Enrollment Explosion or Fertility Phenomenon?
When Dehesa Elementary School reported just 84 students in the 2022–23 school year, few expected that number to nearly quintuple within 24 months, according to CDE enrollment data. But that’s exactly what happened—at least on paper. According to public CDE data, Dehesa’s enrollment climbed to 221 in 2023–24 and then spiked to 399 in 2024–25. If you take the numbers at face value, nearly 178 new students appeared from nowhere, in ONE year! Current projected enrollment for Dehesa Elementary is projected at roughly 56, with 13 of those pending.
According to census estimates, the median age in the Dehesa Elementary School District zone is approximately 44 years old. For reference, most women’s childbearing years fall between the ages of 20 and 40, with peak fertility generally in the late 20s to early 30s. A median age in the mid-40s doesn’t suggest a wave of young families or a local birth surge. And in a district with less than 1000 households in its bounds, demographic shifts are typically slow and measurable. This makes sudden spikes in school-age enrollment less likely to be the result of organic population growth—and more likely attributable to creative enrollment management strategies.
Maybe there’s something in the water? Scientists should consider the possible implications here. If you’re hunting for the holy grail of fertility, maybe try a glass of Dehesa tap. Or we can start with a look at school enrollment, at the head of the Dehesa School District’s leadership is Superintendent Bradley Johnson.
The $253K Question: Who’s He Superintending?
Johnson, who oversees the Dehesa School District, earns at least a $253,000 annual salary before tax—including benefits, generous healthcare package, and reportedly a “Me Too” clause (no…not that #MeToo—the kind where every time someone else at the school gets a raise, he does too. MEE TOO! AKA what I call the Entitlement Clause—a provision that ensures his salary not only matches others’ raises, but stays ahead of them. It’s less “me too” and more “me first.”).
That’s more than many big-city superintendents make in districts ten times the size, made more egregious by the fact that, there is only ONE school site location within Dehesa School District. So where are all the students coming from to justify that kind of pay? Unless Dehesa’s managed to officially charter a school on the moon or Mars, they had to come from somewhere a little closer to home, but certainly not exclusively from Dehesa’s own boundaries.
Rubber Stamps and Boardroom Bloodlines?
The answer may lie with the board: The Three Whites—Cyndi White, Richard White, and Dustin White—all listed on official filings as living in the same Dehesa household (unless, of course someone lives a little more… out of district. Sources suggest there’s more musical chairs happening than just with MethodSchools).
Then there’s The Phams, a husband-and-wife duo—reportedly lots of family business, and dreams. What kind of dreams? That remains to be seen, or maybe one already came true.
Together, this closely tied board appears to have greenlit nearly every administrative move Johnson has made, in part or in full, even as enrollment spiked, classrooms filled with children of all ages, their resident children now on independent study contracts, MethodSchools and Method Sports Academy students from Temecula came in, questions mounted, and Children were going to school with no record of daily, or weekly attendance.. So who’s really in the driver’s seat? Is the board truly providing oversight—or just along for the ride?
Independent Study for All, Broken Promises for Some
All students—whether enrolled through Dehesa Elementary, MethodSchools, or Method Sports Academy—were placed on independent study contracts, regardless of grade level. These contracts were branded under names like Flex-Based Learning, and while they carried different titles, they served the same purpose: to enable ADA collection for students not physically present.
Families were told that this model would offer complete flexibility: students could attend in person, stay home, or do a mix of both. Fridays were designated as “Flex Fridays,” with online-only learning for all students. As long as students logged in or submitted assignments, they would be counted for funding purposes—even if they never stepped foot on campus that day.
However, the audit later flagged this arrangement as noncompliant with state law, citing lack of approval and failure to meet instructional minute requirements.
While some students sat quietly in Dehesa classrooms working on laptops using the “Smart Fox” curriculum—accompanied only by a teacher to answer occasional questions—others learned entirely from home. In effect, Dehesa operated as a remote learning hub under the guise of traditional in-seat instruction.
But the biggest shift—and the most disruptive broken promise—came when the district abruptly changed its attendance requirements for MethodSchools and Method Sports Academy upper-grade students. Initially, families were told K–12 students could remain hybrid or fully online, regardless of grade. But later, older students were required to attend in-person classes every day or risk being removed from the program altogether. This sudden mandate forced families—many from as far as Temecula—to commute daily to Dehesa, a rural district with only one official campus.
Parents were blindsided. What had been marketed as a flexible, sports-integrated, hybrid program turned into a mandatory, on-site attendance requirement for older students. Transportation promises weren’t fulfilled, sports teams didn’t materialize, and the enrichment opportunities originally touted failed to take shape.
These broken promises didn’t just impact charter families. Dehesa’s own resident students were also quietly transitioned to independent study contracts, often without fully understanding what it meant. Families expressed frustration that classroom learning had been replaced with asynchronous tasks and that the district’s focus had shifted away from the local community entirely.
Reportedly, this model was developed and implemented by Superintendent Johnson himself and was widely disliked by staff. As one insider put it, “Nobody liked it, but we were told it was how we were doing things now.”
SoCal Scholars and Virtual Padding
Complicating matters further, SoCal Scholars Academy—a virtual program serving students from regions as distant as Los Angeles County—was also integrated into Dehesa’s enrollment. These students operated under independent study contracts but were reportedly affiliated with other virtual charters like Cabrillo Point Academy and Pacific Coast Academy. Still, it appears their ADA was attributed to Dehesa.
Audit Findings and Fiscal Red Flags
The June 2024 audit conducted by Wilkinson Hadley King & Co. flagged several serious compliance issues in Dehesa School District’s operations:
- $50K ELO-P penalty: The district violated state law by failing to collect valid parent signatures for its extended day program.
- Falsified attendance records: Students were marked as independent study despite attending in person.
- Fabricated absence logs: Submitted absence logs were revealed to be made up.
- Invalid independent study contracts: Required signatures, engagement logs, and instructional time tracking were missing.
- $950K in questioned ADA: The district misreported in-person students as independent study, inflating attendance-based funding.
- $171K in ratio-based ADA overclaims: Dehesa knowingly exceeded teacher-student ratios and claimed the funding anyway.
- LCAP compliance failure: The district appears sidestepped state law by using a safety committee instead of a parent advisory committee.
These findings reflect a deeper concern about how Dehesa’s administration blurred the lines between local and remote enrollment. Multiple sources confirmed that internal administrative decisions allowed these programs to operate under Dehesa’s banner without clear authorization and approval from the county and state, resulting in inflated attendance numbers and enhanced state funding.
The Enrollment Musical Chairs
MethodSchools Charter had been listed among San Diego County’s middle-performing school with poor performance in multiple categories, such as high absence rate, poor marks in English, math, and college and career readiness. Its proprietary curriculum, SmartFox, was poorly received and associated with educational gaps. Some sources interpret Dehesa’s absorption of MethodSchools and Method Sports Academy students as a strategic rescue maneuver—one that allowed a failing charter and its unrecognized spinoff to operate under Dehesa’s umbrella while Dehesa reaped ADA for both local and remote students.
The benefit? A financial one. Because ADA drives funding. With each student reported—regardless of where they lived or how often they attended in person—the district secured per-pupil payments from the state. Rather than reflecting genuine growth or community enrollment, Dehesa’s rising student counts appeared to stem from administrative design: reclassifying existing students, importing outside programs, and converting neighborhood children to independent study.
And that matters. Because it didn’t just reshape numbers—it reshaped the purpose of the district. Local students were pushed into remote learning to make room for charter-affiliated cohorts, who often came from hours away. The very families who expected a neighborhood school were instead offered a laptop and a contract.
This isn’t the first time a district has bent policy lines for strategic enrollment. In 2024, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was found to have violated Prop 39 by adopting policies designed to “avoid” charter school co-location. LAUSD was criticized for protecting resident students at the expense of charters.
But in Dehesa, the inverse occurred: charter programs were prioritized, and resident students were displaced to asynchronous education.
State Level Approval? Nowhere to Be Found
Several of the programs contributing to Dehesa’s reported ADA may have been reviewed or authorized internally by the Dehesa board, but there is no indication they received state-level approval or were formally recognized by the California Department of Education. As of this writing, Method Sports Academy is listed only as a pending school and is not an approved charter. SoCal Scholars Academy does not appear in any public CDE charter school listings and is not registered as an independent instructional entity.
Despite this, students from both programs were reported under Dehesa’s enrollment and counted toward its ADA. Meanwhile, Dehesa’s own resident students were shifted to independent study contracts, and it’s unclear how often, if ever, some attended school in person. What is clear is that instructional oversight blurred, physical presence varied, and funding followed the enrollment—regardless of whether students were inside the classroom or not.
Overpromised. Underdelivered. Highlighted by Audit Findings.
This isn’t simply a matter of creative program development. It raises concerns about state compliance, fiscal oversight, and accountability to taxpayers. Multiple programs operated without formal reporting, using Dehesa’s infrastructure and governance to collect state funding without clear transparency. Children were shifted to asynchronous education, MethodSchool families were promised programs that never fully materialized, and charter enrollment figures grew dramatically—according to publicly available CDE data, Dehesa’s total charter enrollment rose from 9,697 students in 2021 to 13,578 in the 2024–25 school year. This increase in enrollment reflects Dehesa-authorized charter students, not students physically located within the district or attending Dehesa Elementary School. The increase suggests a significant expansion in Dehesa’s reported reach, despite no corresponding growth in its geographic population or residential enrollment.
What this resembles, from the outside, is a situation where resident children were displaced, outside families were oversold, and no one was fully served. Overpromised. Underdelivered. Failing on all fronts—and corroborated by audit findings.
Who’s Really Being Served?
Whether this arrangement constitutes a violation of law or a gray area of policy is a matter for state regulators. But from a public trust perspective, the implications are undeniable. Residents expected a neighborhood school. What they received appears to be a complex, loosely monitored network of remote and charter student placements, layered under Dehesa’s reporting umbrella.
At best, it’s administrative elasticity. At worst, it’s public funding stretched beyond its legal intent.
Either way, what’s happening in Dehesa isn’t sustainable. And as enrollment reports climb ever higher—despite stagnant neighborhood growth—the question must be asked:
Who, exactly, is being served?
Please See the Full Audit below, and if you want to save some time and just view the findings those are also provided extracted from the audit, as well as enrollment totals for years 2020-2025:
Enrollment Figures by Year 2020-2025
MethodSchools California Dashboard 2022-2024
Method Sports Academy CDE Profile (As of 7/25/20205, showing pending status)
While “MethodSchools” is a recognized charter school brand listed with the California Department of Education, the specific program known as “Method Sports Academy,” as it operated at Dehesa, does not appear to have been independently listed or formally authorized as a standalone instructional entity as of the date students began attending under the Method Sports Academy name and were reportedly attributed to Dehesa’s ADA. This distinction matters, particularly when assessing whether enrollment and ADA reporting aligned with program-level approval standards. Further, signage outside Dehesa School updated the school marquee to reflect the presence of Method Sports Academy prior to active operating status on CDE website.
