual high schools in Santa Monica so the students can get more individualized attention.” ✆ “Yes, smaller school is a good idea. Teachers can have a better chance of getting to know their students and their families. If it’s a question of building new schools because of overcrowding what they should do is clear out all the illegal aliens and ship them back to where they came from and then you might not need to build as many new schools.” ✆ “Samohi is a behemoth. It’s one of the main reasons why our child goes to an independent school. Regardless, why five smaller schools? Why not two? And why the associating with professional careers? High school should exist for obtaining education. It should not be a feeder for careers in Hollywood. And I can only assume that the high school location north of Wilshire will get more resources just as the elementary and middle schools north of Wilshire do. The district needs to rethink its lack of geographic parity too.” ✆ “Destruction of the neighborhoods is further implemented by planting up to five new high schools in Santa Monica. It is the second wave of demolition to neighborhoods after the No. 1 menace to neighborhoods — Community Corp. of Santa Monica, that buys older buildings in good neighborhoods and immediately plants low-income tenants from outside Santa Monica in said buildings, and at the same time builds new buildings for same said tenants. Where’s the money for the environmental input studies? The engineering? The land acquisition? That will require home buying and leveling by our city. The buildings, the athletic facilities, the teachers, the administrators. It’s a very bad idea and it’s totally disruptive. I say ‘no’ to this trial balloon. Just split up the classes at Samohi for more personalized instruction. It’s an administrative problem at Samohi.” ✆ “I’m opposed to having the campus divided up into five campuses because of the fact that all you do is create more bureaucracy and less teaching. If it was important to have five campuses, there would be a lot more children involved, but 3,500 kids in a school is not a lot of kids in a school. They can be maintained in one campus and properly educated. I think the school district is looking for the bigger bureaucracy and a bigger overhead pay load, and not getting anything down to the education.” ✆ “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education and, therefore, I would not like to see the superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, John Deasy, once again create more bureaucracy in our local system. The school system seems to be all about spending more of our money than we have available. Taxpayers need to endorse better choices of the money that the school district already has. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District parents who want to raise intelligent children know the cost of local school administration has risen three times faster than the rate of inflation in California, while overall local student performance has fallen steadily. Less than half of our local school tax dollars are used for basic education, little money is spent on arts. Are we, the residents of Santa Monica and Malibu, really buying more value for our students with smaller classes and more administrators? More money and higher teacher and administrator expenses does not mean higher academic achievement. Instead of our school board focusing on inputting more teachers and more administrators, they should be focused on output — student achievement and better test results. And that’s all I have to say.” ✆ “It is a bad idea. Hundreds of students are lying about living in Santa Monica or Malibu when really they in fact do not live in the school district. Samohi would not be overcrowded if: One, we sent the students who are lying about their residence back to their home school districts, and two, if we eliminated permits that allow students who do not live in the school district to attend school here. Santa Monicans for Renters Rights will want to raise taxes to provide educational services to these nonresidents. We are overtaxed in this city already.” ✆ “I’m a former teacher. I feel that this is essential to address students’ individual needs. It is very important to have smaller class sizes to be able to focus on each student as much as possible, especially at the high school age when students often are more inclined to drop out of school. So, yes, I believe it is a very positive step in addressing students’ individual needs and learning styles.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 12, 2005. Read the original PDF.