Attendance Zones Keep L.A.’s Best Schools for Wealthy Kids — & Shut out the Rest – The 74

Report on Educational Disparities in Los Angeles Unified School District and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of data from the California Department of Education, conducted by the nonprofit organization Available to All, reveals significant educational disparities within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). These inequalities, enforced by a system of school attendance zones, directly contravene the principles of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The findings indicate that access to quality primary education is severely limited for minority and low-income students, perpetuating systemic inequality and undermining institutional accountability.

Analysis of Educational Outcomes: A Challenge to SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The data highlights a failure to provide inclusive and equitable quality education for all students in LAUSD elementary schools. A key performance indicator—the percentage of students reading at grade level—shows profound disparities among racial groups. Of the 456 zoned elementary schools analyzed, only 39 (8.5%) have 70% or more of their students reading at grade level.

• Hispanic Students: Only 3% attend a school where 70% of students are proficient in reading.
• Black Students: Only 4% attend a school where 70% of students are proficient in reading.
• Asian Students: 29% attend a school where 70% of students are proficient in reading.
• White Students: 40% attend a school where 70% of students are proficient in reading.

These outcomes demonstrate a significant gap in achieving SDG Target 4.1, which aims to ensure that all children complete free, equitable, and quality primary education.

Systemic Barriers and a Failure to Uphold SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The primary mechanism enforcing these educational discrepancies is the district’s use of attendance zones. This system creates and maintains inequality of opportunity, directly conflicting with the objectives of SDG 10.

Key Factors Perpetuating Inequality:

1. Geographic and Economic Segregation: High-performing schools are predominantly located in affluent neighborhoods. The attendance zones link access to these schools with the ability to afford high-cost housing, effectively excluding low-income families and creating quasi-private schools funded by the public.
2. Legacy of Discriminatory Practices: Research indicates that current attendance zones often mirror the racist redlining maps of the 1930s. This historical injustice continues to segregate communities and limit opportunities for Hispanic and African-American families, violating SDG Target 10.3 to ensure equal opportunity.

Institutional Accountability and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

The LAUSD’s management of school enrollment fails to meet the standards of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions as outlined in SDG 16. Despite significant under-enrollment across the district, access to high-performing schools remains restricted.

• Underutilized Capacity: Nearly half of LAUSD elementary schools (225 of 456) have experienced enrollment drops of over 50% in the last 15 years. The 39 highest-performing schools have an estimated 7,000 vacant seats based on historical enrollment.
• Non-Compliance with State Law: The district has failed to properly implement California’s Open Enrollment law, which requires open seats to be made available to students outside of attendance zones. LAUSD has treated the law as optional for principals.
• Suppression of Access: For the current school year, the 39 high-performing schools reported only 58 open seats, a fraction of the thousands of available spaces. Affiliated charter schools within this group, which are required to hold lotteries for open seats, also claimed to be “full” despite operating well below historical capacity.

This lack of enforcement and transparency undermines public trust and represents a failure to uphold non-discriminatory laws and policies, a key component of SDG Target 16.B.

Recommendations for Progress Towards SDGs

To align with the Sustainable Development Goals and ensure equitable outcomes, LAUSD must reform its enrollment policies. Drawing on successful models from New Orleans and California’s community college system, the following actions are recommended:

• Abolish Attendance Zone Assignments: Dismantling the current system of geographic assignment is critical to breaking the link between housing and educational opportunity, thereby advancing SDG 10.
• Enforce Open Enrollment: The district must ensure full compliance with state law, making all available seats in all public schools accessible to any student, which would promote the institutional accountability central to SDG 16.
• Promote School Choice: Empowering families to choose the best educational environment for their children, regardless of their address, is a fundamental step toward achieving the vision of inclusive and equitable quality education for all (SDG 4).

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s central theme is the disparity in the quality of education within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). It highlights the vast differences in learning outcomes, specifically reading proficiency, among elementary schools. The discussion revolves around ensuring equitable access to quality primary education for all children.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article explicitly details how educational opportunities are unequally distributed based on race and socioeconomic status. It provides data showing that Hispanic and Black students are far less likely to attend high-performing schools compared to their white and Asian peers. The practice of attendance zoning, which mirrors historical “racist redlining maps,” is identified as a key driver of this inequality, effectively excluding lower-income families from better schools.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The issue is linked to urban planning and access to public services. The article explains that school attendance zones are tied to housing, creating “quasi-private schools for wealthy Angelenos” in expensive neighborhoods. This system makes access to a basic public service—quality education—dependent on a family’s ability to afford housing in a specific, high-cost area, undermining the goal of creating inclusive and equitable communities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
  • The article directly addresses this by focusing on the lack of “equitable and quality” primary education in LAUSD. It points out that in 105 elementary schools, “fewer than 30% of kids are reading proficiently,” which demonstrates a failure to achieve “effective learning outcomes” for a significant portion of students.
• Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable… and children in vulnerable situations.
  • The article highlights profound racial and economic disparities, which represent a failure to ensure “equal access” for vulnerable children. The data showing that “only 3% of Hispanic elementary students and 4% of Black students attend a school where 7 of 10 kids are reading at grade level” is a clear example of this inequality.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity… or economic or other status.
  • The school zoning system described in the article actively works against this target. It creates educational exclusion based on race and economic status, as “families in less wealthy areas are boxed out, especially African-American and Hispanic kids.”
• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices.
  • The article identifies LAUSD’s attendance zones as a “discriminatory policy” that perpetuates “inequalities of outcome” (i.e., reading proficiency). It argues that the district fails to properly implement California’s Open Enrollment law, which is a policy designed to promote equal opportunity.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.
  • The article demonstrates how access to a basic service (quality education) is directly tied to the ability to afford housing in exclusive zones. It notes that “home prices in these zones are distorted because the house comes with exclusive access to a desirable public school,” effectively denying access to this service for those who cannot afford the inflated housing costs.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

• Proportion of children achieving minimum proficiency in reading (related to Indicator 4.1.1): The article provides specific data points that can serve as indicators.
  • The percentage of students reading at grade level within a school (e.g., “70% of their students reading at grade level” vs. “fewer than 30% of kids are reading proficiently”).
  • The proportion of students from different racial groups who attend high-performing schools (e.g., “40% of white students,” “29% of Asian students,” “3% of Hispanic elementary students,” and “4% of Black students” attend schools where 70% of students are proficient in reading).

Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

• Disaggregated proficiency data: The racial breakdown of students attending high-performing schools serves as a direct indicator of inequality of outcome. Tracking these percentages over time would measure progress in reducing this disparity.
• Access to opportunity: The article implies an indicator for measuring the implementation of equal opportunity policies.
  • The ratio of available seats in high-performing schools to the number of seats officially reported and offered through Open Enrollment. The article cites a gap of “over 7,000” potential seats versus only “58 open seats” reported, which is a quantifiable measure of the policy’s failure.

Indicators for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

• Link between housing and access to services: While not providing specific numbers, the article implies an indicator.
  • The correlation between housing prices and the performance of the local zoned school. A measurable indicator would be the housing price differential between homes inside and outside the attendance zones of the 39 high-performing elementary schools. A reduction in this differential could indicate a decoupling of housing costs and access to quality education.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: the74million.org