LWV LAUSD PSC Advisory Vote Final Report

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS®
OF LOS ANGELES
Election Management Services
Trusted, Nonpartisan Grassroots Leadership Since 1920.
We Invite Your Membership.
L E AG U E OF WO M E N
VO T E RS OF LO S
ANGELES
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ADVISORY VOTE
P R EPA R E D BY: NA NC Y A R NH E IM , R A QU E L BELTR A N,

S I LV I A C RU Z , E R I N H O L M QU I S T, A N D RU T H L O G A N
3 3 0 3 W IL SH I R E B LV D.
SUITE 310
LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-1700
L E AG U E O F W O M E N V O T E R S O F
LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES UNIF IE D SCHOOL DI STRI CT PUBLIC SCHOO L CHOICE
ADVISORY REPORT
I N T RO DU C T I O N
The League of Women Voters of Los Angeles is a non-partisan organization devoted

to encourage and promote the informed and active participation of all residents in
government. 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 a
quality 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 36
selected new and existing schools. It was the LAUSD Board of Education’s 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 from
100,000 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 customized
voting process. As an advisory vote that emphasized broad-based inclusion of interested
persons, it also required un-traditional voting procedures. The process incorporated
suggestions and requirements of the superintendent, board of education, and
representatives of employees and parents. Five categories of eligible voters were
identified from rosters provided by LAUSD. Two additional categories required voters
to provide their name, signature, and reason for voting. The relationship of voters in
these two categories to the PSC could not be ‘verified’. Definitions for each voting
category are provided in exhibit EE.
LWVLA LAUSD PSC Election Report 2 2/12/2010

ELECTION PROCESS
The election process was designed and implemented in less than three weeks and
required the involvement of over 400 volunteers. Voting was permitted on two days.
One weekday and one weekend day. The weekday permitted employees and high
schools 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 working
parents 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 to
accommodate 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 required
for each PSC school. These ballots required customized voting instructions to facilitate
voting for the distinctive applicant pools associated with each PSC school. Additional
customization in the instructions was required regarding the single or multiple voting
options associated with approximately seven schools. Nothing was the same at any of the
sites or for any of the PSC schools.
VOTER ELIGIBILITY
Voter eligibility was determined by an individual’s parent or employee relationship to
a 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 identified
from 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 to
provide eligible voters with bi-lingual (English and Spanish) information on the PSC
advisory vote. These included: An ‘Advisory Vote’ webpage dedicated to the election
process, an oral and written summary of the applicant proposals, sample ballots, and the
voting guidelines. Additionally, enlarged versions of this information were displayed at
the voting centers.
CASTING OF MULITPLE VOTES

There has been much discussion surrounding what some describe as ‘double’ voting.
To be clear, there was no ‘double’ voting within categories. For example, employees did
not vote as employees and vote again as employees. Employees were permitted to vote
separately as parents, if their child’s name appeared on the voter list. The same was true
with voters in the parent categories. They were, however, eligible to receive one ballot
for each child associated with specific school’s PSC process (e.g. elementary, middle
school, or high school).
The ‘double’ voting occurred because some voters elected to also cast ballots in the
‘sign-in’ categories, creating an administrative challenge. It was finally permitted
because no rules had been established to clarify this unforeseen possibility. In addition,
persons who were not on the rosters also frequently elected to vote in both ‘sign-in’
categories. The problems were most noticeable at PSC’s where internal and external
applicants were engaged in competitive and assertive electioneering practices. This
situation is addressed in the data analysis section.
RESULTS AND ANALYS IS
More than 44,000 ballots were cast in this election and their counts were recorded by
category separately for each voting center. Graphs were prepared to facilitate a first level
analysis of the voting patterns: these are marked as Exhibits A-DD.
MORE ‘VERIFIED’ THAN ‘SIGN-IN’ BALLOTS CAST
When a school received a larger number of ‘verified’ than ‘sign-in’ ballots cast, the
majority of ‘sign-in’ votes could represent ballots cast by people who also qualified in a
‘verified’ category (so-called ‘double’ voting). If these individuals voted for the same
choice on their multiple ballots, applicant preferences should be inflated. Some of the
schools involved in this advisory vote showed a single clear preference in spite of the
possibility of ‘double’ voting. These include PSC’s # 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 27, 29 and 30. A
similar pattern was shown for PSC’s # 12 and 13 for the whole school applicants, but the
votes to ‘accept’ or ‘not accept’ an internal academy showed a division of opinion. On
another note, PSC’s # 10 and 20 displayed a division of opinion for all applicants, which
warrants further study.
MORE SIGN-IN THAN ‘VERIFIED’ VOTERS

