Test for Newsom as Dems Target Charters

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — It’s almost unfathomable, but California’s Democratic lawmakers are going all in this session on a controversial bill that promises to provide more oversight of the state’s charter schools (especially non-classroom-based ones) — but is little more than a union-backed attempt to quash this one bright spot in California’s public-school landscape. It’s also putting Governor Gavin Newsom on the spot as he’s becoming the leading voice in the national anti-Trump resistance.

Assembly Bill 84 is moving through the Legislature and is headed toward the Senate Appropriations Committee next week. As the Senate committee analysis explained, the bill: “(1) increases audit requirements and authorizer responsibilities; (2) revises the funding determination process to include additional financial reporting and a review of charter networks; (3) imposes restrictions on certain contracting practices … and (4) places new limits on the ability of small school districts to authorize NCB [non-classroom-based] charter schools.”

If scandals are the reason, then the Legislature might take a look at the myriad scandals that have plagued traditional public schools recently.

The sponsor, the California School Employees Association (CSEA), points to a charter-school scandal as justification for creating a costly bureaucracy to oversee these schools. But if scandals are the reason, then the Legislature might take a look at the myriad scandals that have plagued traditional public schools recently — including a whistleblower lawsuit, budget deficits, grand jury investigations, and you name it. I’m sure the bill has nothing to do with CSEA viewing charters as a threat.

Charter school groups have no problem with oversight, but they see this as going too far. For example, AB 84 prohibits parents from spending funds from instructional accounts on programs “not provided by a credentialed employee of the local educational agency for the pupil.” As the Pacific Research Institute’s education scholar, Lance Izumi, explains, the Legislature is “using fiscal accountability as a fig-leaf issue to hide its real intentions — crippling California’s popular charter-school sector in order to bolster regular public schools that are seeing declines in both enrollment and student achievement.”

It’s really a jobs-protection measure. Why would unions and the public-school establishment be so upset by charters when public schools are constitutionally guaranteed more than 40 percent (Proposition 98) of the state’s rather enormous general-fund budget? Two obvious reasons: Declining test scores and declining enrollments. 

As The Orange County Register explained regarding those test scores, “Despite a slight recent uptick, California public-school test scores are nothing short of shocking: Only 47 percent of students met the state English standards, while only 35.5 percent met the state’s math standards. Meanwhile, charter-school students significantly outperformed similar students in test results.”

Those results are leading parents to seek out alternatives, especially after the COVID shutdowns — and the failure of public schools to rise to the challenge — reminded the public that sending kids to a traditional classroom isn’t always necessary. Also, demographics are playing a role, as there simply is a falling number of school-aged children as people have fewer kids, immigration slows, and many Californians move to other states. As usual, the main concern of the public schools is keeping the cash flowing — and that cash is tied to Average Daily Attendance (ADA) numbers.

Consider this data from the Public Policy Institute of California in June: “Enrollment fell in California’s public TK–12 schools in 2024-25 for the eighth consecutive year; roughly 5.8 million students are enrolled statewide, about 420,000 fewer than in 2014–15. This is despite the recent expansion of Transitional Kindergarten (TK); with TK excluded, the decline over the past decade is about 100,000 larger.”

PPIC adds: “Over the longer term, fiscal pressures will continue to mount in districts with sustained declines, potentially curtailing student services and forcing difficult conversations about budget cuts and/or school closures.” These problems are particularly pronounced in urban school districts. Many suburban districts are growing. Those major urban areas have outsized political power, so lawmakers are trying to stanch the bleeding. Let’s not pretend this has anything to do with accountability and helping poor and special-needs kids who benefit from these alternatives the most.

Charter schools are, in fact, public schools that use taxpayer dollars, so there’s nothing wrong with reasonable accountability measures. But who really thinks that new bureaucracies are the solution — especially in a state that’s overrun by bureaucracy and where state agencies are routinely plagued by incompetence and scandal? It’s not hard to understand what’s going on here.

It is harder to understand why Democratic lawmakers want to put Newsom in this pickle. Public-opinion polls show charters’ continued popularity. The real test of popularity: their enrollments are increasing. State data reinforces that charters overall perform well academically. If Newsom is looking at running for president, he’d be running nationwide, where support for charters and educational choice would be even higher across the nation. If AB 84 goes to his desk, Newsom might be forced to choose between his union backers and public preferences.

Newsom has a mixed record on charters, unlike his unabashedly pro-charter predecessor, Jerry Brown. Newsom has signed laws that have made it more difficult for charters to expand, but he has paid lip service to them as one educational choice. He has not embraced the most extreme proposals by the teachers’ unions. The governor also previously vetoed another union bill that promised charter accountability, but would have further limited them. Being optimistic, Newsom might certainly do a repeat performance with a veto of AB 84. We’ll see. 

Perhaps the most succinct opposition to the legislation comes from former state Auditor Elaine Howle, as quoted in a Sacramento Bee advertisement running today: “Based on my 21 years of experience as California’s State Auditor, creating a new statewide watchdog … would likely cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to implement… A more cost-effective and sensible approach would be to strengthen existing oversight.”

The ultimate question for the Legislature and Newsom: Are they serious about accountability, or are they just trying to quash the competition?