SCA 1 would add two constitutional provisions that clear the way for the Legislature to create School Choice Flex Accounts and Special Education Flex Accounts: parent-directed accounts that the state (or local agencies) could use to pay private school tuition and education-related costs for K–12 students, including at religious schools. The measure also changes how California measures student counts for school funding and fiscal limits by defining average daily attendance to include children who are eligible for public schools but instead use those flex accounts, and it permits the Legislature to specify how ad valorem property tax revenue is allocated to implement the program.
This is consequential because it does three things at once: authorizes state-funded, parent-directed spending for private K–12 education (explicitly irrespective of religious affiliation), alters the metrics that drive K–12 funding formulas and local appropriation limits, and creates a constitutional hook allowing the Legislature to reallocate property tax revenue by statute to support the accounts. Those mechanics would reshape the flow of state and local dollars to public versus private education and raise practical questions about oversight, special education obligations, and fiscal impacts on districts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The amendment authorizes the state and its political subdivisions to disburse funds to parents for private K–12 tuition and related expenses through legislatively created School Choice and Special Education Flex Accounts and to provide tax or other public benefits to private schools. It defines average daily attendance to include children who use those accounts and allows the Legislature to allocate ad valorem property tax revenue under a specified Education Code scheme.
Who It Affects
Parents choosing private K–12 schools, private and religious school operators, public school districts and community college districts (through changes to ADA and funding formulas), and counties/local agencies that administer property tax allocations and account disbursements under state law.
Why It Matters
By putting these permissions into the Constitution, the amendment removes certain constitutional constraints that have limited public support for private religious schools and creates a permanent pathway for statutory programs that redirect public dollars outside traditional public-school delivery; it also changes the base metrics that drive Proposition 98 funding and local appropriation limits.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SCA 1 adds two constitutional sections. The first authorizes the State and its agencies to enter agreements with parents to disburse public funds for tuition and education-related expenses at private K–12 schools, and to grant tax or other public benefits to private schools, without excluding religious institutions.
That constitutional permission does not itself create the accounts or specify eligibility, dollar amounts, provider standards, or accountability mechanisms; it simply removes constitutional barriers so the Legislature can create those systems by statute.
The second addition alters how California counts students for funding and fiscal-limit purposes. It instructs that average daily attendance (ADA) will include not only children enrolled in public schools but also children who are eligible to enroll in public schools yet choose to finance their education with a School Choice Flex Account or a Special Education Flex Account established under a specified part of the Education Code.
The amendment also expressly allows the Legislature to require allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues pursuant to a statutory provision tied to those accounts.Practically, the combination matters because ADA and property-tax allocations are inputs to multiple funding rules—most notably the Proposition 98 funding guarantee and the calculation of local appropriations limits. Counting flex-account students in ADA preserves certain enrollment-based funding triggers even if the students no longer take classes in public schools, while the ad valorem provision gives the Legislature authority to direct local property-tax shares to follow or otherwise finance the accounts.
The measure includes severability language and grants the Attorney General an affirmative role to defend the amendment's validity in litigation.What the amendment does not resolve: the text leaves almost every operational detail to statute. It does not define who qualifies as an "eligible child" beyond referencing future Education Code provisions; it does not set dollar values, guardrails for private schools that receive public funds, or mechanisms for reconciling these accounts with federal special education obligations.
Those are the statutory-level choices that will determine how the constitutional permissions play out in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The amendment adds Section 8.5 to Article IX to authorize state disbursements and public benefits for private K–12 tuition and education-related expenses via agreements with parents, explicitly including religious schools.
It adds Section 8.1 to Article XVI so that average daily attendance (ADA) will include children eligible for public K–12 schools who instead fund their education through School Choice Flex Accounts or Special Education Flex Accounts established in Education Code Article 19.2.
The Legislature is explicitly permitted, by statute, to require allocation of ad valorem property tax revenue under the Education Code provision referenced in the amendment (Section 69995.12), creating a constitutional basis to reassign local property-tax shares.
The amendment contains severability language and directs the Attorney General to defend challenges to the measure, including an unconditional right to intervene and an obligation to appeal if the Attorney General declines to defend in trial court.