Schools that received more votes in the ‘sign-in’ than the ‘verified’ categories
certainly had voters who came from outside the roll sheets provided by the LAUSD. It is
not possible to tell whether these voters represent parents or community members who
belong to these schools in some way or people not generally associated with the school.
For some schools, the number of these ‘sign-in’ voters was relatively small and might
well have represented part of the school community. In other schools, the League
observed groups of staff, parents, and students, some as low as third grade, being brought
in, and lobbyists, flyers and pre-marked sample ballots were in evidence. These schools
received a large excess of ‘sign-in’ ballots.
Schools with a low number of ‘sign-in’ ballots cast or schools in which the ‘sign-in’
ballots agreed with the majority of the ‘verified’ ballots cast included, PSC’s # 2, 3, 8, 14,

15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24. In these schools, the ‘sign-in’ voters did not change the
outcome 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 votes
for charter schools in opposition to the choice of the ‘‘verified’’ categories. These
included PSCs # 1, 9, 11, 17, 19, 25, 26 and 28. PSC’s # 19 and 26 deserve special
attention 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 the
differences 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? If
students voted, were they more likely to vote with their parents or with the employees?
These analyses might reveal something about the relationships among the different
groups 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 teachers
and 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 a
diversity 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 appropriate
notification 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 the
community and non-’verified’ categories but the questions in the previous two
paragraphs cannot be answered by these data alone.
CONCLUSIO N
The Public School Choice Advisory Vote can be considered a success because voting
occurred as planned and useful data were collected in five categories. The advisory vote
process awakened these constituents to the impending changes in the governance
structure for these schools. Future attempts to assess public opinion should involve
adequate voter education, including an independent pro-/con- analysis of applications.
This is the single most important tool to empower eligible voters to act in their own best
interest. A longer planning period would be essential.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section, the League is providing a short list of recommendations which

may 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, educate
eligible voter about the applicant options, and train volunteers is necessary.
2. Eliminate the ‘community’ voting category until a definition can be accepted

that minimizes the abusive practices experienced at the few locations where
they were evident.
3. Make sure that at least one unbiased person speaks the appropriate language at
each voting center.
4. Provide the names of both parents/guardians on the eligible voter lists
5. Establish whether identification is required for voting in any category
6. Ensure voter education materials are distributed (the League heard reports that
many voters did not receive the intended materials).
7. Create a focused participation campaign at the feeder school level (many never
knew they were eligible to vote in the election).
8. Institute a one-vote:one-person voting protocol, regardless of the number of

children 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 of

children and youth in any opportunity which gives them an age appropriate
experience in a voting process; however, at some voting centers children were
engaged inappropriately.)
10. Create a separate ballot category for charter school, parochial school, and other
like voters.
11. Develop a more manageable protocol to allow ‘non-verified’ employees,

parents, and high school students (those without ID or whose name is not on the
list) to vote.

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 organized
lines of voters and that allow for private voting stations.
TES TIMONIALS 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.”
• “Thanks for creating a safe environment for voters to cast ballot.”
• “It was great that students were given the opportunity to voice their opinion and vote.”
• “League members and volunteers created and kept a very professional setting at the site.”
• “Appropriate actions were taken when guidelines were broken at the voting sites.”

II. Counting
• “We appreciate the League’s 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.”

Exhibit A PSC #1: Valley Region ES #10 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 1 – VRES #10 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Member APPLICANT: 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
900 841
776
800
700
600 Notable Data Characteristics: 84% of ballots
cast were from ‘sign-in’ categories. The
500
Verified Categories results would have been the same had only
400 345
298 ‘verified’ ballots been counted.
300
200 Sign-In Categories
100 11 14 29 (Community + Non-
4
0 Verified)
Local District 1 Ivy Academy #2 Magnolia Schools None of the Above
Prepared By: League of Women Voters of Los Angeles 12 February 2010

Exhibit B PSC #2: Valley Region ES #6 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 2-VRES #6 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
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
600
528
500
400 346 Verified Categories Notable Data Characteristics: The same

applicant was favored by all voter categories.
300
200
Sign-In Categories
100 (Community + Non-
13 13 0 4 3 14 Verified)
0
Local District 1 Youth Policy Aprende Team None of the Above
Institute

