lwv lausd psc advisory vote final report

8/14/2019 LWV LAUSD PSC Advisory Vote Final Report

1/43

LEAGUE OF WOMENVOTERS OF LOSANGELES

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ADVISORY VOTE

P R E P A R E D B Y : N A N C Y A R N H E I M , R A Q U E L B E L T R A N ,S I L V I A C R U Z , E R I N H O L M Q U I S T , A N D R U T H L O G A N

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERSOF LOS ANGELES

Election Management ServicesTrusted, Nonpartisan Grassroots Leadership Since 1920.

We Invite Your Membership.


2/43

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOT ERS OF

L O S A N G E L E SLOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT P UBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE

ADVISORY REP ORT

INTRODUCTION

The League of Women Voters of Los Angeles is a non-partisan organization devotedto encourage and promote the informed and active participation of all residents ingovernment. Active civic engagement in the democratic process is encouraged through a

variety of services. One such service is our election management service. On January 14,2010, the League accepted a request from the Los Angeles Unified School District

(LAUSD) to administer an advisory vote election for its public school choice (PSC)initiative because we could create a safe and unbiased voting environment at localized

voting centers.

This initiative was designed to tap into the potential wealth of innovative ideas and

educational models that will help the LAUSD advance its commitment to provide aquality education for our students... As a result, proposals were accepted from internal

and external applicants seeking to be selected as the new governance structure for the 36selected new and existing schools. It was the LAUSD Board of Educations desire to

collect information from parents, students, employees and members of the community

the community at large about their applicant preference(s).

The advisory vote process was designed to collect approximately 10,000 votes from100,000 eligible voters. As the process continued, the number of eligible voters grew to

275,000 and no one attempted to estimate the number of sign-in (community and non-verified) voting categories.

The advisory vote was a new concept that required the development of a customizedvoting process. As an advisory vote that emphasized broad-based inclusion of interested

persons, it also required un-traditional voting procedures. The process incorporatedsuggestions and requirements of the superintendent, board of education, and

representatives of employees and parents. Five categories of eligible voters wereidentified from rosters provided by LAUSD. Two additional categories required voters

to provide their name, signature, and reason for voting. The relationship of voters inthese two categories to the PSC could not be verified Definitions for each voting


3/43

ELECTION PROCESS

The election process was designed and implemented in less than three weeks andrequired the involvement of over 400 volunteers. Voting was permitted on two days.

One weekday and one weekend day. The weekday permitted employees and highschools students to vote during normal school hours; the voting center was open from

7:00 am. 10:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. The weekend permitted workingparents and members of the community to also vote and provided all others an additional

opportunity to participate in the process; the voting centers were open from 9:00 a.m.

12:00 p.m. In one location, an additional voting center was opened for four hours toaccommodate students and employees who requested it.

The election was in fact 36 elections. Thirty pre-selected voting centers were

administered throughout the greater Los Angeles region. A separate ballot was requiredfor each PSC school. These ballots required customized voting instructions to facilitate

voting for the distinctive applicant pools associated with each PSC school. Additionalcustomization in the instructions was required regarding the single or multiple voting

options associated with approximately seven schools. Nothing was the same at any of thesites or for any of the PSC schools.

VOTER ELIGIBILITY

Voter eligibility was determined by an individuals parent or employee relationship toa school involved in the PSC process, and student enrollment in participating high

schools. Feeder school parents were only included where their students were likely to

transfer into a PSC high school or middle school. In addition to the voters identifiedfrom rosters, two other categories of voters were allowed to vote upon signing in as self-identified community members or as a non-verified LAUSD parent, employee, or

high school student. All voting centers had staff, parents, and the two sign-in (non-verifiable) categories, but only some had the other three.

VOTER EDUCATION

As a condition of participation in this election, the League required the LAUSD toprovide eligible voters with bi-lingual (English and Spanish) information on the PSC

advisory vote. These included: An Advisory Vote webpage dedicated to the electionprocess, an oral and written summary of the applicant proposals, sample ballots, and the

voting guidelines. Additionally, enlarged versions of this information were displayed atthe voting centers.


4/43


5/43

15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24. In these schools, the sign-in voters did not change theoutcome of the advisory vote.

Several schools received an influx of sign-in ballots cast that challenged the

verified groups choices. In particular, some schools received a large number of votesfor charter schools in opposition to the choice of the verified categories. These

included PSCs # 1, 9, 11, 17, 19, 25, 26 and 28. PSCs # 19 and 26 deserve specialattention because the sign-in ballots cast overwhelmed those in the verified

categories to give a majority to another applicant. PSC # 25 almost had this result, too.

