Anti-Charter Bill Threatens Educational Freedom

A dangerous bill barely passed in theCalifornia Assembly yesterday (43-25) that could lead to the closure of charter schools and non-classroom-based (NCB) independent study homeschooling programs.

A dangerous bill is making its way through the California Assembly that could lead to the closure of charter schools and non-classroom-based (NCB) independent study homeschooling programs. Assembly Bill 84, written by Education Committee Chair Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), would gut charter school funding and place even more bureaucratic oversight and hoops for these schools to jump through.

Under the guise of promoting “accountability” and “transparency,” a potentially noble goal, this bill deals significant damage to the funding and operation of charter schools statewide. Any Californian who cherishes the freedom to make intentional educational choices for their children needs to fight this bill. 

The primary impetus for this bill, according to Assemblyman Muratsuchi’s bill fact sheet, was the “discovery of large scale fraud perpetrated by a number of non-classroom-based charter schools,” such as People v. McManus (2019), “where the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office indicted 11 defendants in a fraud scheme involving nineteen A3 charter schools and identified $400 million in fraud.” A3 charter schools enrolled little league baseball players in their schools during the summertime to generate state attendance funding. These schools never provided instruction to these players, yet received funding. 

In response to this case and other instances of fraud, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Team (FCMAT) put forward recommendations for better oversight in the areas of student data tracking, auditing, and school finance. Muratsuchi claims his bill is consistent with these recommendations. Myrna Castrejón, the CEO of the Charter Schools Association (CSA), who spoke in opposition to AB 84 during its April 30 education committee hearing, argues that Muratsuchi’s bill is far in excess of the recommendations—its “radical” and “heavy-handed” approach is not endorsed by the LAO.

Speaking in support of the bill in its April 30 committee hearing, CEO of FFCMAT Mike Fine says, “fraud is only limited to a handful of the organizations that serve kids.” If this is such a rare crime, committed by a few corrupt “bad actors” (as Muratsuchi calls them), why are all charter schools paying the price for a crime they did not commit? This can hardly be a solution—more appropriately, it’s an attack.

Here are the most severe consequences of the bill if it’s passed.

More Bureaucracy 

 This bill would create the Office of the Inspector General, a new bureaucratic office appointed by the Governor with the authority to conduct and supervise audits and investigations of charter schools. Though it might seem like much, this role has sweeping authority to investigate far beyond previous oversight structures.

Fiscal Effects

Charter schools already face financial challenges, generally receiving thousands less per pupil compared to public schools. That is significant, which makes the fiscal effects of this bill even more dramatic. The bill would triple the cap that authorizers can hold for financial oversight from 1% to 3%. This comes straight out of the charter school’s revenue. With that money gone, something has to give—staffing, programs, student resources—cuts in funding will only result in the cut of educational resources, especially when charter schools’ finances are already stretched thin.

Muratsuchi claimed a goal of this bill is to “protect taxpayer dollars,” but what he’s actually doing is diverting them from education and towards bureaucracy. According to the appropriations committee report on the fiscal effect of this bill, establishing and staffing the Office of the Inspector General would likely cost the taxpayer millions, potentially tens of millions of dollars.

President and CEO of Green Dot Public Schools, Cristina de Jesus, an opposition witness to the bill, said there is no data to suggest that current oversight fees are insufficient or used appropriately. If an enemy of charter schools ends up in that position, nothing is stopping them from using those funds to audit, audit, and audit some more. They can create a bureaucratic nightmare that diverts administration from their duty to education.

Restrictions on Vendors and Services

On the theme of more bureaucratic oversight, this bill would limit charter schools’ ability to completely change the way they make contractor agreements. All contracts—whether for curriculum, enrichment programs, staffing, tech, or otherwise—must be approved by the authorizing board. This gives charter schools even less control over what they can do. They cannot sign agreements on their own without outside review

And, for some reason not made clear, the fact sheet also admits that AB 84 “prohibits private religious organizations or schools from serving as public school contractors.” This is discrimination, not anti-fraud. Contracting with, renting out a church as an educational facility, or using a religiously affiliated online program—all of these would be prohibited. 

Credentialing Nightmare

According to Muratsuchi’s fact sheet, AB 84 would require “all service personnel to hold an appropriate services credential.” This is extremely harmful to the freedom of charter schools and NCB homeschooling programs. 

There is already a teacher shortage in California. Limiting any education-adjacent enrichment activity to be administered by a credentialed teacher is ridiculous.

This is lunacy.

This bill may succeed at holding charter schools more financially “accountable,” but who holds the bureaucrats “accountable” who control the oversight process? What about “bad actors” in school boards, or in the new office of the Inspector General, who could be enemies to the school choice movement?

If these changes went into effect, charter schools would cease to be what they intend to. Already under the thumb of their competition (public schools), this would strip their autonomy even further, and educational freedom would quickly die out.

Parents need to continue fighting this bill. At the April 30 hearing, a 45-minute-long line of educators, administrators, parents, and students joined together in opposition. But that was not enough to stop the Democrats from passing it in committee, and it was not enough to stop it in the house. We must join together to stop this bill at the cost of freedom, before it’s too late.

This article was updated to reflect the bill’s passage in the Assembly Thursday.