While the voluntary desegregation efforts and bilingual education programs reflect the District's desire to over come historic discrimination and provide students with access to equal educational opportunities, four other efforts are underway in LAUSD which are intended to improve and impact the equal educational opportunities available to students. Two of the efforts underway are the direct result of lawsuits brought against the District. Both lawsuits have resulted in Consent Decrees -- agreements reached by the parties to the lawsuits and approved by the presiding judges. The first of the lawsuits addressed funding disparities within the District. The second dealt with problems in the delivery of special education.
The two other ventures are reform efforts underway in the District. Of the reform efforts, the first -- charter schools -- is a state wide initiative for school site reform.101 The second -- LEARN -- is a District sponsored reform effort which, like the charter movement, transfers decision making to the local school site. Both charter schools and LEARN schools are efforts to improve the quality of education available to all students in the District.
Consent Decrees
Rodriguez v. LAUSD
Rodriguez v. LAUSD102 is the first of two recent court cases which have significant implications for access to equal educational opportunities. In Rodriguez a Los Angeles Superior Court judge found funding disparities - lower per pupil expenditures at larger schools - and differences in teacher experience levels existed within the District, particularly in inner city schools.103 In other words, the District spent more money on schools that had more experienced teachers because their salaries were higher. Smaller schools also received more funds per student because administrative costs were spread among fewer children. As a result of this method, those schools serving primarily poorer minority students, with greater numbers of inexperienced teachers, frequently received fewer funds than those schooling serving affluent, mostly White students with more experienced teachers.104
The Consent Decree agreed upon by all parties to the litigation identified the need to equalize teacher experience in the schools within the District. Therefore, beginning with the 1992-93 school year, the District has been required to take training and experience into account when hiring and assigning teachers. Schools whose staffs are in the lower third of faculty training and experience are supposed to be assigned teachers with higher levels of training or experience and schools with higher levels of training and experience are to be assigned teachers with less training or experience. The expectation is that over time the disparities which exist because of teacher salaries will be resolved.
The prospective impact of the Hayden Bill on the Rodriguez Consent Decree in the event of any reorganization is unclear. To the extent Rodriguez focuses on teacher redistribution, these issues are addressed in the School Finance section of this document, and they will not be repeated here.
In addition to teacher distribution, Rodriguez addresses the lack of adequate facilities on school campuses throughout the District. The goals of Rodriguez include "provid[ing] a classroom seat for all students in their local resident schools."105 At the present time, the lack of adequate space is addressed by busing students from overcrowded schools to under-attended schools. It is unclear what the implications of a reorganization would be on school overcrowding resulting from the cessation of busing which presently addresses this problem. Schools that are not overcrowded because some of their student population is bused to other schools would suddenly have to deal with a significant increase in their student population. There are no provisions in the Hayden Bill providing for money to build new schools to accommodate such an increase. Nor is it clear who would be required to cover transportation costs should the busing of these students continue between districts. Thus, a reorganization could find the original plaintiffs back in court, requesting modifications of the Consent Decree due to a significant change in circumstances.
Chanda Smith v. LAUSD
The second of these cases is Chanda Smith v. LAUSD.106 The plaintiffs in Chanda Smith alleged wide spread problems with the administration of Special Education services to students enrolled in LAUSD. Two teams of experts concluded that LAUSD suffered from "a pervasive, substantial and systemic inability to deliver special education services in compliance with special education laws."107 This conclusion led to a Consent Decree to be administered by the District Court. The Decree details the actions LAUSD must take in order to bring the District back into compliance with federal and state law. More than simply mandating that the District find some way to comply with the law, the Decree gives specific orders as to the means necessary to comply. LAUSD must now implement these specific means, as well as achieve the end of complying with the law.
The prospective impact of Section (e) of the Hayden Bill on the Consent Decree in Chanda Smith in the event of any reorganization is unclear. Because these issues are addressed in the Special Education section of this document, they will not be repeated here. For a more complete explanation of Chanda Smith and the implications of the Consent Decree on a break- up or break-off of LAUSD, please see the Special Education section of this document.
Charter Schools
A reorganization of LAUSD will also inevitably impact the District's students who are attending charter schools within the District.