FURTHER ANALYSIS

There are other questions about these voting patterns that could be answered using the

same data but comparing groups differently. For instance, are there clues to thedifferences of opinion that occurred in some schools or to the unity that occurred in

others? Did parents of children in a school vote with or against the employees? Ifstudents voted, were they more likely to vote with their parents or with the employees?

These analyses might reveal something about the relationships among the differentgroups but would require more time than is available to complete.

A related subject for analysis could be the question of why some schools voted so

uniformly and why others had differences in opinion. Is this related to whether teachersand parents agreed in their voting? Should the electioneering patterns be examined? For

instance, did some groups experience competing electioneering? Is it good or bad for adiversity of opinion to exist on a campus?

On another issue, these data indicate that feeder grade and feeder school parents voted

in very small numbers even though these made up the largest classes of eligible voters.None at all voted in some schools where eligible voter lists were in place at the voting

centers, and in some cases only a few participated. Did these groups receive appropriatenotification and information to help them? Was it too difficult to get to the voting center?

Did they not care about something so far in the future for their children?

Inspection of voter sign-in sheets might yield clues to the identities of voters in thecommunity and non-verified categories but the questions in the previous two

paragraphs cannot be answered by these data alone.

CONCLUSION


6/43

This is the single most important tool to empower eligible voters to act in their own bestinterest. A longer planning period would be essential.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section, the League is providing a short list of recommendations whichmay be considered to improve the advisory vote process in the future.

AREAS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

1. More advance time to plan the voting process, prepare voting materials, educateeligible voter about the applicant options, and train volunteers is necessary.

2. Eliminate the community voting category until a definition can be acceptedthat minimizes the abusive practices experienced at the few locations wherethey were evident.

3. Make sure that at least one unbiased person speaks the appropriate language ateach voting center.

4. Provide the names of both parents/guardians on the eligible voter lists5. Establish whether identification is required for voting in any category6.

Ensure voter education materials are distributed (the League heard reports thatmany voters did not receive the intended materials).

7. Create a focused participation campaign at the feeder school level (many neverknew they were eligible to vote in the election).

8. Institute a one-vote:one-person voting protocol, regardless of the number ofchildren in the family and regardless if the voter is an employee and a parent.

9. Restrict voting by minors. (The League strongly promotes the engagement ofchildren and youth in any opportunity which gives them an age appropriateexperience in a voting process; however, at some voting centers children were

engaged inappropriately.)


7/43

12.Improve list management to quickly process eligible voters. (For instance,magnet school rosters were not incorporated with the primary comprehensive

list)

13.Restrict electioneering to the public areas surrounding the school site.14.Include language in the voting guidelines about who is NOT eligible to vote in

each category.

15.Select voting centers that provide adequate space outside to form organizedlines of voters and that allow for private voting stations.

TESTIMONIALS RECEIVED FROM VOTERS AND

VOLUNTEERS

I. Election Days I wanted to thank you for the opportunity and let you know that it was one of the

most pleasant, fun jobs I've ever done in my history.

Thank you League of Women Voters for taking on this election. This was a welcome Opportunity for first time voters/community members to voice

opinion

Election site was well-organized Great team work shown by election team Adequate security at sites was provided. It was a good idea to have a category to allow community members to vote. Hotline phone service was helpful. League involvement in the election legitimized the election for most voters. Callers appreciated accurate and timely responses to questions.


8/43

II. Counting We appreciate the Leagues impartial, fair counting process. The counters professionalism was noticed. Election management was remarkably organized and focused on getting the job done. The collaboration of counters from several Leagues and organizations was inspiring. Observers of the counting were accommodated. Verifiers stayed alert and watched for mistakes.


9/43

Prepared By: League of Women Voters of Los Angeles 12 February 2010

345

11 14 4

776841

298

29

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Local District 1 Ivy Academy #2 Magnolia Schools None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit A PSC #1: Valley Region ES #10 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 1 VRES #10 Employee Parent Community

Member

Non-Verified TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Local District 1 152 193 743 33 1,121 345 776

Ivy Academy #2 1 10 365 476 852 11 841

Magnolia Schools 0 14 116 182 312 14 298

None of the Above 1 3 25 4 33 4 29

TOTALS PER VC: 154 220 1,249 695

% PER VC: 6.64 9.49 53.88 29.98

TOTAL VOTERS: 2,318 2,318

Notable Data Characteristics: 84% of ballots

cast were from sign-in categories. The

results would have been the same had only

verified ballots been counted.


