University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A descriptive study of the “hardware” of education: the relationship between zoning and schoolsites in the Los Angeles Unified School District

(USC Thesis Other)

A descriptive study of the “hardware” of education: the relationship between zoning and schoolsites in the Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 1

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE “HARDWARE” OF EDUCATION:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

By

Karen Hwang

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

DECEMBER 2017

Copyright 2017 Karen Hwang

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 2
Acknowledgements
For their overall contributions to this dissertation, I would like to thank several
individuals. To my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, thank you for sharing your
expertise, gracious feedback, imagination, and patience – not just during the dissertation process
but throughout my education at Rossier. Dr. Larry Picus, thank you for taking me on when even I
did not fully grasp where my data would lead and for your thoughtful feedback, which provided
valuable insight how to frame the study. Dr. Brianna Hinga, thank you for your continuous
support and critical effort to keep the dissertation train moving forward. I also thank Dr. Sylvia
Rousseau for being an early supporter of the inquiry presented here and for your excellent
teaching in Diversity class. Additionally, I express warm and hearty gratitude to my cohort,
concentration classmates, and dissertation group for their companionship, care, counsel, and
accountability throughout my USC education. Dylan, Peter, Steven, Stu, and Sue Jean – may
everyone around you see your excellence. Finally, to my loving family and way-back friends –
keep on keep on.
For their technical assistance with complex subject matters, thank you to Kelley Shim,
Sandy Han, Jason Gui, Dakurai Smith, Brian Carr, and Dr. Marlon Boarnet, and for being the
glue of dissertation operations, I thank Terri Thomas and Patrick Patterson.

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 3
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 8
Abstract 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 10
Preview of the Study 10
Background of the Study 11
Two Systems of American Government: Federal and State 11
Local Government 12
Urban Planning 12
School District Immunity 13
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Importance of the Study 15
Conceptual Framework: The Chain of Exclusion 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
American Government: Background 19
The U.S. Constitution and Federal Government 19
Demystifying the Constitution 19
Constitutional powers 20
State Government 20
The Tenth Amendment 20
The Tenth Amendment: historical underpinnings 21
Two major areas of reserved rights 21
Federal involvement in state matters 22
Local Government 22
Local government powers 23
Police powers 24
Summary 24
American Government and Education 25
The Rise of FAPE in America 25
State legislatures 25
FAPE and Federalism 26
The executive branch – the President 26
The legislative branch – the U.S. Congress 27
The judicial branch – the Supreme Court 27
Federalism and Land Grant Colleges 28
Colonial era 28
The Morrill Acts 28
Legacy 29
The Fourteenth Amendment: Impact on Education 29
Overview 30
Legislation 30
Race, color, or national origin 30
Sex 30
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 4
Ability 31
The Supreme Court 31
Brown v. Board of Education 31
De facto segregation 32
“Vestige” 32
Summary 33
California and FAPE 34
The California Department of Education 34
School Districts 35
Formation 35
Catchment areas 35
Local Government – County Boards of Education 35
Charter Schools 36
The Democratic Imperative 36
Commitment to Equal Education and Equitable Access to Education 37
Summary 38
Urban Planning: Background 38
Land Use Defined 38
Zoning Defined 39
Zoning Codes 39
Growth management 40
Land Use: Due Process 40
Constitutional requirements 40
Takings 41
Standard of Review 41
Summary 42
Urban Planning in California 43
State Level 43
The legislative branch 43
The executive branch 43
The judicial branch 44
Local Level – California Home Rule 44
Conformance with general plan 44
The County of Los Angeles 45
The General Plan for the County of Los Angeles 45
Incorporated cities in LA County 45
Special note on the City of Los Angeles 45
Summary 46
Urban Planning and Education in California 46
Shaped by California Courts 46
The legislative response to Hall and Atherton 47
Zoning exemptions and charter schools 47
The School Siting Approach in California 48
School district and urban planning collaboration 49
Charter School Schoolsites 50
School liability for charter schools 51
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 5
Financial oversight 52
Summary 52
Urban Planning: Exclusionary Origins 53
Historical Background 53
The validity of zoning 54
Post-Euclid 54
Suburban Birth: Garden Cities 55
More land 55
Schools 55
Automobiles 56
Suburban Rise: The Neighborhood Unit 56
Theoretical underpinnings of the neighborhood unit 57
Major criticisms of the neighborhood unit 58
The neighborhood unit and schools 60
Summary 60
Exclusionary Zoning 61
Whites’ Preference for Spatial Separation 61
Exclusionary Zoning 62
Density 63
Protecting Homeownership 65
Political Fragmentation 67
“Places don’t just happen” 67
“Places matter” 67
Places and anti-density zoning 68
The Lakewood Plan 68
Exclusionary Zoning and Education 69
The neighborhood effect on income mobility 69
Zoning and schoolsites 69
Inclusionary Housing 70
Summary 71
Learning Perspectives 72
The Physical Learning Environment 72
Cognitive Load Theory 72
Tri-archic load 73
Instructional design 73
Instructional design and cognitive overload 74
Advanced learning tasks 74
The redundancy effect 74
The split-attention effect 74
Effects of the Physical Environment on CLT 75
Noise: auditory and visual 76
Thermal condition 77
Indoor air quality 77
Summary 78
Purpose of the Study 79
Research Questions 79
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 6
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 81
Participants 81
Instrument and Data Collection 83
School Information 83
Population 83
Income 83
Housing Tenure 84
Zoning and Local Government 84
Procedure 86
Participant Identification and Sampling 86
IRB-Exempt Status 87
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 88
Analysis of Research Questions 88
Research Question 1: How many of the 1,245 LAUSD schools are within 88
each of the ten zoning classifications of the present study?
Research Question 2: Within the present study, how many are there of the 88
following?
a. LAUSD schoolsites in each local government? 88
b. LAUSD schoolsites in each applicable zip code? 89
c. District schoolsites located in each zoning classification? 90
d. Charter schoolsites located in each zoning classification? 91
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the following school 92
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. School Type? 92
b. Grade Level? 94
c. Local District? 96
d. Board District? 98
Research Question 4 What is the relationship between the following geographic 101
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. Local Governments? 101
b. Zip Codes? 106
Research Question 5 What is the relationship between the following population 108
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. Population? 108
b. Income? 111
Research Question 6: What is the relationship between the following housing 114
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. The number of total occupied housing units? 114
b. The number of owner-occupied housing units? 117
c. The number of renter-occupied housing units? 120
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 124
Principal Findings 124
Zoning Classifications Found in the LAUSD 124
Local Governments 125
Highest Number of Schoolsites 125
District and Charter Schoolsites 125
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 7
Grade Level 126
Local District 126
Board District 127
Population 127
Income 127
Housing Tenure 128
Implications 128
Limitations 129
Recommendations for Future Research 130
Conclusion 131
References 132

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 8
List of Tables

Table 1: Number and Percentage of LAUSD Schoolsites in Each Zoning Classification
(N = 1,245)
89

Table 2: Number and Percentage of LAUSD Schoolsites in Each Local Government (N =
1,245)
90

Table 3: Number and Percentage of Zip Codes Containing the Ten Highest Number of
LAUSD Schoolsites (N
a
= 565)
91

Table 4: Number and Percentage of District Schoolsites in Each Zoning Classification
and Percentage of District Schoolsites in Each Zoning Classification among the 1,245
LAUSD Schools (N
a
= 967)
92

Table 5: Number and Percentage of Charter Schoolsites in Each Zoning Classification
and Percentage of Charter Schoolsites in Each Zoning Classification among the 1,245
LAUSD Schools (N
a
= 278)
93

Table 6: Pearson Chi-Square Between School Type and Zoning Classification 94

Table 7: Pearson Chi-Square Between Grade Level and Zoning Classification 95

Table 8: Pearson Chi-Square Between Local District and Zoning Classification 97

Table 9: Pearson Chi-Square Between Board District and Zoning Classification 99

Table 10: Pearson Chi-Square Between Local Governments and Zoning Classification 102

Table 11: Pearson Chi-Square Between Zoning Classification and Zip Codes 107

Table 12: Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Population and Zoning
Classification
109

Table 13: Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Income and Zoning Classification 112

Table 14: Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Total Occupied Housing Units and
Zoning Classification
115

Table 15: Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Owner-Occupied Housing Units and
Zoning Classification
118

Table 16: Summary of Pearson Chi-Square Between Renter-Occupied Housing Units and
Zoning Classification
121

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 9
Abstract

The two most important services provided by local governments are education and land
use controls i.e., zoning. In general, the legal authority to ensure education is vested under state
law whereas zoning laws are derived from municipal legal authority, and so zoning laws do not
apply directly to school districts. However, zoning impacts education indirectly but crucially
because it strongly influences the student composition at schoolsites. This impact is not benign
and often the result of exclusionary zoning. Exclusionary zoning, anti-density zoning in
particular, operates to exclude perceived undesirables, which include minorities and
socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Instead, exclusionary zoning systematically
channels perceived undesirables into particular geographic areas, typically away from affluent
White residential neighborhoods. This herding effect of exclusionary zoning has a tendency to
restrict the access of minority and socially disadvantaged students to high-quality schools. Thus,
exclusionary zoning imperils codified California policy that all students have a right to equal
education and equitable access to education. The purpose of this descriptive study was to
investigate the relationship between zoning and schoolsites in the LAUSD. In particular, the
study looked at the zoning of schoolsites and characteristics of the population served by the
LAUSD and characteristics of the local governments where LAUSD schoolsites were found.
Though results from this study did not unequivocally confirm the presence of exclusionary
zoning throughout the LAUSD, several results aligned with features consistent with exclusionary
zoning, including the presence of political fragmentation, neighborhood units, anti-density
zoning regimes, and “secession of the successful”. Results also reveal numerous lines of inquiry
for future research.

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Education may be a major national issue, but the basis for public education is not found
in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the right to public education is granted by individual state
constitutions. Indeed, all fifty state constitutions provide for public education and call on their
state legislatures to enact laws that create state and local systems in support of public education.
Thus, from a government perspective, the fundamental character of public education is state and
local as an operation of law.
In California, the state constitution mandates free and appropriate education (FAPE) in
Article IX, § 1, which states “a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to
the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all
suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement”.
Various state laws work together to deliver FAPE to Californians, such as the California
Education and Government Codes. Thus, like all other states, California is the ultimate guarantor
of education in its territory; further, its state legislature is the primary custodian of public
education within the state, a fact which underlies the current study (Crouch, W. W., McHenry,
D.E., Bollens, J.C., & Scott, S., 1952; Hunter, n.d.; McGuinn, 2012).
Preview of the Study
This study sought to investigate the relationship between zoning and schoolsites in the
LAUSD. In particular, the study looked at the zoning of schoolsites and characteristics of the
population served by the LAUSD and characteristics of the local governments where LAUSD
schoolsites were found. By doing so, the study contributes additional insight into educational
governance, which is multidimensional and distributed among various government units.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 11
Background of the Study
Two Systems of American Government: Federal and State
Political power is not so centralized in the United States as it is in other nations (Hirt,
2015; Mandelker, D.R., Wegner, J., Griffith, J.C., Bond, K., & Tyson, C. J., 2014; U.S. Const.
annot., 2014). Rather, political power in the U.S. is distributed between two systems of
government – federal and state. The federal government operates solely according to the U.S.
Constitution, and states operate according to both the U.S. Constitution and their respective state
constitutions (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013; Mandelker et al., 2014). Additionally, just as the U.S.
Constitution establishes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of federal government,
so do state constitutions create three corollary branches on a state level (Mandelker et al., 2014).
While both federal and state governments work to promote the welfare of Americans, each
system of government has different powers and limitations that impact the scope and reach of its
actions (Mandelker et al., 2014).
Despite that states cannot undertake activities expressly forbidden to them by the U.S.
Constitution, states generally hold the power to legislate activity in their territories, (Dodd, 1919;
Natelson, 2003; Powell, 1986; Thomas, 2013; U.S. Const. annot., 2014). In addition, states also
possess reserved rights under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Reserved rights
refer to the additional rights state legislatures are able to grant state residents beyond the rights
found in the U.S. Constitution and which are not forbidden by it (Dodd, 1919). Two major areas
of reserved rights include education e.g., the right to FAPE, and family e.g., the rights to marry
and divorce (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). The U.S. Constitution does not forbid states from
legislating in these areas and is actually silent on both matters. Taken together, state governments
arguably have a greater daily impact on families and youth than does the federal government.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 12
Local Government
Local government is a central element of the state system of government and generally
refers to the “layer of government ‘closest to the people’” (Lewis & Neiman, 2009, p. 2). There
are five different types of local government: (a) counties, (b) municipalities, (c) towns, (d)
special districts, and (e) school districts (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations (ACIR), 1982). Counties, municipalities, and towns are considered “general-purpose”
governments: their functions promote the general health and welfare of residents (ACIR, 1982;
Crouch et al., 1952; Mandelker et al., 2014). The most important service provided by local
general-purpose governments is land use control, and land use controls are often cited as the
primary reason many residents form a municipality (Lewis & Neiman, 2009).
Special districts and school districts are considered “special-purpose” governments: their
functions are limited to only a few public services, if not a single one (ACIR, 1982; Crouch et
al., 1952; Mandelker et al., 2014). School districts are particularly important forms of
government because they carry out an essential state mandate set by the state’s constitution and
are universally found (Mandelker et al., 2014). In fact, FAPE is frequently looked upon as the
single most important activity of state and local governments (Brown vs. Board of Education,
1954). Thus, the two most important public services provided by local governments are land use
controls and FAPE.
Urban Planning
In general, urban planning refers to the system of managing and developing land. Land
use refers to the characterization and intensity of human activities on a parcel of land as well as
its level of human occupancy. Land use controls are the laws and regulations that govern land
use in the system of urban planning (Mandelker, 2003). Land use controls, namely zoning
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 13
regulations, are important because they ensure that human activities are matched with
appropriate geographic locations and that incompatible land uses are separated from each other.
For example, land use controls would designate zones where manufacturing is allowed and
typically prohibit a factory next to an apartment building in order to avoid exposing residents to
pollution caused by manufacturing.
Local governments can enact land use controls based on their general police power, and
land use controls are usually overseen by city officials such as city planners. In the County of
Los Angeles, land use controls are overseen by the Department of Regional Planning, which
reports to the Regional Planning Commission (RPC). In the City of Los Angeles, land use
controls are overseen by the Department of City Planning, and in other incorporated cities with
the county, they are overseen by their respective planning departments.
School District Immunity
Generally, state governments have immunity from local statutes. Additionally, the courts
have established that local governments have immunity from local zoning when they undertake
vital state functions, just as the state government would have immunity in the same situation
(Mandelker, 2003). Consequently, school districts are exempt from local zoning laws because
they, a special-purpose government, fulfill an important state function by providing education
(Mandelker, 2003). Essentially, courts have prioritized the constitutional imperative for states to
provide education over the police power of local governments to exclude schools where school
districts have determined that schools are needed (Mandelker, 2003). Courts have had to make
this determination because they found that local governments have used land use controls to
exclude schools from neighborhoods because “residential neighbors consider schools an
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 14
intrusive land use”, despite that schools must be located in or near the neighborhoods they serve
(Mandelker, 2003, p. 4-26).
Statement of the Problem
Zoning laws do not apply directly to school districts, but there exists an indirect but
important connection between school districts and zoning. School districts put schools close to
where people live, and where people live is frequently determined by zoning (Mandelker et al.,
2014; Rothwell & Massey, 2009). That zoning influences who lives where is important because
zoning is not a benign instrument. In fact, zoning and other land use controls are the most
effective tools to exclude perceived undesirables from particular residential neighborhoods
(Pendall, 2000). These perceived undesirables – minority groups and individuals with low
socioeconomic status – are instead herded into other geographic areas. The inequitable use of
zoning for exclusionary purposes poses a problem for school districts for several reasons: (a)
their catchment areas depend on the geography of student populations, (b) the geography of
student populations is impacted by exclusionary zoning, and (c) school districts have a vested
interest in equal education, equitable access to education, and social integration. Furthermore,
school districts carry out an essential state function, which takes precedence over zoning, a
function of general-purpose local governments and an exercise of police power, a fact which
presents schools districts with an opportunity to effectuate state policy using non-historical
means. Thus, the problem addressed by the present study is that local zoning laws may hinder the
efforts of the Los Angeles Unified School District by inappropriately contributing to inequities
that the school district seeks to overcome.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 15
Purpose of the Study
To address the problem, this study sought to investigate a foundational nexus point
between education and land use controls in the Los Angeles region: the zoning of schoolsites in
the Los Angeles Unified School District. This was a descriptive study that explored what was
occurring on the literal ground-level of schoolsites and commenced an inquiry whether the
zoning of schoolsites was linked to either characteristics of the population served by the LAUSD
or those of the local governments where LAUSD schoolsites were found.
Importance of the Study
Urban planning and education have a lot in common. They are both fundamentally state
and local issues, which were advanced considerably during the Progressive Era (Toll, 1969;
Wolf, 2008). In the following decades, urban planning and education systems have evolved
significantly and are now deeply entrenched in current forms of government. Now that a century
has passed since their modern roots, it is appropriate to reflect on how these two major systems
of state and local government have interacted with one another and what interdependencies exist.
According to Brewer and Smith (2008), it is well-recognized that educational governance
directly impacts the effectiveness of educational systems; however, there is little empirical data
that measures the relationship between educational governance and the effectiveness of
educational systems. Brewer and Smith described a three-dimensional scheme of educational
governance that focuses on the “what”, “who”, and “how” elements of important educational
functions, in that order (2008). This study, which framed its approach in the source documents of
legal authority, instead focused on the order “who” first, then “how”, and finally “what”. By
doing so, the study sought to uncover measurable ways distributed educational governance
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 16
influences educational systems, thereby contributing to existing literature and educational
effectiveness overall.
Approaching education from a “hardware” position is also fitting given the substantial
public funds devoted to facility construction, renovation, and management. The LAUSD is
responsible for over twenty-seven billion dollars in bonds designated for school facilities
(LAUSD, 2016b), and the differences among school facilities are an important element of school
inequality (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Indeed, school facilities have often been considered
elements of “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for
greatness” in a school (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, p. 493; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents, 1950; Sweatt v. Painter, 1950).
While many educational stakeholders are concerned with the “software” or human-based
issues of learning, it is vital that other resources pertaining to the physical learning environment
be examined to understand whether there are hardware-based issues that impede the goals of
FAPE. In essence, this study is the result of serial questioning: can any challenges in the LAUSD
be attributed to a hardware problem? Can hardware-based solutions address known challenges?
Is the growing charter school movement a response to a school hardware problem? Is the charter
school movement an appropriate mechanism to school siting issues? The answer to these
questions would require deep investigation beyond the scope of any one study. However, this
study proposes a launching point for such inquiries.
Conceptual Framework: The Chain of Exclusion
Exclusionary zoning is a phenomenon that occurs when land use controls are so
restrictive that low income groups and racial minorities are excluded (Mandelker, 2003). Local
governments use exclusionary zoning policies to steer low income and minority residents into
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 17
particular neighborhoods or to exclude them entirely (Pendall, 2000). There are several types of
exclusionary land use controls, which are chiefly a “suburban zoning problem” (Mandelker,
2003). For example, large-lot residential zoning requires land parcels to be of a certain size in
order to build a single-family unit (Mandelker, 2003). This type of zoning works against low
income groups because large lots cost more money to purchase and develop (Mandelker, 2003).
Similarly, prohibitions against multifamily housing do not favor low income groups who are
more likely to occupy multifamily housing (Mandelker, 2003). These type of land use controls
impact minority groups disproportionately and are thinly veiled efforts to disguise bias (Pendall,
2000).
There are many covert participants in the conspiracy of exclusion: real estate agents who
steer future homeowners to specific neighborhoods, financial institutions who discriminate
against minority homeownership, landlords who refuse to rent to families with young children,
and local governments that adopt exclusionary zoning policies (Pendall, 2000). The challenge of
toppling the conspiracy of exclusion is the fifty-year period between the adoption of
exclusionary land use controls in the Progressive era and the eventual civil rights movements that
combated discrimination including exclusionary zoning. During these decades, the separate
phenomena of the rise of the suburbs, automobiles, and urban decay worked to entrench
exclusionary zoning policies into the fabric of American cities (Banerjee & Baer, 1984). In
essence, land use controls have excluded minority groups over time by fostering residential
environments that appeal most strongly to non-Hispanic Whites and failing to accommodate
minority groups. Pendall called this “indirect connection between land use controls and racial
exclusion the ‘chain of exclusion’”, and the chain of exclusion vitally shifted segregation from
public space to residential areas. (2000, p. 138).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 18
Additionally, this study explored three interdependent systems: education, urban
planning, and American government. The most basic common denominator of all three systems
is that each can be traced back to specific legal authority. Thus, unlike that of most other
literature in the field, the framework of this inquiry placed a premium on the key writings of
legal authority for guidance. After all, legal structures comprise the archway through which all
activity must defensibly pass.