Exhibit C PSC #3: San Fernando MS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 3-San Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Fernando MS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories (Certified + Non-
Verified)
Youth Policy 21 25 5 11 47 12 121 62 59
Institute
San Fernando 91 64 7 26 285 16 489 188 301

Middle School
Collaborative
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
350
301
300
250
200 188
Verified Categories Notable Data Characteristics: The ‘sign-in’
150 categories overwhelmingly chose one
100 applicant whereas the ‘verified’ categories
62 59 Sign-In Categories were split between two applicants.
2 10
Verified)
0
Youth Policy Institute San Fernando Middle None of the Above
School Collaborative

Exhibit D PSC 4: Valley Region ES #7 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 4-VRES #7 Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories (Certified + Non-
Verified)
Youth Policy 1 7 0 0 0 0 8 8 0
Institute
Loz Feliz Charter 2 14 0 0 8 4 28 16 12
School for the Arts
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
600 534
500
400 364 Verified Categories
300
200 Notable Data Characteristics: The same
100 applicant was preferred by all voter
8 0 16 12 5 2 7 8 12 1 Sign-In Categories
(Community +
categories.
0
Non-Verified)
Youth Policy Loz Feliz Aprende Team Magnolia Local District 2 None of the
Institute Charter School Schools Above
for the Arts

Exhibit E PSC 5: Valley Region ES #9 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 5-VRES #9 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
Member APPLICANT: Categories 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
250
214
Verified Categories
200
150 134
Notable Data Characteristics: A greater
Sign-In Categories
100 (Community + Non- number of ballots were cast in the ‘verified’
Verified) categories than in the ‘sign-in’ categories; the
50 applicant choice was clear.
8 8 5 5 9 7
0
Youth Policy Local District 2 Magnolia Schools None of the Above
Institute

Exhibit F PSC 6: Valley Region ES #8 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 6-VRES #8 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Youth Policy 6 17 5 1 29 23 6
Institute
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
200
180 172 178
160
140
120 Verified Categories
100 Notable Data Characteristics: The ‘verified’
80 and ‘sign-in’ categories each provided about
Sign-In Categories half of the votes and the preferred
60 (Community + Non-Verified)
40
applicant was the same for all voter
23
9
categories.
20 6 6 5
0
0
Youth Policy Institute Local District 2 Aprende Team None of the Above

Exhibit G PSC 7: Hyde Park EL LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 7-Hyde Park EL Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
Member Red APPLICANT: CategoriesCategories
(Certified + Non-
Verified)
Hyde Park 51 131 46 18 246 182 64
Elementary School
Community - YES
Academy
Be the Change in 1 30 10 5 46 31 15
Education
Foundation
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
200 182
180
160
140
120 Notable Data Characteristics: Ballots cast in
Verified Categories the ‘verified’ categories outnumber those in
100
80 64 the ‘sign-in’ categories and a unified
60 Sign-In Categories preference was indicated.
40 31
15 15 (Community + Non-
20 12
Verified)
0
Hyde Park Elementary Be the Change in None of the Above
School Communtiy - Education Foundation
YES Academy

Exhibit H PSC 8: Hillcrest Dr. EL LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 8-Hillcrest Dr. EL Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
(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
300
263
250
218
200
Verified Categories Notable Data Characteristics: The same
150 applicant was preferred by all voter
Sign-In Categories (Community
categories.
100
+ Non-Verified)
50 37
15
0 5
0
ICEF Public Schools Hillcrest Uplifted None of the Above

Exhibit I PSC 9: Central Region ES #13 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 9-CRES #13 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Member APPLICANT: Categories (Certified + Non-Verified)
Expectations of 1 21 17 15 54 22 32
Education
Excellence
Crescendo Charter
Schools
Pio Pico 118 258 177 41 594 376 218
Community -- Local
District 3
Celerity Palamati 0 10 65 130 205 10 195
Charter School
TOTALS PER VC: 120 289 261 187

% PER VC: 14.00 33.72 30.46 21.82
400 376 Verified

350 Categories
300
250 218
200
Sign-In and ‘sign-in’ categories each provided about
150
Categories half the ballots cast, but the ‘sign-in’ ballots
100 (Community +
50 22 32 were split in their preference. The ‘verified’
10 1 3 Non-Verified)
0 categories preferred only one applicant.
Expectations of Education Pio Pico Community -- Celerity Palamati Charter None of the Above
Excellence Cresendo Local District 3 School
Charter Schools

