LAUSD TEACHES US COSTLY LESSONS WHILE BUNGLING BELMONT.

Byline: William R. Paxton Local View

FOR those who have followed the trials and tribulations of education reform in the Los Angeles Unified School District, the ill-fated Belmont Learning Center project has been a continued source of learning.

Sort of like a gift that just keeps giving and giving. And, best of all, we haven't had to depend on already overworked teachers to provide us with that knowledge.

The school board members and various local political figures have taken care of the lesson plans.

We've learned about chemistry (toxic wastes, dangerous gases), accounting ($200 million spent on the site), political science (developers picked without competitive bidding), business management (that is why Ruben Zacharias got canned, right?) and even law (just how many environmental laws were violated at last count?).

A well-rounded education, no doubt about it. Actually, a continuing, well-rounded education. Why, just recently, noted scientific expert and board member Jose Huizar enlightened us all with an observation that no doubt would have made Copernicus or Galileo proud.

Upon being presented with the results of the LAUSD's latest seismic study of an earthquake fault directly below the Belmont site, which indicated that there was virtually no chance of finding new evidence to indicate whether the fault was active or not, Huizar expressed the following opinion:

``Science is not an absolute. There are different conclusions that could be drawn based on whatever evidence is available. As with anything, even with a medical doctor, you want a second opinion.''

I'm glad that Mr. Huizar enlightened me about science. Perhaps all of the opinions and studies that suggested that the oil and gas dangers of the site were significant were suffering from the same problem.

Using his never-say-die attitude, the board should have just continued to solicit additional opinions. Eventually they would have come up with one that provided the conclusions they were hoping for.

Sure, it may have taken an additional 10 or 20 or even 100 studies, but sooner or later someone with a vested interest would've provided the board with just what they wanted to hear. Then they could've conducted the ultimate science experiment by finishing Belmont with the students serving as the guinea pigs.

I know that these studies cost money but, hey, according to Jerry Hertzberg, legislative deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, $20,000 (the cost of the latest seismic study) is ``chump change.''

Well, I guess when you compare that amount of dough to the total Belmont bill of $166 million, he is probably right.

So what's another, say, five or 10 studies? $100,000? $200,000? Like Hertzberg said, nothing but ``chump change.'' After all, what could the schools do with such a paltry sum of money except blow it on lots of meaningless supplies or maybe even a couple of teachers?

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that is an accounting lesson. See, like I said earlier, one never stops experiencing the ``joy'' of learning when it comes to Belmont. Or when it comes to self-appointed experts like Huizar and Hertzberg.

Just ask board member Julie Korenstein, who made the following comment about the Belmont seismic study issue:

``I am just amazed and appalled there is any more money being spent on this project. We are in a budget financial crisis - larger than any time I've seen on the school board in the 16 years I've been on it.''

Now there is someone who appears to have really learned something.

The question is, will the rest of the board members have finally learned what Korenstein has and give up on Belmont? They had learned enough to vote down the second seismic study.

Perhaps Huizar is correct in stating that science isn't an absolute. We can only hope, however, that common sense is.