Is AB 84 the End of School Choice in California?

Education has been at the front and center of the news cycle pretty much since Trump took office —especially when it comes to the future of the Department of Education. You’ve probably heard talk about abolishing it altogether, giving power back to the states, and expanding school choice for families across the country. It’s a big conversation, and it matters for all of us because educating the next generation is vital for the future of our communities and our country.

But here’s the thing: saying we should "send education back to the states," like Trump often does, only works if states actually have strong policies around education and school choice. Which brings me to the latest on what’s happening here in California, which you need to be informed on! Just a few weeks ago, Assembly Education Committee Chair, Al Muratsuchi, released the full language for a new bill that could seriously affect charter schools in the state.

California’s Education Landscape

Before diving into Assembly Bill 84, let’s step back and do a brief overview of the education landscape here in California.

According to the California Department of Education, for the 2023 to 2024 school year, there were roughly 8,700 traditional public schools, 32,204 private schools,[1] and 1,281 charter schools.[2] Public schools made up 80% of student enrollment, private schools were about 9%, and charter schools represented 11% of total student enrollment across the state. This means that charter schools alone accounted for approximately 710,000 students. Clearly public schools are the main form of education in our state, but charter schools are not insignificant – and actually their attendance has been growing over the past five years while public schools have been losing students.

Across the nation, charter school enrollment grew by 83,172 students in 2023-24, while public schools decreased in enrollment by 274,412 students.[3] In California specifically, following the pandemic, public school enrollment statewide fell by 4.4% while charter school enrollment increased by 3.4% in 2021.[4] Charter enrollment was around 630,000 students at the end of the school year in 2019; by the end of the 2024 school year, that had increased to approximately 709,630, adding nearly 80,000 students over the past five years.[5]

This growth was largely due, at first, to the pandemic response. We know firsthand that California was incredibly strict with its response to COVID-19, and parents were exposed at home to what the public-school education their children were receiving looked like. This created a shift for a lot of families who didn’t like the education their kids were being given, or who wanted a learning model that was already familiar with remote or home-based learning – which most charters are better equipped for than public schools.[6]

Just what are the key differences between public, private, and charter schools, and how are they lending themselves to these shifts?

Public schools are fully taxpayer funded and free for students to attend. They are required to follow the state standards and testing requirements and are accountable to the state and federal government for oversight. They tend to have larger class sizes, which makes sense with the large share of enrollment that they occupy and are assigned to a student based on their district.

Private schools are totally opposite. They are completely funded by tuition and donations, meaning they are often expensive for students to attend. They also have full autonomy over their curriculum, and usually have a religious bent. They focus on smaller class sizes, usually through selective admissions, and are able to reject students for academic or disciplinary standards. They are also self-regulated with minimal governmental oversight.

Charter schools meet in the middle of these two options. Charter schools are publicly funded and tuition free, meaning they are affordable for students, but they are exempt from many regulations and can specialize their curriculum.[7] Similar to private schools, they tend to have smaller class sizes and more individualized attention. But then, similar to public schools, they are regulated by the government and have performance-based accountability benchmarks to maintain. Charter schools also usually offer a more flexible learning environment, meaning that they can be home-based programs, they can vary in offering in-person classes, and so on. Ultimately, charters can bridge the gap between the benefits of public education – like the funding they receive from the government and the affordable cost – with the flexibility of homeschooling.

This is key to understand about charter schools, because this is why they are so important for us in California, especially for conservatives and for Christians. Charter schools basically give you more choice and more ability to be involved in your child’s education. Parents who fundamentally disagree with curriculum being taught in public schools, or who are uncomfortable with the laws in place in California around public schooling, will want other schooling options for their kids. For example, I covered Assembly Bill 1955 a few months ago, which means that in California, teachers can hide a child’s desire to transition in school from their parents. Obviously if you don’t agree with radical gender ideology, this will, and should, make you very uncomfortable, very hesitant, to put your vulnerable child in the care of adults who are directly opposed to your beliefs and values and who are protected under state law to hide significant facts about your child’s mental health and sexuality from you.

