No UC admissions data on file for Russell Westbrook Why Not? High.

This school doesn't appear in UCOP's source-school records (it may send few or no applicants to UC). Its enrollment trend and similar-school comparison are still below.

Enrollment trend & projection

Total enrollment (9–12)
56 (2018)429 (2026)
+666.1%
Grade 12 (graduating class)
32 (2021)36 (2026)
+12.5%

If this trend holds (+29.0%/yr, Total enrollment)

At per-pupil funding of $ / student:

Horizon Projected Total enrollment Change Funding impact / yr
1 yr (2027) ~553 +124 $0
3 yr (2029) ~921 +492 $0
5 yr (2031) ~1,532 +1103 $0

Straight-line extrapolation of the recent annual rate — a what-if, not a forecast of intent. Default = California's LCFF base grant for grades 9–12 ($12,423/ADA). Edit the figure to match your school.

Enrollment stability & demand — 2024-25

Two complementary signals: retention (do students stay once enrolled?) and demand (are families choosing the school?). Read against the Los Angeles County baseline — the demographic tide is moving every CA HS, so a school's gap vs. county is the actionable signal.

Mixed signal
Demand outpacing county is masking internal churn.

Enrollment growth is beating Los Angeles County (+12.5% vs. -11.5%), but 48 of 230 students didn't maintain continuous enrollment. Why are families leaving once enrolled? Chronic absenteeism is also at 49.1% (up +32.2 pts from 2017-18) — engagement and demand are both signaling decline.

+12.5%  school enrollment (2021–2026)
-11.5%  Los Angeles County baseline
+24.0pp  gap vs. county
79.1%  retention (county median 87.3%)
Enrollment — indexed to 100 at 2021
Stability rate by year (raw %)
Stability rate
79.1%
182 of 230 students

48 of 230 students who enrolled at Russell Westbrook Why Not? High this year didn't maintain continuous enrollment (20.9% non-stability). Mid-year transfers, dropouts, and other exits are all counted.

Los Angeles County median
87.3% · school is in the 23rd percentile of 387 HS
Statewide median
87.2% · in the 28th percentile of 1,688 HS

Stability by student group

Socio. disadvantaged (424) 79.2%
Hispanic / Latino (380) 80.3%
English learners (117) 76.1%
Black / African Am. (75) 72.0%
Students w/ disabilities (66) 86.4%

Nearest peer high schools

Alliance Cindy And Bill Simon Technology Academy High 87.9% Performing Arts Community At Diego Rivera Learning Complex 82.2% Ednovate - South La College Prep 79.3% Linda Esperanza Marquez High C School Of Social Justice 82.2% Middle College High School 93.2%

Source: California Department of Education, Stability Rate 2024-25. Benchmarks limited to non-virtual public & charter HS with ≥100 cumulative enrollees so by-design-high-churn continuation schools don't dominate the bottom of the distribution. Cumulative enrollment counts every student on the rolls during the year, so it can exceed peak-day enrollment.

Chronic absenteeism — 2024-25

Share of students missing 10% or more of expected attendance — the leading indicator that often precedes the demand decline shown above. Families disengaging tend to raise absenteeism first, then formally leave. Basis: grades 9–12.

Chronic absent
50.5%
112 of 222 students

Absenteeism is up 33.6 pp since 2017-18. A rising absenteeism trend often precedes formal departure — worth investigating which subgroups are driving it.

Los Angeles County median
25.2% · school is worse than 83% of 381 HS
Statewide median
22.9%
Chronic absenteeism by year (raw %)

Source: California Department of Education, Chronic Absenteeism 2024-25. Benchmarks limited to non-virtual public & charter HS with ≥100 eligible students. CDE didn't publish a usable 2019-20 file (COVID).

SBAC academic outcomes — grade 11, 2025

Share of grade-11 students meeting or exceeding the California standard on Smarter Balanced ELA and Math. This is the academic-readiness signal that pairs with UC Reach (post-grad outcomes), stability (retention), and absenteeism (engagement). Note: statewide median Math is only ~20% — a school at 20% isn't an outlier; one at 45%+ genuinely is.