LAUSD has approved six charter schools and one charter school complex. These charters were entered into in accordance with state law. What follows is a presentation of the history of charter school law and the evolution of the charters in the District. After this section a discussion follows of the issues and questions that must be considered in the context of a break-up or break-off.
State Law
Charter schools are the product of state legislation designed to decentralize educational governance by "freeing" schools of bureaucratic constraints.108 Like magnet schools, charter schools are also specialized schools of choice, but unlike magnet schools, their central purpose is not to desegregate school districts by attracting students of different races.109 In 1992 the legislature passed legislation which became effective January 1, 1993, allowing 100 charter schools to be created across the state with not more than 10 charter schools in any single school district.110 Many have suggested that the charter legislation came into being in order to reduce the likelihood that Proposition 174 would be approved by the voters.111 Proposition 174 would have brought a voucher plan to the state.
The law outlines six goals: 1) improve student learning; 2) increase learning opportunities, especially for students identified as low achieving; 3) encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods; 4) create new professional opportunities for teachers, including being responsible for the learning program; 5) provide parents and students with expanded school choices in the public system; and 6) hold schools accountable for meeting measurable student outcomes and provide a method of switching from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems.112
In return for documenting student outcomes, charter schools are exempt from the Education Code.113 Yet charters are not free of all requirements placed on school districts. They are required to make provisions for the health and safety of students.114 Additionally, they cannot discriminate in their student selection or charge tuition.115 Moreover, while charter schools can be created out of an existing public school or be created from scratch, they may not be created out of an already existing private school.116
Charter schools do not receive extra resources to help them accomplish their goals. In other words, they do not receive "start-up" funds. Also, unlike magnet schools, which are provided with state and federal resources, including transportation, charter schools are not provided with transportation by the District.117
The federal government has provided funds to states which have requested those funds specifically for charter schools. Individual charter schools are required to apply directly to the state for these funds. California applied for a three-year $2.1 million grant from the Federal Department of Education for charter schools.118
A charter school can be created several different ways. The first is when at least half of the teachers in an existing school sign on to the project. A new charter school cannot be created unless 10 percent of the teachers in the entire district or 50 percent of the teachers currently employed at one school in the district sign the proposal.119 An entire district can also become a charter district if it meets all of the requirements set forth in the law.120 LAUSD has approximately 28,000 teachers. Because either 10% of the 28,000 teachers must agree to a new charter or 50% of the teachers at a school site must agree, it is extremely difficult for a new charter school to be started. Of the existing charters in LAUSD, all but one of them were created from existing schools. The one new school is Accelerated School. This school is also the smallest charter in the District. The school serves approximately 60 students.121
The legislation limits the number of charter schools any district can have to 10. There is pending legislation sponsored by Senator Tom Hayden which would raise the cap in LAUSD to 22. There are only seven in the District at the present time. These are: 1) the Palisades Complex; 2) Open School; 3) Vaughn Elementary School; 4) Fenton Elementary School; 5) Accelerated School; 6) Westwood Elementary School; and Montague Elementary Academy. While these schools are scattered across LAUSD, they are predominantly located on the Westside. Vaughn, Fenton, and Montague are located in the San Fernando Valley and serve predominantly minority communities.
There are two types of charter schools in LAUSD -- independent and dependent. Independent charter schools are theoretically completely independent of the District. Of the schools in LAUSD, three are considered independent. These schools are Vaughn Elementary School, Fenton Elementary School, and Accelerated School. A fourth, Montague, is currently attempting to change its status from dependent to independent. Unlike the other charter schools, which remain tightly connected to the District, these three schools have chosen to take over all of their financial responsibilities.122 In fact, two of these schools, Vaughn and Fenton, are currently participating in a direct funding pilot. This pilot will begin in July of 1997 and will cause these schools to receive their money directly from the Department of Education instead of from LAUSD. The remaining schools are dependent. They are fiscally dependent on the District and are treated just like any other school in the District from a financial perspective. As previously mentioned, these schools are all free from the same Education Code restrictions.
The prospective impact of Section (e) of the Hayden Bill on LAUSD charter school in the event of any reorganization is unclear.