Exhibit J PSC 10: Burbank MS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 10-Burbank MS Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Verified)
Science Technology English Arts 38 23 6 37 40 10 154 104 50
Mathematics (STEAM) 6th Grade
Academy
Luther Burbank Schools of 38 19 7 35 39 7 145 99 46
Humanities and Fine Arts
Environmental Studies Pilot 38 14 7 28 38 8 133 87 46
School
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
120
104
99
100
87

the ‘verified’ categories vastly outnumbered
60 those in the ‘sign-in’ categories. The
46 46 preference was almost equally distributed
40 34 between three candidates and the “none of
the above” category received a significant
20 number of votes.
12
Sign-In Categories
(Community + Non-
0 Verified)
Science Technology Luther Burbank Environmental None of the Above
English Arts Schools of Studies Pilot School
Mathmatics (STEAM) Humanities and Fine
6th Grade Academy Arts

Exhibit K PSC 11: Gratts PC LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 11-Gratts PC Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Para Los Ninos 2 10 0 0 166 145 323 12 311
Local District 45 404 0 0 705 51 1,205 449 756

#4/Gratts ES
None of the 1 0 0 0 6 1 8 1 7
Above
TOTALS PER VC: 48 414 0 0 877 197
% PER VC: 3.13 26.95 0.00 0.00 57.10 12.83
800 756
700
600
500 449 Notable Data Characteristics: The ‘sign-in’

categories outnumbered those in the
‘verified’ categories; however, one clear
311
300 preference was indicated.
200
Sign-In Categories
12 Verified)
1 7
0
Para Los Ninos Local District #4/Gratts ESNone of the Above

Exhibit L PSC 12: Garfield HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 12- Student Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
Garfield HS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Garfield High 709 209 183 18 74 596 469 2,258 1,193 1,065
School
Montebello 7 1 4 1 0 12 10 35 13 22
Unified School
District
None of the 0 1 0 1 2 8 5 17 4 13
Above
The following shows the number of votes, per category, marking these applicants as 'Acceptable'
Green 245 65 57 5 36 185 103 696 408 288
Architectural
Design
Academy --
Acceptable
Green 368 86 92 7 30 304 260 1,147 583 564
Architectural
Design
Academy --
Not
Acceptable
TOTALS PER 1,329 362 336 32 142 1,105 847
VC:
% PER VC: 32.00 8.72 8.09 0.77 3.42 26.61 20.39
TOTAL 4,153 4,153
VOTERS:
Charts on Following Page

Exhibit L PSC 12: Garfield HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
1,400
1,193
1,200 1,065
Whole School
1,000
800
600
Verified Categories
400
200 Sign-In Categories (Community + Non-
13 22 4 13
0 Verified)
Garfield High School Montebello Unified None of the Above
School District
Notable Data Characteristics: The Garfield HS applicant was a clear choice for the whole school.
700
600
583 564 Internal Academy
500
408
400
Verified Categories
288
300
200 Sign-In Categories (Community + Non-
Verified)
100
0
Green Architectural Design Green Architectural Design
Academy -- Acceptable Academy -- Not Acceptable
Notable Data Characteristics: There was a plurality against an internal academy.

Exhibit M PSC 13: Lincoln HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 13-Lincoln Student Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
HS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
The Lincoln 91 143 52 4 4 152 40 486 294 192
High School
Focus Team
None of the 46 10 4 2 5 5 6 78 67 11
Above
The following shows the number of votes, per category, marking these applicants as 'Acceptable'
Law, 52 27 19 2 4 50 19 173 104 69

Leadership in
Entertainment
& Media Arts
(LEMA)--
Acceptable
Law, 89 98 25 5 5 89 20 331 222 109
Leadership in
Entertainment
& Media Arts
(LEMA)-- Not
Acceptable
TOTALS PER 278 278 100 13 18 296 85
VC:
% PER VC: 26.03 26.03 9.36 1.22 1.69 27.72 7.96
TOTAL 1,068 1,068
VOTERS:
Charts on Following Page

Exhibit M PSC 13: Lincoln HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
350
300
294 Whole School
250
200
150
Sign-In Categories (Community + Non-
100 67 Verified)
50 11
0
The Lincoln High School Focus Team None of the Above
Notable Data Characteristics: The Lincoln HS applicant was a clear choice for the whole school.
250
222
200
Internal Academy
150
104
100
69
Sign-In Categories (Community + Non-
50 Verified)
0
Law, Leadership in Entertainment & Media Law, Leadership in Entertainment & Media
Arts (LEMA)-- Acceptable Arts (LEMA)-- Not Acceptable
Notable Data Characteristics: The verified categories were opposed to accepting an internal applicant.

