Santa Ana Has a Perfect Spot for New School

A recent story in The Times on the changing demographics of Orange County schools made clear that of all the county’s schools, Santa Ana Unified School District clearly faces the greatest challenges. Yes, the district does face daunting challenges, particularly in the areas of curriculum and instruction.

But those issues diminish in the face of the single most urgent challenge--too little land, too few classrooms for too many students at Orange County’s largest school district. The issue is especially pressing because the district must build a new high school just to stay even with student population growth.

According to projections in the District Facilities Master Plan, student overcrowding will only grow worse. In fall 1996, enrollment in grades nine to 12 was 11,704. The master plan projects this will increase to 12,748 in fall 2001, and to 15,371 in fall 2008.

The district’s four high schools already are bursting at the classroom seams. Century High School, for example, was designed for 1,800 students. Today it serves more than 2,500. The school district is using 143 portable classrooms at these four high schools. No more space is available even to add classrooms.

In July, the school district will receive $1.4 million in federal funds to hire new teachers and reduce class sizes. The district welcomes these funds. However, the stinging irony is that even with the money to hire more teachers, the district has no additional classroom space for them.

No one argues over whether Santa Ana Unified needs a new high school. The debate instead has centered on where to build it in a city of 310,000 that is nearly completely developed. Only 1% of the land--about 100 acres--remains undeveloped.

Finding a suitable and cost-effective high school has been difficult because Santa Ana lacks open space of any kind. Worse, there are very few places in the district that can accommodate a new school. Several variables must be considered, including the amount of land needed for a new school; the costs of purchasing and preparing the land; and the inability to partner with existing local institutions to enhance the educational experience for our students.

It is clear that construction of a new high school on a parcel owned by the district, located at Centennial Regional Park and the Nature Center, offers the best alternative for taxpayers, students and educators.

The Centennial Park and Nature Center location, at Fairview Street and Harvard Avenue, eases existing overcrowding concerns and reduces the stress of future enrollment growth. It provides wonderful joint uses for city, museum and school program opportunities, and it improves Centennial Park with the addition of playing fields, parking, a gymnasium/performing arts building and the observatory.

Students will have ready access to the museum at the Nature Center and other educational resources available at the park. Local groups can have access to the observatory, amphitheater and an interpretive learning center. Additional partnerships can be explored as the institutions become more aware of one another’s resources.

Unfortunately, some insist on turning this into an either-or issue. Which do we need more, a new high school or a museum and wilderness area? This is a false dilemma. Both are important for the community’s quality of life, and the community can have both.

But most important, the Centennial Park site will save taxpayers nearly $30 million in acquisition costs alone. It also will mean a savings of additional millions in not having to deal with hazardous materials removal cost, condemnation/eminent domain issues, and residential/commercial relocation costs involved with other locations.

No other cost-effective sites with the necessary acreage and accessibility are available for a new high school within the district.

Some have suggested that the district redevelop blighted areas to build new schools. However, this recommendation carries a price tag the district can’t afford. Before the district could even build a new high school, it would face the cost of purchasing new land, condemning the buildings on it, and other expenses. It would be fiscally irresponsible for the school district not to use its own property.

The time for debate is over. Indeed, waiting only makes the costs go up and the overcrowding more acute. It’s time for the district to act now to build a much-needed school.

If demographic studies and master-plan projections teach us anything, it is that our students--the future of Orange County--deserve better than to be shoe-horned into stifling portable classrooms. They deserve a decent educational environment. To give them any less is to fail our students.