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This study explored multiple academic disciplines: (a) education, (b) urban planning, and
(c) American government. Each topic is like a tectonic plate, always in motion, endlessly
buffeted by the shifting of one another both horizontally and vertically. This study sought to
investigate where these plates collide and what are the after-effects of impact. This literature
review begins with the foundations of federal and state government directing K-12 public
education in America, then proceeds to urban planning frameworks influencing education, and
finally, concludes with principles of learning theory accounting for the impact of place on
learning design.
American Government: Background
The U.S. Constitution and Federal Government
Few American adults have actually read the Constitution (Maier, 2010). Thus, an
overview of the Constitution is provided here as a practical matter because it is frequently
referenced in the ordinary course of state and local government activities.
Demystifying the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land
(U.S. Const. art. VI). It is frequently called the “blueprint of America” because it sets forth the
comprehensive design of American government. Given the importance of government to
everyday life in America, the physical properties of the Constitution are surprisingly modest. It
was originally written on four pages of parchment measuring 28 3/4 inches by 23 5/8 inches, and
the actual text of the Constitution contains only 4,543 words (NARA, n.d.). Overall, the
Constitution consists of three parts: a preamble, seven articles, and twenty-seven amendments.
The net effect of these three parts is that the Constitution performs four overarching functions:
first, it organizes a national, or federal, government; second, it grants powers to the federal
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 20
government; third, it limits the powers of the federal government; and finally, it also limits the
powers of state governments (Dodd, 1919). The juxtaposition of the Constitution’s content
against its concision has given rise to much political and legal debate, divide, and decision
(Natelson, 2003; Powell, 1986).
Constitutional powers. The powers described in the U.S. Constitution are generally
placed in three different categories: enumerated, concurrent, and reserved (U.S. Const. annot.,
2014). These three powers are distributed among federal and state government. Enumerated
powers are those specifically granted to the federal government (Natelson, 2003; U.S. Const.
annot., 2014). For clarification, it is emphasized that state governments may not exercise
enumerated powers because the U.S. Constitution delegates these powers exclusively to a
specific branch of the federal government (Natelson, 2003; U.S. Const. annot., 2014).
Enumerated powers are also called express powers. Concurrent powers are those which both the
federal government and state governments may exercise at the same time. Reserved powers are
powers that belong to state government.
State Government
State governance and the mechanisms by which states are the “ensurers of ‘good’
government at both the state and local levels” originate in state constitutions (ACIR, 1982, p.
154).
The Tenth Amendment. Reserved powers are found in the Tenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.” Basically, rights neither granted to the U.S. Congress in Article I, § 10 nor
prohibited to states in Article I, § 8 are considered rights reserved to states (Dodd, 1919;
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 21
Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Reserved rights must also be allowed by a state’s own constitution
(Dodd, 1919; Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). The Tenth Amendment is particularly significant
because it sustains the rights of state governments, has served as a check against increasing
federalism over the course of American history, and has fundamentally shaped the relationship
between federal and state governments.
The Tenth Amendment: historical underpinnings. The U.S. Constitution took effect in
1788 (Maier, 2010). Nonetheless, states were long recognized beforehand, and the legal principle
that states have the power to legislate activity in their territories dates back to colonial times
(Dodd, 1919; Maier, 2010; Natelson, 2003; Powell, 1986; Thomas, 2013; U.S. Const. annot.,
2014). During the ratification process, state governments were concerned that the proposed
federal government could overreach its powers and become a danger to the republic of states and
the individual freedoms so recently hard won (Maier, 2010). In order to palliate concerns of the
antifederalist movement, the first ten amendments were officially ratified in 1791 (Maier, 2010;
U.S. Const. annot., 2014). The inclusion of the Tenth Amendment was based in part upon the
truism that “all is retained which has not been surrendered”, and it was a textual, legal
confirmation of states’ rights to legislate (Dodd, 1919; Natelson, 2003; Thomas, 2013; U.S.
Const. annot., 2014, p. 1751).
Two major areas of reserved rights. There are two major areas of human activity that
are reserved for the states. First, the Constitution is silent on the federal government’s role in
education. The federal government has no express constitutional authority to provide a national
system of common schools or FAPE. Consequently, the right to FAPE is an additional right of
the people granted by states (Hunter, n.d.; McGuinn, 2012). Put another way, FAPE is reserved
for the domain of state and local governments under the Tenth Amendment, and the role of the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 22
federal government in education is very limited (McGuinn, 2012; ED, n.d.; The White House,
n.d.). It should be noted that all states have exercised this right, albeit only in accordance with
their respective state laws (Crouch et al., 1952). Second, the Constitution is also silent on the role
of federal government in the family context. In essence, as a result of the Tenth Amendment, it
may be argued that state and local governments have a greater impact on families and young
people in their everyday lives more than the federal government does.
Federal involvement in state matters. Of course, the federal government can impact
education, family, and other rights granted by states through the ordinary course of federal
government operations. For example, the Supreme Court has impacted family rights through its
case decisions, and the U.S. Congress has impacted education by passing laws that provide
financial assistance to college students; but both these examples involve an express power of the
federal government, spending and legislative, respectively. Regardless, the federal government
has limited power to become otherwise involved in state or local matters and has no authority to
step into state or local matters directly (Mandelker et al., 2014). As a practical matter, there are
only three ways Congress can impact state and local matters directly: (a) its spending power
pursuant to Article I, § 8, cl. 1, (b) its power to regulate interstate commerce Article I, § 8, cl. 3,
and (c) its power to operationalize the 14
th
Amendment (Mandelker et al., 2014; Thomas, 2013).
Local Government
State legislatures grant local governments their powers through the state constitution or
other legislation (Mandelker et al., 2014). Local government is a central element of the state
system of government and generally refers to the “layer of government ‘closest to the people’”
(Lewis & Neiman, 2009, p. 2). There are five different types of local government: (a) counties,
(b) municipalities, (c) towns, (d) special districts, and (e) school districts (ACIR, 1982).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 23
Counties, municipalities, and towns are considered “general-purpose” governments: their
functions promote the general health and welfare of residents (ACIR, 1982; Crouch et al., 1952;
Mandelker et al., 2014). Of all forms of local government, municipalities provide the most
number of services and are responsible for the most expenditures (ACIR, 1982). One of the most
important services provided by local general-purpose governments is land use control, zoning
especially, and land use controls are often cited as the primary reason many residents form a
municipality (Lewis & Neiman, 2009).
Special districts and school districts are considered “special-purpose” governments: their
functions are limited to only a few public services, if not a single one (ACIR, 1982; Crouch et
al., 1952; Mandelker et al., 2014). Technically, school districts are a form of special district
(Crouch et al., 1952). However, school districts are distinguished from other special districts
because they are not limited to a specific geographic area and are found uniformly throughout
the state (Crouch et al., 1952). School districts are particularly important forms of government
because they carry out an essential state mandate set by the state’s constitution (Mandelker et al.,
2014). In fact, FAPE is frequently looked upon as the single most important activity of state and
local governments (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).
Local government powers. States vary in their local government schemes, which affects
the powers local governments may exercise (Mandelker, 2003). States follow either “Dillon’s
Rule” or “home rule” in their systems of local government (Peppin, 1941). Dillon’s Rule refers
to the legal scheme by which powers of local governments are not a broad delegation of powers
and originate in specific state legislation (Mandelker et al., 2014). Home rule refers to the broad
delegation of powers to municipalities by the state legislature with limited state interference
(Mandelker et al., 2014; Peppin, 1941). The premise behind home rule is that local matters are
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 24
best determined by local governments (Peppin, 1941). Whether a state follows Dillon’s Rule or
home rule is important because it determines whether state law or local law will prevail in case
of conflict (Mandelker et al., 2014; Peppin, 1941).
Police powers. Central to home rule is the legal concept of “police powers” (Mandelker,
2003; Wolf, 2008). The concept of police power is a legal concept distinct from the authority of
law enforcement. Police powers refer to a local government’s general authority to pass and
enforce laws over a wide range of local matters for the general public welfare (Crouch et al.,
1981). They are elastic and can be customized to meet the varying interests of different
communities (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). Significantly, the authority of local governments to enact
land use controls stems from their general police power (Crouch et al., 1981; Curtin & Talbert,
2005; Mandelker, 2003). It is a chief legal principle of local government that police powers
should not conflict with general laws passed by state legislatures (Curtin & Talbert, 2005).
Summary
American government is distributed among two systems: federal and state. State
governments may not exercise powers expressly conferred to the federal government by the U.S.
Constitution (Dodd, 1919; Natelson, 2003; Thomas, 2013; U.S. Const. annot., 2014, p. 1751).
State governments may, however, exercise its reserved rights under the Tenth Amendment. The
two major areas of reserved rights are family and education. State governments, via their
legislatures, can grant powers to local governments (Peppin, 1941). Local governments possess
police powers, which are shaped by schemes known as home rule or Dillon’s Rule (Mandelker,
2003). The federal government can become directly involved in state and local matters in one of
three ways: through its spending power, through the interstate commerce clause, or through
implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Mandelker, 2003). First establishing the general
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 25
systems of American governance is important to the current study because all education
governance must follow the boundaries set by the larger system of American governance as a
whole. Furthermore, these overarching systems dictate the political processes affecting the local
governments critical to educational governance.
American Government and Education
The Rise of FAPE in America
During the colonial period, education was typically viewed as a religious and not public
concern (ACIR, 1982). Once education was embraced as a public endeavor in the eighteenth
century, it was viewed as a state and not federal concern (ACIR, 1982). Throughout the
nineteenth century, all states enacted compulsory education laws (Imber, van Geel, Blokhuis, &
Feldman, 2014). One goal for establishing compulsory education was to ensure that children
would become educated citizens and maintain a democratic form of government (Imber et al.,
2014). Moreover, compulsory education would secure access to common knowledge and
opportunities for “social, economic, and civic participation” and would promote upward mobility
(Imber et al., 2014). During the Progressive era, compulsory education served to protect youth
from unlawful child labor (Imber et al., 2014). Interestingly, the school district was seen as the
most intimate form of political organization in rural areas, where, lacking amenities of town, the
schoolhouse was the community center for these regions (ACIR, 1982).
State legislatures. As the custodians of FAPE, state legislators have used legislation to
manage all aspects of public school operations (Crouch et al., 1952); fundamentally, state
lawmakers pass laws that create school districts and empower school officials to “raise taxes and
borrow money, to buy property, to construct buildings, to hire and fire teachers, to purchase
supplies, to prescribe the curriculum, and to discipline pupils” (Imber et al., 2014, p.1).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 26
Simultaneously, laws exist that prevent these powers from crossing constitutional boundaries
(Imber et al., 2014). In turn, school boards may create their own regulations so long as they are
consistent with the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, and state legislation (Imber et al.,
2014). It is verboten that school boards would ever exceed the authority of their state legislatures
(Imber et al., 2014).
FAPE and Federalism
Despite that the essential character FAPE is state and local, the federal government has
considerable power to shape education through policy, incentives, and accountability (Gamkhar
& Pickerill, 2011; Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Federalism is a well-recognized principle of
constitutional law, and it refers to the activities of the federal government authorized by both the
U.S. Constitution, especially the Supreme Court (Thomas, 2013; U.S. Const. annot., 2014).
Again, while education falls under reserved rights of the Tenth Amendment, the federal
government can influence education in the ordinary exercise of its express powers, which is
perfectly legal. From an extended viewpoint, federalism can also refer to the increasing reach of
the federal government in areas historically reserved for the states, which can diminish a state’s
authority to legislate the area (Dodd, 1919; Louk, 2016; McGuinn, 2012; Thomas, 2013; U.S.
Const. annot., 2014).
The executive branch – the President. The federal government affects education in
several ways through the executive branch (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2011; McGuinn, 2012). First, a
president can set education on the national agenda, putting education in the national spotlight
(Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2011; McGuinn, 2012). Second, the U.S. Department of Education, part
of the president’s cabinet, works to accomplish mandates established by the executive branch: to
administer federal financial aid for education, to collect data on America’s schools, and to
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 27
complement efforts in education by state and local governments, parents, and students (Gamkhar
& Pickerill, 2011; White House, n.d.). Third, the president can lead initiatives such as the Race
to the Top, which is a grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Education
(McGuinn, 2012; ED, n.d.). There is also another unique avenue of support that only the
president can utilize in support of education policy: executive orders. For example, John F.
Kennedy issued Executive Order 11118 which authorized the Secretary of Defense to utilize the
U.S. Armed Forces to ensure that Birmingham schools would integrate in spite of the governor’s
attempt to forcibly block integration attempts (1963). Thus, executive orders are important tools
for enforcement and accountability purposes and clearly demonstrate the importance of the
executive branch to accomplishing federal policy goals.
The legislative branch – the U.S. Congress. Ordinarily, the federal government cannot
commandeer state legislatures (U.S. v. Morrison, 2000). Instead, the U.S. Congress can use its
Article I spending power to pass grant legislation that incentivizes states to align their activities
with federal objectives. Federal grant legislation refers to laws that offer federal financial
assistance in exchange for compliance with grant requirements – classic “power of the purse” or
incentivizing (McGuinn, 2012). Federal grant legislation is generally considered the most
efficient federal pathway to impact education (McGuinn, 2012). These laws require state and
local governments to opt in to federal programs established by grant legislation, and budget
shortfalls and other financial pressures often lead state and local governments to do so. The
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015 during the Obama administration is an
example of federal grant legislation (ED, 2015).
The judicial branch – the Supreme Court. Judicial review occurs when a case has been
brought before a court of law for a determination of rights. It is the legal mechanism that
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 28
determines whether an activity conforms to the U.S. Constitution (Eckes, 2015; Marbury v.
Madison, 1803). The Supreme Court can extend federal reach into reserved powers, including
education, through the process of judicial review (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Basically, the
Supreme Court can utilize judicial review not only of federal law but also of state law (Marbury
v. Madison, 1803; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1816). Once the Supreme Court has ruled on a
matter stemming from state and local action, state and local governments must abide by the
ruling or be subject to federal enforcement, such as an executive order. Consequently, the
Supreme Court has significantly shaped the relationship silhouette of state and federal
government through case law (Dodd, 1919; Thomas, 2013; U.S. Const. annot., 2014).
Federalism and Land Grant Colleges
Federal land policies of the past have crucially advanced education and equity in America
and are considered some of the federal government’s most important contributions to education
(Harris & Worthen, 2004; Johnson, 1981).
Colonial era. Ten years after the settlement of Jamestown in 1608, colonists undertook
plans to establish the new world’s first college and set aside colonial lands for this purpose
(Johnson, 1981). Despite that a Native-American uprising delayed the eventual creation of the
College of William and Mary, thus began the relationship between education and land use in
America. Throughout the colonial period, public lands were gifted to private institutions of
higher education, including to Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth (Johnson, 1981). These gifts, or
grants, established a long-standing tradition in America of tying federal lands, funds, and other
resources with education (Harris & Worthen, 2004; Johnson, 1981).
The Morrill Acts. After the rise of the new nation, the Morrill Act of 1862 established
other institutions of higher education through grants of public lands (Harris & Worthen, 2004;
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 29
Johnson, 1981). These institutions were intended to provide an education in agriculture and
industrial work (Harris & Worthen, 2004). The effect of the Morrill Act has been great. There
are land grant universities in every state (Johnson, 1981). These institutions have served as
access points to education and bolstered social promotion and mobility throughout American
history (Johnson, 1981). The act of 1862 also gave rise to a second land grant act, the Morrill-
McComas Act of 1890, which created land grant colleges for African-Americans (Harris &
Worthen, 2004). These land grant acts represented the commitment of the federal government,
from the days of the new nation, to a national education policy.
Legacy. Through this early national education policy, the federal government was able to
extend its reach into increasingly new frontiers of western exploration in addition to supporting
scientific and economic endeavors (Johnson, 1981). State governments eagerly supported land
grant colleges and the conditions of their establishment which were established by federal policy
(Johnson, 1981). Federal funds were considered a “munificent grant”, “a handsome endowment”,
“a permanent fund”, and a “bounty of the national government” (Johnson, 1981). Harris and
Worthen (2004) assert that the establishment of land grant colleges for African-Americans also
birthed issues of educational equity, especially regarding funding formulas.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Impact on Education
State and federal courts serve three important functions for educational systems: (a) they
apply constitutional provisions, laws, and regulations to individual cases, (b) they determine
whether constitutional provisions, laws, and regulations are valid under the U.S. Constitution and
state constitutions, and (c) they record official interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, state
constitutions, laws, regulations, and common law for subsequent legislation and policy (Imber et
al., 2014). The most important legal cases in education law have derived from First Amendment
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 30
protections of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, Fourth Amendment safeguards against
unreasonable search and seizure, and Fourteenth Amendment mandates for due process and
equal protection (Imber et al., 2014).
Overview. The Fourteenth Amendment defines and grants the rights of citizenship (U.S.
Congress, 2014; U.S. Const. annot., 2014). The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment can be found at the end of Section 1: no state shall “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. In layperson’s terms, the equal protection clause
forbids states from applying its laws in a discriminatory or unequal fashion. The impact of these
fourteen words on American history has been dramatic: this clause has served as the basis for
much legislation and many key Supreme Court rulings affecting civil rights. It is vital to note
that the equal protection clause does not forbid discriminatory conduct, no matter how
despicable, by purely private parties (Thomas, 2013; U.S. Congress, 2014; U.S. v. Morrison,
2000). Conduct by private parties is deemed “private action”, and conduct by government is
deemed “state action” (Thomas, 2013; Mandelker, 2003). Any legal claim asserting a Fourteenth
Amendment violation must involve a state, or government, action.
Legislation. In order to implement the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has passed
several laws that impact education on the state and local level.
Race, color, or national origin. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that
receives federal funds (ED, 2009). It should be noted that racial harassment, denial of language
services to English learners, and school segregation are examples of discrimination under Title
VI.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 31
Sex. With respect to sex discrimination, Title IX of the Education Amendments prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex in any program or activity that receives federal funds.
Ability. With respect to students with disabilities, the federal government has three major
laws that work together to prohibit discrimination and foster inclusion. First, Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by
local and state governments, which includes the provision of FAPE (ED, 2009). Second, the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is a grant statute that provides federal funding for
qualifying special education programs meeting the needs of students with disabilities (Eckes,
2015; ED, 2009). Third, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability in any program or activity receiving federal funds (ED, 2009).
The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made numerous historic decisions that
have impacted education. Perhaps the most important decision affecting land use and education
is Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that
separate educational facilities are inherently unequal in the historic Brown v. Board of Education
decision. This ruling overturned the “separate but equal doctrine” established by Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896). In its holding, the court stated that segregation impedes educational and mental
development for African-American children, deprives them of benefits they would receive in an
integrated school, and has no place in public education (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).
The court also emphasized that education is the most important function of state and local
governments and critically important to America’s democratic society.
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.
Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 32
demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It
is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in
the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal
instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later
professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these
days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is
denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has
undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms
(Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, p. 493).
Further, the court has often recognized the intangible considerations of education and that
segregated schools lack “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which
make for greatness” in a school (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, p. 493; McLaurin v.
Oklahoma State Regents, 1950; Sweatt v. Painter, 1950).
De facto segregation. De jure segregation results from intentional state action directed
specifically to the segregated school (Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995). Without a purpose or intent to
segregate, a school’s racial isolation is considered de facto segregation Missouri v. Jenkins,
1995). It should be noted that racial isolation on its own is not considered a harmful condition;
instead, only when state-enforced segregation exists must racial isolation be remediated
(Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995). Significantly, Justice Thomas cited voluntary housing choices or
other private decisions as contributing factors to racial isolation in a de facto setting (Missouri v.
Jenkins, 1995).
“Vestige”. Justice Thomas proceeded to offer that the court’s remedial authority in
school segregation cases can only extend to “vestige” claims i.e., that de facto segregation is a
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 33
vestige of de jure segregation: “the vestiges of segregation that are the concern of law in a school
case may be subtle and intangible but nonetheless they must be so real that they have a causal
link to the de jure violation being remedied” (Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995, p. 114). Furthermore,
Justice Thomas wrote that, “when a district court holds the State liable for discrimination almost
30 years after the last official state action, it must do more than show that there are schools with
high black populations or low test scores” (Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995, p. 114). He goes on to
state that the Constitution does not prevent individuals from “choosing to live together, to work
together, or to end their children to school together, so long as the State does not interfere with
their choices on the basis of race” (Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995, p. 121). Justice Thomas expressly
resists the notion that “any school that is black is inferior, and that blacks cannot succeed without
the benefit of the company of whites” (Missouri v. Jenkins, 1995, p. 121). Justice Thomas
disagreed with the theory that racial isolation is harmful because it implies that “segregation
injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve” (Missouri v. Jenkins,
1995, p. 122).
Summary
Historically, education has always been considered a state matter (ACIR, 1982). State
legislatures are the custodians of public education (Crouch et al., 1952). Still, federal activities
have influenced public education (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). The federal government critically
advanced education and equity in America by funding educational initiatives with grants of land,
particularly in the nineteenth century (Harris & Worthen, 2004). Additionally, the Fourteenth
Amendment remains a potent factor in education (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Much federal
legislation to implement the Fourteenth Amendment affects how states provide public education
to historically disadvantaged groups. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) critically impacted the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 34
place of education. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that the
court’s remedial authority can only apply where de facto segregation is a vestige of de jure
segregation i.e., state-enforced segregation, and not where private voluntary choices have been
made. Understanding the meeting points between the federal and state governments is vital to
understanding the impact of federalism on state-mandated education and how the federal
government has significantly advanced education on a national level. Consequently, this
background informs the implications and significance of the current study.
California and FAPE
FAPE was established by Article IX of the California Constitution, which also
established numerous other supports for FAPE. Most importantly, it vests authority over
education in the state legislature (CA Const. art IX, § 1). The state legislature occupies the field
of education (Town of Atherton v. Superior Court, 1958), for education in California is a matter
of statewide concern (Hall v. City of Taft, 1956). The state legislature can, however, grant
powers and duties related to education to local governments via the state constitution or other
legislation (Town of Atherton v. Superior Court, 1958). Regardless, wherever local government
regulations conflict with state law, state law must prevail (Town of Atherton v. Superior Court,
1958).
The California Department of Education
The state legislature established a State Department of Education (CDE) to oversee the
provision of FAPE (Educ. Code § 33300). The CDE is administered by both the California State
Board of Education (SBE) and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Educ. Code § 33301).
The SBE is the governing and policy determining body of the California Department of
Education (Educ. Code § 33301). The Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is also called
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 35
the Director of Education, is the head of the CDE, and all executive and administrative functions
of the department are vested in this position (Educ. Code § 33301; Educ. Code § 33305). The
Superintendent of Public Instruction must execute the policies set by the SBE (Educ. Code §
33111).
School Districts
Formation. The state legislature has the authority to incorporate and organize school
districts (CA Const. art. IX, § 14; Educ. Code § 14000; Gov’t. Code § 58030). All K-12 FAPE in
California is administered by school districts (Crouch et al., 1981). Strictly speaking, school
districts are a type of special district (ACIR, 1982; Crouch et al., 1952; Mandelker et al., 2014),
and in California, they are formed upon petition (Gov’t. Code § 58030). School districts are
overseen by either a board of school trustees or a board of education (Educ. Code § 35010). This
governing board is made up of members voted into their positions by voters in the district’s
territory (Educ. Code § 35012).
Catchment areas. School districts lack general police powers (Crouch et al., 1981);
rather, school districts are tasked with one specific purpose – to provide local control of a state
function (CDE, 2017; Kemerer & Sansom, 2013; Mandelker, 2003; Mandelker, Brown, Meck,
Merriam, Salsich, Stroud, & Tappendorf, 2016). An important function that school districts
perform is establishing district boundaries and identifying school catchment areas based on
students’ residence (CDE, 2017).
Local Government – County Boards of Education
Counties may create a county board of education pursuant to their charter (CA Const. art.
IX, § 3.3), and the state legislature sets forth how members of county boards of education are to
be elected or appointed (CA Const. art. IX, § 7). Further, counties may install a county
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 36
superintendent (CA Const. art. IX, § 3). County boards of education and county superintendents
are considered school districts for purposes of Educ. Code § 35160, called the “permissive code”
and which provides a broad grant of powers to school districts. However, county boards of
education retain their local character and cannot assert powers equal to that of the state regarding
education (San Jose Unified School District v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 2017). If
counties do create a board of education or install a superintendent, they are required to undertake
certain administrative and management duties according to both the state constitution and the
Educ. Code. At the same time, the Educ. Code states, “The powers and duties of boards of
education in cities are as prescribed in the laws governing the respective cities, except as
otherwise provided by this code. (§ 35175). According to the ruling in San Jose, the state has
firmly preempted the field of education, and so this statute does nothing to undermine state
preemption; however, it does limit the immunities of boards of education as state agencies.
Charter Schools
Charter schools are permissible in California (Educ. Code § 47605). Charter school
petitions are first submitted to the governing board of the school district where it wishes to form
(Educ. Code § 47605). If the petition is denied, then the petition may be submitted to the county
board of education (Educ. Code § 47605). If the second petition is denied, then the petition may
be submitted a third time to the state board of education (Educ. Code § 47605). Once formed,
charter schools must comply with the same laws governing district schools (Educ. Code §
47605(c)(1)).
The Democratic Imperative
California openly recognizes that education is vital to a thriving democracy. Article IX, §
1 of the California Constitution, mandates FAPE on the basis that it is “essential to the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 37
preservation of the rights and liberties of the people”. This type of constitutional language on the
state level is often called the democratic imperative of education, and not all state constitutions
include it in the provision of FAPE (Hunter, n.d.). That this language exists in California is one
way that the state utilizes reserved powers and customizes them for activities in its territory. This
democratic imperative is also embodied in current California content standards for history-social
science, which prioritize learning that conveys “the rights and obligations of citizenship” (CDE,
2000, p. v). Additionally, the California Education Code § 44335 requires demonstrated
competence of “the provisions and principles of the U.S. Constitution” in order to receive a
teaching credential in California. To deliver and administer the constitutional mandate for FAPE,
the state legislature enacted the Education Code.
Commitment to Equal Education and Equitable Access to Education
Equal education and equitable access to education are not abstract notions; they are actual
legal policy found in the California Education Code. The Educ. Code states the following:
It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless
of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the
definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and
opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to
prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor (§ 200).
The Educ. Code goes on to state that “All pupils have the right to participate fully in the
educational process, free from discrimination and harassment” (§ 201). Additionally, there are
several provisions of the Educ. Code that direct each public school to undertake activities to
prohibit discrimination on school grounds and to remediate discrimination where it is found.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 38
Summary
The California Constitution mandates FAPE throughout the state (art. IX). FAPE is
overseen by the State Department of Education, which is administered by both the State Board of
Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Educ. Code § 33301). The state
legislature provides for the formation of school districts (San Jose Unified School District v.
Santa Clara County Office of Education, 2017). Local governments may also participate in
FAPE. Counties may create both a county board of education and an office of the County
Superintendent (CA Const. art. IX §§ 3-3.3). California also permits charter schools (Educ. Code
§ 47605), and charter schools must comply with the same regulations as district schools (Educ.
Code § 47605(c)(1)). Part of FAPE’s mission in California is to bolster the democratic process in
the state (CA Const. art. IX, § 1). In addition, it is the policy of the State of California, as set
forth by the State Board of Education, that FAPE in California is committed to equal education
and equitable access to education (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Because this study investigated
land use and schoolsites in California, it is necessary to understand what the key elements of
educational governance, which are central to this study, look like on the state level.
Urban Planning: Background
Land Use Defined
Land use refers to the management, regulation, and planning of human activities and
future development on a piece of land (Wolf, 2008). How land is used depends on an intricate
“set of social, economic, and physical forces” (Mandelker et al., 2016, p.1). Since the turn of the
twentieth century, land use has become the province of professional urban planners. Land use
controls refer to the federal, state, and local laws that regulate and direct land use. Despite that
federal and state laws can impact land use controls, land use is largely a local matter (Mandelker,
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 39
2003; Wolf, 2008). The most common type of land use control is the zoning code as adopted by
local governments (Wolf, 2008).
Zoning Defined
Zoning refers to the legal classification of land that indicates what activities may occur
there. Historically, there are three standard land use categories, or zoning classifications:
residential, commercial, and industrial (Mandelker, 2003). Residential zones are areas where
people dwell. Commercial zones are areas where people conduct business, such as retail or
professional services. Industrial zones are areas where people undertake activities that are
demanding on the physical environment, such as manufacturing. Other zoning classifications
typically include agriculture, open space, or public facilities. There are also variations within
zoning classifications. For example, residential zoning may be further divided into single family
or multifamily districts, and industrial zoning, into light manufacturing or heavy manufacturing
districts. Zoning is established by zoning codes.
Zoning Codes
Arguably, the most important land use control is the zoning code (Curtin & Talbert,
2005; Mandelker, 2003; Wolf, 2008). Zoning codes divide cities into districts and identify what
land uses are allowed in these districts (Mandelker, 2003). Typically, zoning codes consist of
both text and a map in order to indicate physical location of different zoning districts
(Mandelker, 2003). Zoning code text describes various land uses, define the zoning districts
where each is allowed, and establishes the administrative, supervisory, and enforcement
procedures in connection with land use (Mandelker, 2003). Zoning code maps visually portray
and identify the geographic locations of zoning districts. Zoning codes have become more
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 40
intricate as American cities have grown, and regulations of additional site characteristics such as
height, volume, and density are commonly included (Mandelker, 2003; Toll, 1969).
Growth management. Zoning codes are important tools for city planners to manage
growth so that public services and works can keep pace with a city’s changing landscape
(Mandelker, 2003). Growth management policies are set years in advance based on a wide
variety of data such as census information, economic forecasts, and population trends
(Mandelker, 2003). With this data, city planners can implement growth management programs
that accomplish several functions, including to establish a timeline of new development, set
quotas on new development, and identify boundaries where development may occur (Mandelker,
2003). An important growth management technique is to limit new development until sufficient
public facilities and infrastructure are planned (Mandelker, 2003). Further, city planners can
utilize land use controls to limit development on land set aside for specific purposes such as
highways, parks, and other public facilities (Mandelker, 2003). When new residential
subdivisions are created, developers may be required to provide land without compensation for
public purposes such as streets, parks, or schools (Callies, Curtin, & Tappendorf, 2003;
Mandelker, 2003).
Land Use: Due Process
Constitutional requirements. Zoning codes and other land use controls must conform
with constitutional requirements of substantive and procedural due process (Curtin & Talbert,
2005; Mandelker, 2003; Mandelker et al., 2014). The requirement of due process by federal
government is established in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that
“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The requirement of due
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 41
process is further extended on a state level by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, which reads, “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law...”
A land use ordinance follows substantive due process if it “advances a legitimate
governmental purpose” (Mandelker, 2003, p. 102). A land use ordinance follows procedural due
process if it is fairly applied (Mandelker, 2003). A law must meet both substantive and
procedural due process requirements to be valid (Eckes, 2015; Kemerer & Sansom, 2013;
Mandelker, 2003). Courts will determine whether substantive and procedural due process was
followed only after a party files a lawsuit (Curtin & Talbert, 2005; Mandelker, 2003).
Takings. Modern land use litigation primarily stems from the formation of zoning
districts – how zoning codes classify land (Mandelker, 2003). When a landowner believes that
zoning laws interfere with the landowner’s reasonable use of the land, then it is alleged that a
taking of property has occurred (Mandelker, 2003). To determine whether a land regulation
constitutes a taking, the courts will frequently compare a property owner’s land use to nearby
uses (Curtin & Talbert, 2005; Mandelker, 2003).
Standard of review. Historically, state courts have resolved land use disputes, but
federal courts have become increasingly active in land use claims, and the Supreme Court has
continued to take on more takings cases (Mandelker, 2003). The standard of review used by any
court depends on the harm alleged. If the lawsuit involves a mere economic interest in the land
then the court will apply a relaxed standard (Mandelker, 2003). So long as land use controls
advance a legitimate governmental purpose, the court will hold that land use controls satisfy
substantive due process (Curtin & Talbert, 2005; Mandelker, 2003). Legitimate governmental
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 42
purposes are broadly interpreted and include zoning that separates incompatible uses, maintains
historic preservation, supports open space, and establishes aesthetic controls (Mandelker, 2003).
However, if the lawsuit is based on an equal protection claim involving fundamental
constitutional rights, then the court will apply a more heightened standard of review of due
process (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013; Mandelker, 2003). Courts have also used stricter review of
substantive due process to invalidate exclusionary zoning on equal protection grounds.
Exclusionary zoning occurs when land use controls adopt methods that restrict the presence of
perceived undesirables (Mandelker, 2003).
Summary
Land use and zoning are not common topics in education. However, due to the
interdisciplinary nature of the study, an elementary grasp of land use and zoning is essential.
Land use refers to the management, regulation, and planning of human activities and future
development of land (Wolf, 2008). Land use controls are the regulatory schemes adopted by
governments to regulate and direct land use. Land use is generally considered a local matter
(Curtin & Talbert, 2005; Mandelker, 2003; Wolf, 2008). Zoning is the legal classification of land
that indicates what type of activities may occur there (Mandelker, 2003). Zoning codes are the
most important land use control (Curtin & Talbert, 2005; Mandelker, 2003; Wolf, 2008). Zoning
codes must meet constitutional requirements of substantive and procedural due process (Curtin &
Talbert, 2005; Mandelker, 2003). The courts have frequently set aside zoning ordinances on the
basis of substantive due process, especially in cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment
(Mandelker, 2003; Mandelker et al., 2014).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 43
Urban Planning in California
State Level
Urban planning is not so developed on a state level as other fields, such as education. The
California Constitution makes reference to the development of territorial lands but grants no
explicit powers regarding urban planning. Nonetheless, the three branches of California
undertake land use and planning activities through the ordinary exercise of their constitutional
powers.
The legislative branch. Planning and zoning laws are found in multiple pieces of state
legislation. Major state planning and zoning law can be found in the California Government
Code (Gov’t. Code) §§ 65000-66037. The Subdivision Map Act is also a major piece of planning
and zoning legislation (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). Additional regulations may be found in
numerous other general state laws, including the Educ. Code, Public Resources Code, and the
Streets and Highways Code. The California Legislature also established the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) in Gov’t. Code § 65037.
The executive branch. The executive branch of California also influences urban
planning statewide, mainly because it houses OPR. OPR has two main responsibilities: to
coordinate planning activities on a state and local level and to provide technical assistance to
planning agencies. Though the Gov’t. Code deems OPR as the most appropriate state agency to
undertake statewide planning tasks, the state legislature expressly denies OPR any “direct
operating or regulatory powers over land use, public works, or other state, regional, or local
projects or programs” (§ 65035). The language of Gov’t Code § 65035 is consistent with the
notion that urban planning is a local government activity.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 44
The judicial branch. The judicial branch of California plays a pivotal role in land use
and planning practices. Through their interpretations of the law and determinations of rights, the
courts oversee land use and planning laws throughout the state. For example, in Brougher v. Bd.
of Public Works of City and County of San Francisco (1928), the California Supreme Court
established that a city’s police powers are the source of authority for zoning ordinances.
Local Level - California Home Rule
California is a “home-rule” state (CA Const. art. XI, § 7). Therefore, in California,
counties as well as cities may pass, implement, and enforce ordinances and regulations, including
land use controls (Mandelker, 2003; Mandelker et al., 2014; Peppin, 1941). In the case of
conflict, whether the issue at hand fundamentally relates to a “municipal affair” will often be the
determining factor for California courts (Johnson v. Bradley, 1992). In California, zoning has
been ruled a municipal affair in many aspects, but local governments do not have ultimate
authority over all aspects of zoning (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). There is a condition on the police
powers of local government in California – that such laws do not conflict with general state laws
(CA Const. art. XI, § 7).
Conformance with general plan. In California, counties and cities must have a general
plan that governs how local governments develop their territories and accounts for all
development activities, including housing and public facilities (Curtin & Talbert, 2005;
Mandelker, 2003). Correspondingly, the local zoning code must conform to the local
government’s general plan (Callies et al., 2003; Curtin & Talbert, 2005). Any zoning ordinance,
proposed map, or development agreement that does not accord with the general plan is not valid
(Curtin & Talbert, 2005).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 45
The County of Los Angeles. The County of Los Angeles is just one of fifty-eight
counties in California. Its authorizing document is the Charter of the County of Los Angeles, and
it was ratified in 1912. Legislative powers are vested in the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors, which has five members. It has a County Board of Education in addition to a
County Department of Regional Planning. Eighty school districts are found in the County of Los
Angeles.
The General Plan for the County of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles County General Plan
2035 is the framework for the County that will guide development through the year 2035. This
general plan affects unincorporated portions of the County across 2,650 square miles and
approximately one million people (LA County, n.d.). There five guiding principles of the LA
County General Plan: (a) employ smart growth; (b) ensure community services and infrastructure
are sufficient to accommodate growth; (c) provide the foundation for a strong and diverse
economy; (d) promote excellence in environmental resource management; and (e) provide
healthy, livable and equitable communities (LA County, n.d.). The General Plan serves eleven
planning areas.
Incorporated cities in LA County. The County of Los Angeles contains eighty-eight
incorporated cities (LA County, n.d.). Thirty-seven of these cities hold contracts with the County
of Los Angeles to provide the bulk of their municipal services (LA County, n.d.). These cities are
called contract cities and based on “The Lakewood Plan”, which actually arose out of the County
of Los Angeles (Cashin, 1972; Lewis, 2000). The Lakewood Plan allows cities to acquire powers
over land use controls without creating a “full-service municipality” (Lewis, 2000, p. 36).
Special note on the City of Los Angeles. The majority of LAUSD schools are located in
the City of Los Angeles, and so the urban planning framework for the City is discussed herein.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 46
The governing document for the City of Los Angeles is the City of Los Angeles Charter. Its
legislative authority is vested in the Los Angeles City Council. The LAUSD is the primary
provider of FAPE in the city, and urban planning is overseen by the LA City Planning
Department. The General Plan Framework Element guides city development, and the Planning
and Zoning code is found in Chapter I of the Municipal Code.
Summary
This section delves further into land use and urban planning in California, where the
LAUSD is located and provides a reference point for the widespread adoption of zoning codes in
the state. Urban planning is a local matter stemming from California’s home rule provision in the
constitution (CA Const. art. XI, § 7). Thus, local governments are able to pass zoning laws in
accordance with their police powers (Crouch et al., 1981). Zoning laws must conform to the local
government’s general plan (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). The general plan for the County of Los
Angeles is called The Los Angeles County General Plan 2035, and it applies to all
unincorporated areas of the county. Incorporated cities in the county must adopt their own
general plan. There are eighty-eight incorporated cities in the County of Los Angeles, and thirty-
seven of these cities are contract cities (LA County, n.d.). Contract cities contract the bulk of
their municipal services from the county, yet they are fully empowered to create land use
controls (Lewis, 2000).
Urban Planning and Education in California
Shaped by California Courts
Urban planning and education in California has been largely impacted by two important
court cases. In Hall v. City of Taft (Hall), 47 Cal.2d 177 (1956), the issue was whether a city’s
building regulations applied to a public school building maintained by a school district.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 47
Ultimately, the California Supreme Court ruled that a city’s building regulations do not apply to
school districts (Hall v. City of Taft, 1956). Hall established several legal principles regarding
education and school districts: first, that public schools are a statewide concern; second, that the
state occupies the field of public school buildings, third, that school districts are state agencies;
so, fourth, local regulations i.e., municipal building regulations, cannot apply to school districts
(1956).
In Town of Atherton v. Superior Court of San Mateo County (Atherton), 159 Cal.App.2d
417 (1958), the issue was whether municipal zoning could designate the location of schoolsites.
The California Court of Appeal ruled that “the city has no right to zone against the district’s right
of location”. In its holding, the court affirmed that school districts are state agencies and the state
occupies the field of public school siting. Thus, Atherton firmly established school siting as a
state matter (1958).
The legislative response to Hall and Atherton. The effect of both Hall and Atherton
was that state agencies were immunized from local regulation. The legislature responded by
amending the Gov’t. Code to remove the broad immunity of state agencies from the zoning
codes of local governments (San Jose Unified v. Santa Clara, 2017). However, school districts
were still treated differently from other state agencies (San Jose Unified v. Santa Clara, 2017).
Gov’t. Code § 53094 grants school districts power to set aside zoning ordinances as applied to
them according to procedures described therein (San Jose Unified v. Santa Clara, 2017).
Zoning exemptions and charter schools. A recent case is very important for its
implication on the authority of county boards of education and California charter schools. In San
Jose Unified School District v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (San Jose), 7
Cal.App.5th 967, (2017), the issue was whether any public agency that operates public schools
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 48
can issue a zoning exemption for charter school facilities. The California Court of Appeal ruled
that county boards of education cannot issue zoning exemptions for charter school facilities. The
court reasoned that holding otherwise would subvert the goal of Gov’t. Code § 53094 to “prevent
local interference with the state’s sovereign activities”. Based on the San Jose ruling, it is
presumable that only local school districts can issue zoning exemptions for public school
facilities, including those for charter schools. Further, county boards of education are firmly
considered local entities.
The School Siting Approach in California
Essentially, there is a two-step approach to school siting. First, school siting requires a
determination of the geographic location for a proposed school. School districts are assigned
specific geographic territories and must locate schools physically near or in the residential
neighborhoods that they serve (Hanushek & Yilmaz, 2015; Mandelker, 2003). Second, school
siting requires a determination that the proposed site is physically suitable – verification that the
physical characteristics of the proposed site match the school’s educational use.
Regarding the latter, school sites must comply with Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations (5 CCR) (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). 5 CRR § 14010 describes the standards for
school site selection. These standards mostly cover the external geographic properties of a
proposed school site: acreage, geological features, environmental hazards, seismic concerns,
flood potential, landslide threats, sound levels, easements, distance from freeways and roads, and
proximity to parks and playfields. Also mentioned are standards relating to mobility and
transportation, such as disability accessibility, signage, traffic patterns, pedestrian safety, and
bussing. At the same time, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction is empowered to grant
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 49
exemptions of any standard in this section if the school district can show that an exemption will
not compromise a “safe and supportive school environment” (5 CCR § 14010).
The unenforceability of zoning codes against district school siting is important because
local zoning codes cannot exclude schoolsites where a school district has determined they are
appropriate (Mandelker, 2003). The fact that schools must be close to residential areas is the
source of much local debate. Courts have found that local governments have sought to exclude
schools from residential neighborhoods through zoning codes (Mandelker, 2003). Residential
inhabitants frequently consider schools – especially junior high and senior high schools – an
intrusive land use, also called a locally unwanted land use (LULU) (Mandelker, 2003;
Mandelker, 2011). LULU concerns are connected with the NIMBY syndrome (“not in my
backyard) (Mandelker, 2011).
School district immunity from zoning codes does not mean that schoolsites are subject to
less legislative oversight. There are numerous laws to navigate, and language regarding school
siting is frequently embedded among other laws and regulations. Obviously, the schoolsite must
comply with the Educ. Code. Additionally, the schoolsite must conform to rules and regulations
found in other general state laws, including the Building Code (CBC), Plumbing Code (CPC),
Fire Code (CFC), and Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (5 CCR§ 14010).
School district and urban planning collaboration. Despite that a school district may
set aside a zoning ordinance, Curtin and Talbert (2005) urge that it is vital that school districts
collaborate with city planners in school siting procedures. Generally, the school district has
multiple opportunities to meet with city planners to discuss school siting (Curtin & Talbert,
2005). First, a school district may request a meeting when a new amendment to the general plan
is proposed (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). Second, a school district must notify applicable planning
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 50
officials when it develops a schoolsite plan or needs analysis (Curtin & Talbert, 2005).
Additionally, both school districts and planning agencies may request a meeting with the other
party to discuss school siting that must occur within forty-five days of the request (Curtin &
Talbert, 2005). It is especially important that city planners consult school districts about
prospective development agreements, for in California, lack of school facilities cannot be the
basis for denying approvals of the development of real property (Curtin & Talbert, 2005).
Charter School Schoolsites
The number of charter schools in California has grown considerably since the California
Charter Schools Act was passed in 1992, and the rise of charter schools has increased the
subsequent demand for educational spaces (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). The demand for
educational spaces is so great that securing a schoolsite is frequently perceived as the central
barrier to charter school operations (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Conversion charter schools tend
to maintain the same schoolsite as when they were district schools, but start-up charter schools
have a difficult time finding facilities (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Because school district-owned
property is frequently unavailable to start-up charter schools, these schools must enter the
marketplace to find a schoolsite.
In the market, start-up charter schools undertake numerous obligations in order to
operate. They must stay within the boundaries of the district that permitted the charter (Kemerer
& Sansom, 2013). They must find a site where educational uses are permitted, and if they cannot
find a site where educational uses are permitted as a matter of right, then they must apply for an
entitlement to operate an educational use. An entitlement is special permission granted by local
government to undertake activities not permitted as a matter of right. Entitlement processes are
also typically outlined in the zoning codes of local governments. One of the most common
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 51
entitlements in connection with schoolsites is the conditional use permit (CUP), and CUP
applications have substantial technical requirements and take significant time for administrative
review. Furthermore, start-up charter schools incur fair market costs for the entitlement process,
leasing, renovation, and continued maintenance. Though charter schools are exempt from many
state laws that apply to district schools, charter schools must comply with local building, health,
fire, and zoning codes (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013).
Resources have emerged to help defray costs of schoolsites for charter schools. The
Public Charter School Grant Program, the Charter School Facility Grant Program, and the
Charter School Revolving Loan Fund provide assistance to cover initial and continuing
schoolsite costs for charter schools in California (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). In addition,
Proposition 39 is considered integral to the charter school movement. This proposition requires
school districts to accommodate in-district enrollment of a charter school by making facilities
available so long as that school enrolls eighty or more students, (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013).
Broadly speaking, a school charter may be revoked if, upon inspection, there is a
deviation from the charter, financial impropriety, or a condition of legal noncompliance
(Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Further, charter schools managed by non-profit entities must also
comply with California and federal laws pertaining to non-profit organizations (Kemerer &
Sansom, 2013). Noncompliance with any of these general regulations threatens charter school
operations.
Schoolsite liability for charter schools. Charter schools have additional compliance
issues that district schools do not encounter and which can impact their schoolsites. Charter
schools must also comply with the requirements of any applicable CUP. Again, a CUP is a legal
entitlement that permits uses in spaces where they are not ordinarily permissible under the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 52
zoning code as a matter of right. For example, charter schools in office buildings often exist
because they have obtained a CUP to occupy the space. It should be noted that charter schools
which occupy a space subject to a CUP would be considered noncompliant if any aspect of
operations violated the terms of the CUP. Charter schools must be provided a reasonable
opportunity to cure violations except when student life and safety are at risk (Kemerer &
Sansom, 2013).
Financial oversight. It is permitted that non-profit entities managing charter schools may
enter into contracts with for-profit firms to operate schools (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). If the
charter school secures school facilities at no cost, then the managing entity can charge up to three
percent of the school’s funding; otherwise, the managing entity is limited to one percent
(Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). This fact leads to three implications. One, it may be inferred that
two percent of the school’s funding is sufficient for facility expenses. Two, alternatively, it may
be inferred that school facility expenses should be minimized as close to or equal to this margin
of two percent. Three, another inference is that funding for other operational costs such as
teacher training will be reduced to cover the shortfall in case school facility expenses are over
two percent. In any case, this formula creates an incentive for for-profit charter school managers
to reduce leased square footage so that lease payments are smaller. With a reduction in square
footage, accessory areas such as libraries, gyms, cafeterias, assembly spaces, specialized
classrooms, and teacher planning areas remain on the proverbial chopping block.
Summary
Local laws are not permitted to conflict with general state laws (Brougher v. Bd. of
Public Works, 1928). Thus, local zoning laws do not apply to school districts, which carry out
important state functions (Hall v. City of Taft, 1956). Further, local zoning laws may not infringe
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 53
upon a school district’s right to determine schoolsites (Atherton v. Superior Court, 1958).
However, school districts do not have a blanket pass regarding zoning; the governing board of a
school district must first issue an exemption to a school wishing to set aside a local zoning law in
the process of school siting (San Jose Unified v. Santa Clara, 2017). County boards of education,
which stem from local and not state authority, may grant a charter petition, but do not possess the
authority to issue zoning exemptions (San Jose Unified v. Santa Clara, 2017).
School siting is a two-step process: first, there must be a geographic determination where
to locate a school, and second, there must be a determination that the proposed schoolsite meets
the physical, geographic requirements of a schoolsite. Residential inhabitants frequently consider
schools an intrusive land use which is also known as a locally unwanted land use (LULU)
(Mandelker, 2011). Charter schools face special challenges in school siting (Kemerer & Sansom,
2013). If district facilities are unavailable, then charter schools must enter the marketplace to find
a schoolsite, which can lead to additional compliance issues (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013). Charter
schools have numerous resources to help them find schoolsites (Kemerer & Sansom, 2013).
Describing the general process of school siting is germane to the study, and addressing
charter schools is important because school siting is a particular challenge for California charter
schools. Additionally, it is critical to understand that the immunity of school districts from local
zoning ordinances renders the link between schoolsites and zoning indirect but not harmless.
Urban Planning: Exclusionary Origins
Historical Background
Before the rise of zoning laws, land use issues were usually settled through nuisance
claims in the court system (Wolf, 2008). A private nuisance is a civil claim in which one
landowner alleges another landowner has interfered with the first landowner’s “use and
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 54
enjoyment of real property” (Wolf, 2008, p. 18). Basically, property owners would bring
nuisance lawsuits if a potentially harmful commercial or industrial use was planned in a
residential neighborhood (Mandelker, 2003). As American cities grew, city officials feared
unabated urban sprawl and blight without a zoning system (Wolf, 2008). Zoning laws were
introduced at the dawn of the twentieth century, and the first comprehensive zoning law was
adopted in 1916 by New York City (Mandelker, 2003; Wolf, 2008). In the following decade,
urban planning experienced its heyday (Wolf, 2008).
The validity of zoning. When New York passed its zoning law, it achieved two other
things: it extended the boundary of police powers, and it codified “the health, safety, morals, and
welfare of the community” as objectives of the police power (Toll, 1969, p. 17; Wolf, 2008).
Initially, property owners did not view comprehensive zoning favorably, arguing that zoning
impaired basic property rights.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. was a case that appeared before the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1926. Euclid was a village near Cleveland, Ohio. Euclid adopted laws regulating
building height, area, and allowable uses. This case concerned the validity of zoning (Wolf,
2008). The issue at hand was whether a city’s zoning laws unconstitutionally interfered with the
rights of property owners to use their land (Wolf, 2008). The trial court ruled in favor of the
plaintiff, Ambler Realty Company. The Euclid decision by the Supreme Court was important
because it established the constitutionality of zoning laws (Mandelker, 2003).
Post-Euclid. The Euclid decision was also important because it brought national attention
to urban planning and land use (Wolf, 2008). Once the Supreme Court upheld the validity of
zoning laws, comprehensive zoning regimes swept the nation’s cities and towns (Wolf, 2008).
Moreover, regulating land use became an important function of local government. In fact, land
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 55
use control became the primary reason many residents form a municipality (Lewis & Neiman,
2009). Moreover, questions surrounding land use controls substantially arose in local politics
(Lewis & Neiman, 2009).
Suburban Birth: Garden Cities
That comprehensive zoning emerged around the turn of the twentieth century is critical
(Toll, 1969). At that time, urban centers were growing, and city housing was a blight –
congested, unclean, and foul (Howard, 1902; Marsh, 1909). Additionally, housing options were
few, which increased their cost. According to an early proponent of urban planning, “No city can
account itself civilized where any of its normal workmen must pay one-third of their income for
reasonable housing” (Marsh, 1909, p. 2).
More land. The new planned communities away from urban centers were highly
romanticized and depicted as “garden cities” (Howard, 1902). Garden cities would represent a
divine merger: “As man and woman by their varied gifts and faculties supplement each other, so
should town and country” (Howard, 1902, p. 17). Garden cities, only made possible through
urban planning, were viewed as the solution to the ills of city living. They would create new
residential districts where land was abundant and affordable and where the working man could
have a single family home (Howard, 1902; Marsh, 1909). Equally important as housing to
garden cities was the need to reserve land for public purposes such as schools, churches, parks,
playgrounds, and open spaces in congested areas (Marsh, 1909).
Schools. Schools in particular were important in the early urban planning movement
(Howard, 1902). Schools were viewed as ideal centers for religious worship, concerts, libraries,
and community meetings because schoolsites in the Garden City could be “extravagantly large”
(Howard, 1902, p. 47). Additionally, Howard asserted that the “Garden City secures sites which
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 56
are larger, better placed, and in every way more suitable for educational purposes, at a mere
fraction of the cost which in London is incurred for sites vastly inferior in every respect” (1902,
p. 50). Moreover, Howard noted that children would have to spend less energy and effort to
travel to school, especially in winter (1902).
Automobiles. The rise of automobiles greatly facilitated the merger of town and country
(Toll, 1969). In 1900, there were virtually no cars in America; by 1916, there were
approximately one million cars in America (Toll, 1969). With the widespread use of
automobiles, not only could workers live farther away from urban centers, but industrial
businesses could relocate in the country where land was cheaper (Toll, 1969).
Suburban Rise: The Neighborhood Unit
The “neighborhood unit” is a residential-design paradigm commonly found in the United
States (Banerjee & Baer, 1984). It was first conceived by Clarence Perry in the 1920s (Banerjee
& Baer, 1984; Lawhon, 2009). Perry’s neighborhood unit has six basic physical attributes:
1. Size. A residential unit development should provide for that population which
one elementary school is ordinarily required, its actual area depending on its
population density.
2. Boundaries. The unit should be bounded on all sides by arterial streets,
sufficiently wide to facilitate in its by-passing, instead of penetration, by
through traffic.
3. Open Spaces. A system of small parks and recreations spaces, planned to meet
the needs of the particular neighborhood, should be provided.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 57
4. Institution Sites. Sites for the school and other institutions having service
spheres coinciding with the limits of the unit should be suitably grouped about
a central point, or common.
5. Local Shops. One or more shopping districts, adequate for the population to be
served, should be laid out in the circumference of the unit, preferably at traffic
junctions and adjacent to similar districts of adjoining neighborhoods.
6. Internal Street System. The unit should be provided with a special street
system, each highway being proportioned to its probably traffic load, and the
street net as a whole being designed to facilitate circulation within the unit and
to discourage its use by through traffic (Banerjee & Baer, 1984, p. 19).
Theoretical underpinnings of the neighborhood unit. There are numerous social
implications of the neighborhood unit, and these implications can be traced back to ideals Perry
espoused as a result of outside influence (Lawhon, 2009). Perry spent most of his career at the
Russell Sage Foundation (Lawhon, 2009). The Russell Sage Foundation sought to improve the
living and social conditions in American cities and funded many research projects investigating
the built environment (Lawhon, 2009). It is notable that Perry arrived at the Russell Sage
Foundation with the idea in mind that he would explore how school buildings could be used for
recreation and community activities (Lawhon, 2009).
Perry was also affected by the work of Charles Cooley, a sociologist who developed a
theory of “primary groups” (Lawhon, 2009). Primary groups consist of the family, the play
group, and the neighborhood (Lawhon, 2009). According to Cooley, these primary groups
inform and define both the individual’s social relationships and the individual’s ideals (Lawhon,
2009). Cooley’s concept of primary groups may bear some semblance to the microsystem of
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 58
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model, but Cooley’s model does not account for invisible and
larger systems of influence as Bronfenbrenner does (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
The settlement house movement which was closely associated with Jane Addams in
Chicago also impacted Perry’s development of the neighborhood unit (Banerjee & Baer, 1984;
Lawhon, 2009). The settlement house movement attributed much of its success to the purposeful
creation of meeting spaces where social interactions could occur (Banerjee & Baer, 1984;
Lawhon, 2009). Consequently, Perry incorporated schools, recreational areas, open spaces, and
parks into the neighborhood unit.
The last prominent source of influence over Perry was the “garden cities” movement
(Banerjee & Baer, 1984; Lawhon, 2009). The garden cities approach sought to introduce
physical amenities not commonly found in urban centers such as a garden environment and cul-
de-sacs (Lawhon, 2009). Perry actually collaborated with architects and community planners
Henry Wright and Clarence Stein on the Radburn plan, which is considered a premier application
of the neighborhood unit (Banerjee & Baer, 1984; Lawhon, 2009).
Major criticisms of the neighborhood unit. The neighborhood unit has given rise to
numerous complaints and criticisms. First, the neighborhood unit operated on the tacit
assumption of social homogeneity based on a family/child-centered household (Banerjee & Baer,
1984). This assumption was then expanded to include ethnic and income homogeneity (Banerjee
& Baer, 1984). Social homogeneity was further encouraged by the Federal Housing
Administration in order to protect producers and lenders in the housing market (Banerjee &
Baer, 1984). Territorial integrity and community stability was viewed as key to home value, and
consequently, social mobility out of or into these neighborhood units was discouraged through
restrictive covenants of homeowner associations (Banerjee & Baer, 1984). This emphasis on
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 59
social homogeneity also relates to another criticism of the neighborhood unit in that its design to
structure social behavior interferes with free will and opportunity in that designing for human
activities increases their likelihood of occurring. (Lawhon, 2009).
A second criticism of the neighborhood unit is that neighborhood units reflect the values
and standards of their creators – white, middle-class, and patriarchal (Banerjee & Baer, 1984).
As a result, diversity of residents based on racial, social, or income difference was not
incorporated (Banerjee & Baer, 1984). There also existed a presumption that separate
neighborhood units based on diversity would spring up though apart (Banerjee & Baer, 1984).
Defenders of Perry are quick to point out that Perry’s intention was not to encourage social
divisiveness (Lawhon, 2009). However, Banerjee and Baer (1984) underscore the importance of
physical determination, that the nature of the geographic environment determines human
behavior. Thus, Perry’s intention matters little compared to actual effect (Lawhon, 2009).
A third criticism of the neighborhood unit is that it was conceived on a purely theoretical
frame with no scientific foundation; there was no utilization of data or other empirically derived
evidence (Banerjee & Baer, 1984). Regardless, the neighborhood unit has persisted since its
inception (Banerjee & Baer, 1984; Lawhon, 2009). A major reason for its endurance is that the
American Public Health Association adopted it in the late 1940s as a model for residential
environments (Banerjee & Baer, 1984; Lawhon, 2009). The adoption of the neighborhood unit
by a prestigious association led to its subsequent adoption, modification, and institutionalization
by public agencies as well as professional organizations. The neighborhood unit then became
“the sole basis for organizing residential space” for the fifty years following its introduction
(Banerjee &Baer, 1984, p. 2). This fifty-year period is critical because it contains the birth of the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 60
automobile era, the rise of highways, the civil rights movement, and the integration of schools
(Banerjee & Baer, 1984, Lawhon, 2009).
The neighborhood unit and schools. The location of schools is a principal element to
the neighborhood unit. In a strict model of the neighborhood unit, one school is the center of the
neighborhood, and ideally, students would not walk more than a one-quarter or one-half mile
distance without having to cross an arterial street (Lawhon, 2009). Further, the size of
neighborhoods should be sized in order to support this school, and ideally, this number would
stay between 5,000 and 9,000 residents (Lawhon, 2009). The school should also function as a
community meeting place where social activities and recreation can occur (Banerjee & Baer,
1984; Lawhon, 2009). Therefore, the school should also have an adjacent play area that is
accessible to the entire community (Lawhon, 2009).
Summary
The first comprehensive zoning laws were passed in New York City in 1916 (Wolf,
2008). Zoning laws were validated by the Supreme Court in the Euclid decision of 1926.
Following Euclid, comprehensive zoning laws swept the nation (Wolf, 2008). Land use control
also became the primary reason for the formation of local governments (Lewis & Neiman, 2009).
The Garden Cities movement extolled the development of planned communities, which were
viewed as a merger of town and country (Howard, 1902). Garden cities were the precursor of
American suburbs (Banerjee & Baer, 1984). The neighborhood unit was a planning scheme
advocated by Clarence Perry in the 1920s, and its popularization led to the planning
configurations adopted by many local governments, which fueled suburban development
(Banerjee & Baer, 1984). The proliferation of the automobile aided suburban development (Toll,
1969). The critical issue with garden cities, the neighborhood unit, and suburban development is
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 61
that that their land use schemes often utilized exclusionary zoning (Banerjee & Baer, 1984;
Lawhon, 2009). The historical context for the rise and ubiquity of urban planning in America is
key to understanding how zoning has shaped American communities and entrenched early
twentieth century bias into zoning regulations. Further, the origins of exclusionary zoning are
important to discern how stealthily exclusion has permeated contemporary local government,
which is a fundamental issue of the study.
Exclusionary Zoning
Whites’ Preference for Spatial Separation
Throughout American history, Whites have sought to separate themselves physically
from perceived undesirables (Lewis, 2000; Rothwell & Massey, 2009). For a century following
the end of the Civil War, segregation was characterized by Black-White spatial separation on
state and county levels through the enactment of state legislation and local regulation (Massey,
Rothwell, & Domina, 2009). Black migration after World War I led to a decline in racial
dissimilarity on state and county levels as African-Americans moved from the rural south to
other parts of the United States following World War I through the 1960s (Massey et al., 2009).
At the same time, Black-White dissimilarity increased on the city and neighborhood levels
(Massey et al., 2009). Planning schemes like the neighborhood unit aided this increase (Banerjee
& Baer, 1984).
In the 1960s, state courts began to review land use cases with increasing awareness of the
social issues related to land use and zoning schemes (Mandelker, 2003). Then, during the civil
rights era, the U.S. Congress enacted several pieces of legislation further implementing the
Fourteenth Amendment to forbid discrimination in housing and lending markets (Rugh &
Massey, 2014). There are three major federal laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 62
lending markets: The Fair Housing Act of 1968, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, and
the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Rugh & Massey, 2014).
As overtly and easily detectable discriminatory practices began to fade, new mechanisms
of exclusion began to emerge. According to Pendall (2000), exclusion is a multifaceted
phenomenon that cannot be explained by any single factor. There are many undercover
participants in the conspiracy of exclusion, including landlords who refuse to rent to families
with young children, real estate agents who steer homebuyers to specific neighborhoods, and
financial institutions that use predatory lending or reverse redlining, but none are quite so
effective and institutionally entrenched as local governments that adopt exclusionary zoning
policies and practices (Pendall, 2000; Rugh & Massey, 2014).
The preservation of established residential areas has been a key driver behind zoning
(Mandelker, 2003; Rothwell & Massey, 2009). Since the 1970s, land use controls have emerged
as the leading mechanism to enact exclusion (Fischel, 2004; Massey et al., 2009; Pendall, 2000).
Thus, segregation in America shifted firmly from public spaces to residential neighborhoods.
Exclusionary Zoning
Exclusionary zoning, which seeks to restrict entry of “undesirables” into certain areas of
a city, has been heavily criticized ever since the origin of zoning (Mandelker, 2003; Wolf, 2008).
The identity of perceived undesirables has changed over time. In early American history, it was
mostly Southern and Eastern European immigrants, then, African-Americans, and now, Latinos
(Rothwell & Massey, 2009). Overall, White isolation from African-American, Asian, and Latino
populations continues in metropolitan areas across America (Rugh & Massey, 2014).
After the Supreme Court invalidated facially discriminatory zoning in Buchanan v.
Warley (1917), land use controls have avoided expressly exclusionary language (Massey et al.,
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 63
2009). Contemporary urban planning often uses facially neutral language, such as no-growth,
slow growth, managed growth, and smart growth to describe growth management policies (Wolf,
2008). However, these labels do not neutralize the effect of exclusionary zoning practices
(Fischel, 2004; Mandelker, 2003). Land use controls with known, strong tendencies to exclude
have been regularly adopted in the name of controlling neighborhood “character”, stability, soul
or the “health, safety, morals, and welfare of the community” (Curtin & Talbert, 2005; Lewis,
2009; Mandelker, 2003; Mandelker, 2011, p. 931; Toll, 1969, p. 17).
In essence, local governments have used exclusionary zoning to systematically channel
perceived undesirables into particular geographic areas and away from others – to herd low
income and minority residents into particular neighborhoods or to exclude them entirely (Lichter,
Parisi, & Taquino, 2015; Pendall, 2000; Rothwell & Massey, 2009). The most effective
exclusionary mechanisms are those related to density in residential areas (Fischel, 2004; Pendall,
2000; Rothwell, 2012; Rothwell & Massey, 2009; Rothwell & Massey, 2010; Rugh & Massey,
2014).
Density
In land use, “density” describes the number of individuals who are permitted to occupy a
piece of land (Mandelker, 2003). Low density zoning utilizes small ratio of individuals to land
size, and high density zoning allows large ratios of individuals to land size (Rothwell & Massey,
2009). To illustrate, a single-family home is typically considered a low density use, and a
multifamily apartment high-rise is definitely a high density use. Low, or restrictive, density
zoning is a hallmark of suburban zoning (Fischel, 2004; Rothwell & Massey, 2010). High, also
called permissive or liberal, density zoning is mostly found in non-suburban areas, such as city
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 64
cores (Rothwell & Massey, 2009; Rugh & Massey, 2014). It should be noted that the character of
density is impacted by other factors like lot size and building height
The benefits of permissive zoning policies are clear. Permissive zoning is associated with
lower levels of segregated residential areas (Rugh & Massey, 2014). According to Rothwell and
Massey (2009), pro-density zoning has had a strong influence on the pace of racial desegregation
in U.S. metropolitan areas from 1980 to 2000 (Rothwell & Massey, 2009). Mainly, where
allowable densities were greater, racial segregation was more likely to be lower. Additionally,
Massey et al. (2009) found that areas focused on significant higher density development moved
faster towards racial desegregation.
Anti-density zoning, on the other hand, produces more suspect results (Massey &
Rothwell, 2009). A key finding by Pendall is that low density neighborhoods became more
exclusive in the 1980s for three reasons: (a) they grew slowly, (b) they focused on single-family
dwelling units instead of multifamily ones, and (c) they reduced renter occupancy (2000). Anti-
density zoning is a common growth management technique to limit new development in
suburban areas (Fischel, 2004; Rothwell & Massey, 2010), and it is a practice prevalent in
affluent areas (Rothwell, 2012).
There is a causal relationship between zoning and class-based segregation (Rothwell &
Massey, 2010). Anti-density suburban zoning has made the creation of affordable housing
difficult in established residential neighborhoods (Fischel, 2004). Anti-density zoning limits the
development and construction of affordable, multifamily housing (Fischel, 2004; Massey et al.,
2009; Rothwell & Massey, 2009; Rothwell & Massey, 2010). A limited supply of affordable
housing drives up rents, which impedes the entry of low-income individuals into these areas
(Pendall, 2000; Rothwell, 2012; Rothwell & Massey, 2010). Thus, low income families
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 65
frequently do not live in suburban communities due to inadequate affordable housing choices,
and the result is income-based segregation in suburban communities (Rothwell & Massey, 2010).
Not only is anti-density zoning associated with greater levels of income-based
segregation, but it is also linked with race-based segregation (Massey et al., 2009; Pendall, 2000;
Rothwell & Massey, 2009; Rugh & Massey, 2014). Land use controls exclude minority groups
over time by fostering residential environments that appeal most strongly to non-Hispanic
Whites and failing to accommodate minority groups (Pendall, 2000). Local governments with
anti-density policies are less likely to have African-American residents (Pendall, 2000; Rothwell
& Massey, 2009). Pendall found that land use controls had the strongest exclusionary effect on
African-Americans in the American northeast and Midwest, whereas land use controls had the
strongest exclusionary effect on Latinos in California (2000). Pendall called the link between
anti-density zoning and racial exclusion “the chain of exclusion” (2000; p. 138).
Exclusionary zoning can be viewed as a method of long-time residents to preserve
existing spatial arrangements to ward off future unfavorable racial tipping (Mandelker, 2011;
Rothwell & Massey, 2010). The chain of exclusion is confirmed by Rugh and Massey (2014),
whose findings support a causal connection between anti-density zoning and both racial and
income segregation. Further, Massey et al. asserted that switching suburban zoning from the
most restrictive density zoning to the least restrictive would reduce racial segregation by sixty
percent and socioeconomic segregation by twenty-five percent (2009).
Protecting Homeownership
Income-based segregation is not merely a neutral consequence of market forces
(Rothwell & Massey, 2010). Rothwell and Massey (2010) claimed that wealthy individuals
actively avoid residing next to poorer individuals. “Secession of the successful” refers to the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 66
phenomenon in which individuals with higher socioeconomic statuses isolate themselves
spatially (Massey et al., 2009). This class-based segregation is often based on the erroneous
assumption that poorer individuals consume more than their purported fair share of public goods
and services (Rothwell & Massey, 2010). Thus, affluent individuals seek communities that have
adopted anti-density zoning in order to achieve spatial isolation (Rothwell & Massey, 2010), a
motivation which has led to increased White spatial isolation in higher income areas (Lichter et
al., 2015). Furthermore, anti-density zoning has become the chief method to inhibit minority and
low income groups from experiencing greater access to public goods and services (Massey et al.,
2009).
Spatial isolation is not the only motivation for anti-density zoning. Most metropolitan
areas in America had adopted a zoning code by the 1950s (Fischel, 2004). By the 1970s,
suburban residents had embraced quality-of-life as a residential objective, which included
protecting their financial stake in zoning (Fischel, 2004). For most home-owners, their home is
their greatest financial asset (Fischel, 2004). Consequently, homeowners act in political ways to
protect their capital investment (Fischel, 2004). By supporting zoning activities and initiatives to
improve school quality, homeowners often believe they are simply protecting home values
(Fischel, 2004).
Homeowners’ desire to protect home values is aided by local governments. Nearly all
suburban land use controls place the single-family, owner-occupied home at the top of the land
use pyramid (Fischel, 2004). Single-family, owner-occupied homes receive the most protection
in regulatory land use schemes (Fischel, 2004). For example, in upholding anti-density zoning
regimes, courts have relied on parasite theory, which refers to the perceived negative effects of
multifamily buildings in certain residential districts: “Apartment houses…destroyed areas
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 67
devoted to single-family use, interfered with light and air, and attracted large numbers of
automobiles that block public streets” (Mandelker, 2003, p. 5-4; Wolf, 2008). Fischel questioned
the assumptions underlying the land use pyramid that places single family homes at the top,
stating that “the services of rental housing are no less important to their occupants than those of
owner-occupied housing” (2004, p. 318). Home-ownership should not entitle individuals to
“special municipal privilege” (Fischel, 2004, p. 327).
Political Fragmentation
“Places don’t just happen”. Political fragmentation occurs when numerous incorporated
cities emerge in a particular region (Hogen-Esch, 2011), and cities incorporate in order to exert
more local control over zoning (Lewis & Neiman, 2009). Hence, according to Mandelker et al.,
“cities and other places don’t just happen” (2016, p.1). There were 209 incorporated cities in
California by 2010, and 104 incorporated cities were located in southern California (Hogen-
Esch, 2011). In California, the golden age of political fragmentation occurred between 1950 and
1992 (Hogen-Esch, 2011). Approximately thirty-two percent of the incorporated cities in
southern California emerged in the 1950s; twenty-one percent, in the 1960s; eleven percent, in
the 1970s; seventeen percent, in the 1980s; and ten percent, in the 1990s (Hogan-Esch, 2011).
Notably, there are eighty-eight incorporated cities in the County of Los Angeles (LA County,
n.d.).
“Places matter”. It is critical that policymakers and stakeholders understand the essential
principle that “‘places matter’” (Lichter et al., 2015, p. 852). Place-based exclusionary policies in
metropolitan areas leads to macro-segregation (Lichter et al., 2015). Macro-segregation is
segregation that occurs “between places”, such as “city-suburb and suburb-suburb”, and it is on
the rise (Lichter et al., 2015, p. 846). Lichter et al. further clarify macro-segregation as the racial
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 68
dissimilarity of metropolises occurring beyond the neighborhood level and on a greater place-
based scale – “central cities, suburban areas, and fringe areas” (2015, p. 844). For macro-
segregation to occur, political units must be actively involved in its creation or preservation,
hence the significance of political fragmentation (Lewis, 2000; Lichter et al., 2015).
Places and anti-density zoning. Political fragmentation refers to the division of large
metropolitan areas into multiple smaller municipal governments (Lewis, 2000), and it is linked to
higher levels of segregation (Lichter et al., 2015). The implementation of anti-density zoning
depends on local control, and political fragmentation increases local control over zoning codes
(Lichter et al., 2015). Thus, the propagation of anti-density zoning largely depends on increasing
numbers of small local governments (Rothwell and Massey, 2009). Pro-density advocates
frequently oppose political fragmentation, based on the premise that regional planning by higher
levels of government helps ensure the equitable distribution of public resources from city core to
extended fringe (Hogen-Esch, 2011).
The Lakewood Plan. The Lakewood Plan was developed in 1954 (Cashin, 1972). The
Lakewood Plan allows cities to incorporate without providing the full range of municipal
services by contracting with the county for them (Cashin, 1972; Lewis, 2000). Cities that
contract with counties for the bulk of municipal services are called contract cities (Cashin, 1972;
Hogen-Esch, 2011; Lewis, 2000). Subsequently, the number of incorporated cities increased,
which established a pattern of political fragmentation in California (Hogen-Esch, 2011). Because
contract cities retain local control over zoning but frequently do not provide other municipal
services and because zoning codes are used to exclude, opponents of the Lakewood Plan have
described it as a white political movement (Hogen-Esch, 2011).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 69
Exclusionary Zoning and Education
The neighborhood effect on income mobility. Intergenerational income mobility is
impacted by municipal and neighborhood characteristics (Rothwell & Massey, 2015). The
income level of an individual’s childhood neighborhood has approximately half the effect on
future earnings as parent income (Rothwell & Massey, 2015). It is estimated that individuals
raised in the lowest neighborhood income quartile would earn approximately $500,000 more had
they been raised in the highest neighborhood income quartile, a number which grows to
$910,000 when accounting for regional purchasing power (Rothwell & Massey, 2015). This
earning difference is almost as large as that between attainment of a college degree and high
school diploma (Rothwell & Massey, 2015).
Rothwell and Massey argued that the primary neighborhood advantage captured by
restrictive zoning is access to high-quality schools (2015). Students from a low socioeconomic
background are more likely to achieve intergenerational income mobility if they attend high-
quality schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Rothwell & Massey, 2015). School quality is
correlated with housing costs, but local zoning policies are a stronger barrier to high-quality
schools than housing costs (Rothwell & Massey, 2015). Restrictive density zoning leads to
higher housing prices in predominantly white neighborhoods and limits entry by individuals with
lower socioeconomic status (Hanushek & Yilmaz, 2015; Massey & Rothwell, 2009). Where
permissive zoning is found, housing costs and residential segregation near high-quality schools
tend to be lower, and children raised in areas less segregated by socioeconomic status are more
likely to achieve greater future earnings (Rothwell & Massey, 2015).
Zoning and schoolsites. Rothwell (2012) undertook an important study that provided the
first national report to link zoning data with school test score data. Rothwell sought to investigate
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 70
the effects of zoning on access to high quality education (2012). Rothwell acknowledged the
extreme challenge in collecting and measuring zoning related data, especially in light of the
multiplicity of local governments (2012). Rothwell’s study used zoning indicators such as the
zoning law firm index, Wharton index, and Eastern Massachusetts zoning index, but zoning
determinations on an individual school basis were not utilized (2012).
Rothwell made several important findings (2012). First, metropolitan areas in the
northeast not only have high levels of income-based segregation but also have the greatest gaps
in test scores based on students’ household income (Rothwell, 2012). Second, housing costs
were approximately 2.4 times higher per year closer to a high-scoring public school than a low-
scoring one, and the number of rented housing units is 30% lower closer to a high-scoring public
school than a low-scoring one (Rothwell, 2012). Third, metropolitan areas with permissive
zoning have significantly smaller gaps in housing costs than areas with the most restrictive
zoning (Rothwell, 2012). Additionally, Rothwell asserted that anti-density land use controls
aggravate racial segregation and that changing zoning codes to progress multifamily and high
density areas would significantly reduce black-white residential segregation by 35% and
economic segregation by more than 40% (2012).
Inclusionary Housing
Inclusionary housing programs have been on the rise since the 1970s, especially as a
method to remediate exclusionary zoning (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). The most common
inclusionary housing programs aim to increase the number of affordable housing units
(Rothwell, 2012). Inclusionary zoning codes facilitate the growth of affordable housing by
requiring residential developers to allocate a number of newly constructed units for sale to low
income individuals (Curtin & Talbert, 2005). Further, inclusionary zoning bolsters the
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 71
availability of affordable housing by creating affordable housing bonuses, density bonuses, and
expedited permitting for affordable housing projects (Rothwell & Massey, 2009). As an
alternative though improbable method, Rothwell suggests that homeowners who benefit from
anti-density zoning should pay more for public services (2012). Remediation is not limited to
legislation: courts provide substantial margin to municipal zoning laws, but a city bears the
burden of proof to justify actions limiting the number of dwelling units (Curtin & Talbert, 2005).
Summary
Throughout American history, Whites have sought physical separation from perceived
undesirables (Rothwell & Massey, 2009). Following the Civil War, racial segregation was
expressly adopted by state and local laws (Massey et al., 2009). However, after these laws were
invalidated through federal activity, race-based segregation shifted from public spaces to
residential places (Pendall, 2000; Rugh & Massey, 2014). Since the 1970s, land use controls
have become the primary instrument for spatial divide among Whites and perceived
undesirables, an indirect connection called the “chain of exclusion” (Pendall, 2000, p. 138).
Exclusionary zoning has been criticized since the origins of zoning (Mandelker, 2003).
There are many exclusionary zoning techniques, but the most effective technique is residential
anti-density zoning ((Fischel, 2004; Pendall, 2000; Rothwell, 2012; Rothwell & Massey, 2009;
Rothwell & Massey, 2010; Rugh & Massey, 2014). Density refers to the number of individuals
who are allowed to occupy a piece of land, and anti-density zoning utilizes a low ratio of
occupants to land size (Fischel, 2004; Massey & Rothwell, 2009; Pendall, 2000). Essentially,
anti-density zoning limits the development of affordable housing development, which in turn
makes it difficult for disadvantaged minority groups to enter the community (Pendall, 2000;
Rothwell, 2012; Rothwell & Massey, 2010).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 72
As a result, anti-density zoning is linked to higher levels of race-based segregation.
Additionally, anti-density zoning is linked with political fragmentation (Lichter et al., 2015). The
primary advantage captured by anti-density zoning is access to high-quality schools (Rothwell &
Massey, 2015). On the other hand, pro-density zoning is associated with lower levels of
segregation, higher rates of income mobility, and lower housing costs (Rothwell & Massey,
2015). Further, pro-density zoning is linked to smaller gaps in test score (Rothwell, 2012). To
combat the damaging effects of exclusionary zoning, inclusionary housing programs that
increase the availability of affordable housing is strongly recommended (Rothwell & Massey,
2009).
Exclusionary zoning is the core of the study and explains why the study matters despite
that school districts themselves are generally immune to zoning. The importance of anti-density
zoning to education cannot be underestimated because it impacts school catchment areas, and its
effect is not benign.
Learning Perspectives
The Physical Learning Environment
Educational land use is no small matter for FAPE, for the physical geography of where
learning occurs not only creates systemic issues of equality and opportunity, but also helps or
hinders learning goals on a micro level, especially with respect to cognitive load.
Cognitive Load Theory
Cognitive load theory (CLT) asserts that instructional design must consider human
cognitive architecture (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009). Cognitive architecture is made up of
two components: working memory and long-term memory (Kirschner et al., 2009). Although
long term-memory is unlimited, working memory is limited (Kirschner et al., 2009). Thus,
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 73
instruction should be designed so that cognitive load does not exceed the working memory of the
learner (Kirschner et al., 2009).
Tri-archic load. There are three major types of cognitive load – intrinsic, extraneous,
and germane loads (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008, Kirschner et al., 2009). Intrinsic, or essential, load
refers to the cognitive processing necessary to comprehend the material (DeLeeuw & Mayer,
2008). In other words, it is the minimum amount of cognitive resources that must be used to
achieve the learning task (Kirschner et al., 2009). As the number of elements in a task increases,
so does the intrinsic load (Kirschner et al., 2009). Extraneous, or extrinsic, load refers to
cognitive processing that does not support the learning objective (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008;
Kirschner et al., 2009). Instructional design that aligns with cognitive load theory seeks to
minimize extrinsic load (Kirschner et al., 2009). Germane, or generative, processing is the
cognitive processing that organizes material and relates it to prior knowledge and existing
schema (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008). Germane load nurtures learning (Kirschner et al., 2009).
Altogether, the cumulative cognitive load that includes intrinsic, extraneous, and germane loads
cannot exceed working memory in order for learning to occur (Kirschner et al., 2009).
Instructional design. Instructional design based on cognitive load theory has two
important goals. First, instructional design must enhance germane load so that cognitive
processing can lead to schema construction and rule automation (Kirschner et al., 2009). Second,
instructional design should diminish extraneous load to free up cognitive resources for intrinsic
and germane processing (de Jong, 2009; DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008; Kirschner et al., 2009).
Reducing extraneous load is an important goal because it is seen as “low-hanging fruit” in
avoiding cognitive overload. Cognitive overload occurs when cognitive load exceeds working
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 74
memory capacity (de Jong, 2009). It is a well-accepted precept of cognitive load theory that
cognitive overload is harmful for learning (de Jong, 2009).
Instructional design and cognitive overload. Much research supports the notion that
instructional design must connect learning to total cognitive load (Kirschner et al., 2011). From a
holistic perspective, there are many factors that contribute to total cognitive load.
Advanced learning tasks. Highly complex or sophisticated learning tasks require
substantial cognitive load, which increases the risk of cognitive overload (Kirschner et al., 2009).
Basically, the sheer number of separate pieces of information that must be cognitively assembled
in a cohesive fashion can overwhelm the learner’s limited working memory (Kirschner et al.,
2009). What is considered an advanced learning task is also relative (de Jong, 2009). A task
designed to enhance germane load in an intermediate learner can create extraneous load in a
novice learner (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008). Thus, instructional design should arrange learning
tasks in order of increasing difficulty (Kirschner et al., 2009). Moreover, scaffolding is an
important consideration so that extraneous load may be reduced as tasks become increasingly
difficult (Kirschner et al., 2009).
The redundancy effect. A common source of extraneous load is redundancy of material
(DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008). An example of redundancy is the use of a multi-media presentation
which uses on-screen text and narrative at the same time and using the same words. Redundancy
requires that learners spend limited and therefore previous cognitive stores to process and
reconcile multiple sources of information (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008). Thus, redundancy acts
counter to the learning objective (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008).
The split-attention effect. The split-attention effect occurs when working memory is
divided among separate sources of information at the same time (Kirschner et al., 2009). This
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 75
division of working memory can negatively impact cognitive processing when cognitive
resources are thinly spread. Learning and understanding begins after different sources of
information are mentally integrated (Kirschner et al., 2009). This effect is similar to the
redundancy effect in that reconciling information requires significant cognitive processing.
However, what distinguishes the split-attention effect is the multiplicity of sources and not their
redundant information (Kirschner et al., 2009).
Effects of the Physical Environment on CLT
Multiplicity and complexity of information is not limited to elements of instructional
design. DeLeeuw and Mayer (2008) theorized that all manipulations of learning situations should
cause a corresponding change in load because cognitive load is a “unitary construct” (DeLeeuw
& Mayer, 2008, p. 233). Thus, numerous elements outside of instructional design can be possible
influencers of learning and cognitive load, and research supports this notion (Rodrigues &
Pandeirada, 2015). Numerous environmental factors have been identified as potential sources of
extraneous load, such as the design of space, its color, noise, and the number of individuals in it
(Rodrigues & Pandeirada, 2015). These kinds of factors frequently appear in research about the
“physical learning environment”, which is differentiated from mere “environment” or “learning
environment” (Choi, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 2014, p. 299).
Choi, Van Merrienboer, and Paas argue that the physical learning environment is a
determinant of instructional effectiveness as well as student performance because the cognitive
processing required by the physical learning environment affects cognitive load (2014).
According to Choi et al., the physical learning environment includes the “whole range of
physical properties of a place where teaching and learning takes place” (2014, p. 299). Further,
this range of physical properties includes the physical characteristics of the built environment
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 76
(Choi et al., 2014). Essentially, any characteristic that impacts human senses comprises the
physical learning environment, such as thermal conditions, noise, and even the presence of other
individuals (Choi et al., 2014). Because these attributes have a sensory impact, they must be
processed cognitively (Choi et al., 2014). Further, in this way, cognition is “distributed and
flowed across the individual and the physical environment” (Choi et al., 2014, p. 230).
As a result of this cognitive processing, the physical learning environment influences
behavior, attitudes, and performance of both educators and students (Choi et al., 2014).
Additionally, environmental factors can become cues to retrieve information thereby entering
cognitive schema. Choi et al. also assert that measuring the impact of the physical learning
environment on learning is problematic because cognitive, physical, and emotional components
are intermingled and difficult to isolate (2014). Choi et al. (2014) assert that further
investigation into cognitive load theory and the physical learning environments has important
implications for the physical design of learning environments. According to Choi et al. (2014),
extraneous load should be reduced, including that stemming from physical environmental
factors.
Noise: auditory and visual. Maintaining focused attention requires that learners become
inured to irrelevant objects and events (Fisher, Godwin, & Seltman, 2014). A commonly cited
interruption to focused attention is noise (Choi et al., 2014; Fisher et al., 2014; Rodrigues &
Pandeirada, 2015). Auditory noise is also considered a form of environmental pollution
(Schneider, 2002; Wakefield, 2002). In the physical learning environment, noise refers to visual
stimuli as well as auditory ones (Choi et al., 2014). Further, noise impacts learners’ working
memory so that learners have fewer working memory resources to utilize for cognitive
processing (Choi et al., 2014).
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 77
A study by Fisher, Godwin, and Seltman (2014) also found that auditory and visual noise
negatively impacted student performance. More specifically, Fisher et al. (2014) found that a
visually stimulating classroom environment increased the overall time spent on a learning task.
Additionally, students in this study spent more time off task in a visually stimulating
environment than in a visually sparse one. Further, the more time a student spent off task, the
less learning that resulted. Overall, these students’ performance was behind that of students in a
visually sparse environment.
Thermal condition. The thermal condition of a physical learning environment can affect
cognitive performance (Choi et al., 2014). A study by Schneider (2003) for the National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities found that thermal condition, too hot or too cold,
affected between 30 and 40% of teachers surveyed. Additionally, thermal condition is considered
a contributing factor to persistent teacher health concerns (Schneider, 2003). For students,
thermal conditions clearly have an impact on their performance, particularly mental tasks (Choi
et al., 2014; Schneider, 2002).
Indoor air quality. Indoor air quality (IAQ) is another key component of the physical
learning environment (Schneider, 2003). The relationship between IAQ and health is
documented and commonly known as “sick building syndrome” (Schneider, 2002).
Approximately 15,000 schools and one in five children in America’s schools suffer from poor
IAQ (Schneider, 2002). Poor IAQ is associated with increased student absenteeism, which
affects student performance as well as school budgets (Schneider, 2002).
In schools where efforts have been proactively made to improve IAQ, less absenteeism
resulted (Wakefield, 2002). Further, less absenteeism leads to less time away from cognitive
tasks. It would seem that IAQ is a part of the drama of infrastructure (Star, 1999). It should be
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 78
noted that factors affecting indoor air quality are frequently of the type overseen by the
Environmental Protection Agency (Wakefeld, 2002); however, air quality in public K-12 schools
in California is usually a burden placed on state and local officials (Schneider, 2002; Wakefield,
2002).
Summary
Cognitive load theory is based on the notion that instructional design must account for
human cognitive architecture (Kirschner et al., 2009). Cognitive architecture is comprised of two
components: working memory and long-term memory (Kirschner et al., 2009). Instruction
should ensure that cognitive load does not exceed the learner’s working memory (Kirschner et
al., 2009). Cognitive load has three types: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane (DeLeeuw &
Mayer, 2008). Cognitive overload occurs when cognitive load exceeds working memory
capacity (de Jong, 2009). Cognitive load is a unitary construct, and elements unconnected to
learning objectives can contribute to cognitive overload (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008; Rodrigues &
Pandeirada, 2015).
Physical conditions must be cognitively processed, and so they are sources of extraneous
load for learners (Choi et al., 2014). Environmental factors such as auditory and visual noise,
thermal conditions, air quality, and even the presence of other individuals increase the risk of
cognitive overload, which negatively impacts student performance in turn (Choi et al., 2014;
Rodrigues & Pandeirada, 2015). Further, extraneous load caused by the physical learning
environment is not limited to just the learner; teachers are also subject to the same conditions,
which impacts teacher effectiveness (Schneider, 2003).
The physical learning environment also affects rates of absenteeism (Choi et al., 2014). In
essence, the physical learning environment impedes learning when it creates extraneous load or
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 79
prevents school attendance altogether (Choi et al., 2014). Many of these environmental factors
are overseen by state and local government (Schneider, 2002; Wakefield, 2002). Addressing the
learner’s cognition is appropriate to understand the effects of the physical learning environment
on the learner and that exclusionary zoning contributes to the extraneous load that makes
learning more difficult.
Purpose of the Study
This study investigated the literal street-level view of LAUSD schoolsites and what is
occurring there. The study also sought to commence an exploratory investigation of any
associations between zoning and demographic statistics associated with the schoolsite. For
clarification, it should be noted this is a descriptive study.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: How many of the 1,245 LAUSD schools are within each of the ten zoning
classifications of the present study?
Research Question 2: Within the present study, how many are there of the following?
a. LAUSD schoolsites in each local government?
b. LAUSD schoolsites in each applicable zip code?
c. District schoolsites located in each zoning classification?
d. Charter schoolsites located in each zoning classification?
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the following school characteristics and
the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. School Type?
b. Grade Level?
c. Local District?
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 80
d. Board District?
Research Question 4: What is the relationship between the following geographic characteristics
and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. Local Governments?
b. Zip Codes?
Research Question 5: What is the relationship between the following population characteristics
and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. Population?
b. Income?
Research Question 6: What is the relationship between the following housing characteristics and
the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. The number of total occupied housing units?
b. The number of owner-occupied housing units?
c. The number of renter-occupied housing units?

