After more than four hours of debate, the Los Angeles school board Tuesday voted 6-1 in favor of the “Public School Choice” measure.

Under the plan, charter operators and other institutions will be able to bid for control of 50 new schools that are expected to be developed over the next three years — 20 of which are scheduled to open for the 2010-11 school year — as well as 200 low-performing campuses.

“Through the superintendent,” the resolution states, “the Los Angeles Unified School District will invite operational and instructional plans from internal and external stakeholders, such as school planning teams, local communities, pilot school operators, labor partners, charters, and others who are interested in collaborating with the district to … create more schools of choice and educational options for the district’s students and families.”

This change will impact more than 200,000 students, or one-third of the LAUSD student population. The idea to construct new schools came about to address overcrowded campuses and return the district’s schools back to a traditional school year.

“We are demanding better schools, more options and a voice in how the schools should be run,” said board member Yolie Flores Aguilar, who introduced the resolution. “Our district continues to make wonderful but slow and steady achievement gains. … Only one-third of our third graders can read at third grade level, far too many students drop out of school and a dismal number are prepared for a decent job to go on to college. Our current growth path could require at least 20 years before our elementary kids are 100 percent proficient in reading and math and many years beyond that for our high school students. At this rate entire generations will be lost to poverty, to the streets or to jail.”

“Simply put, the status quo is not acceptable and slow and steady gains are not enough,” she added. “Our kids need us to give them a chance at the brightest future possible.”

Board member Tamar Galatzan, who initially had reservations about voting for the measure, agreed, saying that at one of the district’s schools, parents and teachers have so few resources that they have had to decide between cleaning their bathrooms or their classrooms.

“This can’t be the future of L.A. Unified,” she said. “I have looked at this resolution from every conceivable way. … We can be fed up a lot of times with how slowly the district works with a lot of rules and regulations and budget cuts from Sacramento but there is a sense out there that enough is enough. … I don’t see this as giving away our schools to charters … what I do see in this resolution is a commitment from the district to look at new ways of partnering.”

Each potential operator must guarantee that it will give priority to LAUSD students and aid the district and relieving its impacted campuses. Submittals will only be accepted from nonprofit, public organizations. For-profit entities will not be accepted.

The student composition at each new school, states the resolution, must be reflective of the schools it intends to relieve. This will mean a focus on demographics in terms of race and ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, English learners, standard English learners, special education and foster care placement.

Board member Marguerite LaMotte, who cast the only dissenting vote, vowed that, “If any of these partners or charters or external operators discriminate against any of our students in any way, I am going to recommend that there will be sanctions,” she said. “Because saying ‘I’m sorry,’ is not enough.”

Operators must also address student retention, gradation and college-going rates and dropout prevention. Only those with a track record of running successful campuses will be chosen, according to Superintendent Ramon Cortines, who will be charged with overseeing the submittal process and choosing operators for consideration by the board.

“We need to act now to help all of our students succeed,” Cortines said. “Students and parents do not want excuses, they want creative solutions now. Whether we agree or disagree, this massive attention to our schools, this sense of urgency is good for our students and LAUSD.”

Opponents of the measure believe it was not inclusive of all stakeholders, misuses facilities and taxpayer money, and will be so competitive that students’ needs will be foreshadowed.

“I am highly distressed,” said Celes King III of the Congress of Racial Equality Los Angeles. “The reality is that this thing was done non-transparently. There was no transparency in this. There was a clearly orchestrated program that selectively locked out virtually all of the community players. … When we look at this situation what we really see … is a move for a small group and a small handful of entities to control public education in a non-partisan like program. … It is a side door opportunity to destroy collective bargaining … that could possibly be the seed to destroy public education.”

According to Leon Jenkins, president of the Los Angeles NAACP, the measure does not allow for enough options. “I looked in here and it says that there is an opportunity to allow community stakeholders to have a part in these schools,” he said. “Well, I can tell you right now there are very community stakeholders that I can look back and see other than charter schools. … Make sure if [you’re] going to give away schools, [you] still have control.”

Jackie Goldberg, a former school board member, sees it as a charter school takeover. “All together in Propositions K, R and Y, $120 million will be spent on charter schools by taxpayers. That will be matched by about $120 million from the state of California,” she said. “That is a quarter of a billion dollars that have been spent to build charter schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. … Unfortunately this is a back-door attempt to get more than the quarter of a billion dollars. …”

One parent said, “Our fear is that this will create obstacles, rather than open doors. … I do not want my children to see their school as a battle ground. We should encourage cooperation and collaboration, rather than hostile takeovers.”

Supporters of the plan did not waver in their opinions, either.

“This is a step towards improvement,” said one LAUSD student. “The resolution will not only benefit students but our community, ultimately making the whole system stronger. By choosing our schools, LAUSD will know what schools students prefer which can help rebuild how the other schools are ran.”

Monique Bacon of the Inner City Education Foundation took a more aggressive approach. “We are graduating 100 percent of our students and we have the best programs in Los Angeles. … We are supporting a resolution for choice,” she said. “We have no intention on standing by and allowing 50 state-of-the-art schools built on the backs of taxpayers to have the same failing programs in them. It makes sense for organizations who have a proven track record of graduating students to occupy these sites. We only want and deserve the best for our students.”