10/43


346

13 0 3

528

13 4 14

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Local District 1 Youth Policy

Institute

Aprende Team None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-Verified)

Exhibit B PSC #2: Valley Region ES #6 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 2-VRES #6 Employee Parent Community

Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Local District 1 103 243 487 41 874 346 528

Youth Policy Institute 2 11 13 0 26 13 13

Aprende Team 0 0 4 0 4 0 4


TOTALS PER VC: 105 257 517 42

% PER VC: 11.40 27.90 56.13 4.56

TOTAL VOTERS: 921 921

Notable Data Characteristics: The same

applicant was favored by all voter categories.


11/43


62

188

2

59

301

10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Youth Policy Institute San Fernando Middle

School Collaborative

None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit C PSC #3: San Fernando MS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 3-San

Fernando MS

Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Youth PolicyInstitute

21 25 5 11 47 12 121 62 59

San Fernando

Middle School

Collaborative

91 64 7 26 285 16 489 188 301

None of the Above 1 1 0 0 8 2 12 2 10

TOTALS PER VC: 113 90 12 37 340 30

% PER VC: 18.17 14.47 1.93 5.95 54.66 4.82


Notable Data Characteristics: The sign-in

categories overwhelmingly chose one

applicant whereas the verified categories

were split between two applicants.


12/43


8 16 5 7

534

120 12 2 8

364

10

100

200

300

400

500

600

Youth Policy

Institute

Loz Feliz

Charter School

for the Arts

Aprende Team Magnolia

Schools

Local District 2 None of the

Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community +

Non-Verified)

Exhibit D PSC 4: Valley Region ES #7 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 4-VRES #7 Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Youth PolicyInstitute

1 7 0 0 0 0 8 8 0

Loz Feliz Charter

School for the Arts

2 14 0 0 8 4 28 16 12

Aprende Team 1 4 0 0 2 0 7 5 2

Magnolia Schools 0 7 0 0 3 5 15 7 8

Local District 2 183 351 0 0 248 116 898 534 364

None of the Above 0 12 0 0 1 0 13 12 1

TOTALS PER VC: 187 395 0 0 262 125

% PER VC: 19.30 40.76 0.00 0.00 27.04 12.90



applicant was preferred by all votercategories.


13/43


8

214

5 98

134

5 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

Youth Policy

Institute

Local District 2 Magnolia Schools None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit E PSC 5: Valley Region ES #9 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Youth Policy Institute 3 5 6 2 16 8 8

Local District 2 97 117 109 25 348 214 134

Magnolia Schools 2 3 4 1 10 5 5


TOTALS PER VC: 106 130 123 31

% PER VC: 27.18 33.33 31.54 7.95


Notable Data Characteristics: A greater

number of ballots were cast in the verified

categories than in the sign-in categories; the

applicant choice was clear.


14/43


23

172

90

6

178

6 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160180

200

Youth Policy Institute Local District 2 Aprende Team None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories


Exhibit F PSC 6: Valley Region ES #8 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Youth Policy

Institute

6 17 5 1 29 23 6

Local District 2 96 76 158 20 350 172 178

Aprende Team 2 7 2 4 15 9 6


TOTALS PER VC: 104 100 169 26

% PER VC: 26.07 25.06 42.36 6.52


Notable Data Characteristics: The verified

and sign-in categories each provided about

half of the votes and the preferred

applicant was the same for all votercategories.


15/43


182

31

15

64

15 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Hyde Park Elementary

School Communtiy -

YES Academy

Be the Change in

Education Foundation

None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit G PSC 7: Hyde Park EL LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 7-Hyde Park EL Employee Parent Community

Member

Non-Verified

Red

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)Hyde Park

Elementary School

Community - YES

Academy

51 131 46 18 246 182 64

Be the Change in

Education

Foundation

1 30 10 5 46 31 15

None of the Above 4 11 11 1 27 15 12

TOTALS PER VC: 56 172 67 24

% PER VC: 17.55 53.92 21.00 7.52


Notable Data Characteristics: Ballots cast in

the verified categories outnumber those in

the sign-in categories and a unified

preference was indicated.


