A divided Los Angeles Unified School District board adopted a controversial policy on Tuesday, Feb. 13, limiting where charter schools can operate within the school district and further inflaming long-held tensions between advocates of traditional public schools and those who support charter schools.
In a 4-3 vote, the board approved a policy that will prevent charter schools from “co-locating” with, or sharing the same campus as, LAUSD sites that serve some of its most vulnerable students. They include campuses that are the lowest performing or that have the highest concentration of Black students, or “community schools” that serve many low-income families.
The policy will take effect starting with the 2025-26 school year and apply to new charter schools requesting space.
Under the policy, L.A. Unified will still have to offer district space to charter schools, as required by state law, but, according to the district, roughly 200 of the district’s 770 school buildings are now off limits. Earlier this school year, the district reported that there were 52 co-locations, 39 of which are on high-need campuses.
Existing charter schools already co-located on these campuses won’t automatically be kicked out, but the policy will apply if there’s a change to their current situation — including if a charter school requests additional space to accommodate more students or grade levels.
School board member Rocío Rivas, who, along with board President Jackie Goldberg, sponsored a resolution calling for the policy, said during Tuesday’s meeting that co-locations have resulted in schools losing space for computer labs, assessing special-needs students, counseling, art rooms, parent centers or other uses, and has led to tension between administrators, parents or students of the two schools that share campuses.
“This policy uplifts our values of protecting the safety and welfare of district students and charter school students, including the most fragile of fragile of our school communities,” Rivas said.
Tuesday’s vote was split, with school board members Scott Schmerelson and George McKenna voting along with Goldberg and Rivas to adopt the policy. Board members Nick Melvoin, Kelly Gonez and Tanya Ortiz Franklin objected.
Those who support the board’s policy say it’s unfair to ask schools that already serve the most vulnerable students to also share classrooms, playgrounds, cafeterias or other campus spaces. They say co-location places more burdens on administrators to coordinate schedules and compromises the quality of school programs or their ability to offer programs.
But advocates of charter schools say the school board’s latest decision is discriminatory.
Charter schools could end up being placed outside a neighborhood where many of their students live — or have their schools broken up into multiple sites. For months, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) had indicated that they’re prepared to sue L.A. Unified if the policy is adopted.
On Tuesday, an attorney for CCSA said that’s still the case.
Ricardo Soto, chief advocacy officer and general counsel for CCSA, said in an interview that CCSA believes the policy violates Proposition 39, which requires California school districts to provide “reasonably equivalent” facilities to charter schools that serve students who would otherwise attend a district school.
“This is a discriminatory policy that disadvantages and targets district students that attend charter schools,” Soto said.
“In California, we haven’t seen any district that’s … passed a policy that so blatantly violates Prop. 39, that says we’re going to protect any district school from co-location,” he added.
Rivas previously said the policy was legally vetted to ensure compliance with state laws.
Ahead of Tuesday’s board vote, United Teachers Los Angeles chapter chair Tanya Flores, who’s also a parent at Trinity Street Elementary School, said because of co-location at Trinity, one fifth-grade class was kicked out of the auditorium when it was time for charter students to use the facility.
“Our speech pathologist and our school psychologist, not to mention our coaches, were forced on a daily basis to look for a working space to serve our students’ needs – emotional and academic. Come on now,” she said, urging the board to adopt the policy.
Nick Melvoin said an analysis by district staff suggests that the policy could actually result in more co-locations, not fewer. With hundreds of campuses off the table when it comes time to consider co-location options, the limitation could create more challenges for district staff.
“This doesn’t solve anything,” Melvoin said. “This may placate some folks in the room, but next year we’ll have folks from 600 other schools back here with concerns because we’re not solving anything. We’re merely moving and enlarging challenges.”
Goldberg said the policy is an attempt to correct problems caused by Proposition 39.
“We’ll see if it works,” she said. “If it doesn’t, we’ll fix it again, and if it doesn’t we’ll fix it again.”