HR-3453-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 379.
Sponsored by Julia Letlow (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would modify how states can spend federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) grant money. It would allow state entities to use up to 5% of their CSP funds for pre-charter planning subgrants to prospective applicants — a use not currently permitted. It would also allow states to fund revolving loan funds for applicant startup expenses and to help applicants find and access school facilities. Additionally, it would change the technical assistance spending requirement from a mandatory floor of at least 7% to a flexible ceiling of no more than 10%.
Who benefits
Prospective charter school founders — especially educators and community members without prior administrative experience — who would gain access to planning funds and facility assistance before formally receiving a grant. Charter management organizations and nonprofit groups seeking to open new schools. Students and families in areas where new charter schools might open, particularly in underserved communities. State charter school boards and state educational agencies, which would gain more flexibility in how they allocate technical assistance funds.
Who is hurt
Existing charter school applicants and authorized public chartering agencies that currently receive technical assistance funding could see reduced support if states shift spending away from the former 7% floor toward other uses. Traditional public schools may face increased competition for students and, in some states, per-pupil funding. Teachers' unions and public school advocacy groups that oppose charter school expansion more broadly may view this as an incremental expansion of the charter sector. Applicants who rely heavily on technical assistance rather than pre-planning grants could receive less support under the new flexible ceiling.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the biggest barrier to opening a high-quality charter school is the gap between having an idea and receiving formal approval — a period when founders have no access to federal funds for planning, legal work, or facility searches. They contend that allowing up to 5% of CSP funds for pre-charter planning subgrants and facility assistance directly addresses this gap, enabling experienced educators who lack institutional backing to compete with well-resourced applicants. They also argue that converting the technical assistance requirement from a rigid floor to a flexible ceiling gives states the ability to tailor spending to local needs rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all allocation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that loosening the technical assistance floor from a guaranteed 7% to an optional ceiling of 10% could result in states spending far less on the oversight and support functions that help ensure charter school quality and accountability. They contend that pre-planning subgrants, while well-intentioned, may accelerate the opening of schools that are underprepared, pointing to research showing that charter school quality varies widely and that weak planning is a leading cause of early closures. They also argue that redirecting federal education dollars toward charter expansion comes at the expense of traditional public schools that serve the majority of students.