16/43


15

218

0

37

263

5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

ICEF Public Schools Hillcrest Uplifted None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories (Community

+ Non-Verified)

Exhibit H PSC 8: Hillcrest Dr. EL LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 8-Hillcrest Dr. EL Employee Parent Community

Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)ICEF Public Schools 1 14 23 14 52 15 37

Hillcrest Uplifted 76 142 153 110 481 218 263


TOTALS PER VC: 77 156 180 125

% PER VC: 14.31 29.00 33.46 23.23



applicant was preferred by all voter

categories.


17/43


22

376

10 1

32

218195

30

50

100

150

200

250

300

350400

Expectations of Education

Excellence Cresendo

Charter Schools

Pio Pico Community --

Local District 3

Celerity Palamati Charter

School

None of the Above

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Community +

Non-Verified)

Exhibit I PSC 9: Central Region ES #13 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 9-CRES #13 Employee Parent Community

Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-Verified)

Expectations of

EducationExcellence

Crescendo Charter

Schools

1 21 17 15 54 22 32

Pio Pico

Community -- Local

District 3

118 258 177 41 594 376 218

Celerity Palamati

Charter School

0 10 65 130 205 10 195


TOTALS PER VC: 120 289 261 187

% PER VC: 14.00 33.72 30.46 21.82




half the ballots cast, but the sign-in ballots

were split in their preference. The verified

categories preferred only one applicant.


18/43


10499

87

34

5046 46

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Science Technology

English Arts

Mathmatics (STEAM)

6th Grade Academy

Luther Burbank

Schools of

Humanities and Fine

Arts

Environmental

Studies Pilot School

None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit J PSC 10: Burbank MS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 10-Burbank MS Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Science Technology English ArtsMathematics (STEAM) 6th Grade

Academy

38 23 6 37 40 10 154 104 50

Luther Burbank Schools of

Humanities and Fine Arts

38 19 7 35 39 7 145 99 46

Environmental Studies Pilot

School

38 14 7 28 38 8 133 87 46

None of the Above 26 1 1 6 7 5 46 34 12

TOTALS PER VC: 140 57 21 106 124 30

% PER VC: 29.29 11.92 4.39 22.18 25.94 6.28



the verified categories vastly outnumbered

those in the sign-in categories. The

preference was almost equally distributed

between three candidates and the none of

the above category received a significant

number of votes.


19/43


12

449

1

311

756

7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Para Los Ninos Local District #4/Gratts ESNone of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit K PSC 11: Gratts PC LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 11-Gratts PC Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Para Los Ninos 2 10 0 0 166 145 323 12 311

Local District

#4/Gratts ES

45 404 0 0 705 51 1,205 449 756

None of the

Above

1 0 0 0 6 1 8 1 7

TOTALS PER VC: 48 414 0 0 877 197

% PER VC: 3.13 26.95 0.00 0.00 57.10 12.83


Notable Data Characteristics: The sign-in

categories outnumbered those in the

verified categories; however, one clear

preference was indicated.


20/43


Exhibit L PSC 12: Garfield HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 12-

Garfield HS

Student Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Garfield High

School

709 209 183 18 74 596 469 2,258 1,193 1,065

Montebello

Unified School

District

7 1 4 1 0 12 10 35 13 22

None of the

Above

0 1 0 1 2 8 5 17 4 13

The following shows the number of votes, per category, marking these applicants as 'Acceptable'

Green

Architectural

Design

Academy --

Acceptable

245 65 57 5 36 185 103 696 408 288

Green

ArchitecturalDesign

Academy --

Not

Acceptable

368 86 92 7 30 304 260 1,147 583 564

TOTALS PER

VC:

1,329 362 336 32 142 1,105 847

% PER VC: 32.00 8.72 8.09 0.77 3.42 26.61 20.39

TOTALVOTERS:

4,153 4,153

Charts on Following Page


21/43


Exhibit L PSC 12: Garfield HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

Notable Data Characteristics: The Garfield HS applicant was a clear choice for the whole school.

Notable Data Characteristics: There was a plurality against an internal academy.

1,193

13 4

1,065

22 130

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Garfield High School Montebello Unified

School District

None of the Above

Whole School

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories (Community + Non-

Verified)

408

583

288

564

0100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Green Architectural Design

Academy -- Acceptable

Green Architectural Design

Academy -- Not Acceptable

Internal Academy

Verified Categories


Verified)


22/43


Exhibit M PSC 13: Lincoln HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 13-Lincoln

HS


GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)The Lincoln

High School

Focus Team

91 143 52 4 4 152 40 486 294 192

None of the

Above

46 10 4 2 5 5 6 78 67 11

The following shows the number of votes, per category, marking these applicants as 'Acceptable'

Law,

Leadership in

Entertainment

& Media Arts

(LEMA)--

Acceptable

52 27 19 2 4 50 19 173 104 69

Law,

Leadership in

Entertainment

& Media Arts

(LEMA)-- Not

Acceptable

89 98 25 5 5 89 20 331 222 109

TOTALS PER

VC:

278 278 100 13 18 296 85

% PER VC: 26.03 26.03 9.36 1.22 1.69 27.72 7.96TOTAL

VOTERS:

1,068 1,068

Charts on Following Page


23/43


Exhibit M PSC 13: Lincoln HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

Notable Data Characteristics: The Lincoln HS applicant was a clear choice for the whole school.

Notable Data Characteristics: The verified categories were opposed to accepting an internal applicant.

294

67

192

11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

The Lincoln High School Focus Team None of the Above

Whole School

Verified Categories


Verified)

104

222

69

109

0

50

100

150

200

250

Law, Leadership in Entertainment & Media

Arts (LEMA)-- Acceptable

Law, Leadership in Entertainment & Media

Arts (LEMA)-- Not Acceptable

Internal Academy

Verified Categories


Verified)


24/43


65

225

3

131

630

17

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Partnership for Los Angeles

Schools

Carver Middle School None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit N PSC 14: Carver MS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 14-Carver

MS

Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Partnership for

Los Angeles

Schools

7 17 9 32 98 33 196 65 131

Carver Middle

School

127 69 2 27 551 79 855 225 630

None of the

Above

0 0 0 3 11 6 20 3 17

TOTALS PER VC: 134 86 11 62 660 118

% PER VC: 12.51 8.03 1.03 5.79 61.62 11.02


Notable Data Characteristics: Though the

sign-in categories cast a larger number of

ballots, preference for one applicant was very

strong in both verified and sign-in

categories.


25/43


32

437

3

91

630

19

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Partnership for Los Angeles

Schools

Jefferson High School None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories


Exhibit O PSC 15: Jefferson HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 15-

Jefferson HS


GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Partnership

for Los

Angeles

Schools

4 4 9 0 15 50 41 123 32 91

Jefferson High

School

239 46 116 0 36 476 154 1,067 437 630

None of the

Above

3 0 0 0 0 12 7 22 3 19

TOTALS PER

VC:

246 50 125 0 51 538 202

% PER VC: 20.30 4.13 10.31 0.00 4.21 44.39 16.67

TOTAL

VOTERS:

1,212 1,212

Notable Data Characteristics: Applicant

preference was consistent over all categories.


26/43


Exhibit P PSC 16: Esteban E. Torres HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 16-Esteban

Torres


GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Esteban Torres Family of

Schools - Alliance forCollege-Ready Schools (for

#1)

33 15 23 15 64 129 165 444 150 294


Schools - Alliance for

College-Ready Schools (for

#2)

21 14 20 15 66 122 162 420 136 284


Schools - The Design High

School

37 14 20 14 61 123 166 435 146 289

Esteban Torres Family ofSchools - Green Dot Public

Schools (for #3)

42 14 17 15 60 115 157 420 148 272


Schools - Green Dot Public

Schools (for #4)

31 14 15 16 60 119 292 547 136 411

East Los Angeles Performing

Arts Academy (Suzanna

Guzman Academy of

Performing Arts

578 129 141 29 208 767 483 2,335 1,085 1,250

East Los AngelesRenaissance Academy

577 131 143 33 201 744 476 2,305 1,085 1,220

Engineering &

Technology Academy

(Local District 5)

590 126 148 34 207 758 484 2,347 1,105 1,242

The Humanitas Art &

Technology Academy589 128 142 34 204 757 483 2,337 1,097 1,240

Social Justice

Leadership Academy571 131 143 33 203 757 481 2,319 1,081 1,238

None of the Above 11 0 0 0 2 16 3 32 13 19

TOTALS PER VC: 3,080 716 812 238 1,336 4,407 3,352

% PER VC: 22.09 5.14 5.82 1.71 9.58 31.61 24.04


Chart on Following Page


27/43


Exhibit P PSC 16: Esteban E. Torres HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

Notable Data Characteristics: Clearly 5 proposals were preferred over all others.

