LAUSD MUST SHARE INFORMATION WITH PUBLIC; COMMUNITIES MUST BE KEPT AWARE OF VITAL ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY ISSUES.

Byline: Keith Rohman Local View

THE recent closures of two Los Angeles Unified School District high schools due to asbestos concerns were the first safety-related closures in many years and mark a positive shift for the district toward regaining the public's confidence.

Historically, LAUSD has chosen not to close schools for environmental hazards. According to one LAUSD environmental staff person, ``There is an unwritten policy in the district: You do not close a school for an environmental problem. It looks bad if you close a school and find nothing. It looks bad if you do find something.''

This statement comes from a report released in late September by my firm, Public Interest Investigators, Inc., which was charged with conducting an extensive investigation of the district's monitoring of environmental hazards at all of its campuses.

What our investigators found was a district practice of underreporting hazards to the public in such areas as asbestos abatement, lead paint monitoring and proper handling of chemicals. District managers justified this practice by saying they didn't want to scare parents needlessly. However, the reports of safety hazards at Belmont, South Gate and Jefferson Middle School have significantly damaged public confidence to the point that many believe the district is incapable of protecting children and staff from environmental dangers.

Avoiding public outcry by underreporting hazards is no longer an option for the district.

LAUSD must work to regain its credibility, a process that begins with full disclosure of hazards and, when appropriate, school closures. Parents and staff also need to play a role in their schools' environmental health. While advocates for higher teacher salaries and academic achievement regularly lobby the district, no group has emerged demanding environmental safety.

Our investigation found that the people who traditionally filled this watchdog role - the employees of the district's Environmental Health and Safety Branch - were often overruled in an LAUSD bureaucracy in which departments with the biggest budgets and staffing held the organizational clout. The 50-person health and safety branch is minuscule when compared to the district's maintenance unit, for example, whose employees number in the thousands. Thus, when Environmental Health and Safety staff raised concerns about environmental problems, they were often ignored by other entities in the district.

While the recent campus closures show LAUSD's willingness to take strong steps, a culture as ingrained as the district's will be slow to change. Clearly the district must empower its in-house environmental experts, but in the meantime, parents, teachers and principals must also begin to play a role in demanding safe schools.

Information is critical to this process. District policies currently require that public files be maintained at each school regarding asbestos and use of pesticides. Parents need to verify that these files exist at their schools and that they are up-to-date. Moreover, the district must inform parents and staff when safety hazards occur.

During my firm's investigation of LAUSD, we learned that a hazardous spill had occurred at my own children's elementary school at a time when my wife was on the PTA board. To my knowledge, none of the school's parents were informed of this hazard. This practice of ``hiding the ball'' needs to change, allowing parents to make an informed decision about sending their children to school while a toxic hazard is present.

Our report recommends that the district prepare an ongoing, comprehensive environmental audit of safety hazards at all schools, posting this information on its Web site and in each school office. The district should also commit itself to outside compliance monitoring to ensure that this information is updated and complete. This kind of accountability would go a long way toward rebuilding public trust.

With greater disclosure, parents and staff may well demand changes and improvements, a shift that could have a positive effect on the district. Indeed, LAUSD might be facing fewer problems today if vital information about environmental safety issues had been shared with the public early on, resulting in a strong constituency to press the district for improvements.

While our investigation focused on LAUSD, the problems of environmental hazards in schools are not confined to Los Angeles. Students throughout California attend schools in old buildings with the potential for problems with asbestos and lead paint. Others may be near landfills or pollutants from agriculture or industry. Parents, teachers, administrators and school board members need to join forces with environmental experts to ensure children a safe environment for learning.