AB 84's “Fact” Sheet? Let’s Break It Down

AB 84’s “Fact” Sheet or Fiction?

What the Authors of AB 84 Aren’t Telling Their Fellow Legislators and Why It Matters for Thousands of California Families

Assembly Bill 84 is being promoted as a cleanup bill, but the latest (06/2025) “fact sheet” distributed in support of it misrepresents key facts and omits critical context. What’s being presented as balanced reform is, in reality, a sweeping overhaul that threatens access to public education for thousands of families who rely on non-classroom-based (NCB) charter schools, including those offering independent study and homeschool support.

This document highlights the most misleading claims from the fact sheet and provides the truth legislators need before casting a vote that could permanently alter the future of public education in California, especially for our most vulnerable students who depend on flexible, student-centered models to thrive.

CLAIM:

“Fraud and loopholes have allowed NCB charter schools to misuse funds on Disneyland, religious classes, and enroll students without instruction.”

‍

THE TRUTH:

This claim is misleading. AB 84 goes far beyond any recommendations and falsely implies broad support from agencies that were never consulted. AB 84 relies on outdated examples and misrepresentations to justify restricting parent choice and eliminating access to alternative education models. Here’s what’s really happening:

• FCMAT is funded and authorized by the Legislature. In Senate testimony, FCMAT’s Mike Fine opened by noting that there are good charter schools in California, a telling signal of concern with overreach.
• The San Diego County District Attorney had no knowledge of AB 84. Their name is used without consent to suggest support. The only connection is the 2022 A3 fraud prosecution, which was successfully handled under existing law. Most of the funds involved in the A3 fraud case were recovered and returned to the state. The individuals responsible were held accountable using existing laws, proving that oversight already works when enforced. Notably, the DA’s office withdrew support for a similar bill, AB 1316 (2021), because it went too far, yet AB 84 revives many of the same restrictions.
• If students were enrolled through partnerships with local organizations, like little leagues or community centers and received academic or physical education services, then they were participating in legitimate, authorized education. The real problem was not with the schools, but with CALPADS, the state’s data tracking system. Fixing track-switching or overlapping enrollment is a matter of improving CALPADS controls, not dismantling school models that serve real students.
• Since the A3 scandal charter law has changed. No third party can enroll a student without verified parental action. Today, student enrollment must go through a two-step verification process:
  
  1. The parent submits an intent to enroll.
  2. The parent is emailed a secure link to complete enrollment and upload required documents
• The Disneyland example is being deliberately distorted. Some charter vendors offered project-based academic classes inside the park, overseen by credentialed teachers. Students used weekday-only passes, not family passes, often at lower cost than renting a classroom. Meanwhile, district schools and the California Department of Education continue to use Disneyland for student recognitions, field trips, and staff training, without criticism. This is not a misuse of funds; it’s immersive, standards-aligned learning that expands access for low-income homeschool families.
• The mention of “religious organizations” is equally misleading. Charter schools cannot, and do not, pay for religious instruction. All vendor courses must be secular and school-approved. Some learning centers offer both secular and faith-based programming. When a parent privately pays for a religious class, that is a family decision, not a public funding issue. This is not a loophole, it’s a carefully regulated model that honors both religious freedom and parental choice, while upholding the law.
• Finally, calling these flexible practices “loopholes” ignores the intent behind California’s original charter legislation, which was written to allow innovation, not enforce uniformity. NCB charter schools operate under rigorous oversight, including annual audits, funding determinations, transparency reports, and site visits. These schools serve students who need something different, whether due to special needs, health concerns, or learning styles that don’t fit a traditional classroom.

The truth is, NCB charter schools already operate within careful legal and cultural boundaries, guided by oversight and intention. In a state as diverse as California, our education policies should reflect that diversity not erase it. AB 84 does not address fraud; it leverages outdated scandals to justify sweeping new restrictions on schools that are operating legally and serving students who depend on flexible, personalized public education. Instead of leaning into fear-based narratives, the Legislature should be expanding access to diverse learning models that meet students where they are.

‍

CLAIM:

“The state must enact comprehensive reform to combat fraud before the moratorium on NCB charter schools expires in January 2026.”

‍

THE TRUTH:

This is a misleading justification being used to push through AB 84. California has already enacted sweeping charter reforms and the moratorium itself was one of them.

• The original moratorium on new non-classroom-based charter petitions was enacted through AB 1505, alongside AB 1507, paired legislation passed in 2019 that significantly overhauled charter renewal, authorization, credentialing, and transparency.
• The moratorium was later extended through SB 98 (2020), pushing the expiration date to January 1, 2026, and layering in further oversight on independent study, distance learning, and enrollment practices.

These reforms added new controls, tightened approval processes, and increased state oversight. To suggest the state has “done nothing” is inaccurate and being used to pressure lawmakers into passing an extreme and unnecessary bill.

The expiration of the moratorium is not a crisis and certainly not a reason to dismantle a model that is serving thousands of students legally and effectively. What’s needed now is honest evaluation not political urgency based on fear.

Misleading “Solutions” in AB 84: What They Don’t Tell You

AB 84 claims to improve oversight and transparency, but nearly all of its proposals are either already in place, redundant, or intentionally designed to dismantle flexible public education options that serve homeschool, independent study, and at-risk students.

Below are just a few things that legislators need to know.

Audit & Accounting Standards‍

‍Claim:‍

Creates parity with school districts and strengthens financial oversight.

‍Truth:‍

Charter schools are already subject to annual independent audits, use the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS), and undergo state financial reviews. AB 84 duplicates these systems without adding value; it simply increases administrative burden and paperwork.

‍

Funding Determination

‍‍Claim:‍

Maintains the current formula with more transparency.

‍Truth:

‍AB 84 changes the eligibility rules not the formula itself. Schools must now submit financial data from multiple past years and apply as a single network rather than by school site. These changes will reduce or delay funding, especially for smaller or more efficient schools. It’s a hidden funding cut.

‍

Student Attendance Data Reform

Claim:‍

Prevents duplicate enrollment.

Truth:‍

This is a legitimate fix that should be implemented but doesn’t require the rest of the bill. It’s being used as a justification to pass unrelated restrictions.

‍

District Authorizers‍

‍Claim:‍

Ensures better oversight by matching NCB charters to large districts.

‍Truth:‍

AB 84 removes local control by reassigning charter schools away from small districts even when they’ve provided excellent oversight. It also threatens existing charters if their authorizer drops below a certain number of staff, forcing reauthorization through larger bureaucracies with no educational benefit.

‍

Authorizer Oversight & Fees‍

‍Claim:‍

Increases fiscal accountability through FCMAT and stricter review.

‍Truth:‍

FCMAT already has significant oversight authority, and its role is funded and directed by the Legislature. Expanding its scope under AB 84 adds compliance burdens without improving neutrality or support for schools. This isn’t support it’s micromanagement.

AB 84’s Hidden Ban on the NCB Homeschool Model

‍

One of the most dangerous provisions of AB 84 is buried in Section 51749.7 of the Education Code, which states:

SEC. 44. Section 51749.7(a) A local educational agency shall not allocate, or advertise the availability of, funds or credits to be spent at the discretion of a pupil’s parent, guardian, or education rights holder for educational enrichment activities that are not provided by a credentialed employee of the local educational agency for the pupil and that are paid for by the local educational agency.

This language would eliminate the core structure of non-classroom-based (NCB) charter programs, which are built on a legal and collaborative partnership between the parent, credentialed teacher, and school. Under current law, families work with assigned credentialed teachers to build individualized learning plans, and approved funds are used for secular, standards-aligned enrichment delivered by community experts or vendors.

This would eliminate access to:

• Enrichment classes in music, art, PE, language, STEM
• Real-world experiences through small business and community-based providers
• Special education service providers who currently support students through occupational therapy, speech, behavioral support, and other essential services

Many of these vendors are state-certified, licensed professionals who provide vital support to students with IEPs. The result? Students lose access to personalized services that meet their needs, services that are legal, effective, and already carefully monitored.

AB 84 would make this model illegal unless all instruction is provided directly by a credentialed school employee even when the class is academically sound, state-approved, and overseen by a credentialed teacher. This would effectively make the core structure of NCB charter programs illegal. It means that even with credentialed teacher oversight, public funds could not be used for any learning opportunity unless the instruction comes directly from a school employee.

Even district schools aren’t held to this standard. Traditional schools use similar enrichment structures through ELOP and CTE. AB 84 holds NCBs to an impossible standard that would not just restrict the model, it would eliminate it.

‍

The ELOP Carve-Out: A Double Standard

‍

The bill includes a limited carve-out:

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that this section does not apply to expanded learning opportunities programs.

This allows district schools to continue offering enrichment funded through ELOP but provides no protection for NCB charters that serve the same purpose using different structures. NCBs do not have guaranteed access to ELOP and are not named in the exemption.

Traditional schools use similar enrichment structures through ELOP and CTE. AB 84 holds NCBs to an impossible standard that would not just restrict the model it would eliminate it. This isn’t reform. It’s a quiet repeal of an educational model that supports thousands of California families. AB 84 doesn’t just remove flexibility, it removes access and equity in public education.

Conclusion:

AB 84 uses outdated scandals and misleading talking points to dismantle a model that works. Non-classroom-based charter schools already operate under extensive oversight and legal requirements. The real issue is not fraud, it's fear of educational models that empower parents, meet students where they are, and deliver results outside the traditional mold. Legislators should reject this quiet repeal and support equity in public education by protecting flexible learning.

‍