Senate committee advances AB 84 to tighten oversight of nonclassroom-based charter schools

Assemblymember Marisucci asked the Senate Education Committee to consider Assembly Bill 84, legislation aimed at strengthening oversight of charter schools — particularly nonclassroom-based charters — after a series of high‑profile fraud cases. “We need to strengthen charter school oversight and accountability,” the author said, citing audits and criminal convictions that exposed “large scale misuse of public funds.”

The bill largely codifies recommendations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) and the state controller’s task force on charter audits. Mike Fine, executive director of FCMAT, told the committee the bill would “modify existing statute on audits to explicitly apply to charter schools, creating parity” with school districts and would strengthen auditor training and oversight.

Supporters described the bill as a response to major cases that involved millions of dollars in improper claim or potential fraud. “These cases clearly demonstrate … the current system is entirely inadequate,” Cassie Mancini of the California School Employees Association said, summarizing the authors’ intent to require more rigorous fiscal checks and clearer authorizer responsibilities.

Operators and many parents urged caution. Dozens of speakers — including principals, charter back‑office providers and parents who use nonclassroom programs for medically fragile students — said AB 84 as drafted would impose unfunded mandates, hurt small or rural authorizers and could disrupt services for vulnerable students. Mary Cox, superintendent of Korbut Charter, said AB 84 “imposes costly unfunded mandates … putting essential services at risk for our students.” Eric Primack of the Charter Schools Development Center said the bill “creates too many unnecessary and unfunded mandates” and raised concerns that limits on small district authorizers could act as a near‑permanent moratorium on new nonclassroom charters for many districts.

A central point of dispute was how the bill would treat public dollars used for enrichment activities in nonclassroom programs. The author and supporters said the bill is intended to close loopholes that allow LCFF/Prop 98 funds to be diverted into non‑instructional spending and to require credentialed oversight of vendors used for instructional minutes. Opponents argued the policy could prevent legitimate instructional partnerships and disadvantage nonclassroom models that rely on community partners; they said the Assembly and Senate are negotiating narrower language.

Committee members pressed both sides on implementation details. Senators asked about the timing and cost of requiring charter schools to report financials in the state’s SACS (Standardized Account Code Structure) format and about whether smaller authorizers have capacity and funding to oversee large virtual entities. FCMAT and the author said negotiations are ongoing and that several contested items were the subject of amendment and discussion with Senator Ashby’s parallel measure, SB 414.

After more than three hours of testimony — in which the committee heard both large groups of parents and teachers in favor and long lines of charter representatives opposed — the committee voted to send AB 84 as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The roll call recorded five votes in favor and two opposed. The author told the committee she will continue negotiations over the summer to narrow language on vendor sign‑off, authorizer capacity and other operational items.

The committee action does not finalize policy; the bill will now be reviewed by Senate Appropriations and remain subject to further amendments and negotiation between the author, the sponsor groups and charter‑sector stakeholders.