Charter authorizers urge Gov. Newsom to lead on anti-fraud bill

A coalition representing California charter authorizers has asked Gov. Gavin Newsom to take the lead in shaping the next anti-fraud charter school bill, urging him to include key oversight provisions in his January budget proposal.

The request comes as lawmakers and education stakeholders prepare for another attempt at charter school oversight reform as the state Legislature reconvenes this week.

At issue are concerns that charter schools lack necessary oversight and controls following several high-profile scandals that resulted in the misuse of hundreds of millions of dollars in state public education funds.

Last year, legislators, charter school advocates, authorizers and various education organizations had pinned their hopes for reform on one of two oversight bills introduced in the 2025 session. But last fall, Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 414, the charter reform bill that passed the Legislature, while another one was withdrawn by its author.

In vetoing SB 414, Newsom said the measure fell short of recommendations from statewide anti-fraud task force reports and would be too costly to implement amid significant fiscal pressure.

He called on the stakeholders involved in the negotiations to “work together in the coming months” to resolve their differences and bring back a new bill when the Legislature reconvened. But the veto message offered little guidance on which provisions were unacceptable or how lawmakers should revise the proposal — leaving participants without a clear sense of what the governor would support.

The veto frustrated stakeholders involved in the negotiations, many of whom felt that had the governor’s office been more present during discussions, they could have fashioned either SB 414, supported by charter schools, or a parallel measure, Assembly Bill 84, backed by labor, into one that he would have approved. AB 84 included provisions negotiators believed had broad agreement, but its author, Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, withdrew the bill and converted it into a two-year measure after it became clear it lacked the votes to pass. 

In the absence of a clear path forward, some participants in last session’s talks chose to reach out to the governor’s office directly.

In December, that outreach took the form of a letter from a coalition of charter authorizers — including county offices of education, school boards and school business officials — urging the administration to take a more active role in directing the next phase of charter oversight reform.

“Everybody who signed that letter is completely in the dark about what’s going to happen next,” said Stephanie Medrano Farland, director of education policy at Capitol Advisors, a consulting firm that works with many school district authorizers.

In the letter, the authorizers pressed the administration to use the January budget to restart negotiations, framing the request as a way to advance the effort through the budget, and writing that “starting from the elements where consensus already exists will ensure that the Legislature and interest holders can spend the next year resolving the remaining issues rather than restarting from scratch.”

By urging the administration to include proposed reforms in the January budget, the authorizers are seeking both to move the process forward and clarify what the governor is willing to support — a level of direction that was missing during last year’s negotiations.

The group outlined several priorities they say must be addressed for any overhaul to succeed, including clearer statewide standards for authorizer responsibilities, funding for new oversight mandates and the creation of a state-level entity to investigate potential fraud. They also called for specific statutory guidance for overseeing nonclassroom-based charter schools — also known as flex-based, such as virtual, homeschool, and hybrid learning — which they argue pose unique risks requiring clearer responsibilities, guardrails and transparency tailored to their structure.

In a separate letter, California Charter Authorizing Professionals — a nonprofit that provides training and resources to support effective charter oversight — echoed concerns about the lack of clear statutory standards and inconsistent authorizing practices across the state, and urged the administration to provide greater direction in any future legislation.

While authorizers moved to press the governor for leadership, charter school operators are taking a wait-and-see approach.

“There are more questions now than there are answers heading into the new year,” said Jeff Rice, founder and director of the Association of Personalized Learning Schools & Services (APLUS+), whose members operate different models of nonclassroom-based charter schools. The most divisive issue is the oversight and funding for nonclassroom-based charter schools, particularly a proposal to cap enrollment in programs authorized by small districts.

Charter advocates adamantly oppose those restrictions, arguing that equating authorizer size with effectiveness is misguided and warning that such caps would effectively eliminate charter schools in some regions, creating “charter deserts” and limiting educational options for families.

For now, Rice said charter school groups are holding off on submitting their own letter to the governor until they have more clarity about his position on new legislation. “Without that direction,” he said, “it’s just a waste of time, and you risk ending up with another veto.”

The unions representing teachers and school staff are also holding off until discussions resume in the new legislation, according to a person familiar with their conversations.