But what are you supposed to do, when public school is free, while private school costs, on average, over $16,000 per year for K-12 education in California?[8] That’s a HUGE difference! Not every family will be able to pay for their values to be taught to their children. This is where charter schools can give families more flexibility to choose their curriculum – and even pay for it through state funding when chosen within certain guidelines, it gives them more visibility into their child’s education as a lot of it may be done at home, and it helps parents who need direction and guidance in terms of teaching their children the expertise of teachers without mandating their children be in class everyday with teachers and students who don’t share their beliefs.

There is also another consideration that’s important for certain families in California, and that is the reality that in 2016, our state removed all exemptions except for strict health exemptions from vaccine requirements for in-person education, both for public and private education.[9] So, for some families who are pro-medical freedom and who may not choose to stick to the vaccine schedule that currently has more than 26 doses during a baby’s first year of life,[10] charter schools that are home-based are literally their only option outside of only homeschooling.

So, overall, charter schools are important in our state because they give families alternatives to traditional public schools, which may not align with their values. For conservative Christian families, that could mean finding a charter school with a stronger emphasis on character, discipline, or a curriculum that better reflects their worldview. That doesn’t even mention that many charter schools are founded and run by educators and community leaders—not large bureaucracies—so there's often more room for innovation and responsiveness to parents. This appeals to conservatives who support decentralization and local governance. Conservatives tend to support school choice as a way to empower parents and level the playing field without relying on increased government spending.

Governmental Regulation of Charter Schools

Assembly Bill 84 would severely impact charter schools and school choice across our state. I’ll go through the key elements of this bill, but first it’s important to understand the legal structure of charters.

To get a charter school authorized for operation in California, the school has to go through a rigorous review process focused on local control. The California Education Code grants local school district the authority to approve charter schools operating within their districts.[11] When these school districts are reviewing petitions for charter schools to operate in the district, the governing board can consider the fiscal and community impacts of new charter schools.[12] This means that districts that are underfunded or are financially more in distress can deny new charter school petitions, so the success of the local public schools is pretty heavily tied to the ability of new schools to be able to open. On top of that, governing boards can also deny new charter schools that are petitioning based on existing district programs that already have capacity to serve new students. So, basically, public schools have a lot of power over the authorization and creation of new charter schools. This is really important to keep in mind.

Once charter schools are authorized and established, they are then maintained through a performance accountability system. Charter schools are each assigned a color based on their performance in: English language arts, math, absenteeism, graduation rate, college and career indicators, and suspension rates.[13] The bottom tier encompasses schools with red or orange indicators, while top tiers have blue or green indicators. Red or orange schools will either not be renewed or will be granted a 2-year renewal if they are taking steps to address the problems pushing them in the bottom tier; green or blue schools will qualify for 5 to 7-year renewals.

In summary, charter schools are authorized and evaluated by the public school system. Just think for a moment at how flawed that baseline approach is. Think of it like two competing businesses, like McDonalds and In-N-Out. What if every time In-N-Out wanted to open a new location, they had to get approval from the McDonalds down the street? That would be crazy, right? After all, they’re competitors, so of course McDonalds would just say no every time, or try to justify why they shouldn’t have a new In-N-Out location. That’s exactly what’s happening here. Charter schools are competition to public schools. Pulling students out of public schools affects their enrollment, their scores, their statistics, and their overall performance. Public schools want to keep kids enrolled, as any school would. So, for public schools to be the final authority on the opening of a new charter school that will detract students away from themselves is an objectively terrible system. It would be a logical conclusion then to think that public schools probably aren’t big fans of charter schools and that they probably want to stop more from opening, right? Hold that thought, because that is a key piece to understanding AB 84. 

Assembly Bill 84

Let’s finally get into the details of this bill. Assembly Bill 84 was introduced by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who represents Torrance and surrounding areas in Southern Los Angeles. The reason given in the bill for its proposal is supposedly in response to the discovery of fraud perpetrated by non-classroom-based charter schools. The example cited in the bill’s fact sheet is a case where 11 defendants were found guilty of a fraud scheme involving nineteen charter schools and totaling $400 million dollars.[14] Assembly Bill 84 was introduced as, quote, “comprehensive reform to combat fraud” in the charter school system by “improving transparency and accountability among charter school authorizers and charter schools.”[15]

What is interesting though, is that this bill does a lot of things, but most of them are not related to combatting fraud as it says.  