Exhibit N PSC 14: Carver MS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 14-Carver Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
MS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Partnership for 7 17 9 32 98 33 196 65 131
Los Angeles
Schools
Carver Middle 127 69 2 27 551 79 855 225 630
School
None of the 0 0 0 3 11 6 20 3 17
Above
TOTALS PER VC: 134 86 11 62 660 118
% PER VC: 12.51 8.03 1.03 5.79 61.62 11.02
700
630
600
500 Notable Data Characteristics: Though the

‘sign-in’ categories cast a larger number of
400
Verified Categories ballots, preference for one applicant was very
300 strong in both ‘verified’ and ‘sign-in’
225 categories.
65 Verified)
100
3 17
0
Partnership for Los Angeles Carver Middle School None of the Above
Schools

Exhibit O PSC 15: Jefferson HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
Jefferson HS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Partnership 4 4 9 0 15 50 41 123 32 91
for Los
Angeles
Schools
Jefferson High 239 46 116 0 36 476 154 1,067 437 630
School
None of the 3 0 0 0 0 12 7 22 3 19
Above
TOTALS PER 246 50 125 0 51 538 202
VC:
% PER VC: 20.30 4.13 10.31 0.00 4.21 44.39 16.67
TOTAL 1,212 1,212
VOTERS:
700 630
600
Verified Categories
500 437
400 Notable Data Characteristics: Applicant
300 Sign-In Categories preference was consistent over all categories.
(Community + Non-
200
91 Verified)
100 32 19
3
0
Partnership for Los Angeles Jefferson High School None of the Above
Schools

Exhibit P PSC 16: Esteban E. Torres HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 16-Esteban Student Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Torres GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories (Community + Non-
Verified)
Esteban Torres Family of 33 15 23 15 64 129 165 444 150 294
Schools - Alliance for
College-Ready Schools (for
#1)
Schools - Alliance for
College-Ready Schools (for
#2)
Schools - The Design High
School
Schools - Green Dot Public
Schools (for #3)
Schools - Green Dot Public
Schools (for #4)
East Los Angeles Performing 578 129 141 29 208 767 483 2,335 1,085 1,250
Arts Academy (Suzanna
Guzman Academy of
Performing Arts
East Los Angeles 577 131 143 33 201 744 476 2,305 1,085 1,220
Renaissance Academy
Engineering & 590 126 148 34 207 758 484 2,347 1,105 1,242
Technology Academy
(Local District 5)
The Humanitas Art & 589 128 142 34 204 757 483 2,337 1,097 1,240
Technology Academy
Social Justice 571 131 143 33 203 757 481 2,319 1,081 1,238
Leadership Academy
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

Exhibit P PSC 16: Esteban E. Torres HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
1,400
1,250 1,242 1,240 1,238

1,220
1,200
1,085 1,085 1,105 1,097 1,081
1,000
800
600
411
400
294 284 289 272
200 150 136 146 148 136
13 19
0
Esteban Esteban Esteban Esteban Esteban East Los East Los Engineering & The Social Justice None of the
Torres Family Torres Family Torres Family Torres Family Torres Family Angeles Angeles Technology Humanitas Art Leadership Above
of Schools - of Schools - of Schools - of Schools - of Schools - Performing Renaissance Academy & Technology Academy
Alliance for Alliance for The Design Green Dot Green Dot Arts Academy Academy (Local District Academy
College-Ready College-Ready High School Public Schools Public Schools (Suzanna 5) Verified Categories
Schools (for Schools (for (for #3) (for #4) Guzman
#1) #2) Academy of
Performing Sign-In Categories
Arts (Community + Non-
Verified)
Notable Data Characteristics: Clearly 5 proposals were preferred over all others.