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 81
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study conducted descriptive research on zoning and schoolsites in the LAUSD. Six
research questions guided the study. These questions not only sought descriptive data but also
preliminary correlational data among zoning, population, geographic, and housing tenure
characteristics connected with LAUSD schoolsites. This chapter describes the study’s
participants, data sources, and data collection procedures.
Participants
From a geographic standpoint, the boundaries of the LAUSD cover approximately 720
square miles (LAUSD, 2016a). Additionally, LAUSD maintains a real estate portfolio that
includes 21,000 buildings housing seventy-five million square feet of space (LAUSD, 2016b).
Further, LAUSD oversees 1,245 total schools, each of which has a physical address. This
physical address is termed the “schoolsite”. The participants of this study are the 1,245 schools
overseen by LAUSD, and information associated with each schoolsite comprises the
fundamental data collected and analyzed.
Of these 1,245 total schools, 967 are district schools. District schools operate under the
sole supervision of the LAUSD. The remaining 278 are charter schools. In LAUSD, charter
schools are categorized as either conversion or start-up and as either affiliated or independent
(LAUSD, n.d.a). "Conversion” indicates the school was an existing district school that became a
charter one whereas a “start-up” is a charter school from inception (LAUSD, n.d.a). “Affiliated”
charter schools still operate under the purview of the LAUSD Board of Education whereas
“independent” charter schools are operated independently (LAUSD, n.d.a). Thus, there are four
categories of charter schools: conversion affiliated, conversion independent, start-up affiliated,
and start-up independent (LAUSD, n.d.a). The break-down of LAUSD charter schools according
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 82
to these categories is as follows: conversion affiliated – 52, conversion independent – 11, start-up
affiliated – 2, and start-up independent – 213.
A preliminary review of schoolsites showed that LAUSD schoolsites were found in ten
different zoning classifications: Agricultural, Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple,
Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones. Each
classification refers to the type of use allowed on the land. An Agricultural classification allows
farming and wildlife-type activities on the land; Residential – Single, single or single-family
dwelling units; Residential – Multiple, multiple or multiple-family dwelling units; Commercial,
lower intensity business activities such as office or retail; Industrial, manufacturing and other
higher intensity activities; Public Facilities, public or civic activities; Urban zones, activities
associated with high population density areas; and Specific plan, activities according to the local
government’s special strategy for that area. Multiple Zones is a special zoning classification
created just for this study and indicates when a schoolsite rests on multiple land parcels of
varying zone classifications.
Additionally, LAUSD boundaries include nineteen local governments: the City of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, Bell, Carson, Cudahy, Gardena, Hawthorne, Huntington Park,
Inglewood, Lomita, Long Beach, Maywood, Monterey Park, Rancho Palos Verdes, San
Fernando, South Gate, Torrance, Vernon, and West Hollywood. Also, there are 123 unique zip
codes containing an LAUSD schoolsite.
To reiterate, these 1,245 schools, not students enrolled at these schools, are considered
this study’s direct participants; however, for context, following is a general overview of the
LAUSD. The LAUSD is the nation’s second largest school district (LAUSD, 2016a). It oversees
approximately 650,000 students in grades K-12 (LAUSD, 2016c). LAUSD students represent
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 83
one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation (LAUSD, 2016a). Approximately 73.4% of
LAUSD students are Latino; 10%, African-American; 8.8%, White; 3.9%, Asian; 2.2%,
Filipino; .04%, Pacific Islander; .04%, American Indian; and 1%, two or more races, not Latino
(LAUSD, 2016c). Moreover, it is estimated that 80% of LAUSD students live at or below the
poverty line, and there are approximately 400 high-poverty campuses (LAUSD, 2016d).
Instrument and Data Collection
Please note that the present study is primarily descriptive in nature and does not use an
instrument. Rather, all data for this study were derived from existing datasets maintained by
local, state, and federal public agencies or governments. In addition, all datasets consist of
publicly available, previously aggregated data.
School Information
The LAUSD School Listing provided the following data used in this study: school
address, zip code, grade levels, type, local district, and local board information. This data can be
accessed at http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/7704.
Population
Population data was collected from a dataset maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau. The
dataset is entitled “Total Population, Universe: Total Population: 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates” and was found at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Population data was collected by
zip code and limited to the range of zip codes represented in the LAUSD.
Income
Income data was collected from a dataset maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau. The
dataset is entitled “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars),
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 84
2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates” and was found at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. It should be noted that median
incomes by zip code were used and limited to the range of zip codes represented in the LAUSD.
Housing Tenure
Housing tenure data was collected from a dataset maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The dataset is entitled “Occupancy Characteristics: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates” and was found at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
Housing tenure data was also collected by zip code and limited to the range of zip codes
represented in the LAUSD.
Zoning and Local Government
The zoning classification dataset used here was an original creation for the present study.
Despite that zoning data is publicly available, collecting zoning data required a more complex
procedure than for other data. The method to determine the zoning classification for each
schoolsite evolved over a lengthy trial-and-error process. The refined process consisted of the
following steps. First, the address of each school was obtained from the School Listing to
determine the “schoolsite”.
Second, in order to determine where to obtain zoning data, the local government of each
schoolsite was determined and confirmed by using maps of the City of Los Angeles and Los
Angeles County. It should also be noted that the local government could be only one of three
categories: the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, or an incorporated city within the
boundaries of the County of Los Angeles. If the local authority was the City of Los Angeles,
then zoning was determined using a web application called the Zone Information and Map
Access System (ZIMAS) and maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 85
(LADBS). Entering an address into ZIMAS will produce “parcel information” for real property,
i.e. land, located in the City of Los Angeles. This parcel information includes zoning
classifications and other property information. ZIMAS can be found at zimas.lacity.org.
Similarly, if the local authority was the County of Los Angeles, then zoning was determined
using the GIS-NET3 web application maintained by the County of Los Angeles. GIS-NET3 can
be found at planning.lacounty.gov/gisnet3.
Unlike in the City or County of Los Angeles, collecting zoning data from an incorporated
city required visual determinations. Essentially, if the local government was an incorporated city
within either the boundaries of the City or County of Los Angeles, then the zoning was
determined using the zoning map maintained by the incorporated city on its respective website
and in conjunction with the zoning code for the incorporated city.
Finally, the zoning classifications and definitions were verified by consulting the
applicable statute, i.e. the zoning code, for all local governments, and these statutes are also
maintained on the respective websites for all. Whenever a complication arose in determining
zoning determination, it was confirmed using online mapping tools and LA County assessor
parcel information. This confirmation was important because, while the School Listing provided
a physical address, the city identified in the physical address did not always match with the
actual local government.
Preliminarily, zoning determinations produced 174 unique zoning classifications.
However, when aggregated, ten discrete zoning classifications emerged from the original 174:
Agriculture, Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Public Facility,
Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones. The large number of unique zoning classifications that
were initially identified is attributed to secondary markers affecting height, population density,
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 86
overlay zones, and intensity of use but not the fundamental character of the underlying zoning
classification. For example, a “C2-CUGU” zoning classification can be read as “Commercial –
Clean Up Green Up”, which is a zoning designation that indicates where commercial uses are
allowed but subject to additional environmental restrictions; however, for the current study, this
same designation is identified as simply “Commercial”.
Procedure
Participant Identification and Sampling
The LAUSD School Information Branch (SIB) is the departmental unit primarily
responsible for data collection within the district (LAUSD, n.d.c). Accordingly, SIB maintains
datasets (School Listings), which provide general information for all schools within the LAUSD.
School Listings are accessible through the LAUSD website and are updated on a nightly basis
(LAUSD, 2016d). Additionally, School Listings are divided into two categories: “K-12 Schools
Only” and “Children Centers, K-12 & Adult Ed Schools”. The School Listing used here was “K-
12 Schools Only”, and the last time this dataset was accessed for purposes of identifying
participants of the present study was December 7, 2016.
No sampling was used. Thus, the population for this study was every school included in
the “K-12 Schools Only” School Listing dataset as of December 7, 2016, which totaled 1,245. A
preliminary review of the School Listing revealed only 917 unique schoolsites for these 1,245
schools, which meant 328 schoolsites were duplicate entries. Duplicate entries of schoolsites
were included in the present study because each different school on a common schoolsite
represented a unique student population.
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 87
IRB-Exempt Status
This study was deemed Not Human Subjects Research and therefore not subject to 45
CFR 46 regulations. In essence, this study was exempt from further IRB review for two main
reasons. First, there were no human participants. Instead, schoolsites, namely the physical
addresses associated with school facilities, were utilized to extrapolate relevant data about
schools. Second, all data utilized in this study are regularly collected by local, state, and federal
public agencies or governments in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations
and are publicly available. Moreover, any data relating to students, such as grade level, was
aggregated by the LAUSD prior to publication of the School Listing on the LAUSD website and
was not personally identifiable.

