California School Choice Bill Blocked, Education Committee Votes 5-2 to Reject

On March 19, the California State Senate Education Committee rejected a school choice bill, the “California School Choice Flex Account Act of 2025,” with a vote of 5-2.

The bill, known as Senate Bill 64 (SB64), was introduced by Republican Assemblywoman Shannon Grove from Bakersfield, California.

School choice in California refers to allowing students to attend schools outside of their designated “school district,” including magnet schools, charter schools, homeschooling, and private schools. Under SB64, as long as the chosen school is certified, educational funds such as tuition and fees can be allocated to that school. The bill also requires the establishment of separate accounts for special needs students.

Parents would have the freedom to choose the school for their children under the bill, with their tax dollars following the students. Funds would be distributed on a per-school-year basis, with any unused balances refunded to the K-12 portion of the California General Fund.

Grove stated that school choice provides families with more options and can improve educational outcomes. She expressed disappointment over the committee’s decision to reject SB64, stating that it deprived parents and students of the opportunity to thrive in schools that suit their needs. Grove emphasized the importance of school choice in enabling students to excel academically and vowed to continue advocating for it.

All five Democratic members of the Senate Education Committee voted against the bill, expressing concerns that it would divert funding from the most economically disadvantaged schools, thereby impacting their students.

Democratic State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez voiced apprehension, indicating that while the bill would provide funding for private schools, it might not cover all costs, potentially limiting choice for low-income families while benefiting wealthier households the most.

Had SB64 been approved, it would have established personalized accounts for California students—a School Choice Flex Account providing $8,000 for general students and a Special Education Flex Account allotting $16,000 for students with special needs. These funds would only be applicable to certified educational institutions.

Grove argued that the bill would empower parents to have more control over their children’s education. According to data from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the state spends approximately $20,000 per student annually. PPIC highlighted the challenges faced by African American and Latino students in meeting grade-level standards in English and math.

Grove pointed out that fourth and eighth-grade academic rankings in California have consistently lagged behind, despite substantial funding. Many parents feel that the current education system fails to adequately prepare students for higher education and employment opportunities. She noted that many students are constrained to attend underperforming schools based on their zip codes.

Moreover, Grove highlighted issues with receiving funding assistance for special education students within California’s education policies.

Additionally, Grove introduced the “Senate Constitutional Amendment 1” (SCA1), which seeks to enshrine school choice flex accounts and special education flex accounts into the California Constitution. SCA1 further calls for the legislature to promote the development of intellect, science, morality, and agriculture through appropriate means. The amendment is currently under review by the Senate Rules Committee.

President Trump issued an executive order on the 19th supporting the expansion of students’ education choices, affirming the administration’s policy to empower parents in choosing and guiding their children’s growth and education.