Exhibit Q PSC 17: Central Region #17 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 17-CRES #17 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Verified)
Celerity Orion 0 31 292 11 334 31 303
Charter School
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
350
303 303 296
300
250 Notable Data Characteristics: Although the

200 number of ballots cast in the ‘sign-in’
Verified Categories category outnumber those in the ‘verified’;
150 the ‘sign-in’ categories were split between
Sign-In Categories (Community + two applicants, whereas, the ‘verified’
100
Non-Verified) categories had one clear choice.
50 31
4 14
0
Celerity Orion Charter School Local District 5 None of the Above

Exhibit R PSC 18: Central Region ES #18 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 18-CRES #18 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Categories Sign-In
Member APPLICANT: Categories
(Certified + Non-
Verified)
Partnership For Los 0 21 32 7 60 21 39
Angeles Schools
Local District 5 92 183 204 47 526 275 251
Youth Policy 0 1 7 3 11 1 10
Institute
TOTALS PER VC: 92 209 259 58

% PER VC: 14.89 33.82 41.91 9.39
300 275
251 Verified
250
Categories
and ‘sign-in’ categories each provided about
150
Sign-In Categories half of the votes and a single applicant was
(Community +
100
Non-Verified)
preferred by both.
50 39
21 17
1 10 4
0
Partnership For Los Local District 5 Youth Policy Institute None of the Above
Angeles Schools

Exhibit S PSC 19: Central Region ES #16 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 19-CRES #16 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Categories Sign-In
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Celerity Cardinal 4 20 126 145 295 24 271
Charter School
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 31.26
300
271
200
Notable Data Characteristics: The large
number of ‘sign-in’ ballots cast outnumbered
125 and disagreed with those of the ‘verified’
(Community + Non-
Verified) voters.
100
70
50
24
4 5
0
Celerity Carninal Charter Local District 5 None of the Above
School

Exhibit T PSC 20: Maywood Academy HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
Maywood GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
Academy HS (Certified + Non-
Verified)
Maywood 77 36 35 6 11 79 65 309 165 144
Academy High
School
None of the 8 16 26 0 4 29 28 111 54 57
Above
TOTALS PER 85 52 61 6 15 108 93
VC:
% PER VC: 20.24 12.38 14.52 1.43 3.57 25.71 22.14
TOTAL 420 420
VOTERS:
180
165
160
144
140
120
Notable Data Characteristics: The choice here
was to support or oppose the local school.
80 30% of the ballots cast opposed the current
57 Sign-In Categories (Community +
60 54
Non-Verified)
school.
40
20
0
Maywood Academy High School None of the Above

Exhibit U PSC 21: South Region MS #2 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 21-SRMS #2 Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
SRMS #2 A
South Area Teacher 97 52 3 9 131 66 358 161 197
Collaborative & UTLA
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-In

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

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
250
250
197 SRMS #2 A
200 200
191 SRMS #2 B
161 160
150 150
100 Verified Categories 100 Verified Categories

50
50 15 19 7 6
3 6
8 6 Sign-In Categories Sign-In Categories
3 7 0
(Community + Non- (Community + Non-
0
Verified) Verified)
South Area Quest TeamNone of the
Teacher Above
Collaborative &
UTLA
250
192
200 160
150
SRMS #2 C
100
Verified Categories
50 9 9
3 6
0
Sign-In Categories
(Community + Non-
Verified)
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.

Exhibit V PSC 22: South Region ES #3 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 22-SRES #3 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Categories Sign-In
(Certified + Non-
Verified)
Celerity Sirius 2 26 36 22 86 28 58
Charter School
Bell/Cudahy 186 214 344 163 907 400 507
Partners in
Education
TOTALS PER VC: 192 248 394 190

% PER VC: 18.75 24.22 38.48 18.55
600
507
500
400
Verified Categories and ‘sign-in’ categories each provided about
300
half of the votes and the same applicant was
200 preferred by both.
Sign-In Categories
100 58 (Community + Non-
28 12 19
Verified)
0
Celerity Sirius Charter Bell/Cudahy Partners in None of the Above
School Education

Exhibit W PSC 23: South Region ES #4 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 23-SRES #4 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Aspire Public 1 16 68 11 96 17 79
Schools
Parent U-Turn 19 22 52 10 103 41 62
South Gate 29 88 192 49 358 117 241

Community for
Change
None of the 1 0 17 11 29 1 28
Above
TOTALS PER VC: 50 126 329 81
% PER VC: 8.53 21.50 56.14 13.82
300
241
250
200 Notable Data Characteristics: While opinion