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 88
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter summarizes the results from this study. The nature of the study was
primarily descriptive and exploratory. Accordingly, there were no independent or dependent
variables, and no hypotheses were asserted.
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question 1: How many of the 1,245 LAUSD schools are within each of the ten
zoning classifications of the present study?
Both LAUSD schools and zoning classifications for each schoolsite represented nominal
data. A cross-tabulation was used to calculate the number and percentage of LAUSD school sites
in each zoning classification (see Table 1): Public Facilities – 829 (66.6%), Commercial – 98
(7.9%), Residential – Multiple – 90 (7.2%), Residential – Single – 81 (6.5%), Specific Plan – 60
(4.8%), Industrial – 58 (4.7%), Multiple Zones – 12 (1.0%), Agricultural – 10 (0.8%), Urban – 4
(0.3%), and Parking – 3 (0.2%).
Research Question 2: Within the present study, how many are there of the following?
a. LAUSD schoolsites in each local government?
b. LAUSD schoolsites in each applicable zip code?
c. District schoolsites located in each zoning classification?
d. Charter schoolsites located in each zoning classification?
a. LAUSD Schoolsites in Each Local Government
A basic frequency analysis identified 19 unique local governments containing an LAUSD
schoolsite. A cross-tabulation identified the number and percentage of LAUSD schoolsites in
each local government (see Table 2): the City of Los Angeles – 1,005 (80.7%), Los Angeles
County – 77 (6.2%), South Gate – 32 (2.6%), Huntington Park – 32 (2.6%), Carson – 24 (1.9%),
ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 89