ELA — met or exceeded
n = 40
55.0%
incl. 20.0% exceeded
-3.0 pts vs. Los Angeles County median (58.0%) · CA median 54.3% · Top 10% statewide ≥ 79.3%
Math — met or exceeded
n = 40
30.0%
incl. 10.0% exceeded
+5.0 pts above Los Angeles County median (25.0%) · CA median 21.1% · Top 10% statewide ≥ 53.6%

Source: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) Smarter Balanced research files. Benchmarks limited to non-virtual public & charter HS with ≥30 tested students.

Student composition — 2025-26

HS grades 9–12 racial/ethnic composition and program subgroups, from CDE Census Day Enrollment. Two-year shift shown when ≥1 pt — surfaces how the community served has changed since 2023-24.

Race / ethnicity

Hispanic / Latino 86% +2.5
Black / African Am. 13% -3.4
Two or more 1%

Program subgroups

Students w/ disabilities 86% -8.2
English learners 14% -22.8
Socioeconomically disadv. 13% +5.0

Source: California Department of Education, Census Day Enrollment 2025-26 (HS grades 9–12). Δ shown when shift is ≥1 pt since 2023-24. Categories below 0.5% omitted.

District financial profile — Los Angeles County Office of Education (FY2020)

From 4 years of NCES F-33 filings (the federally-mandated district finance survey). Public schools don't have their own books — the district does. These figures show the financial scale, revenue dependence, instruction-vs-overhead mix, and long-term debt that shape what a school can sustain.

Total revenue
$678.1M
-8.8% since FY2017
Per-pupil revenue
$403,854
1,679 students enrolled
Revenue mix
State: 20.9%
Local: 39.1%
Federal: 40.0%
Instruction share
16.4%
of current spending · $26,469/pupil
Long-term debt
$16.1M
-16.0% since FY2017
Total revenue by year ($M)
Total expenditure by year ($M)

Source: NCES F-33 Annual Survey of School System Finances (Urban Institute Education Data API). Latest year currently published: FY2020. F-33 is a district-level federal filing — it reflects the Los Angeles County Office of Education as a whole, not this individual school's books. Revenue mix shows where the district's dollars come from (state aid dominates in CA via LCFF). Instruction share is current expenditure on instruction ÷ total current expenditure (national benchmark ~60%). Long-term debt is end-of-year outstanding (mostly facilities bonds).

Russell Westbrook Why Not? High — Enrollment & Outcomes Snapshot

Public · vs. 10 most similar nearby schools

  • Senior-class enrollment is up 12% (32→36 from 2021 to 2026), outpacing the peer-group median of +5%.
  • Enrollment has been growing (+29.0%/yr); projects to ~921 by 2029.

Enrollment projection

429 students (2026)
~921 projected (2029)
at +29.0%/yr

Your school vs. its 10 most similar nearby schools

School Type Size UC Reach Enroll. trend
Russell Westbrook Why Not? High Public 429 +12%
Peer-group median 26.9% +5%
Alliance Cindy And Bill Simon Technology Academy High Public 463 +8%
Performing Arts Community At Diego Rivera Learning Complex Public 444 -2%
Ednovate - South La College Prep Public 413 -32%
Linda Esperanza Marquez High C School Of Social Justice Public 489 -6%
Middle College High School Public 369 38.0% +1%
Alliance Piera Barbaglia Shaheen Health Services Academy Public 395 +18%
Diego Rivera Learning Complex Green Design Steam Academy Public 494 +9%
Thomas Jefferson High School Public 490 15.9% -2%
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts And Mathematics At Legacy High School Complex Public 509 +9%
Visual And Performing Arts At Legacy High School Complex Public 354 +15%

UC Reach = top-6 UC admits ÷ senior class (can exceed 100% when students are admitted to multiple campuses). Enrollment trend = first-to-latest grade-12 change on file. Similar schools matched on proximity, size, type. Methodology →

Is your school winning the families it should?

An Enrollment Trend Audit benchmarks your enrollment against nearby schools, shows who's gaining and losing families, and lays out a plan to make families choose you — built around the outcomes your families value. Built for principals, heads of school, and district leaders.

Request an Enrollment Trend Audit →