Under Education Code Section 35730.1(e), "policies used by magnet schools, charter schools, site-based management initiatives, and the LEARN program" must be preserved.123 As stated above with regard to magnet schools, while policies must be preserved, the legislation does not require that the actual schools that have been established must be preserved. Therefore, the question arises as to whether or not a new district created out of a break-up or break-off would be required to accept the charter of an already existing charter school. The charter school law, Education Code Section 47601 et seq., is silent on this issue as well.
It could be argued that the charter school law which establishes the criteria for a district to accept a charter school petition are vague enough that if the charter is accepted by one district there is no reason for another district to reject that same charter.124 On the other hand, because of the ambiguity surrounding issues such as liability, a new district can argue that it has the right to review any and all charters presently existing in the district and make its own determination whether or not these charters should be considered to be valid.
Similarly, it is unclear whether students attending a given charter school at the time of the reorganization would be able to continue attending the charter school after the reorganization. The question arises in the context of the continuation of the school as a charter school. As stated above, the Hayden Bill does not require that the existing charter schools be recognized by any newly formed district but that the policies must be preserved. If the charters are not adopted by the new district then parents may have to petition the new district and request an interdistrict permit from the new district or the new district must enter into an Interdistrict Agreement with any districts from which it wishes to receive students.125
If the charters are adopted by any newly formed district, students attending those schools would probably be able to continue to attend across district lines because the charter school legislation states:
On the other hand, this section of the Charter School Act applies only to charter schools and not to sending or receiving districts. Therefore, it is still likely that the new school districts would want to enter into Interdistrict Attendance Agreements with each other and what remains of LAUSD in order to ensure that their students can continue to attend the charter schools.
Moreover, both the charter school law and SB 699 are silent as to funding requirements by the reorganized district(s). As each charter school has entered into its charter with LAUSD it is unclear what the impact of a break-up or break-off would be on these charters. If the schools continue to be sponsored by LAUSD then resources will continue to be directed to the schools through whatever remains of LAUSD.127 Under those circumstances it is anticipated that the ADA for students attending LAUSD charter schools will continue to be directed to LAUSD as part of its revenue limit. Similarly, the schools participating in the direct funding pilot will continue to receive their revenues directly from the Department of Education.
It is fairly well established that a charter school cannot exist in one district and be sponsored by another district. Thus, unless the special circumstances imposed by a break-up or break-off of LAUSD were used to allow the charter schools located in new district(s) to continue to be sponsored by LAUSD, they would need to seek approval by the Board of Education governing the new district(s). Should the charter schools be accepted by the new district(s), the ADA should be incorporated into the new district's revenue limit.128 For those schools participating in the direct funding pilot this raises additional concerns. The revenue to be received by these schools is currently being negotiated by the schools, LAUSD and the Los Angeles County Department of Education. Whether a new district would be required to accept the agreement made between Vaughn, Fenton, LAUSD and the County Board of Education is unclear.
Unlike magnet schools, the District does not provide transportation to students attending charter schools. Consequently, there is no issue as to which district would be responsible for transportation costs. On the other hand, nothing to interfere with a new district deciding to provide transportation to students attending charter schools.
LEARN Schools
The Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now (LEARN), a non-profit organization, was established in 1991, primarily through the impetus of the business community, to draft and implement a consensus education reform and restructuring agenda in Los Angeles.129 It began as a coalition of civic leaders and representatives of Los Angeles' diverse education, ethnic, business, labor, academic, religious and social advocacy constituencies. The LEARN mission was based on the fundamental belief that our education system can work for every child and every child can learn and achieve at levels which enable:
The coalition held numerous community hearings and meetings with educational consultants to come up with a plan to improve schools in Los Angeles. Ultimately, LEARN formed seven task forces which tackled issues of school governance, parent involvement, professional development, school to work transition, facilities, and accountability and assessment.131 Once the work of the task forces was complete LEARN presented its plans for reform in LAUSD to the Board of Education.