Gardena – 20 (1.6%), San Fernando – 15 (1.2%), Bell – 11 (0.9%), Cudahy – 8 (0.6%),
Maywood – 6 (0.6%), Lomita – 4 (0.3%), Rancho Palos Verdes – 3 (0.2%), Torrance – 3 (0.2%),
West Hollywood – 3 (0.2%), Hawthorne – 1 (0.1%), Inglewood – 1 (0.1%), Long Beach – 1
(0.1%), Monterey Park – 1 (0.1%), and Vernon – 1 (0.1%).
b. LAUSD Schoolsites in Each Applicable Zip Code
A basic frequency analysis identified the zip codes containing the ten highest number of
LAUSD schoolsites. Following are the number and percentage of LAUSD schoolsites found in
these Zip Codes (see Table 3): 90011 - 38 (3.1%); 90255, 90280 – 33 each (2.7% each); 90003 –
27 (2.2%); 91335 – 24 (1.9%); 90001, 90026, 91342 – 23 (1.9% each); 90007, 90023, 90063,
91331 – 22 each (1.8% each); 90044, 91343 – 21 each (1.7% each); 90065, 90066, 91340, 91344
– 20 each (1.6%) each; 90005, 90022, 90031, 90032, 90201, 91352 – 19 each (1.5% each);
90042, 90731 – 18 each (1.4% each). These schools represent 565 (45.4%) of 1,245 total
LAUSD schools.
Table 1

