What do you do with a school that consistently fails to maintain quality standards in educating students? Some school districts might opt to pull funding or close the school down completely. However, Los Angeles Unified School District launched a very different idea through Public School Choice reform, which allowed other educational entities to take over struggling schools in an effort to produce institutions that achieved stronger academic results through innovation and autonomy.
Schools that did not make the grade each year were put on the eligibility list for Public School Choice reform. At that time, nonprofits, teachers, or charter operators could apply to revamp struggling campuses. These entities could choose to operate separately from the school district, or they could work within district guidelines to produce a brand-new educational system specifically geared to that school and the children who attend.
While the original initiative has changed over time, Los Angeles Unified School District still describes the Public School Choice initiative as part of its work with schools and partners. The Intercultural Development Research Association describes school choice as a concept that can include controlled choice plans within a single public school district, interdistrict and statewide public school plans, and voucher plans that include private schools.
For additional background, parents can also read Public School Choice, Magnet Programs & Charter Options: What’s Best?.
Why Public Choice?
According to the original Public School Review article, the Public School Choice motion was designed to tap into innovative ideas and educational models that could help LAUSD provide a quality education for students. Today, the district’s Public School Choice site continues to emphasize school improvement, community partners, and support for campuses involved in the initiative.
The success of the program depended on participation by parents and the community. Individuals were encouraged to stay abreast of developments through the district website, giving them a say in how schools could be improved for the benefit of students.
Public School Choice encouraged other entities to bring innovation to the educational table. While many district policies and procedures might work well at the majority of schools, others may find that the “cookie-cutter” approach to education just does not serve the special needs of the students on a particular campus. When others are allowed to run the school with more flexibility, creativity, and innovation can play a larger role, and the needs of students can become the top priority in the process.
Benefits of Public School Choice
Advocates of Public School Choice have voiced many potential benefits from this program, including:
- Customized curriculum that addresses the specific needs of students in each school
- Innovation that moves well beyond standard ideas implemented by the school district
- Higher test scores at some of the charter schools that have been part of Public School Choice reform
- Longer school days and years for a more rigorous educational process overall
In earlier reporting, Granada Hills Charter was cited as one example of a school that used charter flexibility to expand staffing, services, and salaries while many schools in LAUSD were scaling back due to budget cuts. Granada Hills Charter continues to operate as an independent public charter school in Los Angeles.
Camino Nuevo Chief Ana Ponce previously told Southern California Public Radio that her school customized its curriculum to a student body primarily made up of immigrant children. Lessons were bilingual, and lesson plans were adjusted annually to ensure students were receiving maximum benefit from the curriculum. Camino Nuevo Charter Academy continues to serve Los Angeles students through a network of public charter schools.
More Work to Do
One of the biggest proponents of Public School Choice was former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Mayor Villaraigosa argued that Public School Choice was critical for reforming schools in need, while also stating that improvements would be necessary to make the process more rigorous, equitable, and beneficial to students in those schools.
Villaraigosa cited problems with the application process, and he stated that an effective reform-oriented program must be able to recognize when no qualified applicant is found. He added that applicants must be held to rigorous standards and judged on a proven track record. If the voting process is fair, unethical activity by applicants should not be tolerated, and those applications should be rejected immediately.
Villaraigosa also faced opposition from teachers’ unions concerned about “giving away” public schools to outside operators.
In 2026, those debates remain relevant. The National Bureau of Economic Research published research on Los Angeles’ Zones of Choice program, finding that LAUSD’s school choice initiative created small high school markets in some neighborhoods while leaving attendance-zone boundaries in place elsewhere. The study reflects a broader national question: whether school choice improves outcomes for students, and under what conditions.
Public School Review also offers related guidance in School Choice in 2026: What Parents Must Know and Public vs Charter vs Magnet School: Which Is Best?.
Final Thoughts
While Public School Choice was not a perfect program, it provided innovative solutions to many troubled schools. As school choice policies continue to evolve, the same central issue remains: reforms must be fair, transparent, and focused on student outcomes.
In 2026, public school choice is no longer limited to one district program. It includes charter schools, magnet programs, open enrollment, district choice systems, and other models that give families more options. The best programs are those that combine innovation with accountability, community involvement, and a clear commitment to helping every student succeed.