The constitutional language authorizes account disbursements and tax benefits but leaves all program details—eligibility, amounts, oversight, and school accountability—to subsequent statute and implementing regulations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Permits state disbursements and public benefits for private K–12 schooling
This section removes constitutional prohibitions that have been read to bar public funding of sectarian or non‑public schools and replaces them with a positive authorization: the State, agencies, and political subdivisions may disburse funds under agreements with parents for private K–12 tuition and education-related expenses and may provide tax or other public benefits to private schools, irrespective of religious affiliation. In practice, this creates a constitutional foundation for parent-directed 'flex accounts' but does not itself create program rules, enforcement mechanisms, or fiscal limits—those will come from implementing statutes.
Counts flex-account users in average daily attendance and permits property-tax allocation by statute
This provision expands the constitutional definition of average daily attendance to include children who are eligible for public schools but instead use a School Choice Flex Account or a Special Education Flex Account established under Education Code Article 19.2. It further allows the Legislature to require allocation of ad valorem property taxes pursuant to a named Education Code section. Together, these changes alter the inputs for Proposition 98 guarantees and local appropriation-limit calculations by treating flex-account students as part of the public-school ADA even when they attend private schools.
Severability, conflict rule, and Attorney General defense obligation
The measure declares its provisions severable and states a legislative intent that if multiple measures on the same subject appear on the ballot, this measure would prevail if it receives more votes. It also requires the Attorney General to defend the amendment in litigation and to intervene unconditionally; if the Attorney General declines trial‑level defense, the office must nonetheless appeal adverse judgments to preserve the state's standing. These clauses are designed to reduce the risk that a single court decision invalidates the whole framework and to centralize defense in one office.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Parents who choose private schools: They would gain a constitutional pathway for receiving state‑directed funds through parent‑directed flex accounts to pay tuition and education-related costs, including at religious schools.
- Private and religious K–12 schools: The amendment opens the door to receiving public funds and tax benefits, widening enrollment and revenue opportunities if statutes authorize payments to those institutions.
- Students with disabilities and their families who use Special Education Flex Accounts: If statutes create these accounts, families could use public dollars for specialized private services or tuition tailored to a child's needs rather than relying solely on district‑delivered services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public school districts and county offices of education: They face potential reductions in classroom enrollment, local property-tax shares, and per‑pupil revenue if students shift to privately provided services, while many fixed costs (buildings, staff obligations) remain.
- State and local governments: Agencies will incur administrative costs to design, implement, audit, and oversee flex accounts and to adjust funding formulas and property-tax allocations; the state may also face transition-year budgetary pressure under Proposition 98.
- Taxpayers and taxpayers’ representatives: Redirecting public dollars to private schools and account administration could increase scrutiny and political pressure about equity, oversight, and whether public funds achieve their intended public‑education objectives.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding parental choice—permitting public support for private and religious schooling and enabling individualized special‑education spending—and protecting the fiscal and programmatic integrity of the public‑school system: authorizing redirected public dollars solves access and choice concerns but risks eroding funding, accountability, and legally mandated services for students who remain in or depend on public schools.
The measure authorizes a broad program but leaves crucial design choices to statute—who qualifies as an "eligible child," how much money follows a child, how private schools must demonstrate compliance with nondiscrimination or curriculum standards, and how funds intersect with federal special education entitlements. Those statute-level decisions will determine whether the amendment redirects existing funds or adds new spending, whether it preserves services for students who remain in public schools, and how administrative burden scales across counties and LEAs.
Counting flex-account students in ADA preserves certain funding triggers but creates perverse incentives and measurement challenges. If ADA includes eligible-but-not-enrolled students, districts could see state funding continue even as in‑seat enrollment falls, or conversely, face unanticipated losses if property-tax allocations shift faster than statutory stabilization mechanisms.
The amendment also invites litigation on issues the text tries to preempt: whether the funding truly avoids impermissible establishment of religion (the text permits religious schools but litigation could test the limits), how state obligations under IDEA and federal funding rules interact with private‑school placements funded by flex accounts, and whether reallocating property taxes impinges on local voter‑approved levies or parcel tax measures.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.