Number and Percentage of LAUSD Schoolsites in Each Zoning Classification (N = 1,245)

Measure n %
Zoning Classification
Public Facilities 829 66.6
Commercial 98 7.9
Residential – Multiple 90 7.2
Residential – Single 81 6.5
Specific Plan 60 4.8
Industrial 58 4.7
Multiple Zones 12 1.0
Agricultural 10 0.8
Urban 4 0.3
Parking 3 0.2

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 90

c. District Schoolsites Located in Each Zoning Classification
A basic frequency analysis identified 967 district schoolsites in total. For these 967
district schoolsites, a cross-tabulation was used first to identify the number and percentage of
district schoolsites in each zoning classification and second to identify the percentage of district
schoolsites in each zoning classification among the 1,245 LAUSD schools is also provided (see
Table 4): Public Facilities – 717 (74.1%), (57.6%); Commercial – 31 (3.2%), (2.5%); Industrial –
29 (3.0%), (2.3%); Residential – Multiple – 62 (6.4%), (5.0%); Residential – Single – 62 (6.4%),
(5.0%); Specific Plan – 50 (5.2%), (4.0%); Multiple Zones –6 (0.6%), (0.5%); Agricultural – 4
(0.4%), (0.3%); Urban – 4 (0.4%), (0.3%); and Parking – 2 (0.2%), (0.16%).
Table 2

Number and Percentage of LAUSD Schoolsites in Each Local Government (N = 1,245)

Measure n %
Local Government
City of Los Angeles 1,005 80.7
Los Angeles County 77 6.2
South Gate 32 2.6
Huntington Park 32 2.6
Carson 24 1.9
Gardena 20 1.6
San Fernando 15 1.2
Bell 11 0.9
Cudahy 8 0.6
Maywood 6 0.6
Lomita 4 0.3
Rancho Palos Verdes 3 0.2
Torrance 3 0.2
West Hollywood 3 0.2
Hawthorne 1 0.1
Inglewood 1 0.1
Long Beach 1 0.1
Monterey Park 1 0.1
Vernon 1 0.1

ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 91

d. Charter Schoolsites Located in Each Zoning Classification
A basic frequency analysis identified 278 charter schoolsites in total. For these 278
charter schoolsites, a cross-tabulation was used first to identify the number and percentage of
charter schoolsites in each zoning classification and second to identify the percentage of charter
schoolsites in each zoning classification among the 1,245 LAUSD schools is also provided (see
Table 5): Public Facilities – 112 (40.3%), (9.0%); Commercial – 67 (24.1%), (5.4%); Industrial –
29 (10.4%), (2.3%); Residential – Multiple – 28 (10.1%), (2.2%); Residential – Single – 19
(6.8%), (1.5%); Specific Plan – 10 (3.6%), (0.8%); Agricultural – 6 (2.2%), (0.5%); Multiple
Zones – 6 (2.2%), (0.5%); Parking – 1 (0.4%), (0.01%); and Urban – 0 (0.0%), (0.0%).
Running head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 92

Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the following school characteristics
and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. School Type?
b. Grade Level?
c. Local District?
d. Board District?
a. School Type
Because both variables were nominal, a Chi Square Test of Independence was utilized to
determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined both observed and expected
counts of zoning classifications in each school type. This analysis confirmed an association.
Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical significance (see Table 6).

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

93

District schools were more likely to be located in Public Facilities, Urban, and Specific
Plan zoning, χ
2
(36, N = 1245) = 355.639, p =.000, V = 0.3, an effect size which indicated
medium practical significance. District schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Conversion affiliated charter schools were more likely to be located in Public Facilities
zoning. Conversion affiliated charter schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Start-Up affiliated charter schools were more likely to be located in Public Facilities
zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for start-up affiliated charter schools in
Agricultural and Multiple Zones zoning. Start-up affiliated charter schools were less likely to be
located in all other zoning.
Conversion independent charter schools were more likely to be located in Residential –
Multiple and Public Facilities zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for conversion

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

94

independent charter schools in Parking and Urban zoning. Conversion independent charter
schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Start-up independent charter schools were more likely to be located in Agricultural,
Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking and Multiple Zones
zoning. Start-up independent charter schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
b. Grade Level
Because both variables were nominal, a Chi Square Test of Independence was utilized to
determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined both observed and expected
counts of zoning classifications in each grade level. This analysis confirmed an association.
Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical significance (see Table 7).
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

95

Elementary schools were significantly more likely to be located in Residential – Single,
Residential – Multiple, Public Facilities, and Urban zoning, χ
2
(27, N = 1245) = 98.951, p =.000,
V = 0.2, an effect size which indicated small-to-medium practical significance. Elementary
schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Middle schools were more likely to be located in Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and
Specific Plan zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for middle schools in Multiple
Zones zoning. Middle schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

96

High schools were more likely to be located in Commercial, Industrial, Specific Plan, and
Multiple Zones zoning. High schools were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
SPAN schools were more likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential – Single,
Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning. SPAN schools were more likely to be located in all other zoning.
c. Local District
Because both variables were nominal, a Chi Square Test of Independence was utilized to
determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined both observed and expected
counts of zoning classifications in each Local District. This analysis confirmed an association.
Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical significance (see Table 8).
Schools in the CE Local District were more likely to be located in Residential – Multiple,
Industrial, and Multiple Zones zoning, χ
2
(53, N = 1245) = 558.089, p = .000, V = 0.3, an effect
size which indicated medium practical significance (Table X). Schools in the CE Local District
were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in the E Local District were more likely to be located in Residential – Multiple,
Urban, and Specific Plan zoning. Schools in the E Local District were less likely to be located in
all other zoning.
Schools in the NE Local District were more likely to be located in Residential – Single,
Industrial, Public Facilities, and Parking zoning. Schools in the NE Local District were less
likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in the NW Local District were more likely to be located in Public Facilities
zoning. Schools in NW Local District were less likely to be located in all other zoning.

