A building cluster at Van Nuys-Sherman Oaks Park area - good location to raze and then build a high school?

[Vicman]

Since a lot of the forced transfers are going away due to the fact that they now have slots at their neighborhood schools, from my understanding LAUSD schools now tend to have zoned populations and transfers who want to go to the particular school. Also it could help if a Sherman Oaks HS was a charter like Palisades.

Originally Posted by SandyCo

While Grant High School certainly wasn't the best place for my kids (safety or education!), I'm not sure another high school in Sherman Oaks would have been any better, especially if it was still LAUSD. And although the rental market in general has softened considerably due to the recession, housing prices are still at a premium here in comparison to most other areas of the country.

I also have to wonder why this topic is of such interest and intense scrutiny to someone who is living in Texas. I don't care how similar L.A. is. It still strikes me as a bit odd.

[LaoTzuMindFu]

Originally Posted by SandyCo

I also have to wonder why this topic is of such interest and intense scrutiny to someone who is living in Texas. I don't care how similar L.A. is. It still strikes me as a bit odd.

I agree. The OP still has not given any reasonable reply as to why he's so interested in this.

[LALady]

Originally Posted by Vicman

I realized something:

If this idea would work, then there's no need to buy any property in Sherman Oaks.

Gee...the homeowners of Sherman Oaks Thank you.

[Lovehound]

I'm surprised this topic has become so active and so contentious in such a short period of time. I guess anything having to do with school gets parents' motors going. Here is my reasoning on the topic.

Sherman Oaks is NOT a city. It's a few postal ZIP codes, that's all. All the public schools around here are LAUSD. The only relevance of the postal zone is in determining which school you attend, that's all. If you want to discuss "Does the San Fernando Valley need another high school?" then that may have some relevance. I don't know if we have enough high schools in the Valley or not.

So what's the problem? Are the high schools in your area too crowded? Are they too far away? Are there enough high schools in the Valley? These are the relevant questions.

Please be advised that class sizes are going up all over LAUSD. That's due to the recession, and teachers have got to be cut just like all other occupations are being cut. Less teachers but the same number of students equals worse teacher to student ratio.

The question that I would ask is whether the existing high schools have too many students compared to the number the school was designed for. If that is true then it's a pretty good reason to build another high school. You'll probably have to wait until the recession is over and more money is available.

And no, you don't want to raze some apartments to build a new school. Commercial property is in excess at the present time. If you need a new school you should bulldoze some of that commercial property instead of displacing people's homes.

[Vicman]

I'm aware SO is not its own municipality. There is a neighborhood council that has well-defined boundaries. This DONE :: NC Database lists them in LA.

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Sherman Oaks is NOT a city. It's a few postal ZIP codes, that's all. All the public schools around here are LAUSD. The only relevance of the postal zone is in determining which school you attend, that's all. If you want to discuss "Does the San Fernando Valley need another high school?" then that may have some relevance. I don't know if we have enough high schools in the Valley or not.

If it's easier to take used commercial property, and there are no abandoned parcels left in an area, then I suppose this would be preferable.

And no, you don't want to raze some apartments to build a new school. Commercial property is in excess at the present time. If you need a new school you should bulldoze some of that commercial property instead of displacing people's homes.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Vicman

I'm aware SO is not its own municipality.

I'm sorry. My comment was not addressed to you personally.

[Vicman]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

I'm sorry. My comment was not addressed to you personally.

Oh no, it's alright. I thought it was, but it's okay. I can understand how it confuses people not familiar with the municipal structures of the area, especially considering the US Postal Service's designations, which do NOT match municipal boundaries.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Vicman

Since a lot of the forced transfers are going away due to the fact that they now have slots at their neighborhood schools, from my understanding LAUSD schools now tend to have zoned populations and transfers who want to go to the particular school. Also it could help if a Sherman Oaks HS was a charter like Palisades.

So why not just make Grant into a charter like Palisades? That could help restore it to its former glory.

You brought up NYC. Once Bloomberg took over the NY school system, neighborhood schools were abolished and kids there have to apply to get into ALL schools. This is why NY has had the most improved urban educational system in the US. (The urban school district that has improved the most in CA is Long Beach's., for the record.)

The NY policy might work in L.A. , although a better policy would be to abolish the LAUSD (or even better, put in a voucher system), or, as a second choice, to make all schools charters and magnets. An NY type policy would be an improvement over what currently exists, though. Again, using eminent domain to condemn apartments and condos is a HORRIBLE idea - commercial property being condemned would cause less disruption, and the Southeast Valley has a shortage of affordable housing as it is.

[VLWH]

Originally Posted by Vicman

BTW I'm actually in Texas.

So you've completely overhauled the Texas public school system and now are working on California?

[Vicman]

In New York City attendance zones were abolished only for high schools; for elementary and middle school they still have designated neighborhood schools.

I realized there isn't a need to eminent domain any apartments. Because of 1. Commercial property existing and 2. There's an abandoned building in Van Nuys that can be condemned; one could move Van Nuys MS there and turn the old Van Nuys MS building (yes, it's in Sherman Oaks) into a high school. However I cannot edit the first post on this thread to reflect this.. sigh. - It would be nice if the topic title would be edited too.

Also part of the idea is to put all of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council into one high school zone as opposed to having it split between Grant HS and Van Nuys HS (what is the case right now)

Also I like the idea of increasing school choice by establishing magnets in almost every comprehensive high school. Now, I'm not sure if anyone has tried totally abolishing high school attendance boundaries within an automobile-oriented large city like Los Angeles. Perhaps LAUSD could experiment with that idea. Also making more comprehensive high schools into charter comprehensives would be a good idea; perhaps Grant and any new Valley high schools could go charter.

Garland ISD in Garland, TX, a Dallas suburb, has no zoned schools. Instead it has a "school of choice" program that it administers to all GISD residents: http://www.garlandisd.net/department...hool/index.asp - GISD is a lot smaller than LAUSD, so maybe the logistics of this particular system might work better in a medium-sized school district. Maybe parts of it could be adapted for LAUSD.

Originally Posted by majoun

You brought up NYC. Once Bloomberg took over the NY school system, neighborhood schools were abolished and kids there have to apply to get into ALL schools. This is why NY has had the most improved urban educational system in the US. (The urban school district that has improved the most in CA is Long Beach's., for the record.)

The NY policy might work in L.A. , although a better policy would be to abolish the LAUSD (or even better, put in a voucher system), or, as a second choice, to make all schools charters and magnets. An NY type policy would be an improvement over what currently exists, though. Again, using eminent domain to condemn apartments and condos is a HORRIBLE idea - commercial property being condemned would cause less disruption, and the Southeast Valley has a shortage of affordable housing as it is.

Originally Posted by VLWH

So you've completely overhauled the Texas public school system and now are working on California?

Well, considering some of the posts in the Los Angeles forum that have been made over the past 2 years, why not work on California?