Letters to the Editor: Urban planning should be considered when consolidating schools

To the editor: Guest contributors Huriya Jabbar and Alvin Makori make solid points that closures and consolidations of schools often cause education equity issues and that closures do not necessarily save money for districts in the long term (“If LAUSD must consolidate schools, it should also integrate them,” Oct. 24). These warnings are borne out by so many communities outraged to lose their alma mater and their neighborhood school asset to some consultant’s recommendation or a school board elected for four years and a superintendent who likely is not from the communities.

The op-ed misses the opportunity to highlight the asset that small schools can bring to communities that often lack parks, cultural venues, recreation and sporting facilities, health centers and other opportunities. Capable urban planners would never make the decision between closing/consolidating schools or running small schools such a false dichotomy. By the way, small schools tend to have higher student achievement and parent perceptions of school safety.

Los Angeles Unified is currently losing around 110,000 students to independent, safe charter schools. Our metropolitan area boasts USC, UCLA, Caltech, Pomona College, Cal State L.A., Cal State Northridge and other institutions that have urban planning professors and graduate students, as well as architecture and design professors. Many of these teachers and students grew up in L.A. and L.A. schools and could give us more thoughtful, creative and enriching ideas for public property. Let’s not only look to Brooklyn or Charlotte, N.C., when we have more creative talent in L.A.

David Tokofsky, Eagle Rock