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

97

Schools in the S Local District were more likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential
– Single, Public Facilities, and Multiple Zones zoning. Schools in the S Local District were less
likely to be located in all other zoning.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

98

Schools in the W Local District were more likely to be located in Public Facilities and
Urban. Schools in the W Local District were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in the XR Local District were more likely to be located in Agricultural,
Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and Multiple
Zones zoning. Schools in the XR Local District were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in the XS Local District were more likely to be located in Public Facilities and
Specific Plan zoning. Schools in the XS Local District were less likely to be located in
Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, and Industrial. Observed and expected
counts were equal for schools in the XS Local District in Agricultural, Parking, Urban, and
Multiple Zones zoning.
d. Board District
Because both variables were nominal, a Chi Square Test of Independence was utilized to
determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined both observed and expected
counts of zoning classifications in each Board District. This analysis confirmed an association.
Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical significance (see Table 9).
Schools not assigned a Board District (n=5) were significantly more likely to be located
in Residential – Multiple and Commercial zoning, χ
2
(72, N = 1245) = 451.766, p = .000, V =
0.2, an effect size which indicated medium-to-large practical significance (Table X). Schools not
assigned a Board District were less likely to be located in Residential – Single, Industrial, Public
Facilities, and Specific Plan zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for schools not
assigned a Board District in Agricultural, Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Schools in Board District 0 [Out-of-District] were more likely to be located in Multiple
Zones zoning. Schools in Board District 0 [Out-of-District] were less likely to be located in
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

99

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

100

Residential – Single, Industrial, Public Facilities, and Specific Plan zoning. Observed and
expected counts were equal for schools in Board District 0 [Out-of-District] in Agricultural,
Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Schools in Board District 1 were more likely to be located in Residential – Single,
Residential – Multiple, Commercial, and Urban. Schools in Board District 1 were less likely to
be located in all other zoning.
Schools in Board District 2 were more likely to be located in Residential – Multiple,
Commercial, Industrial, and Specific Plan zoning. Schools in Board District 2 were less likely to
be located in all other zoning.
Schools in Board District 3 were more likely to be located in Agricultural and Public
Facilities zoning. Schools in Board District 3 were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in Board District 4 were more likely to be located in Public Facilities zoning.
Schools in Board District 4 were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in Board District 5 were more likely to be located in Public Facilities, Urban, and
Specific Plan zoning. Schools in Board District 5 were less likely to be located in all other
zoning.
Schools in Board District 6 were more likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential –
Single, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking, and Multiple Zones zoning. Schools in Board
District 6 were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Schools in Board District 7 were more likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential –
Single, Commercial, Industrial, and Multiple Zones zoning. Schools in Board District 7 were
less likely to be located in all other zoning.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

101

Research Question 4: What is the relationship between the following geographic
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. Local Governments?
b. Zip Codes?
a. Local Governments
Because both variables were nominal, a Chi Square Test of Independence was utilized to
determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined both observed and expected
counts of zoning classifications in each local government. This analysis confirmed an
association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical significance
(see Table 10).
LAUSD schools in Bell, California were more likely to be located in Residential –
Single, Residential – Multiple, and Commercial zoning, χ
2
(162, N = 1245) = 1697.021, p =.000,
V = 0.4, an effect size which indicated medium-to-large practical significance (Table X).
Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Parking and Urban zoning in
Bell. Schools in Bell were less likely to be located in Agricultural, Industrial, Public Facilities,
Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning
LAUSD schools in Carson, California, were more likely to be located in Residential –
Single zoning. LAUSD schools in Carson were less likely to be located in all other zoning.
LAUSD schools in Cudahy, California, were more likely to be located Residential –
Single and Public Facilities zoning. LAUSD schools in Cudahy were less likely to be located in
Agricultural, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Parking and Urban
zoning in Cudahy.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

102

LAUSD schools in Gardena, California, were more likely to be located in Public
Facilities zoning. LAUSD schools in Gardena were less likely to be located in Agricultural,
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

103

Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Urban, Specific Plan, and
Multiple Zones zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in
Parking zoning in Gardena.
LAUSD schools in Hawthorne, California, were more likely to be located Urban zoning.
LAUSD schools in Hawthorne were likely to be located in Residential – Single, Residential –
Multiple, Commercial, and Public Facilities. Observed and expected counts were equal for
LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Industrial, Parking, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning in
Hawthorne.
LAUSD schools in Huntington Park, California, were more likely to be located in Public
Facilities and Specific Plan zoning. LAUSD schools in Huntington Park were less likely to be
located in Agricultural, Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial,
Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
LAUSD schools in Inglewood, California, were more likely to be located in Residential –
Single. LAUSD schools in Inglewood, California, were less likely to be located in Residential –
Multiple, Commercial, and Public Facilities. Observed and expected counts were equal for
LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning in Inglewood.
LAUSD schools in the City of Los Angeles, California, were more likely to be located in
Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking, and Multiple Zones zoning. LAUSD schools
in the City of Los Angeles were less likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential – Single,
Residential – Multiple, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning.
LAUSD schools in Los Angeles County, California, were more likely to be located in
Residential – Multiple, Commercial, and Specific Plan zoning. LAUSD schools in Los Angeles
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

104

County were less likely to be located in Agricultural, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking,
Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD
schools in Residential – Single zoning in Los Angeles County
LAUSD schools in Lomita, California, were more likely to be located Residential –
Multiple and Commercial zoning. LAUSD schools in Lomita were less likely to be located in
Residential – Single, Industrial, Public Facilities, and Specific Plan zoning. Observed and
expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Parking, Urban, and Multiple
Zones zoning in Lomita.
LAUSD schools in Long Beach, California, were more likely to be located Industrial
zoning. LAUSD schools in Long Beach, California, were less likely to be located in Residential
– Single, Residential – Multiple, and Industrial. Observed and expected counts were equal for
LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning in
Long Beach.
LAUSD schools in Maywood, California, were more likely to be located Public Facilities
zoning. LAUSD schools in Maywood, California, were less likely to be located in Residential –
Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Parking,
and Urban zoning in Maywood.
LAUSD schools in Monterey Park, California, were more likely to be located Residential
– Single. LAUSD schools in Monterey Park were less likely to be located in Residential –
Multiple, Commercial, and Public Facilities. Observed and expected counts were equal for
LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning in Monterey Park.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

105

LAUSD schools in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, were more likely to be located in
Public Facilities zoning. LAUSD schools in Rancho Palos Verdes were less likely to be located
in Residential – Single, Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, and Specific Plan.
Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Parking, Urban,
and Multiple Zones zoning in Rancho Palos Verdes.
LAUSD schools in San Fernando, California, were more likely to be located Residential
– Single, Residential – Multiple, and Industrial zoning. LAUSD schools in San Fernando were
less likely to be located in Agricultural, Commercial, Public Facilities, Specific Plan, and
Multiple Zones zoning. Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in
Parking and Urban zoning in San Fernando.
LAUSD schools in South Gate, California, were more likely to be located in Urban and
Specific Plan zoning. LAUSD schools in South Gate were less likely to be located in all other
zoning.
LAUSD schools in Torrance, California, were more likely to be located Agricultural
zoning. LAUSD schools in Torrance were less likely to be located in Residential – Single,
Residential – Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, and Specific Plan zoning. Observed and
expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning in
Torrance.
LAUSD schools in Vernon, California, were more likely to be located Commercial
zoning. LAUSD schools in Vernon less likely to be located in Residential – Single, Residential –
Multiple, and Public Facilities. Observed and expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in
Agricultural, Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning in Vernon.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

106

LAUSD schools in West Hollywood, California, were more likely to be located
Residential – Multiple zoning. LAUSD schools in West Hollywood were less likely to be located
in Residential – Single, Commercial, Industrial, and Specific Plan zoning. Observed and
expected counts were equal for LAUSD schools in Agricultural, Public Facilities, Parking,
Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning in West Hollywood.
b. Zip Codes
Because both variables were nominal, a Chi Square Test of Independence was utilized to
determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined both observed and expected
counts of zoning classifications in each applicable zip code. This analysis confirmed an
association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical significance
(see Table 11).
Schools in Agricultural zoning were significantly more likely to be located in the
following zip codes, in descending order of significance: 90502, 91342, 91034, 91343, and
91331, χ
2
(1098, N = 1245) = 3380.972, p =.000, V = 0.5, an effect size which indicated large
practical significance (Table X).
Schools in Residential – Single zoning were more likely to be located in the following
Zip Codes, top five in descending order of significance: 90745, 90746, 90047, 91340, and 90061.
Schools in Residential – Multiple zoning were more likely to be located in the following
zip codes, top five in descending order of significance: 90044, 90063, 90005, 90201, and 90011.
Schools in Commercial zoning were more likely to be located in the following zip codes,
top five in descending order of significance: 90005, 90062, 90057, 90023, and 90043.
Schools in Industrial zoning were more likely to be located in the following zip codes,
top five in descending order of significance: 90011, 90065, 91402, 90031, and 91340.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

107

Schools in Public Facilities zoning were more likely to be located in the following zip
codes, top five in descending order of significance: 91335, 90042, 91344, 90032, and 90255.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

108

Schools in Parking zoning were more likely to be located in the 91606 zip code.
Schools in Urban zoning were more likely to be located in the following zip codes, in
descending order of significance: 90280 and 90250.
Schools in Specific Plan zoning were more likely to be located in the following zip codes,
in descending order of significance: 90280, 90022, 90063, 90017, 90026, 90012, 90015, and
90255.
Schools in Multiple Zones zoning were more likely to be located in the following zip
codes, in descending order of significance: 91405, 90015, 90744, 90066, 90059, 91331, 90003,
and 90011.
Research Question 5: What is the relationship between the following population
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. Population?
b. Income?
a. Population
Preliminarily, descriptive statistics reveal the following five-number summary of
population (see Table 12): minimum = 0.00; 25
th
percentile = 37,112.00; median = 49,532.00,
75
th
percentile = 64,149.00; and maximum = 104,058.00. Additional descriptives include a mean
population by zip code = 53,619.50, and a standard deviation = 22,928.29.
Because one variable was nominal and the other was scale, a Chi Square Test of
Independence was utilized to determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined
both observed and expected counts of zoning classifications in each population decile. This
analysis confirmed an association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure
practical significance.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

109

The highest (100
th
) decile in population was significantly more likely to be located in
Agricultural, Residential – Multiple, Industrial, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning, χ
2
(90, N = 1244) = 397.918, p = .000, V = 0.2, an effect size which indicates small-to-
medium practical significance (Table x). The 100th decile in Population was significantly less
likely to be located in Residential - Single, Commercial, and Public Facilities zoning.
The 90
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential -
Multiple, and Public Facilities zoning. The 90
th
decile was significantly less likely to be located
in Residential - Single, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple
Zones zoning.
The 80
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, and Specific Plan zoning. The 80
th
decile was significantly less likely to be located
in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, and Multiple
Zones zoning.
Table 12
A R-S R-M C I PF PK U SP MZ
10 27,167
x x x x
20 31,978
x
30 41,217
x x x
40 46,646
x x x
50 49,532
x x x
60 57,227
x x x x
70 62,872
x x x
80 69,502
x x x
90 93,466
x x x
100 104,058
x x x x x x
Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Population and Zoning Classification
Decile Population
Likely Zoning
Note. A = Agricultural; R-S = Residential – Single; R-M = Residential – Multiple; C = Commercial; I =
Industrial; PF = Public Facilities; PK = Parking; U = Urban; SP = Specific Plan; MZ = Multiple Zones
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

110

The 70
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Residential - Single, Public
Facilities, and Multiple Zones zoning. The 70
th
decile was significantly less likely to be located
in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Urban, and Specific
Plan zoning.
The 60
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Residential - Multiple
Zones, Public Facilities, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. The 60
th
decile was
significantly less likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Commercial,
Industrial, Parking, and Urban zoning.
The middle (50
th
) decile was significantly more likely to be located in Residential -
Single, Industrial, and Public Facilities zoning. The middle (50
th
) decile was significantly less
likely to be located in Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and
Multiple Zones zoning. The middle (50
th
) decile had expected number of schools in Agricultural
zoning.
The 40
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Commercial, Industrial, and
Parking zoning. The 40
th
decile was significantly less likely to be located in Agricultural,
Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Public Facilities, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple
Zones zoning.
The 30
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Residential - Single,
Commercial, and Industrial zoning. The 30
th
decile was significantly less likely to be located in
Agricultural, Residential - Multiple, Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and
Multiple Zones zoning.
The 20
th
decile was significantly more likely to be located in Public Facilities zoning. The
20
th
decile was significantly less likely to be located in Agricultural, Residential - Single,
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

111

Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple
Zones zoning.
The lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly more likely to be located in Agricultural,
Residential - Single, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. The lowest (10
th
) decile was
significantly less likely to be located in Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Public
Facilities, Parking, and Urban zoning.
It should be noted that, prior to aggregation, effect size was V = .5, which indicated large
practical significance.
b. Income
Preliminarily, descriptive statistics reveal the following five-number summary of income
(see Table 13): minimum = 0.00; 25
th
percentile = 34,588.00; median = 43,552.00, 75
th
percentile
= 55,956.00; and maximum = 166,021.00. Additional descriptives include a mean income =
48,081.88, and a standard deviation = 19,317.69.
Because one variable was nominal and the other was scale, a Chi Square Test of
Independence was utilized to determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined
both observed and expected counts of zoning classifications in each income decile. This analysis
confirmed an association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized to measure practical
significance.
Zip codes with the highest (100
th
) decile in income was significantly more likely to have
schoolsites located in Residential – Single and Public Facilities zoning, χ
2
(81, N = 1245) =
393.293, p = .000, V = 0.2, an effect size which indicates small-to-medium practical significance
(Table x). Zip codes with the highest (100
th
) decile in income was significantly less likely to

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

112

have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking,
Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 90
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Public Facilities, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with
the 90
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning.
Zip codes with the 80
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Industrial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 80
th

decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Urban, Parking, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural and Public Facilities. Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly less likely to
Table 13
A R-S R-M C I PF PK U SP MZ
10 30,143
x x x x x
20 33,582
x x x x
30 35,917
x x x
40 39,013
x x x x
50 43,552
x x x x x x x
60 49,835
x x
70 53,531
x x
80 60,774
x x x x
90 75,684
x x x x
100 166,021
x x
Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Income and Zoning Classification
Decile Income
Likely Zoning
Note. A = Agricultural; R-S = Residential – Single; R-M = Residential – Multiple; C = Commercial; I =
Industrial; PF = Public Facilities; PK = Parking; U = Urban; SP = Specific Plan; MZ = Multiple Zones
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

113

have schoolsites located in Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial,
Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 60
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Public Facilities and Urban zoning. Zip codes with the 60
th
decile was significantly less likely to
have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Parking, Urban, Specific
Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly less
likely to have schoolsites located in Commercial, Industrial, and Public Facilities zoning.
Zip codes with the 40
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Single, Commercial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the
40
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential -
Multiple, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was
significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single,
Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 20
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the
20
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential -
Single, Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

114

Zip codes with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones
zoning. Zip codes with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential - Single, Public Facilities, Parking, and Urban zoning.
It should be noted that, prior to aggregation, effect size was V = .5, which indicated large
practical significance.
Research Question 6: What is the relationship between the following housing
characteristics and the zoning classifications of schoolsites?
a. The number of total occupied housing nits?
b. The number of owner-occupied housing units?
c. The number of renter-occupied housing units?
a. Total Occupied Housing Units
Preliminarily, descriptive statistics reveal the following five-number summary of total
occupied housing units (see Table 14): minimum = 0.00; 25
th
percentile = 11,781.00; median =
15,873.00, 75
th
percentile = 19,846.00; and maximum = 31,813.00. Additional descriptives
include a mean total occupied housing units = 16,034.23, and a standard deviation = 5,565.07.
Because one variable was nominal and the other was scale, a Chi Square Test of
Independence was utilized to determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined
both observed and expected counts of zoning classifications in each total occupied housing units
decile. This analysis confirmed an association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was utilized
to measure practical significance.
Zip codes with the highest (100
th
) decile in total occupied housing units was significantly
more likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple, Public Facilities,
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

115

Urban, and Specific Plan zoning, χ
2
(81, N = 1245) = 275.081, p = .000, V = 0.2, an effect size
which indicates small-to-medium practical significance (Table x). Zip codes with the highest
(100
th
) decile in total occupied housing units was significantly less likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential - Single, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 90
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Industrial, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning. Zip codes with the 90
th
decile
was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single,
Commercial, Public Facilities, Parking, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 80
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Industrial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 80
th
decile was
significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Table 14
A R-S R-M C I PF PK U SP MZ
10 9,440 x x x x x x
20 11,259 x x x
30 13,110 x x x
40 14,326 x x x x
50 15,873 x x x x
60 16,631 x x x x x
70 18,456 x x x x
80 22,726 x x x
90 24,107 x x x x
100 31,813 x x x x x
Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Total Occupied Housing Units and Zoning Classification
Note. A = Agricultural; R-S = Residential – Single; R-M = Residential – Multiple; C = Commercial; I =
Industrial; PF = Public Facilities; PK = Parking; U = Urban; SP = Specific Plan; MZ = Multiple Zones
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Likely Zoning
Decile
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

116

Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Public Facilities, Specific Plan and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the 70
th

decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Single, Residential
- Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the 60
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, and Industrial zoning. Zip
codes with the 60
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Public
Facilities, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Industrial, and Parking zoning. Zip codes
with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Commercial, Public Facilities, Urban, Specific Plan and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 40
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Public Facilities, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes
with the 40
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural,
Residential - Single, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Industrial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was
significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single,
Commercial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 20
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Commercial, Public Facilities, and Specific Plan zoning. Zip codes with the 20
th
decile was
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

117

significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single,
Residential - Multiple, Industrial, Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, and
Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly less likely to
have schoolsites located in Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning.
It should be noted that, prior to aggregation, effect size was V = .5, which indicated large
practical significance.
b. Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Preliminarily, descriptive statistics reveal the following five-number summary of owner-
occupied housing units (see Table 15): minimum = 0.00; 25
th
percentile = 4,200.00; median =
15,873.00, 75
th
percentile = 19,846.00; and maximum = 16,452.00. Additional descriptives
include a mean owner-occupied housing units = 5,998.41, and a standard deviation = 3,221.50.
Because one variable was nominal and the other was scale, a Chi Square Test of
Independence was utilized to determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined
both observed and expected counts of zoning classifications in each owner-occupied housing
units decile. This analysis confirmed an association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was
utilized to measure practical significance.
Zip codes with the highest (100
th
) decile in owner-occupied housing units was
significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Public Facilities, and
Multiple Zones zoning, χ
2
(81, N = 1245) = 324.291, p = .000, V = 0.2, an effect size which
indicates small-to-medium practical significance (Table x). Zip codes with the highest (100
th
)
decile in owner-occupied housing units was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

118

in Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Urban, and
Specific Plan zoning.
Zip codes with the 90
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the
90
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the 80
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Industrial and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 80
th
decile was significantly less likely
to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential – Single and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly
Table 15
A R-S R-M C I PF PK U SP MZ
10 1,436
x x x x
20 3,628
x x
30 4,549
x x x x x x
40 5,035
x x x x
50 5,551
x x x
60 6,151
x x x x
70 6,951
x x
80 8,559
x x
90 10,600
x x x x
100 16,452
x x x
Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Owner-Occupied Housing Units and Zoning Classification
Note. A = Agricultural; R-S = Residential – Single; R-M = Residential – Multiple; C = Commercial; I =
Industrial; PF = Public Facilities; PK = Parking; U = Urban; SP = Specific Plan; MZ = Multiple Zones
Owner-Occupied
Housing Units
Likely Zoning
Decile
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

119

less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple, Commercial,
Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 60
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Industrial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the
60
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential -
Single, Commercial, Public Facilities, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential - Multiple, Commercial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the
middle (50
th
) decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural,
Residential - Single, Industrial, Parking, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 40
th
was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Public Facilities, Parking, and Specific Plan zoning. Zip codes with the
40
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential -
Single, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and Specific Plan zoning.
Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial and Multiple
Zones zoning. Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites
located in Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning.
Zip codes with the 20
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Single, Commercial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 20
th
decile
was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple,
Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

120

Zip codes with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, and Specific Plan zoning. Zip codes
with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
It should be noted that, prior to aggregation, effect size was V = .5, which indicated large
practical significance.
c. Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Preliminarily, descriptive statistics reveal the following five-number summary of renter-
occupied housing units (see Table 16): minimum = 0.00; 25
th
percentile = 6,888.00; median =
9,301.00, 75
th
percentile = 12,798.00; and maximum = 22,713.00. Additional descriptives
include a mean renter-occupied housing units = 10,035.82, and a standard deviation = 4,753.37.
Because one variable was nominal and the other was scale, a Chi Square Test of
Independence was utilized to determine if there were any associations. This analysis determined
both observed and expected counts of zoning classifications in each renter-occupied housing
units decile. This analysis confirmed an association. Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size, was
utilized to measure practical significance.
Zip codes with the highest (100
th
) decile in renter-occupied housing units was
significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Multiple, Commercial, and
Urban zoning, χ
2
(81, N = 1245) = 291.395, p = .000, V = 0.2, an effect size which indicates
small-to-medium practical significance (Table x). Zip codes with the highest (100
th
) decile in
renter-occupied housing units was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural, Residential - Single, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parking, Specific Plan, and
Multiple Zones zoning.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

121

Zip codes with the 90
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip codes with the
90
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential -
Single, Public Facilities, Parking, Urban, and Specific Plan zoning.
Zip codes with the 80
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning. Zip
codes with the 80
th
decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural,
Residential - Single, Public Facilities, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Public Facilities and Specific Plan zoning. Zip codes with the 70
th
decile was significantly less
likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Industrial, Parking, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Table 16
A R-S R-M C I PF PK U SP MZ
10 4,427
x x x
20 5,745
x x x
30 7,641
x x x
40 8,169
x x
50 9,301
x x x x x
60 10,845
x x x
70 11,936
x x
80 14,551
x x x x x
90 17,511
x x x x x x
100 22,713
x x x
Summary of Pearson Chi-Square between Renter-Occupied Housing Units and Zoning Classification
Note. A = Agricultural; R-S = Residential – Single; R-M = Residential – Multiple; C = Commercial; I =
Industrial; PF = Public Facilities; PK = Parking; U = Urban; SP = Specific Plan; MZ = Multiple Zones
Renter-Occupied
Housing Units
Likely Zoning
Decile
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

122

Zip codes with the 60
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Public Facilities, Parking, and Specific Plan zoning. Zip codes with the 60
th
decile was
significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Single,
Residential - Multiple, Commercial, Industrial, Urban, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple, Public Facilities, Specific Plan, and Multiple
Zones zoning. Zip codes with the middle (50
th
) decile was significantly less likely to have
schoolsites located in Residential - Single, Commercial, Industrial, Parking, and Urban zoning.
Zip codes with the 40
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Agricultural and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 40
th
decile was significantly less
likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Single, Residential - Multiple, Commercial,
Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Single, Industrial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 30
th
decile was
significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the 20
th
decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites located in
Residential - Single, Commercial, and Public Facilities zoning. Zip codes with the 20
th
decile
was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Agricultural, Residential - Multiple,
Industrial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
Zip codes with the lowest (10
th
) decile was significantly more likely to have schoolsites
located in Agricultural, Residential - Single, and Industrial zoning. Zip codes with the lowest
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

123

(10
th
) decile was significantly less likely to have schoolsites located in Residential - Multiple,
Commercial, Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning.
It should be noted that, prior to aggregation, effect size was V = .5, which indicated large
practical significance.

