The UPK Budget Blunder: What It Reveals About Double Standards

The Reality of Public Systems

We’re all human. People make mistakes, and yes, some knowingly break the rules. No public system is immune to problems. Across every level of government, we’ve seen misconduct; city council members have accepted bribes, mayors have misused taxpayer funds, counties have mishandled state homelessness grants, and legislators have faced investigations for embezzlement, sexual harassment, and abuse of power. These aren’t rumors, they’re well-documented, high-profile scandals that have made headlines across California. When these things happen we don’t respond by dismantling entire city governments or eliminating the legislature. 

Like other government entities, schools are certainly not immune from problems. School districts have covered up sex abuse scandals, misused bond funds, and most recently, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the largest district in the state, admitted to withholding tens of millions of dollars in Proposition 28 arts education funding. Instead of distributing the money directly to school sites as required by law, LAUSD kept the funds at the central office, prompting a lawsuit from a local arts advocacy group. The district has not denied the violation. Yet despite the clear misuse, no one is proposing to cut off Prop 28 funding statewide or ban district use of arts vendors. No one is demanding the dissolution of LAUSD. Instead we respond with audits, corrective plans, and better systems, not permanent shutdowns.

As always, traditional systems are given the opportunity to correct and continue. Charter schools, however, are rarely afforded the same grace.

The Key Question

Are people acting in good faith, doing their best to navigate complex systems with constantly shifting regulations? Or are they deliberately defrauding the state? Or intentionally breaking the law for personal gain?

That distinction matters.

Intent vs. Impact: Are We Correcting Mistakes or Targeting and Punishing Models?

We hold individuals accountable. We don’t create laws to punish every district because one school board failed. So why then, when one non-classroom based charter school makes a mistake, are all non-classroom-based charter schools treated as guilty by association? Why is the same latitude not extended to charter schools if mistakes are made? Why are a few specific instances being cited as justification to erase hundreds of programs that tens of thousands of families rely on?

If this same standard were applied evenly, no public system would survive. Accountability matters, but so does fairness. Oversight should protect systems, funding, and students, not be used as a political weapon to justify dismantling educational choice.

The State Budget Error You Haven’t Heard About - Yet

In recent state budget briefings, it was shared that during the rapid expansion of Universal Pre-K (UPK), the state misallocated millions of dollars in early education funding to community colleges, institutions that do not serve transitional kindergarten (TK) students. This misallocation went undetected for at least two years and was only flagged during the 2025–26 budget planning cycle.

Despite this glaring error, there has been no public explanation of how the community colleges spent the misallocated funds. Community colleges have not been required to return the money or account for its use. During this same period, California’s community college system faced a wave of financial aid fraud, with tens of millions of dollars lost. While it’s unclear whether the misdirected UPK funds were directly tied to fraud, it highlights the need for oversight systems that prevent mistakes and misuse across all sectors, not just those serving charter communities.

The Governor’s office and Department of Finance are now proposing a fix to stop the misallocation going forward, but there’s been no indication the state will attempt to recover the misdirected funds. This situation highlights how even at the highest levels of government, mistakes happen in complex systems, yet public trust and services are not dismantled as a result. No one is calling for legislation to defund community colleges or ban them from accessing state grants.  The state’s approach has been calm and corrective: fix the issue in the next budget, and move forward. Funding will be shifted back toward TK–12 education in the upcoming budget, which will significantly reduce allocations for the community college system over the next few years.

This situation underscores the complexities and challenges in managing large-scale public funding programs. Even with robust systems in place, errors and fraudulent activities can occur. However, it's crucial to address these issues with targeted solutions rather than broad punitive measures that could negatively impact the majority who operate in good faith.

If this same error had occurred in a charter school, would the consequences be as forgiving? Or would it be used as another excuse to justify draconian regulation or the complete dismantling of charters?

A Pattern of Politicized Overreach

The scrutiny facing charter schools isn’t new, it’s part of a sustained effort over the past five years to erode the flexibility and innovation they were designed to offer.

The campaign to undermine charter schools didn’t start with AB 84. It’s been escalating for years. In 2019, lawmakers passed AB 1505 and AB 1507, which restricted where charter schools can open and made renewals more difficult, even for high-performing programs. Then came AB 1316 in 2021, a sprawling bill filled with costly and bureaucratic mandates targeting non-classroom-based (NCB) charters. That bill was eventually defeated due to massive public outcry, but its intent was clear.

Now, AB 84 picks up where those efforts left off, aimed at banning vendor-based instruction, slashing flexibility in independent study programs, and limiting educational options that families rely on. This bill isn’t narrowly focused on correcting fraud; it’s part of a broader strategy to legislate non-classroom based charter schools out of existence.

Yes, there have been isolated cases of fraud in the charter community, such as the A3 charter scandal, that led to criminal convictions, and they must continue to be addressed if more arise. But instead of tailored oversight, lawmakers and aligned media outlets have used these incidents as political fuel to justify sweeping restrictions. 

When fraud or misuse occurs, other public agencies, whether in a city government, a school district, or even the legislature itself, the response is typically to investigate, correct, and move on. The system stays intact. The assumption is that the system isn’t broken, just that a person made a bad decision.

But when it comes to charter schools, especially non-classroom-based models, the response hasn’t been accountability. It’s been a blanket punishment. Why is it acceptable to weaponize isolated errors or even bad actors in the charter community to justify sweeping crackdowns, the removal of entire programs, and the loss of educational options for families who did nothing wrong?

AB 84 is just the latest example, not a bill aimed at improving oversight or targeting fraud, but one that punishes a model. When a district makes a mistake, we fix it. When a charter school makes one, we shut it down.

That’s not reform. That’s erasure.

A Call for Fairness

If we truly believe in accountability, equity, and transparency, we must apply the same values across every public system, not just the ones politicians currently favor.

That means:

• Investigating misconduct when it happens but not assuming guilt by association
• Correcting mistakes not weaponizing them
• Supporting improvement not dismantling entire educational programs

Charter schools, especially non-classroom-based programs, serve tens of thousands of California families who chose a different path for a reason. These families shouldn’t lose access to education because of a political agenda.

Mistakes are part of navigating large systems. Intent matters. Solutions should too.

Accountability should target misconduct, not erase the opportunities families rely on.

AB 84 doesn’t prevent fraud. It punishes flexibility.

It doesn’t improve transparency. It erases choice.

And it doesn’t promote accountability. It enforces uniformity. Let’s not let politics destroy programs that are working.

California families deserve better.

‍