Implementation of a $19 billion public works project to build hundreds of new Los Angeles Unified School District school facilities over the past few years to combat overcrowding was associated with an increase in student achievement, according to a UC Berkeley study published Tuesday.
Elementary-level students who moved to new schools from the city’s most overcrowded facilities experienced gains equal to more than 65 days of instruction, with modest gains even for the students who remained at previously overcrowded schools, according to the study. Significant achievement gains were not found, however, for high school-level students who moved from the overcrowded schools.
The school district’s investment in the construction in more than 130 school facilities over the last decade is the largest amount spent on a public works project in the history of the U.S. since the construction of the interstate highway system. The result of the project, according to the study, led to significant relief of the overcrowding of the city’s elementary and secondary schools, which in the mid-1990s were busing more than 25,000 children out of high-density areas with many schools operating on a year-round schedule.
“With this program (of expansion), we will completely eliminate the use of multitrack calendars and involuntary busing,” said Shannon Haber, facilities spokesperson for the district.
Though John Rogers, director of the UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access, said student test scores are one way of measuring achievement, he suggested there might be other benefits to the building of schools.
“Other outcomes that matter emerge out of school building,” Rogers said “ School building also provides young people in immigrant communities a better sense that the broader society cares about them and their communities.”
The study began when a multidisciplinary team of four campus researchers received a large set of data from the district about student performance and school construction between the years of 2002 and 2008 from the district.
Researchers said the data was special because it spanned over the course of six years and because the magnitude of the construction project was so large.
“It’s breaking a bit of fresh ground,” said William Welsh, a campus doctoral student in sociology and lead author of the study. “I think there has not been this sort of investment (in the past). If a school district is going to build new schools, they do maybe one or two in a year. If that’s the case, there is not an occasion for researchers to step in.”
Although there was substantial data submitted for the project, researchers said they are still looking for the school district to submit numbers from 2009, during which the final third of the constructed schools opened.
“It is definitely difficult to get outside data sometimes,” Rogers said. “I credit Berkeley for developing relationships with the school districts to get the trust for the data. This is a case where it’s important for (the district) to share the data. It’s a story of why public investment matters.”
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
$19 Billion. For Los Angeles alone. Mostly for the benefit of children of illegal aliens. The entire UC system can tuition-free for just one tenth of that price. And as the article states, it makes no difference because by the time the students exit high school, their scores are as low as ever.
“The entire UC system can tuition-free for just one tenth of that price.”
Citation for that?
“Mostly for the benefit of children of illegal aliens.”
So what you really want is a lot of uneducated immigrants, instead of educated ones? Legal or not, these people are going to get jobs in America and be part of our economy…and your car doesn’t care about the legal status of who’s washing it.
Once again, you deliberately blur the distinction between legal immigrants (to which the state has a legal obligation to pay for their education) and illegal aliens (who don’t belong here, much less have any right to taxpayer support). Keep obfuscating and clouding the issue if you feel you can’t win the argument otherwise, but do keep in mind that we will continue to point out your deceptive tactics at every available opportunity.
If you want a citation, take a look at this report:
http://budget.universityofcalifornia.edu/files/2011/12/Budget_fact_11.29.11.pdf
The tuition + fees is $2.97 billion for all UC campuses combined, but if you look only at tuition that comes to about one tenth of what Los Angeles Unified spent on new school construction for K-12 students. This is not Los Angeles County, this is just the city of Los Angeles and small parts of some its suburbs. It does not include Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, or San Diego County.
As for your second point, why should illegal aliens in the city of Los Angeles benefit from brand new facilities when legal citizens in the rest of California have to put up with leaky old buildings? If the politically correct Democrats in power had not welcomed so many illegal aliens to flood into Los Angeles schools, California’s other school districts would have enough money for repairs and enrichment programs and UC would not have to raise tuition so drastically every year. I have nothing against illegal aliens getting a good education as long as they do it using money from their home countries instead of using money from the nearly bankrupt California. $19 billion is a lot of money to spend on just one city’s school district. And if you think the money makes illegal aliens and their children into better car mechanics, read the article again. It says “Significant achievement gains were not found, however, for high school-level students”.
“children of illegal aliens” i.e. CITIZENS, a**hole.
That would only apply if they are born here. The whole Dream Act makes the point that there are a lot who are not born here.
Then why not just say “young illegal immigrants” and avoid the ambiguity?
Can you prove that all “children of illegal aliens” are CITIZENS? If not, then there’s ambiguity which means you ought to retract your colorful epithet. Even for the children who are citizens, if their parents are illegal aliens then the parents are still guilty of burdening California’s education department and forcing UC students to pay huge tuition increases every year. Do you think California has an infinite capacity for more K-12 students? It’s time to make Democrats in power understand that providing sanctuary for illegal aliens and passing ridiculous bills like AB 1081 (the “TRUST Act”) forces California to cut services and raise fees throughout the rest of the state. There’s nothing racist about limiting illegal immigration for all races.
Wow! You seriously need to chill. You can still get your point across.
It is pretty crazy that $19 billion needed to be spent to give such a small number of elementary school children a better education, and that is just for the buildings. We will see if LA can pay the faculty and other workers needed to keep the schools running. However, I don’t know if you can say that it is mostly for the benefit of children of illegal aliens. I figure most of the students in the public schools down there have citizens for parents.