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

124

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to describe what is occurring on schoolsites in the LAUSD.
Following is a discussion of the findings from this study, their implications, the limitations of the
study, and recommendations for future research.
Principal Findings
Zoning Classifications Found in the LAUSD
The multiplicity of zoning classifications found in the LAUSD i.e., ten, demonstrates that
student populations have outgrown the spaces previously set aside for public uses and that school
siting has resorted to alternative means to house schoolsites. That 171 schoolsites were found in
residential zones, Residential-Single and Residential-Multiple, clearly supports the notion that
schools should be placed near where students live and are considered conventional zoning for
schoolsites in addition to Public Facilities strictly for purposes herein this chapter. When the
number of conventional schoolsites is subtracted from the total number of LAUSD schoolsites, it
is revealed that 235 schoolsites are housed in non-conventional zoning in the LAUSD. Further
research is required to determine the relationship between the number of students in the 235
schoolsites found in non-traditional zoning and overcrowding in the LAUSD.
It is notable that 156 schoolsites were located in zoning that appears facially non-civic
and historically has allowed more land-intensive uses: Commercial and Industrial. The degree at
which student populations have outgrown Public Facilities zoning is suggested by the siting of
schools in Industrial zones, a union which early urban planners were loath to make. Additionally,
it may be inferred that the existence of non-conventional zoning in the LAUSD necessitated
schools to undergo siting procedures in accordance with 5 CCR § 14010 and/or local entitlement
processes. Regardless of siting procedure, the LAUSD has had significant interaction with local
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

125

governments for purposes of school siting. Further, that 79 schoolsites were located in non-
conventional zoning classifications that have emerged as population densities in urban areas have
grown – Parking, Urban, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones – is an indication of urban character
in the LAUSD.
Local Governments
That there were nineteen different local governments represented in the LAUSD is an
indicator of political fragmentation in the LAUSD, which indicates that the LAUSD must sort
through nineteen different zoning regimes to better understand their total impact on the racial and
socioeconomic makeup of students found at LAUSD schools in their territories. Additionally, the
number of different local governments in the LAUSD raises the following questions: are these
contract cities and to what extent do these cities contract out their municipal services?
Highest Number of Schoolsites
The fact that ten zip codes with the ten highest numbers of schoolsites were not among
the most populous zip codes indicates that students within these zip codes may enjoy less
crowded schools. In the same vein, students located in the two most populous zip codes that did
not rank among the zip codes with highest numbers of schoolsites may be subject to
overcrowding. Additionally, among the 26 zip codes with the 10 highest numbers of schoolsites,
none of 10 of the highest median incomes by zip code was included, which could indicate spatial
isolation based on socioeconomic status.
District and Charter Schoolsites
The highest number of both district and charter schoolsites was located in Public
Facilities zoning, which supports the position that school districts are meeting their obligation to
ensure schoolsites for district and charter schools. That ten of eleven conversion independent
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

126

charter schoolsites were located in Public Facilities zoning in addition to the fact that affiliated
charter schoolsites were more likely to be located in Public Facilities zoning indicate their
origins as district schoolsites and association with the LAUSD Board of Education. The
likelihood of start-up independent charter schoolsites to be located in zoning other than Public
Facilities supports the notion that they experience more difficulty in securing district schoolsites.
Accordingly, future charter school petitioners may experience even more challenges locating an
acceptable schoolsite, especially in light of San Jose. Moreover, Huntington Park, Board District
5, was the local government in which the most start-up independent charter schoolsites could be
found in Public Facilities zoning – 5, which indicates that Huntington Park is hospitable to start-
up independent charter schools.
Grade Level
Results that elementary schoolsites were more likely to be located in Residential – Single,
Residential – Multiple, Public Facilities, in addition to Urban zoning, are important because they
could be indicators where a neighborhood unit might be found. That schools serving older
students – middle, high, and SPAN – were less likely to be found in Public Facilities or
Residential-Single zoning indicates that schools serving older students are viewed as LULUs
(Mandelker, 2011).
Local District
Results that only the NW Local District contains schoolsites more likely to be located in
Public Facilities zoning suggest that levels of growth and development in this area are not as
high as in other local districts, which indicates that the NW Local District is characterized by low
density zoning.
Running head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD 127
Board District
Results that only Board District 4 contained schoolsites more likely to be located in
Public Facilities zoning suggest that levels of growth and development in this area are not as
high as in other board districts, which also indicates that Board District 4 may be characterized
by low density zoning.
Population
The most populous zip codes were less likely to be located in Residential – Single,
Commercial, and Public Facilities zoning, and the inclusion of Residential-Single and Public
Facilities suggests that school siting there resorted to non-conventional zoning to accommodate
higher levels of population. The inclusion of Industrial zoning on this list indicates that school
siting in the most populous areas of the LAUSD has resorted to zoning associated with uses even
more intense than that of Commercial zoning.
Income
Results that the highest median income zip codes were more likely to have schoolsites
located in Residential – Single and Public Facilities zoning support the notion that levels of
growth and development in these areas are not as high as in other zip codes. In turn this
implication leads to others: that these zip codes are characterized by low density zoning and that
spatial separation based on socioeconomic factors may be occurring. Results that the lowest
median income zip codes were more likely to have schoolsites located in Residential – Multiple
zoning support the connection between multifamily housing and households’ low socioeconomic
status. The finding that the lowest median income zip codes were more likely to have schoolsites
located in Commercial, Industrial, Specific Plan, and Multiple Zones zoning supports the notion
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

128

that planning and development in these zip codes have occurred more rapidly there than in zip
codes with the highest median incomes.
Housing Tenure
Results that zip codes with the highest number of owner-occupied housing units were
more likely to be found in Agricultural and Public Facilities zoning suggest that these areas have
experienced lower levels of growth and development. Results that zip codes with the highest
number of owner-occupied housing units were also more likely to be found in Multiple Zones
zoning suggest that growth and development has occurred in these areas but has required
stitching property together in order to preserve residential areas. Results that zip codes with the
highest number of renter-occupied zoning and lowest number of owner-occupied housing units
were not likely to have schoolsites in the Residential – Single and Public Facilities zoning
support the notion that multiple dwelling units are not dispersed among single-family dwelling
unit areas but are clustered and at a distance from Residential – Single zoning.
Implications
Findings of this study support the conclusion that the student population of the LAUSD
has grown considerably since local zoning regimes initially planned for public uses such as
schools, effectively outpacing planned development in this regard. In addition, the growth in
student population levels indicates a corresponding growth in general population levels, which
require local planning departments to respond in ways to guide development of the region.
Increased development raises questions how to effectively strategize growth, and the fairness of
urban planning policy depends on decision-makers, who are decentralized among many local
governments due to political fragmentation. While this study does not conclusively affirm the
presence of exclusionary zoning among LAUSD schoolsites, results and principal findings do
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

129

tend to support an inference that features consistent with exclusionary zoning exist among
LAUSD schoolsites. The number of local governments in the LAUSD could indicate the sheer
geographic size of the LAUSD or the consolidation of school districts over time, but,
nonetheless, nineteen (22%) of the eighty-eight incorporated cities in the County of Los Angeles
enjoy the services of the LAUSD, a fact which supports the presence of political fragmentation.
Additionally, the presence of neighborhood units in the LAUSD is suggested by the number of
elementary schools in Residential-Single zoning, and the perception that secondary schools are
locally unwanted land uses is supported by their likelihood to be found away from Public
Facilities and Residential-Single zoning. Most importantly, certain geographic regions in the
LAUSD have not been impacted by as much development as others, and slow growth is also
indicated in areas with the highest median income, both of which indicate that low or anti-
density zoning practices may not only be practiced there but align with the “secession of the
successful”.
Limitations
An important limitation of the study was that previous research regarding the zoning
classifications of schoolsites was not found. Thus, comparisons between schoolsite zoning in the
LAUSD and that of other school districts in the County of Los Angeles were not possible.
Additionally, identifying the status of proposed facility and schoolsite projects was difficult to
ascertain and had to be tabled for further research.
Another limitation of the study was that zoning classifications were aggregated.
Consequently, the study did not account for subtle but important variations among land use
intensity and spatial accumulation within a zoning classification. Moreover, Multiple Zones
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

130

zoning could involve any union of diverse zoning, and specific types of configurations that could
inform levels of development at that schoolsite were not included.
Additionally, the study sought to explore the interdependencies among three different
systems – law, urban planning, and education, which posed significant challenges of information.
Each system contains an incredible amount of technical knowledge and has generated a
seemingly limitless number of datasets that could have been incorporated into the study’s format.
Therefore, organizing and narrowing the inquiry appropriately required much trial-and-error,
which was circumscribed by resources of the decision-maker. Still, though the present study be
limited, abundant opportunities for future investigation are envisioned.
Recommendations for Future Research
Linking zoning and other parcel information to schoolsites and student populations is a
burgeoning field of study, and there are numerous lines of inquiry to pursue. However, four
recommendations for future studies have emerged as most urgent. First, a comparison of zoning
in the LAUSD to that of other school districts located in the County of Los Angeles is
recommended to provide a more comprehensive picture of urban planning throughout the region.
Second, a continued exploration into zoning and student demographic data is recommended,
particularly based on characteristics relating to race, color, or national origin, sex, and ability.
Third, a study investigating overcrowding of schools and density regimes is strongly
recommended, for it would provide a crucial opportunity to understand the effects of the chain of
exclusion on education. Issues of overcrowding in schools have plagued educators (Welsh,
Coghlan, Fuller, & Dauter, 2012), and it should be considered that overcrowding issues are
closely connected with zoning density schemes. Finally, associating environmental data with
schoolsites would provide additional insight into the suitability of existing siting procedures for
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

131

physically developing youth. For example, exploring conditions from entitlement procedure for
schoolsites located in industrial zoning could further provide important information regarding
distance among 5 CCR requirements, zoning regulations, and schoolsite suitability.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between zoning and
schoolsites in the LAUSD. As a descriptive study, there were no hypotheses; instead, the study
sought to commence an inquiry whether the zoning of schoolsites was linked to characteristics of
the population served by the LAUSD or of the local governments where LAUSD schoolsites
were found. Results from the study demonstrate that the Los Angeles region has experienced
significant growth and development on a scale that has outpaced historical urban planning.
Though results from this study did not unequivocally confirm the presence of exclusionary
zoning throughout the LAUSD, several results aligned with features consistent with exclusionary
zoning: the presence of political fragmentation, neighborhood units, anti-density zoning regimes,
and “secession of the successful”.
Moreover, results from this study lead to a new definition of urban education in
California as the provision of state-mandated FAPE in metropolitan areas where high population
levels, great human diversity, vast income disparities, and pronounced residential density
intensify the challenges of equal education and equitable access to education. By viewing urban
education more expansively, it is hoped that educators and stakeholders can see the “place” of
their influence more clearly, understand the interdependence among systems in educational
governance, and seek more collaborative, creative problem-solving on a state and local level.

Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

132

References
5 CCR § 14010
Banerjee, T. & Baer, W. C. (1984). Beyond the neighborhood unit. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Brewer, D. & Smith, J. (2008). A framework for understanding educational governance: The
case of California. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 20-40.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brougher v. Bd. of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (Cal. 1928)
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
CA Const. art. IX, § 1
CA Const. art. IX, § 3
CA Const. art. IX, § 3.3
CA Const. art. IX, § 7
CA Const. art. IX, § 14
California Department of Education (2000). History-social science content standards for
California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/histsocscistnd.pdf
California Department of Education (2017). District/school boundaries. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/fq/distschlboundaries.asp
Callies, D. L., Curtin, Jr. D. J., & Tappendorf, J. A. (2003). Bargaining for development: A
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

133

handbook on development agreements, annexation agreements, land development
conditions, vested rights, and the provision of public facilities. Washington, DC:
Environmental Law Institute.
Cashin, H. J. (1972). Foundations of free choice: American & Californian. Manhattan Beach,
CA: Mar Institute.
Choi, H., Van Merriënboer, J. J. & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on
cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational
Psychology Review, 26 (2), 225-244.
Crouch, W. W., Bollens, J. C., & Scott, S. (1981). California government and politics.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Crouch, W. W., McHenry, D. E., Bollens, J. C., & Scott, S. (1952). State and local government
in California. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Curtin Jr., D. J. & Talbert, C. T. (2005). Curtin’s California land use and planning law. Point
Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Dodd, W. F. (1919). Implied powers and implied limitations in Constitutional law. The Yale Law
Journal, 20(2), 137-162.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some
food for thought. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 38(2), 105-134.
DeLeeuw, K. E. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load:
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

134

Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of
Education Psychology, 100(1), 223-234.
Eckes, S. (2015). Haven charter schools: Separate by design and legally questionable. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 48(1), 49-70.
Educ. Code § 200
Educ. Code § 201
Educ. Code § 14000
Educ. Code § 33300
Educ. Code § 33301
Educ. Code § 33305
Educ. Code § 33111
Educ. Code § 35010
Educ. Code § 35012
Educ. Code § 35160
Educ. Code § 35175
Educ. Code § 44335
Educ. Code § 47605
Fischel, W. A. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects.
Urban Studies, 41(2), 317-340.
Fisher, A.V, Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and
learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. Psychological
Science, 25(7), 1362–1370.
Gamkhar, S., & Pickerill, J. M. (2011). The state of American federalism 2010–2011: The
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

135

economy, healthcare reform and midterm elections shape the intergovernmental agenda.
Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(3), 361-394.
Gov’t. Code § 53094
Gov’t. Code § 58030
Gov’t. Code § 65000 et. seq.
Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 177 (Cal. 1956)
Hanushek, E. A. & Yilmaz, K. (2015) Land-use controls, fiscal zoning, and the local provision of
education. Public Finance Review, 43(5), 559-585.
Harris, R. P. & Worthen, D. H. (2004). Working through the challenges: Struggle and resilience
within the historically black land grant institutions. Education, 124(3), 447.
Hirt, S. (2015). Zoned in the USA: The origins and implications of American land-use
regulation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hogan-Esch, T. (2011). Fragmentation, fiscal federalism and the ghost of Dillon’s Rule:
Municipal incorporation in southern California, 1950-2010.
Howard, E. (1902). Garden cities of tomorrow. London, United Kingdom: Swan Sonnenschein
& Co., Ltd.
Hunter, M. (n.d.). State constitution education clause language. Retrieved from
http://pabarcrc.org/pdf/Molly%20Hunter%20Article.pdf
Imber, M., van Geel, T., Blokhuis, J. C., & Feldman, J. (2014). Education law (5
th
ed.). New
York, NY: Rutledge.
Johnson, E. L. (1981). Misconceptions about the early land-grant colleges. Journal of Higher
Education, 52(4), 333-357.
Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389, 399 (Cal. 1992).
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

136

Kemerer, F. & Sansom, P. (2013). California school law (3
rd
ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Kennedy, J. F. (1963). Executive order 11118: Providing assistance for removal of unlawful
obstructions of justice in the state of Alabama. Retrieved from
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=59057
Kirschner, P., Paas, F. & Kirschner, F. (2009). A cognitive load theory approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31-42.
LA County (n.d.). Los Angeles County General Plan 2035. Retrieved from
http://planning.lacounty.gov/generalplan
LADBS (2016). ZIMAS: Zoning Information Map Access System. Retrieved from
http://ladbs.org/services/check-zoning/information-about-zoning
LAUSD (2016a). About the Los Angeles Unified School District. Retrieved from
http://achieve.lausd.net/about
LAUSD (2016b). Facilities services division. Retrieved from http://www.laschools.org/new-site/
LAUSD (2016c). Fingertip facts. Retrieved from
http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/32/Fingertip%20Fact
s15-16_final-updated.pdf
LAUSD (n.d.a). LAUSD charter schools: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_ORGANIZATIONS/F
LDR_INSTRUCTIONAL_SVCS/CHARTER_SCHOOLS_DIVISION/SCHOOL_DIRE
CTORY/FACT%20SHEET%20CHARTER%20FAQS.PDF
LAUSD (2016d). Local districts [Table]. Retrieved from
http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/ptl_apps.schoolguide.render
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

137

LAUSD (2016e). School data [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/sib
LAUSD (n.d.c). School information branch. Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/sib
LAUSD (2015). School listings download [Dataset]. Retrieved from
http://achieve.lausd.net/Page/7704
LAUSD (2016d). Shortchanging L.A. unified students - $200 million at stake. Retrieved from
http://home.lausd.net/apps/news/article/344072
Lawhon, L. L. (2009). The neighborhood unit: Physical design or physical determinism? Journal
of Planning History, 4(2), 111-132.
Lewis, P.G. (2000). The durability of local government structure: Evidence from California.
State and Local Government Review, 32(1), 34-48.
Lewis, P. G. & Neiman, M. (2009). Custodians of place. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., & Taquino, M. C. (2015). Toward a new macro-segregation?
Decomposing segregation within and between metropolitan cities and suburbs. American
Sociological Review, 80(4), 843-873.
Louk, D. S. (2016, January). Repairing the irreparable: Revisiting the federalism decisions of the
Burger Court. Yale Law Journal, 125(3), 682-689.
Maier, P. (2010). Ratification: The people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Mandelker, D.R. (2011). Housing quotas for people with disabilities: Legislating exclusion. The
Urban Lawyer, 43(4), 915-947.
Mandelker, D. R. (2003). Land use law. (5
th
ed.). Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company,
Inc.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

138

Mandelker, D. R., Brown, C. N., Meck, S., Merriam, D. H., Salsich, Jr., P.W., Stroud, N. E., &
Tappendorf, J. A. (2016). Planning and control of land development: Cases and
materials. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Mandelker, D.R., Wegner, J., Griffith, J. C., Bond, K., & Tyson, C. J. (2014). State and local
government in a federal system. Danvers, MA: LexisNexis.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).
Marsh, B. C. (1909). An introduction to city planning. New York, NY: Arno Press. Reprint
1974.
Massey, D. S., Rothwell, J., & Domina, T. (2009). The changing bases of segregation in the
United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
626(1), 74-90.
McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the top, competitive grants and the Obama
education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136-159.
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
Natelson, R. G. (2003). The enumerated powers of states. Nevada Law Journal, 3(3), 469-494.
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Constitution question and answers.
Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-q-and-a
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2071 (2015).
Pendall, R. (2000). Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 66(2), 125-142.
Peppin, J. C. (1941). Municipal home rule in California: I. California Law Review, 30(1), 1-45.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

139

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Powell, H. J. (1986). Parchment matters: A meditation on the Constitution as text. Iowa Law
Review, 71(5), 1427-1435.
Rodrigues, P. F. & Pandeirada, J. N. (2015). Attention and working memory in elderly: The
influence of a distracting environment. Cognitive Process, 16, 97-109.
Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools. Brookings
Institution.
Rothwell, J. T. & Massey, D. S. (2010). Density zoning and class segregation in U.S.
metropolitan areas. Social Science Quarterly 91(5), 1123-1143.
Rothwell, J. & Massey, D. S. (2009). The effect of density zoning on racial segregation in U.S.
urban areas. Urban Affairs Review, (44)6, 779.
Rothwell, J. & Massey, D. (2015). Geographic effects on intergenerational income mobility.
Economic Geography, 91(1), 83-106.
Rugh, J. S. & Massey, D. S. (2014). Segregation in post-civil rights America: Stalled integration
or end of the segregated century? Du Bois Review, 11(2), 205-232.
San Jose Unified School District v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 7 Cal.App.5
th
967
(Cal. App. 2017).
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National Clearinghouse
for Educational Facilities, 1090 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-
4905. Tel: 888-552-0624; Web site: http://www.edfacilities.org. For full text:
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs.
Schneider, M. (2003). Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success.
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

140

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite
700, Washington, DC 20005-4905.
Star (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377-391.
Thomas, K.R. (2013). Federalism, state sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and limits of
congressional power. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf
Toll, S. I. (1969). Zoned American. New York, NY: Grossman Publishers.
Town of Atherton v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.2d 417. (Cal. App. 1958)
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1982). State and local roles in the
federal system: A commission report. Washington, DC: U.S. Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations.
U.S. Congress (2014). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and interpretation.
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014-
10-15.pdf
U.S. Const. amend. X
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
U.S. Const. annot.
U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8
U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10
U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=policy
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Laws and guidance. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=ft
Running Head: ZONING AND SCHOOLSITES IN THE LAUSD

141

U.S. Department of Education (2009). Protecting students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
Wakefield, J. (2002). Learning the hard way: The poor environment of America's schools.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(6), 9.
Welsh, W., Coghlan, E., Fuller, B., & Dauter, L. (2012). New Schools, Overcrowding Relief,
and Achievement Gains in Los Angeles--Strong Returns from a $19.5 Billion Investment.
Policy Brief 12-2. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (NJ1).
The White House (n.d.). The Constitution. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution
Wolf, M. A. (2008). The zoning of America: Euclid v. Ambler. Lawrence, KS: University Press
of Kansas.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of the timing of school changes and school quality in the impact of student mobility: evidence from Clark County, Nevada

PDF

Cultivating effective and resilient urban principals: empowering school leaders to create enduring success in the inner city

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

A case study analysis of high school principals' criteria in the teacher selection process

PDF

A case study of promising practices of anti-cyberbullying efforts in a middle school

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

Exploring the satisfaction, experiences, institutional support of student veterans in transition to higher education: a case study

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

“Black at”: a study of Black girls in predominantly White independent K–12 girls’ schools

PDF

The relationship between students’ feelings of belonging to their campus community and racial ethnic identification in undergraduate university students

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

The role of district and school leaders in educating traumatized children in California public schools

PDF

Evaluating college readiness through a mathematical lens: a quantitative study of predominately African American high schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District from 2003 – 2012

PDF

Understanding the needs of primary school teachers operating in international crisis response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia…

PDF

The policy of privilege: a case study on the role of policy on segregated enrollment patterns in Washington state's highly rated public magnet schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Hwang, Karen (author)

Core Title A descriptive study of the “hardware” of education: the relationship between zoning and schoolsites in the Los Angeles Unified School District

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/02/2017

Defense Date 06/09/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag anti-density zoning,density zoning,education,educational governance,exclusionary zoning,herding effect,land use controls,LAUSD,Local government,Los Angeles Unified School District,neighborhood segregation,neighborhood unit,OAI-PMH Harvest,permissive zoning,physical learning environment,political fragmentation,residential density,restrictive zoning,school catchment,school district,school sites,school siting,schoolsites,spatial density,state government,Urban Education,Urban Planning,zoning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email hwangkar@usc.edu,hwangkaren@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-449594

Unique identifier UC11264332

Identifier etd-HwangKaren-5740.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-449594 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HwangKaren-5740.pdf

Dmrecord 449594

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hwang, Karen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA