By Carlos Avalos
A comprehensive complaint filed with the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller-Tax Collector, Ensen Mason, has revealed what appears to be a systematic pattern of educational fraud, constitutional violations, and civil rights abuses spanning multiple school districts under County Superintendent Ted Alejandre’s oversight. The allegations, if substantiated, represent one of the most serious cases of educational funding manipulation in recent California history.
The complaint centers on alleged Constitutional violations of Article IX, Section 5 of the California Constitution, which guarantees free public education. The districts in question, Etiwanda, Alta Loma, and Upland, are accused of operating what amounts to a “pay-to-play” public education system that directly contravenes this fundamental constitutional principle.
These practices also raise serious Federal Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection issues, as the alleged fee structure creates a two-tiered system where access to educational opportunities depends on a family’s ability to pay. This practice is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The Etiwanda School District’s CLOUDS Preschool Program serves as the primary example of these alleged violations. According to the complaint, the Illegal Fee Structure in the program charges families a $75 non-refundable registration fee and $360 monthly tuition. There are also double-dipping concerns. While collecting these fees, the district simultaneously uses taxpayer-funded staff, facilities, and administration. The complaint states students are reportedly excluded until payments are current, violating free education guarantees.
Perhaps most concerning are allegations of systematic misclassification of Transitional Kindergarten (TK) students. The complaint alleges that districts improperly regressed TK-eligible students into fee-based preschool programs, manipulated attendance records through “dual enrollment” practices, artificially inflated unduplicated pupil counts to maximize state funding, and denied mandated services to special needs students during program hours.
The complaint mentions California state law violations of Education Code Section 48000, TK must be provided free as part of the K-12 public school system. Charging fees for TK access through preschool programs appears to directly violate this mandate. Education Code Sections 49010-49011 explicitly prohibit pupil fees for registration, participation, or educational activities, and ban exclusion or discrimination based on non-payment.
Education Code Sections 42238.02 & 42238.07, Local Control Funding Formula “LCFF” supplemental and concentration funds must be used to “increase or improve services” for unduplicated pupils, not to subsidize fee-charging programs or manipulate funding formulas. Education Code Section 46120 states that Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELO-P) funds must extend learning time, not mask or subsidize fee-based programs.
Federal Civil Rights violations are alleged as well. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The complaint alleges denial of Individualized Education Program (IEP) services during CLOUDS sessions, potentially violating federal mandates for Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, discrimination against students with disabilities through service denial constitutes a clear Section 504 violation. Title IX prohibits sex and gender-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. Unless inequities are tied specifically to gender, Title IX is unlikely to apply here. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. Income-based discrimination is not covered unless it disproportionately affects a protected racial or ethnic group.
The allegations suggest potential criminal fraud violations as well. California Penal Code Section 424 Misappropriation of public funds, California Government Code Section 1090, conflicts of interest in public contracting, Federal Wire Fraud Statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1343), if federal funds were obtained through misrepresentation.
A broader systemic pattern is alleged in the complaint. San Bernardino County’s Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre, alleged inaction takes on additional significance given his current investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for conflict of interest and fiscal mismanagement. The complaint suggests a pattern of willful blindness to obvious violations across multiple districts, failure to exercise statutory oversight duties, and potential conspiracy to maintain fraudulent practices.
The systemic nature of these allegations across Etiwanda, Alta Loma, and Upland suggests a multi-district scope of wrongdoing. The complaint alleges a coordinated fraud scheme rather than isolated incidents, county-level guidance or tolerance of illegal practices, and potential coordinated fraud implications. However, applying the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) would require proof of an ‘enterprise’ engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, which is speculative without stronger evidence.
Constitutional and Civil Rights violations are also mentioned. The complaint alleges Equal Protection Violations; the fee structure and exclusion practices may create arbitrary, wealth-based barriers to educational access. While courts have held that education is not a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment (San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez, 1973), such practices may still raise Equal Protection concerns.
Under the strict scrutiny analysis of Equal protection, the alleged practices fail constitutional muster. Regarding compelling state interest, there is no legitimate interest in charging fees for constitutionally guaranteed free education, and fee structures are overbroad and unnecessarily discriminatory. There are least restrictive means by having the option of an alternative funding mechanism that exists that doesn’t violate constitutional rights.
In the complaint, there is alleged criminal liability and individual culpability. School board members, superintendents, and fiscal officers who knowingly participated in these schemes could potentially face felony charges under California Penal Code Section 424, public fund misappropriation, federal charges for wire fraud and conspiracy, and civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations.
There is also the potential for institutional liability. School districts in San Bernardino County may face loss of federal funding under Title VI and other federal programs, state sanctions, including potential state takeover, and massive civil judgments in terms of class-action lawsuits.
The whistleblower in the complaint believes immediate actions are required, such as a forensic audit of all financial records, including tuition collection and fund co-mingling, attendance record analysis to identify manipulation patterns, Local Control Funding Formula LCFF funding verification to detect fraudulent reporting, and a civil rights compliance review for discriminatory practices.
This complaint also emphasized the importance of evidence preservation. Critical evidence includes board meeting minutes and recordings, financial records and bank statements, attendance logs, Americans with Disabilities Act ADA reporting, Email communications between district officials, and student enrollment and fee payment records. The complaint adamantly touched on the implications for the state and California Education. If these allegations prove accurate, they represent, systematic undermining of California’s constitutional education guarantees, precedent-setting fraud that could encourage similar schemes statewide, and erosion of public trust in educational institutions.
The complaint also encouraged reforms. This potential case highlights the urgent need for enhanced oversight mechanisms at the county and state levels, stronger penalties for educational fraud, clear guidance on preschool and transitional kindergarten funding boundaries, and Whistleblower protections for educators reporting violations.
The allegations outlined in this complaint represent far more than administrative oversights or bureaucratic confusion. They describe a deliberate, systematic subversion of California’s constitutional commitment to free public education. The charging of fees for constitutionally guaranteed educational services, the manipulation of funding formulas designed to support our most vulnerable students, and the creation of discriminatory two-tiered systems all strike at the heart of educational equity and constitutional governance.
Finally, the complaint states that as this investigation proceeds, it will serve as a critical test of California’s commitment to upholding both the letter and spirit of our educational laws. The outcome will determine whether constitutional guarantees remain meaningful protections or mere paper promises that can be circumvented through creative accounting and administrative sleight of hand.