150
Verified Categories favored one applicant, other applicants
117
received strong showings.
100 79
62
50 28 (Community + Non-Verified)
17
1
0
Aspire Public Parent U-Turn South Gate None of the Above
Schools Community for
Change

Exhibit X PSC 24: Griffith Joyner EL LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 24-Griffith Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Joyner EL Member APPLICANT: Categories (Certified + Non-
Verified)
Forefront 0 2 14 0 16 2 14
Educational
Group
Griffith-Joyner 97 417 758 5 1,277 514 763
Elementary
School
Partnership for 2 61 113 0 176 63 113
Los Angeles
School
None of the 1 1 5 0 7 2 5
Above
TOTALS PER VC: 100 481 890 5
% PER VC: 6.78 32.59 60.30 0.34
900
800 763
700 Verified Voters
600 514
400 the ‘sign-in’ categories outnumbered those in
300 Sign-In Voters the ‘verified’ categories; ultimately, one
(Community +
200 113 applicant was preferred by all voter
63 Non-Verified)
100 2 14 2 5 categories.
0
Forefront Educational Griffith-Joyner Partnership for Los None of the Above
Group Elementary School Angeles School

Exhibit Y PSC 25: Central Region #15 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 25-CRES #15 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Youth Policy 0 0 4 0 4 0 4
Institute
Local District 7 & 151 314 489 100 1,054 465 589
UTLA
Camino Nuevo 2 26 267 342 637 28 609
Charter
Academy
None of the 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Above
TOTALS PER VC: 153 341 760 442
% PER VC: 9.02 20.11 44.81 26.06
700
589 609
600
500 465
Verified Voters Notable Data Characteristics: The 30%
400
representation of ballots cast in the ‘verified’
300 categories showed a clear preference. The
200 ‘sign-in’ categories were split between two
applicants.
100 28 Sign-In Voters
0 4 1 0 (Community + Non-
0 Verified)
Youth Policy Local District 7 & Camino Nuevo None of the Above
Institute UTLA Charter Academy

Exhibit Z PSC 26: South Region MS #6 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 26-SRMS #6 Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Verified)
Expectations of Educational 0 9 1 1 51 18 80 11 69
Excellence Crescendo
Charter Schools
Celerity Octavia Charter 0 7 1 5 144 36 193 13 180
School
ICEF Public Schools 4 47 2 0 628 266 947 53 894
Local District 7 & Barack 192 100 1 9 246 240 788 302 486
Obama Global Preparation
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
1,000 894
900
800
700
600 486
500 Notable Data Characteristics: The data reports
400 302 a conflict in preferences between the ‘sign-in’
300 180
200 69 and ‘verified’ categories. The ‘sign-in’
11 13 53 11 26
100 categories overwhelm the ‘verified’
0
categories’ preference.
Expectations of Celerity Octavia ICEF Public Schools Local District 7 & None of the Above
Educational Charter School Barack Obama Global
Excellence Crescendo Preparation
Charter Schools Verified Voters
Sign-In Voters (Community + Non-

Verified)

Exhibit AA PSC 27: South Region ES #2 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 27-SRES #2 Employee Parent Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In Categories
Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories (Certified + Non-Verified)
Local District 7 127 341 151 19 638 468 170
Forefront Educational Group 0 2 19 0 21 2 19
Expectations of Educational Excellence 0 17 6 0 23 17 6
Crescendo Charter Schools
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
500 468
450
400
350 Notable Data Characteristics: Although many
300 Verified ballots cast in the ‘sign-in’ categories
Voters supported the charter school applicant,
250
205 ballots cast in the ‘verified’ categories
200 170
preferred the local district applicant by a large
150
margin.
100 Sign-In Voters
(Community
50 19 17 11 + Non-
2 6 0 5
0 Verified)
Local District 7 Forefront Expectations of Celerity Tenacia None of the Above
Educational Group Educational Charter School
Excellence
Crescendo Charter
Schools

Exhibit BB PSC 28: South Region ES #1 LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 28-SRES #1 Employee Parent Community Non-Verified TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
(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 0 9 13 17 39 9 30
Crescendo Charter Schools
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
250 237
200 Verified Voters

Notable Data Characteristics: Although many
ballots cast in the ‘sign-in’ categories
145 supported the charter school applicant,
150
ballots cast in the ‘verified’ categories
96 preferred the local district applicant by a large
100
Sign-In Voters margin.
(Community + Non-
50 30 Verified)
11 9
0 5 1 4 3 2 4 4
0

Exhibit CC PSC 29: Gardena HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
Gardena HS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
Gardena High 97 97 31 0 9 49 74 357 234 123
School
None of the 13 5 2 1 0 4 5 30 21 9
Above
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
250 234
200
Verified Voters
Notable Data Characteristics: A great majority
150 of ballots cast preferred the Gardena High
123 School applicant.
Sign-In Voters
(Community + Non-
100 Verified)
50
21
9
0
Gardena High School None of the Above

Exhibit DD PSC 30: San Pedro HS LAUSD Public School Choice Advisory Vote
PSC 30-San Student Employee Parent Feeder Feeder Community Non- TOTAL PER Verified Sign-In
Pedro HS GRADE School Member Verified APPLICANT: Categories Categories
(Certified +
Non-Verified)
San Pedro High 295 120 123 13 31 247 2 831 582 249
School
Community
None of the 32 4 9 0 0 15 0 60 45 15
Above
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
700
600 582
Verified Voters
500
Notable Data Characteristics: A great majority
400 of ballots cast preferred the San Pedro High
Sign-In Voters School applicant.
300 (Community +
249 Non-Verified)
200
100
45
15
0
San Pedro High School Community None of the Above

Exhibit EE Voting Categories
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
Feeder GRADE Parents (For high schools, the feeder grade is 8th grade and for middle school the feeder grade
4 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
Community Members – Persons seeking to participate in the process who are not otherwise eligible to vote in
6 the parent, employee, and high school student categories. Orange
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
7 will include parochial and charter parents.) Red

LWV LAUSD PSC Advisory Vote Final Report

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

LWV LAUSD PSC Advisory Vote Final Report

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS®

P R EPA R E D BY: NA NC Y A R NH E IM , R A QU E L BELTR A N,

The League of Women Voters of Los Angeles is a non-partisan organization devoted

LWVLA LAUSD PSC Election Report 2 2/12/2010

CASTING OF MULITPLE VOTES

RESULTS AND ANALYS IS

MORE ‘VERIFIED’ THAN ‘SIGN-IN’ BALLOTS CAST

MORE SIGN-IN THAN ‘VERIFIED’ VOTERS

LWVLA LAUSD PSC Election Report 4 2/12/2010

In this section, the League is providing a short list of recommendations which

AREAS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

2. Eliminate the ‘community’ voting category until a definition can be accepted

4. Provide the names of both parents/guardians on the eligible voter lists

5. Establish whether identification is required for voting in any category

8. Institute a one-vote:one-person voting protocol, regardless of the number of

9. Restrict voting by minors. (The League strongly promotes the engagement of

11. Develop a more manageable protocol to allow ‘non-verified’ employees,

LWVLA LAUSD PSC Election Report 6 2/12/2010

TES TIMONIALS RECEIVED FROM VOTERS AND

• “Thank you League of Women Voters for taking on this election.”

• “Election site was well-organized”

• “Great team work shown by election team”

• “Adequate security at sites was provided.”

• “Hotline phone service was helpful.”

• “Callers appreciated accurate and timely responses to questions.”

• “Thanks for creating a safe environment for voters to cast ballot.”

LWVLA LAUSD PSC Election Report 7 2/12/2010

• “The counters’ professionalism was noticed.”

• “Observers of the counting were accommodated.”

• “Verifiers stayed alert and watched for mistakes.”

LWVLA LAUSD PSC Election Report 8 2/12/2010

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

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

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

Youth Policy Institute 2 11 13 0 26 13 13

None of the Above 0 3 13 1 17 3 14

TOTALS PER VC: 105 257 517 42

400 346 Verified Categories Notable Data Characteristics: The same

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

San Fernando 91 64 7 26 285 16 489 188 301

TOTALS PER VC: 113 90 12 37 340 30

% PER VC: 18.17 14.47 1.93 5.95 54.66 4.82

TOTAL VOTERS: 622 622

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

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

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

Local District 2 97 117 109 25 348 214 134

None of the Above 4 5 4 3 16 9 7

TOTALS PER VC: 106 130 123 31

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

None of the Above 0 0 4 1 5 0 5

TOTALS PER VC: 104 100 169 26

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

TOTALS PER VC: 56 172 67 24

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

Hillcrest Uplifted 76 142 153 110 481 218 263

None of the Above 0 0 4 1 5 0 5

TOTALS PER VC: 77 156 180 125