The watchtower for Faith, Family, and Freedom Legislation

California SB64: Education expenses: School Choice Flex Account Act of 2025.

☆ Watch
  1. Introduced
  2. Failed

Overview

SB 64 creates a new School Choice Flex Account program in California that allows families to use funds for education expenses beyond traditional public school, expanding educational options for California families.

Law Today

California currently maintains a public K-12 education system funded by state General Fund dollars (approximately $18,000 per student annually) and local property taxes. Parents are generally assigned to neighborhood public schools, though some alternatives like charter schools exist.

If Passed

SB 64 would create School Choice Flex Accounts (SCFAs) and Special Education Flex Accounts (SEFAs) funded by the state. Starting in 2027–28, eligible students could receive $8,000 annually (or $16,000 if they have exceptional needs) to attend accredited private schools instead of public schools. Initially available only to lower-income families, the program would expand to all families by 2031–32. Unused funds would revert to the state each year.

AI-generated from the bill text — verify against the official text.

Should I support this?

  1. Strongly Oppose
  2. Likely Oppose
  3. Neutral
  4. This billLikely Support
  5. Strongly Support

Likely Support

For Christian parents, SB 64 directly expands access to religious education by making faith-based and private schools financially viable through state-funded accounts. It prioritizes parental authority to choose schools aligned with their values and beliefs, and it provides a concrete pathway for families to direct education dollars toward religious instruction—a core concern for Christian families seeking to integrate faith with their children's education.

AI assessment using F3’s editorial criteria — faith, family, and freedom. This is F3’s policy judgment; verify the provisions in the official bill text.

Likely supporters & opponents

Likely support

  • School-choice and parental-rights advocacy organizations — Parents should have the freedom to direct education funding toward schools that best serve their children's needs, including religious and private options, rather than being locked into assigned public schools.
  • Private school associations and religious school networks — This expands access to private and faith-based education for middle- and lower-income families who currently cannot afford tuition, allowing religious parents to choose schools aligned with their values.
  • Education reform groups focused on student outcomes — Private schools consistently score higher on standardized tests and offer individualized, customized learning that the bill argues the public system does not provide.

Likely opposition

  • Public school districts and education unions — Diverting $8,000–$16,000 per student to private schools reduces funding for public schools serving the majority of students and destabilizes the public system.
  • Civil-liberties and church-state separation advocates — Using state tax dollars to fund religious school tuition violates the separation of church and state and raises accountability and nondiscrimination concerns for private schools receiving public funds.
  • Budget and fiscal-responsibility groups — The bill claims to be 'no additional cost to taxpayers' but actually shifts education spending away from public education, reducing per-pupil funding in public schools.

AI-inferred typical positions based on the bill’s substance — general stakeholder categories, not confirmed endorsements.

💬 Chat about this bill ↗Official bill text ↗View on LegiScan ↗

Official summary

An act to add Article 19.2 (commencing with Section 69995) to Chapter 2 of Part 42 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, and to add Section 17132.2 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to education expenses, and making an appropriation therefor.

Sponsors

  • Shannon Grove (R)

Status timeline

  1. 2026-02-02Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.S
  2. 2025-03-19March 19 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 5. Page 420.) Reconsideration granted.S
  3. 2025-03-07Set for hearing March 19.S
  4. 2025-02-27From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.S
  5. 2025-01-29Referred to Coms. on ED. and REV. & TAX.S
  6. 2025-01-10From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 9.S
  7. 2025-01-09Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.S

H = House · S = Senate · A = Assembly