The first change, and just about the only one related to fraud, is that AB 84 mandates comprehensive audits, including fraud detection, be performed for non-classroom-based charter schools.[16] This makes sense, and as an internal auditor myself, I can appreciate the need for internal controls and oversight and accountability within an organization to catch and prevent fraud. But that is where the fraud prevention piece pretty much stops, and the rest of the bill doesn’t seem to be related to fraud prevention in any tangible way.

Next, the bill imposes an oversight fee of 3%, meaning that the district public school governing body – the same governing authority that approves charters in the first place like we just discussed – can withhold 3% of the charter’s revenue for the costs of performing oversight functions like these audits. The fee is currently 1%, so AB 84 raises it to 3%. The reason for raising it seems to be related to the new audit requirements that must be performed, but charter schools argue that district oversight staff often do very little oversight while still collecting the full fee. They also argue that the people who get paid the 3% are usually located far from the charter school, making oversight minimal or largely symbolic.

The bill goes on to require that public school governing boards must approve all contractor agreements – which means that any contract a charter school enters into with an outside organization—whether for curriculum, staffing, facilities, tech, or services—must be reviewed and formally approved by the school's authorizing board.[17] Charter schools often contract with outside companies for curriculum or online learning platforms, special education services, building leases or facility improvements, management support or back-office operations, technology and software tools, and more. Under AB 84, these contracts need to be submitted for approval by the authorizing district board. That means charter schools can’t simply sign agreements on their own without outside review. This requirement gives school districts more control over how charter schools operate, especially when it comes to financial and vendor decisions.

But it goes even further, and outright prohibits private religious organizations or schools from serving as public school contractors, meaning that charter schools and traditional public schools would no longer be allowed to hire or partner with any organization that is religiously affiliated — even if the service itself is secular. This is a stipulation that has no connection whatsoever to fraud or abuse. Under this kind of rule, a charter school could not contract with any group that is a religiously affiliated private school, a faith-based nonprofit or ministry, or a church-run vendor – even if that vendor is providing something neutral like tutoring, counseling, or online learning. Tangible examples of this would be a charter school contracting with a Christian counseling center to provide family mental health services, a homeschool charter reimbursing a family for taking a class at a private religious school, partnering with a faith-based music program even if the curriculum is secular, or hiring a religiously affiliated online platform for foreign language, Bible as literature, or philosophy classes. Tell me, how does contracting with a Christian company for a secular service open the school up to potential fraud or abuse? Some might argue this is just furthering the separation of church and state, and that public schools shouldn’t be connected to religion – but the point of THIS bill is fraud prevention, not getting faith out of the classroom, AND just because public schools exclude religion from the classroom doesn’t mean that Christian companies can’t provide secular services that don’t cross the line. A lot of non-classroom-based charter school may rent churches or religious facilities to host standardized testing in – is that practice in and of itself fraudulent and pushing religion into the classroom? Absolutely not. This is religious discrimination hidden under the guise of accountability.

If you think this bill is starting to sound a little overreaching, then get ready, because there’s more. Next, AB 84 bans the use of educational funds for enrichment activities chosen by families and taught by non-credentialed educators.[18] For anyone who is enrolled in a charter or knows about charter schools, this is HUGE! This language is aimed directly at popular homeschool charter models, where parents get access to an “instructional fund” or “enrichment fund” (sometimes $2,000–$4,000 per year per child). They use those funds to choose and pay for music or art lessons; PE classes; dance, drama, or robotics programs; educational field trips; or online learning tools. These services are often delivered by private vendors, not credentialed public school teachers. Charter schools then reimburse the vendor or parent — and the parent essentially guides the child’s education with public dollars.

This concept exists because the idea is that if your child physically goes to the local public school, then they get all of these services for free. If a child does not go to public school, but is still in the public charter system, then the government should in theory provide the same access to education and enrichment activities that it offers to those enrolled in their district schools.

This really is the entire appeal of charter schools, because parents get to direct their child’s education. This, as I said earlier, is the reason that parents are moving their kids out of public schools and into charter schools – to have more involvement and say in their child’s education, and to choose a charter that focuses on the enrichment activities that they desire for their kids. But if AB 84 passes with this language intact, then that would mean no more instructional funds controlled by parents, no more vendor partnerships unless the service is provided by a credentialed employee of the school and homeschool charter families would lose the flexibility that makes these programs appealing. It effectively shuts down the parent-directed model that defines many non-classroom-based charters in California.

I can’t stress enough how far-reaching and insane this is. To reiterate one more time, the entire point is that charters are not the same as public school education, meaning curriculum is not dictated by the local school district and a child’s education is not dictated by the state credentialed teacher in the classroom for 8 hours a day. Charters provide choice, flexibility, and alternative learning models. Taking away the use of these educational funds essentially funnels these kids directly into public school, just the at-home version; but parents who choose charter will not be satisfied with that because that’s not WHY they are choosing a charter school.

You’re probably thinking, what more could possibly be packed in this bill? Well, there’s another section in the bill about limiting how many non-classroom-based charter schools small school districts are allowed to authorize, and shifting oversight power away from small districts to larger ones.[19] Some small school districts in California — often rural or with limited student populations — authorize many charter schools – like homeschool or online learning programs, even when those charters serve students across the entire state, not just in that small local area. This part of the bill basically says that needs to stop.

It limits how many charters a district can oversee based on its size. Districts with under 2,500 average daily attendance can only authorize charters totaling up to 100% of their own attendance. So, if the district has 1,000 students, they could authorize charters serving up to 1,000 students. Districts with 2,500–5,000 average daily attendance can authorize charters up to 2,500 students, max. And districts with 5,000–10,000 average daily attendance can only authorize charters that total up to 50% of their own attendance, so a district with 8,000 students could only authorize charters for up to 4,000 students.[20] This is a cap on how many students a small district can serve through charter schools, especially homeschool/online ones.

This is important because smaller districts are often more charter-school friendly districts, but they will lose authority to authorize over a set number of charters and in many cases, already existing charters will be assigned to larger, often more union-aligned districts for oversight and control over renewal. This means that charter schools will be forced to deal with less supportive authorizers who could reject renewals or impose stricter rules. The big picture is that this is part of a broader effort to centralize charter school oversight and tighten the leash on homeschool and online charter growth, especially in small or rural areas where these models have traditionally flourished.

There is just one more important piece of this bill to consider, what might be the MOST important and worst part of this bill, and that is funding. Assembly bill 84 will essentially penalize charters with less classroom-based instruction by reducing their funding. The bill outlines that for charters with at least 75% of classroom-based instruction, their funding will remain at 100%. Once a school falls below 75%, the funding starts to decrease. Schools with 60-74% of in-person instruction will have funding reduced by 7.5%; schools with 40-59% of in-person instruction will have funding reduced by 15%; schools with 20-39% of in-person instruction will have funding reduced by 22.5%; and lastly, schools with 0-19% of in-person classroom-based instruction will have their funding cut by a whopping 30%.[21]

Why is this so important? Well, first, it disincentivizes flexible and hybrid learning. Non-classroom-based charters that allow families to mix online/homeschool learning with occasional in-person classes will now receive much less funding per student — even though they still have to provide services, materials, and oversight. Schools that cater to homeschool families could lose a large portion of their budget, especially for students who only attend campus part-time.

Second, it creates funding inequality. A student in a traditional school gets full average daily attendance funding. A student learning the same material at home through a charter program might get 70% of that, even if the school is offering enrichment, teacher support, and assessments. The argument for this may be that these kids aren’t in a classroom, so they should receive less funding because there are less costs. But in reality, even though they don’t have the same overhead of a large building per se, non-classroom-based charters still hire teachers to meet with families each week, they still rent or own building space to be able to meet for mandatory activities like standardized testing, and, most importantly, they still have to purchase all of the curriculum and learning materials for the kids. Students going to public school in-person are given the curriculum, supplies, field trips, and so on for free. Students in a charter system rely on state funding to purchase all of that. So, by reducing funding, it is putting the burden on families to spend thousands of dollars on curriculum and extracurricular activities, simply for choosing not to funnel them into the public school system. How is it fair to penalize a child for simply learning in a different environment? That makes NO sense!

Third, it could likely force charter schools to change their model. Many non-classroom-based charters might have to reduce services, cap enrollment, or shift more students into classroom time just to maintain funding levels. Homeschool-focused charters may no longer be financially viable under these reductions, which is devastating for the families who rely on them.

Lastly, it directly targets parent-directed learning models. Let’s just call it what it is: this is a financial penalty on families who don’t want full-time classroom education. It could effectively push out conservative, religious, or alternative-learning families who rely on homeschool charters for flexibility and educational autonomy, stripping away their schooling options and isolating them out of charter communities.

Responding to Advocates of AB 84 and Call to Action

One interesting thing to consider is that advocates of this bill will respond to these points by saying – well that’s what you get for pulling your kid out of public school! If you want to homeschool them or you don’t like what’s taught in public education, then you shouldn’t get the funding anyway. I want to address that, because pro-public-school advocates making that argument are being inconsistent.

These are the same people who will argue that public education needs more funding, constantly. That teachers are always underpaid, that classrooms are run down and don’t have the money for proper repairs, that school vouchers will disproportionately affect low-income school districts and poor students. Their rationale behind these arguments is the fundamental idea that every child has a right to a quality education, and it is the state’s responsibility to see that carried out for every child.

But, when it comes to these charter schools, their position immediately flips. Because you as the parent want to direct your child’s education, now the state doesn’t care about the funding for your charter school. They don’t care if you have equal access to quality curriculum or enrichment activities. But, if the argument is that the state should be funding education for all children, then why wouldn’t they advocate for equal funding for public in-person education and public charter education? It’s all through the state public school system, one is just in a classroom with 30 other kids, while the other is largely based at home or in smaller class sizes. Private schools forfeit funding to teach religious material or to offer services far and above public school, but charters abide by the separation of church and state, and they abide by the standards set by the school districts. So, the only factor that is different is the fact that you have chosen to be more involved in your child’s education and life – and the reality is that the public school system, the state, and the teachers’ unions do not like that.

I am all for making the argument that the state shouldn’t be funding education in the first place. I’ll be the first to point out that so much of government funding in education has been a waste. I think education should be the responsibility of local communities, starting with parents! But, if you aren’t willing to go that far, if you fully support the government paying for public education, just not for families who are taking more ownership of their child’s education, then you aren’t making a consistent argument. At the end of the day, if my tax dollars are going to public education, then if I choose to put my child in a public charter school, I should receive the same funding as the local public school child, or else stop taking my tax dollars.

If you are a parent, or if you are a teacher in a charter school, or if you are an informed citizen of our state, you need to oppose this bill. There are SO MANY WAYS for us to do that! There are petitions you can sign. You can also officially register your opposition to the bill on the Assembly Education Committee homepage. You can submit a comment opposing the bill through the state portal. And, as always, you can send an email or letter directly to your district representative to make your voice heard. I have linked all of those resources and steps at the bottom of this article, and I would encourage you and every member of your household to do them! This bill has the potential to gut the charter school system as we know it in California, and it will have extensive ramifications for thousands of families.

Christian Perspective

I want to wrap up on this topic by bringing this discussion in line with my Christian worldview. Specifically for my Christian readers, why should we as believers care about this? Why should you want charter schools to remain available to families? I have two points for you: first, as a Christian you have the responsibility to provide for your child’s education, and second, you have the right to do that in line with your faith.

Let’s dive deeper into these points. First, Scripture provides a strong foundation for the idea that parents—not the state—are primarily responsible for raising and educating their children, both morally and spiritually.

We see in the Bible that parents are God’s designated teachers of their children. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 says, "These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." God directly commands parents to pass down His truth to their children. This daily, immersive instruction can’t be solely outsourced to the state without parental guidance and involvement.

We also see that parents are the stewards of their children, not the government. Psalm 127:3 says "Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him." Children are a gift from God, entrusted to their parents, not to the government or school system. Parents are therefore accountable to God for how they raise and instruct their children.

This means they also have a responsibility to protect their children from false teaching. Colossians 2:8 speaks to all Christians when it says, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." Parents have a duty to guard their children’s minds from ideas that are contrary to the Gospel and a biblical worldview. If the public education system teaches things that undermine biblical truth, parents have a biblical obligation to step in. This doesn’t mean that children can’t be in public school, but it does mean that parents are still the ones responsible and accountable for what their children are being taught.

And that is because education really is discipleship. Proverbs 22:6 is a classic, saying, "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." Education is more than academics—it’s the shaping of a child’s worldview, character, and values. Scripture places that role squarely in the hands of parents, not kings, not rulers, and not our current state governments.

So, while Scripture is not prescriptive in how children are to be educated, meaning it can vary and shift with how education is handled across time, across cultures, and even across government systems, it IS clear that parents are the ones who have the responsibility to provide for their child’s education.

Which then leads to my second point, because if parents are responsible, then they MUST have the freedom and ability to raise and educate their children in the way that is best for their family. And in America, where we have freedom of religion, parents have the RIGHT to do that in line with their faith and values. The state does not have the right to dictate your child’s education, only YOU do, because parental authority comes before civil authority. This means that when government policies contradict God’s commands, such as removing parental influence over education, parents are called to follow God first. But you have that right even outside of just opposing what the government is teaching. If our country truly stands on the ideals of freedom of religion, then it must recognize your parental rights to be involved in your child’s education. You could LOVE the public school system, and still choose a charter school for the flexibility. As a parent, that is your right! And as a society that provides for the funding of public education through taxpayer dollars, including public school charters, the state government should not penalize families for making that choice. Our state government should be championing parents to take more interest in their children’s education, and to do what is best for them – not withhold funding from these programs to coerce them into the public school system.

AB 84 is not just a bureaucratic bill — it's a direct assault on educational freedom, parental rights, and the ability for families to choose learning models that align with their values. It is a reminder that California doesn’t trust parents to make the best decisions for their own children. We must oppose this overreach — not just to defend charter schools, but to protect the God-given right of parents to raise and educate their children according to their beliefs, their needs, and their convictions.

Action Items!

The following steps were compiled by Legislation Take Action to help you get involved!

Follow these steps to officially register your opposition to AB 84:

Go to the Assembly Education Committee homepage: https://aedn.assembly.ca.gov

Click “Submit Position Letter” in the left-hand menu.

Log in or create a free account.

If you haven’t already, you’ll need to register as an individual. It only takes a minute.

Once logged in:

Select the bill: AB 84 (Muratsuchi)

Choose Session Type: Regular

Click Search

Select the bill and confirm it says “Education Committee”

Select your position: “Oppose”

Type your comment in the box. Keep it short and personal.

Example message:

Hi, my name is [Your Name] from [Your City], CA. I strongly oppose AB 84. This bill threatens schools that partner with families for flexible learning. It punishes good programs and harms students who need them most. I support SB 414 instead. Thank you.

You can also check the box that says “Submit a letter instead” if you want to upload a PDF version of your opposition letter.

Click “Submit.”

Submit a Comment Opposing AB 84 Through the State Portal:

You can officially register your opposition to AB 84 directly on the California Legislature’s website. It only takes a few minutes!

Go to the bill page: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.../billNavClient...

Then follow these steps:

Click the “Comments To Author” tab (top right next to “Status”).

Select “Oppose” under the comment type.

Log in or create a free account with the California Legislative Portal (you’ll be prompted).

Enter your comment, you can keep it short and personal.

Example:

“Hi, my name is [Your Name] from [Your City], CA. I strongly oppose AB 84. This bill threatens schools that partner with families for flexible learning. It punishes good programs and harms students who need them most. I support SB 414 instead. Thank you!”

Submit your comment. Done!

Find your California State Assemblymember & Senator:

https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov

Email them via their website contact form and say you OPPOSE AB 84. Note: You’ll be asked for your home address to confirm you’re a constituent.

Be respectful, be brief, and speak from the heart.

Let them know this bill threatens your child’s education and that you support SB 414 instead, a smarter, balanced solution that brings oversight without destroying what works.

Sample Message:

Hi, my name is [Your Name] and I’m a constituent.

I’m asking you to vote NO on AB 84. This bill threatens schools that partner with families to create flexible learning options. It punishes good programs and cuts funding to the students who need it most. Please oppose AB 84 and support SB 414 instead. Thank you!

Use these two forms to send your opposition in just 2 minutes:

https://chartercenter.quorum.us/campaign/115259/

https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/promo/69g

 
References:

[1] California Department of Education, “Private School Counts & Enrollment by Year - Private School Data,” July 17, 2024, https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ps/psastatcountsbyyear.asp.

[2] California Department of Education. “Fingertip Facts on Education in California - Accessing Educational Data,” October 24, 2025. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp.

[3] National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. “New Report Shows Charter School Enrollment Grows Across the Nation,” October 8, 2024. https://publiccharters.org/news/new-report-shows-charter-school-enrollment-grows-across-the-nation/#:~:text=Charter%20school%20enrollment%20has%20steadily,Alliance%20and%20report%20co%2Dauthor.

[4] Fensterwald, John. “A New Chapter for Charter Schools in California as Enrollment Drops for First Time in 3 Decades.” EdSource, February 5, 2023. https://edsource.org/2022/a-new-chapter-for-charter-schools-in-california-as-enrollment-drops-for-first-time-in-3-decades/670868#:~:text=In%202020%2D21%2C%20the%20first,school%20enrollment%20actually%20increased%203.4%25.

[5] California Department of Education, “Fingertip Facts on Education in California - Accessing Educational Data.”

[6] California Charter Schools Association. “Survey Confirms: Support for Charter Schools Is Back to All-time High in California,” August 16, 2021. https://info.ccsa.org/blog/support-for-charter-schools-all-time-high.

[7] Los Angeles Unified School District, Charter Schools Division. “LAUSD Charter Schools: Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d. https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/K311.pdf.

[8] Hanson, Melanie. “Average Cost of Private School [2024]: Tuition by Education Level.” Education Data Initiative, August 29, 2024. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-private-school#:~:text=$16%2C884%20is%20the%20average%20tuition,total%20annual%20cost%20of%20attendance.

[9] California Legislative Information. “Bill Text - SB-277 Public Health: Vaccinations.,” June 30, 2015. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277.

[10] Vaccines & Immunizations. “Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age,” November 21, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-age.html#table-1.

[11] Montebello Unified School District. “Proposition 39,” n.d. https://www.montebello.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=2211731&type=d&pREC_ID=2305328#:~:text=Under%20Education%20Code%20Section%2047605(c)%20the%20local,exceptions%2C%20that%20will%20operate%20within%20its%20boundaries.

[12] California School Boards Association. “Newly Signed Laws Change the Landscape of Charter School Petitions and Renewals,” November 21, 2019. https://publications.csba.org/california-school-news/november-2019/newly-signed-laws-change-the-landscape-of-charter-school-petitions-and-renewals/.

[13] California Department of Education. “Determining Charter School Performance Category.” California Department of Education, March 2025. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ch/documents/categoryflyer.pdf.

[14] California State Assembly. “FACT SHEET AB 84 (Muratsuchi) Nonclassroom Based Charter School & Auditing Reforms.” Report, 2021. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f4c3135f9dcec6fad65eba4/t/67f5dab929d0a863d383e6e5/1744165561795/AB%252084%2520Fact%2520Sheet.pdf.pdf.

[15] Ibid.

[16] California Legislative Information. “Bill Text  - AB-84 School Accountability,” March 19, 2025. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB84.

[17] California State Assembly, “FACT SHEET AB 84 (Muratsuchi) Nonclassroom Based Charter School & Auditing Reforms.”

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] California Legislative Information, “Bill Text  - AB-84 School Accountability.”