A Broken Bill: The Real Impact of AB 84

What Is AB 84?

AB 84 is a bill in the California Legislature that targets non-classroom-based (NCB) charter schools with new restrictions and deep funding cuts, up to 30% less funding per student, an average of $4,500 per student.

Misunderstanding Parent Choice:
What AB 84 Gets Wrong

‍What the Bill’s Authors Are Saying - And Why It Doesn’t Hold Up

The authors of AB 84 argue that because our schools don’t meet in-person every day, we don’t need the same funding as traditional schools. Their justification relies on three main claims:

• That students in non-classroom-based (NCB) or virtual schools perform worse academically.
• That parents are given education funds directly to spend.
• That so-called loopholes have allowed bad actors to misuse taxpayer dollars.

But here’s the truth:

• The academic studies cited are outdated and not California-specific. Most are more than a decade old and based on other states with different charter laws. Meanwhile, California already has strict academic and performance accountability standards. Low-performing charter schools can be, and are, shut down.
• Charter schools in California are subject to strong oversight. They must operate as nonprofits, hold public board meetings, undergo annual independent audits, and be reauthorized every 2–7 years through a public process with state and local oversight.
• Recent reforms have already increased transparency and accountability. California has passed several laws in recent years to prevent misuse of funds and increase public oversight. Schools are complying with those laws and have improved systems as a result.

Academic Outcomes:
Misleading Claims and the Real Story

The claim that NCB and virtual charter school students perform worse academically is based on outdated, out-of-state studies that don’t reflect current California data or laws.

NCB charter schools serve a diverse and often underserved population, including:

• Students who are failing or pushed out of traditional schools
• Students with trauma, bullying, or medical issues
• Teen parents, caregivers, and working youth
• Highly mobile students or those in transitional housing
• Students pursuing careers in sports, entertainment, or other fields requiring nontraditional schedules

These schools help students graduate who might not have graduated at all—a fact ignored by the broad comparisons used in AB 84’s justification.

Lumping all NCB models together distorts the data. Virtual programs, parent-led homeschool programs, hybrid models, and in-person learning centers have very different academic profiles and student outcomes.

In fact, homeschool-based NCB programs consistently show strong academic progress and student engagement, especially in literacy, math foundations, and early college exposure.

California law already has mechanisms to close low-performing charter schools. The idea that AB 84 is needed to improve outcomes is redundant and misinformed.

Parents Aren’t Handed Money – They’re Partners in Education

A common myth is that parents receive public funds directly to spend as they wish. This is not how independent study charter schools work.

• No funds go to families. Instead, families work hand-in-hand with their assigned credentialed teacher to create a customized educational plan for each student. This includes selecting curriculum, expanded learning opportunities, and resources aligned to student needs.
• The school, not the parent, handles all spending. Parents cannot purchase educational services or materials on their own. All purchases are processed and paid directly by the school after being approved as part of the student’s learning plan.
• Vendors must be vetted and approved by the school. This includes fingerprinting/background checks, insurance verification, W-9 forms, and alignment with educational goals. Vendors include music teachers, science labs, math tutors, and enrichment providers. No vendor may work with students unless they’ve been officially cleared and contracted by the school.

This process ensures compliance with California law, proper oversight, and responsible use of public funds, while also maintaining student safety and academic quality.

California Law Requires Parent Engagement – And We Take That Seriously

California has long emphasized the importance of parent engagement in public education. In fact, state law requires schools to seek meaningful parent input when creating plans, policies, and budgets.

Independent study charter schools not only follow these requirements, we are built on the foundation of parent involvement.

Here are just a few of the state-mandated programs that require schools to engage families:

• LCAP (Local Control and Accountability Plan): Parents help determine goals, priorities, and spending.
• ELAC (English Learner Advisory Committee): Parents of English learners help shape services for their children.
• School Site Councils and Charter Board Meetings: Parents participate in decision-making and oversight.
• IEPs and Special Education Programs: Parents are equal partners in shaping support plans.
• Annual School Surveys and Program Reviews: Feedback from families directly shapes school improvement efforts.

Our schools value families as co-educators and actively partner with them in every aspect of the student experience, from curriculum choices to expanded learning opportunities to overall program design.

What Legislators Should Know

“AB 84 doesn’t fix a loophole, it doubles down on a funding system that already underfunds independent study students. It punishes schools that are fully compliant and high-performing just because students don’t sit in a classroom every day. And it targets a model of education that prioritizes parent involvement, the very thing our state has always said it supports.”

Non-Classroom-Based (NCB) Charter Schools Serve Public School Students Who Need Something Different

NCB charter schools offer flexible, personalized learning environments, often through independent study, online platforms, parent-led, or hybrid models. They serve a diverse student population, including those needing alternative education options due to health issues, learning differences, or other personal circumstances.

NCB charter schools serve:

• Students with learning differences, chronic illness, or mental health needs
• Families in rural areas or without access to specialized programs
• Young actors, athletes, performers, and working students who need flexible schedules to pursue their careers or passions
• Students who need flexible pacing, hands-on projects, or alternative learning environments

These students deserve public funding and educational support, just like any others. Funding policy must uphold the truth that all students have equal value and deserve equal funding, regardless of the school they choose, whether county office, district, or public charter operated.

How Are We Already Funded Less?

While all public schools receive base funding through LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula), district schools and classroom-based charters receive access to dozens of additional funding streams that NCB charter schools cannot use.

‍

Funding Challenges for NCB Charter Schools

• Excluded from Facilities Funding‍
  
  • Charter School Facility Grant Program (SB 740): NCB schools are excluded, despite having significant facilities costs.
  • School Facility Program (SFP): NCB schools often do not qualify under the eligibility requirements.‍
• Excluded From Transportation Funding‍
  
  • Home-to-School Transportation Reimbursement: NCB schools are ineligible, even when they provide transportation.‍
• Excluded from Expanded Learning Opportunities‍
  
  • Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELO-P): NCB schools are excluded due to daily, in-person hour requirements.‍
    
• Excluded from Community Schools Partnership‍
  
  • California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP): Emphasizes facility-based programming; NCBs are typically excluded.‍
• After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program‍
  
  • Similar to ELO-P; excludes NCB schools due to in-person operational requirements.‍
    
• Funding Determination Process‍
  
  • NCB charter schools must apply for general fund allocations. They often receive less than 100% ADA based on the state's evaluation.‍
• Excluded from Attendance Recovery Funding‍
  
  • SB 727 allows traditional schools to recover ADA through make-up work. NCB schools, whose model is based on work completion, are excluded.

Table of Unequal Access to State Education Funding

Charter schools already receive approximately $11,000 less per student than traditional district schools, despite serving the same public education mission.

AB 84 Would Cut Funding Even More: By 30%

AB 84 proposes to cut the already reduced general fund allocation for NCB schools by up to 30%. This is not a “rebalancing” this is dismantling.

This would directly harm:

• Tutoring services
• Online curriculum
• Resource center instruction
• SPED supports not fully covered by state/federal funds
• College and career planning
• Field-based and community enrichment programs

We aren’t overfunded, we’re underfunded and over-delivering. AB 84 doesn’t solve any equity issue. It simply shifts more resources away from families who chose a different kind of public school.

CALL TO ACTION:
Speak Up About AB 84

We urge families to respectfully and confidently contact their California legislators to share concerns about Assembly Bill 84 (AB 84) a bill that threatens educational freedom, disproportionately harms students with unique needs, and deepens an already vast funding gap between district and charter public schools.

‍

Not sure who represents you?

Use this tool to find your California State Assemblymember and Senator: https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

‍

What to Do If Your Assembly or Senate Seat Is Vacant

If your Assemblymember or State Senator seat is currently vacant, you still have a voice and it deserves to be heard. When you don’t have direct representation, it’s important to contact the leadership of each chamber and ask them to represent your region’s concerns.

Step 1: Let them know you don’t currently have a representative due to a vacancy.

Step 2: Ask them to oppose AB 84 on your behalf as a resident and voter in California.

Step 3: Be sure to include your ZIP code and city so your concern is logged for your region.

‍

Speaker of the Assembly – Robert Rivas

• Mailing Address:
  State Capitol
  P.O. Box 942849
  Sacramento, CA 94249-0029
• Phone: (916) 319-2029
• Fax: (916) 319-2129
• Website: speaker.asmdc.org

Senate President pro Tempore – Mike McGuire

• Office Address:
  1021 O Street, Suite 8518
  Sacramento, CA 95814
• Phone: (916) 651-4002
• Website: sd02.senate.ca.gov

Your voice is powerful, especially when it’s informed, respectful, and rooted in your lived experience. Let’s stand together for equity, choice, and every student’s right to learn.

‍

Talking Points for Legislators

• AB 84 targets public school students who happen to learn in a different way.
• NCB charter schools already receive less funding and are excluded from key programs like transportation, facilities, and after-school grants.
• Instruction at NCB schools is provided by credentialed California teachers.
• Charter schools are held to high levels of transparency, annual audits, public board meetings, and reauthorization requirements.
• AB 84 would further reduce already limited resources and punish compliant, high-performing schools.
• Vote NO on AB 84 and protect parent choice and equity in public education.

‍

Sample Call Script

Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I’m a [parent/vendor/educator] with a student at a non-classroom-based public charter school.

I’m calling to express my strong opposition to AB 84.

This bill unfairly targets students who learn outside of a traditional classroom by slashing funding by up to 30%, even though NCB schools are already funded less than traditional schools and are held to strict oversight.

We serve students with health needs, learning differences, or who simply need a different learning model, and we do so with credentialed teachers and public accountability.

AB 84 doesn’t close loopholes, it punishes students. Please vote NO on AB 84. Thank you.

‍

Sample Letter for Families

Subject: Oppose AB 84 – Support Equitable Funding for Charter School Students

Dear [Legislator's Name],

I’m the parent of a student attending a non-classroom-based (NCB) public charter school in California. I’m writing to urge you to oppose AB 84.

This bill unfairly targets students who thrive in personalized, flexible learning environments, students with learning differences, chronic illness, mental health needs, or those pursuing passions that require alternative schedules.

NCB charter schools already face major funding gaps:

• We’re excluded from facilities grants, transportation reimbursements, ELO-P and ASES after-school programs, and other supports district schools rely on.
• We must apply for general fund allocations each year, and may receive less than 100% of the per-student funding other public schools receive automatically.

Now, AB 84 would cut our funding even further, by up to 30%. This would hurt students, not systems. It would eliminate access to enrichment programs, tutoring, and other services that make our school successful.

Families in NCB schools don’t receive money to spend. All funds are managed by the school, and all educational vendors are vetted and approved. Instruction is provided by credentialed teachers, just like in every other public school.

AB 84 doesn’t promote equity, it strips it away from students who need a different public school model. Please vote NO on AB 84.

Sincerely,[Your Name]

‍

Sample Letter for Vendors

Subject: Oppose AB 84 – Protect Educational Partnerships That Support Students

Dear [Legislator’s Name],

I’m a community partner serving students enrolled in non-classroom-based (NCB) public charter schools. I’m writing to ask you to oppose AB 84.

Through my work, I provide [brief description of service, e.g., tutoring, music instruction, STEM labs, etc.] to students in public charter schools. These programs are aligned with each student’s educational plan and overseen by credentialed teachers. All vendors must go through a rigorous approval process, including fingerprinting, insurance, and compliance with educational goals.

AB 84 would severely restrict these partnerships and cut funding by up to 30%, on top of the many programs NCB schools are already excluded from:

• Facility modernization and grant programs
• Home-to-school transportation reimbursement
• Expanded Learning Opportunity Program (ELO-P)
• Community school funding and after-school enrichment grants

Despite fewer resources, NCB schools collaborate with vendors like me to ensure students get the enrichment and support they need. AB 84 doesn’t fix a problem, it would remove access to meaningful learning for thousands of students.

Please vote NO on AB 84. Our students deserve more opportunities, not fewer.

Sincerely,[Your Name]

‍

Sample Letter for Charter School Staff

Subject: Oppose AB 84 – Defend Student Equity in Public Charter Schools

Dear [Legislator’s Name],

As a credentialed teacher at a non-classroom-based (NCB) public charter school, I work directly with students and families who need something different from traditional school.

Many of my students face learning challenges, health issues, or circumstances that require flexibility. In our school, we offer them a high-quality, personalized education, and we do so with full accountability.

Our school:

• Is operated by a nonprofit
• Follows all transparency laws, including audits and public board meetings
• Is reauthorized through a public process every 2–7 years
• Employs credentialed teachers who oversee each student’s educational plan
• Works only with approved, vetted vendors for enrichment and support

We already receive less funding than traditional public schools. We’re excluded from programs like facilities grants, transportation funding, ELO-P, and community school grants. On top of that, our general fund is not guaranteed, we must apply annually and may receive less than 100% ADA.

AB 84 would slash our funding further and restrict the resources we need to serve students. It doesn’t target bad actors, it penalizes good schools doing good work. Please vote NO on AB 84 and support fair, student-centered education.

Sincerely,[Your Name]

‍