150 136 146 148 136

1,085 1,085 1,105 1,097 1,081

13

294 284 289 272

411

1,2501,220

1,242 1,240 1,238

19

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Esteban

Torres Family

of Schools -

Alliance for

College-Ready

Schools (for#1)

Esteban

Torres Family

of Schools -

Alliance for

College-Ready

Schools (for#2)

Esteban

Torres Family

of Schools -

The Design

High School

Esteban

Torres Family

of Schools -

Green Dot

Public Schools

(for #3)

Esteban

Torres Family

of Schools -

Green Dot

Public Schools

(for #4)

East Los

Angeles

Performing

Arts Academy

(Suzanna

GuzmanAcademy of

Performing

Arts

East Los

Angeles

Renaissance

Academy

Engineering &

Technology

Academy

(Local District

5)

The

Humanitas Art

& Technology

Academy

Social Justice

Leadership

Academy

None of the

Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

E hibit Q PSC 17 C t l R i #17 LAUSD P bli S h l Ch i Ad i V t


28/43


31

303

4

303 296

14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Celerity Orion Charter School Local District 5 None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories (Community +Non-Verified)

Exhibit Q PSC 17: Central Region #17 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Celerity OrionCharter School

0 31 292 11 334 31 303

Local District 5 107 196 242 54 599 303 296


TOTALS PER VC: 107 231 545 68

% PER VC: 11.25 24.29 57.31 7.15


Notable Data Characteristics: Although the

number of ballots cast in the sign-in

category outnumber those in the verified;

the sign-in categories were split between

two applicants, whereas, the verifiedcategories had one clear choice.

Exhibit R PSC 18: Central Region ES #18 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


29/43


21

275

1 439

251

10 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Partnership For Los

Angeles Schools

Local District 5 Youth Policy Institute None of the Above

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community +

Non-Verified)

Exhibit R PSC 18: Central Region ES #18 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


Member


APPLICANT:

Verified Categories Sign-In

Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)Partnership For Los

Angeles Schools

0 21 32 7 60 21 39

Local District 5 92 183 204 47 526 275 251

Youth Policy

Institute

0 1 7 3 11 1 10


TOTALS PER VC: 92 209 259 58

% PER VC: 14.89 33.82 41.91 9.39




half of the votes and a single applicant was

preferred by both.

Exhibit S PSC 19: Central Region ES #16 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


30/43


24

125

4

271

70

5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Celerity Carninal Charter

School

Local District 5 None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit S PSC 19: Central Region ES #16 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


Member


APPLICANT:


Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)Celerity Cardinal

Charter School

4 20 126 145 295 24 271

Local District 5 49 76 61 9 195 125 70


TOTALS PER VC: 54 99 190 156

% PER VC: 10.82 19.84 38.08 31.26TOTAL VOTERS: 499 499

Notable Data Characteristics: The large

number of sign-in ballots cast outnumbered

and disagreed with those of the verified

voters.

Exhibit T PSC 20: Maywood Academy HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


31/43


165

54

144

57

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Maywood Academy High School None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories (Community +

Non-Verified)

Exhibit T PSC 20: Maywood Academy HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote

PSC 20-

Maywood

Academy HS


GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Maywood

Academy High

School

77 36 35 6 11 79 65 309 165 144

None of the

Above

8 16 26 0 4 29 28 111 54 57

TOTALS PER

VC:

85 52 61 6 15 108 93

% PER VC: 20.24 12.38 14.52 1.43 3.57 25.71 22.14TOTAL

VOTERS:

420 420

Notable Data Characteristics: The choice here

was to support or oppose the local school.

30% of the ballots cast opposed the current

school.

Exhibit U PSC 21: South Region MS #2 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


32/43


b t U SC Sout eg o S US ub c Sc oo C o ce d so y ote

PSC 21-SRMS #2 Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)SRMS #2 A

South Area Teacher

Collaborative & UTLA

97 52 3 9 131 66 358 161 197

Quest Team 0 3 0 0 4 3 10 3 7

None of the Above 4 1 0 3 2 4 14 8 6

SRMS #2 B Authorized Sign-InSouth Area Teacher


95 45 11 9 127 64 351 160 191

Quest Team 0 3 0 0 2 4 9 3 6

Magnolia Schools 2 10 2 1 10 9 34 15 19

None of the Above 3 1 0 3 3 3 13 7 6

SRMS #2 C Authorized Sign-In

South Area Teacher


96 52 3 9 129 63 352 160 192

Quest Team 0 3 0 0 4 2 9 3 6

None of the Above 4 2 0 3 3 6 18 9 9

TOTALS PER VC: 301 172 19 37 415 224% PER VC: 25.77 14.73 1.63 3.17 35.53 19.18


Chart on Following Page

Exhibit U PSC 21: South Region MS #2 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


33/43


g y

Notable Data Characteristics: Ballots cast report the same applicant preferred for all three sub-schools. There was agreement between the ballots cast in the

sign-in and verified voter categories.

161

3 8

197

7 6

0

50

100

150

200

250

South Area

Teacher

Collaborative &

UTLA

Quest TeamNone of the

Above

SRMS #2 A

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

160

315 7

191

619

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

SRMS #2 B

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

160

3 9

192

6 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

SRMS #2 CVerified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit V PSC 22: South Region ES #3 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


34/43


28

400

12

58

507

190

100

200

300

400

500

600

Celerity Sirius Charter

School

Bell/Cudahy Partners in

Education

None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Community + Non-

Verified)

PSC 22-SRES #3 Employee Parent Community

Member


APPLICANT:


Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Celerity Sirius

Charter School

2 26 36 22 86 28 58

Bell/Cudahy

Partners in

Education

186 214 344 163 907 400 507


TOTALS PER VC: 192 248 394 190

% PER VC: 18.75 24.22 38.48 18.55




half of the votes and the same applicant was

preferred by both.

Exhibit W PSC 23: South Region ES #4 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


35/43


17

41

117

1

7962

241

28

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Aspire Public

Schools

Parent U-Turn South Gate

Community for

Change

None of the Above

Verified Categories

Sign-In Categories



Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)

Aspire Public

Schools

1 16 68 11 96 17 79

Parent U-Turn 19 22 52 10 103 41 62

South Gate

Community for

Change

29 88 192 49 358 117 241

None of theAbove1 0 17 11 29 1 28

TOTALS PER VC: 50 126 329 81

% PER VC: 8.53 21.50 56.14 13.82


Notable Data Characteristics: While opinion

favored one applicant, other applicants

received strong showings.

Exhibit X PSC 24: Griffith Joyner EL LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


36/43


2

514

63214

763

1135

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Forefront Educational

Group

Griffith-Joyner

Elementary School

Partnership for Los

Angeles School

None of the Above

Verified Voters

Sign-In Voters

(Community +

Non-Verified)

PSC 24-Griffith

Joyner EL

Employee Parent Community

Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

ForefrontEducational

Group

0 2 14 0 16 2 14

Griffith-Joyner

Elementary

School

97 417 758 5 1,277 514 763

Partnership for

Los Angeles

School

2 61 113 0 176 63 113

None of the

Above

1 1 5 0 7 2 5

TOTALS PER VC: 100 481 890 5

% PER VC: 6.78 32.59 60.30 0.34



the sign-in categories outnumbered those in

the verified categories; ultimately, one

applicant was preferred by all voter

categories.

Exhibit Y PSC 25: Central Region #15 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


37/43


0

465

2814

589 609

00

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Youth Policy

Institute

Local District 7 &

UTLA

Camino Nuevo

Charter Academy

None of the Above

Verified Voters

Sign-In Voters

(Community + Non-

Verified)


Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)

Youth Policy

Institute

0 0 4 0 4 0 4

Local District 7 &

UTLA

151 314 489 100 1,054 465 589

Camino Nuevo

Charter

Academy

2 26 267 342 637 28 609

None of theAbove

0 1 0 0 1 1 0

TOTALS PER VC: 153 341 760 442

% PER VC: 9.02 20.11 44.81 26.06


Notable Data Characteristics: The 30%

representation of ballots cast in the verified

categories showed a clear preference. The

sign-in categories were split between two

applicants.

Exhibit Z PSC 26: South Region MS #6 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


38/43


11 13 53

302

1169

180

894

486

26

0100200300400500600700800900

1,000

Expectations of

Educational

Excellence Crescendo

Charter Schools

Celerity Octavia

Charter School

ICEF Public Schools Local District 7 &

Barack Obama Global

Preparation

None of the Above

Verified Voters

Sign-In Voters (Community + Non-

Verified)

PSC 26-SRMS #6 Employee Parent Feeder

GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-

Verified)

Expectations of EducationalExcellence Crescendo

Charter Schools

0 9 1 1 51 18 80 11 69

Celerity Octavia Charter

School

0 7 1 5 144 36 193 13 180

ICEF Public Schools 4 47 2 0 628 266 947 53 894

Local District 7 & Barack

Obama Global Preparation192 100 1 9 246 240 788 302 486

None of the Above 6 5 0 0 6 20 37 11 26

TOTALS PER VC: 202 168 5 15 1,075 580

% PER VC: 9.88 8.22 0.24 0.73 52.57 28.36


Notable Data Characteristics: The data reports

a conflict in preferences between the sign-in

and verified categories. The sign-in

categories overwhelm the verified

categories preference.

Exhibit AA PSC 27: South Region ES #2 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


39/43


468

217 11 0

170

196

205

5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Local District 7 Forefront

Educational Group

Expectations of

Educational

Excellence

Crescendo Charter

Schools

Celerity Tenacia

Charter School

None of the Above

VerifiedVoters

Sign-In Voters

(Community

+ Non-

Verified)


Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In Categories

(Certified + Non-Verified)

Local District 7 127 341 151 19 638 468 170

Forefront Educational Group 0 2 19 0 21 2 19Expectations of Educational Excellence

Crescendo Charter Schools0 17 6 0 23 17 6

Celerity Tenacia Charter School 0 11 198 7 216 11 205


TOTALS PER VC: 127 371 379 26

% PER VC: 14.06 41.09 41.97 2.88


Notable Data Characteristics: Although many

ballots cast in the sign-in categoriessupported the charter school applicant,

ballots cast in the verified categories

preferred the local district applicant by a large

margin.

Exhibit BB PSC 28: South Region ES #1 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


40/43


011

1

237

9 3 45

145

4

96

30

2 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

Verified Voters

Sign-In Voters

(Community + Non-

Verified)


Member


APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)

Forefront Educational Group 0 0 4 1 5 0 5

Celerity EXA Charter School 0 11 35 110 156 11 145

Sankofa Leadership & Cultural Academy 0 1 2 2 5 1 4

Local District 7 128 109 78 18 333 237 96

Expectations of Educational Excellence

Crescendo Charter Schools

0 9 13 17 39 9 30

Watts Learning Center Foundation, Inc. 1 2 1 1 5 3 2


TOTALS PER VC: 129 136 135 151

% PER VC: 23.41 24.68 24.50 27.40


Notable Data Characteristics: Although many

ballots cast in the sign-in categories

supported the charter school applicant,

ballots cast in the verified categories

preferred the local district applicant by a large

margin.

Exhibit CC PSC 29: Gardena HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


41/43


234

21

123

9

0

50

100

150

200

250

Gardena High School None of the Above

Verified Voters

Sign-In Voters

(Community + Non-

Verified)

PSC 29-

Gardena HS


GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)

Gardena High

School

97 97 31 0 9 49 74 357 234 123

None of the

Above

13 5 2 1 0 4 5 30 21 9

TOTALS PER VC: 110 102 33 1 9 53 79

% PER VC: 28.42 26.36 8.53 0.26 2.33 13.70 20.41


Notable Data Characteristics: A great majorityof ballots cast preferred the Gardena High

School applicant.

Exhibit DD PSC 30: San Pedro HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote


42/43


582

45

249

15

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

San Pedro High School Community None of the Above

Verified Voters

Sign-In Voters

(Community +

Non-Verified)

PSC 30-San

Pedro HS


GRADE

Feeder

School

Community

Member

Non-

Verified

TOTAL PER

APPLICANT:

Verified

Categories

Sign-In

Categories

(Certified +

Non-Verified)

San Pedro High

School

Community

295 120 123 13 31 247 2 831 582 249

None of the

Above

32 4 9 0 0 15 0 60 45 15

TOTALS PER VC: 327 124 132 13 31 262 2

% PER VC: 36.70 13.92 14.81 1.46 3.48 29.41 0.22


Notable Data Characteristics: A great majority

of ballots cast preferred the San Pedro High

School applicant.

Exhibit EE Voting Categories


43/43


VC # Voter Category Definitions Color Ballot

1 Public School Choice High School Students Pink

2 Public School Choice School Employees Violet

3 Public School Choice Parents Yellow

4

Feeder GRADE Parents (For high schools, the feeder grade is 8th

grade and for middle school the feeder grade

is 5th

grade) Blue

5 Feeder School Parents (For high school, the feeder grades are K-7 and for middle school the grades are K-4) Green

6

Community Members Persons seeking to participate in the process who are not otherwise eligible to vote in

the parent, employee, and high school student categories. Orange

7

Non-verified LAUSD parents, employees, and high school students (This refers to parents, employees, and high

school students whose name does not appear on the LAUSD voting roster. Additionally, this sign-in category

will include parochial and charter parents.) Red

lwv lausd psc advisory vote final report

Documents