In 1993, LAUSD adopted the LEARN plan as its vehicle to reform K-12 public education. Through LEARN the District means to shift school governance from the central office to the campus level by turning key decisions over to individual campuses, putting academic plans into the hands of parents, staff members and teachers.132 In 1993, the chairman of LEARN stated that: "the LEARN plan... moves decision-making and budget authority to where the students are, enabling each school site to develop and maintain its own distinct character based upon the needs of the students and of the community."133 Decentralizing decision-making, LEARN assumes, will enable schools to make decisions in the best interests of students and communities.134
LEARN calls for the "substantial and immediate restructuring of the rules governing eight primary functions of our schools." These functions, and the necessary changes, derived from the task forces, include:
governance and accountability -- local schools will get responsibility for budgeting, staff selection, and teaching. Each school will establish its own planning process to reach its goals, with the principal as the school decision leader;
professional development -- the district will create a training academy to prepare school staff to be involved in all levels of decision-making and to work with all students;
parent involvement -- each school will develop a parent involvement plan to create an atmosphere that welcomes parents as partners in the education of their children;
social services in high schools -- collaboration among schools and public and private agencies will provide family, health and social services;
school-to-work transition programs for students -- schools will eliminate the labeling and classification of students, make career awareness and preparation part of the public school curriculum, and work with the business community to create a model for collaboration;
school facilities improvements -- schools will make better use of existing facilities, improve maintenance, and seek construction of new facilities; and
finances -- each school will receive discretionary resources, budget certainty.135
Three hundred and seven eight schools have become LEARN schools, approximately 110 of these in the last year or so.136 These 307 schools represent more than a third of the District's schools.137 It is the District's intention that all schools will become LEARN schools by 1998, although schools choose whether to join LEARN.138
As with all of the other programs discussed in this document, the prospective impact of Section (e) of the Hayden Bill on LEARN schools is unclear.
Once again, Education Code Section 35730.1(e) applies as it specifically addresses LEARN schools: "policies used by . . .the LEARN program" must be preserved.139 As stated in sections II(B)(2) and IV(B) above with regard to magnet schools and charter schools, while policies pertaining to LEARN schools must be preserved, the legislation does not require that the actual schools that have been established must be preserved. Therefore, the question arises as to whether or not a new district created out of a break-up or break-off would be required to accept a specific LEARN school. If the new districts are not required to accept existing LEARN schools then the ability of these schools to continue to implement LEARN on their campuses is called into question.
It could be argued that there is no reasonable interpretation of Section 35730.1(e) that does not include the continuation of already existing LEARN programs. There is not a great deal of logic to maintaining the policies but not the programs themselves. On the other hand, the original language proposed for this section required: "[p]reservation of existing magnet schools, charter schools, site-based management initiatives and the LEARN program where those programs already exist in practice or pursuant to law."140 Therefore, it is arguable that the Legislature changed its mind and decided to leave the individual decisions up to newly formed districts and not require that they accept any given school.
Moreover, SB 699 is silent as to funding requirements by the reorganized district(s). As each LEARN school is supposed to have more flexibility with its funding than non-LEARN schools, it is unclear what the impact of a break-up or break-off would be on these schools. If the schools remain LEARN schools then they should continue to have more flexibility. Should the new district(s) not recognize already existing LEARN schools, funding should revert to match non-LEARN schools.141
V. Conclusion
The issues discussed in this document must be seen, ultimately, within the larger context of the ongoing debate regarding the right to equal educational opportunity. This right, recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown, has been the subject of intense controversy over the past four decades142 -- both in and of itself, and as it relates to the omnipresent "equity versus excellence" inquiry.
It must be noted, however, that the existence of the right is no longer in question.143 Indeed, it has been the key theory underlying major victories in litigation addressing school desegregation, school finance, standardized testing, language acquisition, tracking and homogeneous ability grouping , and disabled students' rights (including the rights of AIDS-infected students). Today the right appears in many different guises, typically in the form of judicially recognized rights or statutory entitlements.144
In light of these developments in the law, this document has focused on three specific areas where the right to equal educational opportunity in LAUSD might be implicated by a prospective break-up or break-off. As might be expected, no simple answers are available, but much can be done within existing legal and policy guidelines to maximize equal access for students who would benefit from magnet schools, charter schools, and language acquisition programs for second language learners. And the principles that inform this inquiry would certainly be applicable to other equity-related controversies that might develop in this context down the road.
Return to the Table of Contents
Go to the next section
Return to the previous section
Return to LAUSD Study Page.
UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies