HR-6418-118
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 449.
Sponsored by Julia Letlow (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would modify how states can spend federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) grant money in two ways. First, it would allow states to use up to 5% of their CSP funds to make "pre-charter planning" subgrants to groups that are considering applying to open a charter school. Second, it would change the technical assistance requirement — currently states must spend at least 7% of CSP funds on technical assistance; the bill would make that a ceiling of no more than 10%, giving states more flexibility in how much they spend on that activity.
Who benefits
Prospective charter school founders and applicants who would gain access to early-stage planning funds before submitting a formal application. Nonprofit and public organizations that support charter applicants would also be eligible for subgrants. State educational agencies and state charter school boards would gain greater flexibility in how they allocate CSP funds. Communities where new charter schools might open — particularly those in underserved areas — could benefit if the pre-planning funds lead to more or better-prepared charter school applications.
Who is hurt
Existing eligible applicants and authorized public chartering agencies that currently receive technical assistance funding could see reduced support if states shift spending toward pre-planning subgrants. Traditional public schools may face increased competition for students and associated per-pupil funding if more charter schools are successfully launched as a result of the pre-planning grants. Taxpayers in states where pre-planning subgrants are awarded to applicants who ultimately do not open a school could see those funds produce no operational outcome.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that one of the biggest barriers to opening a high-quality charter school is the lack of resources during the earliest planning stages, before a formal application is even submitted. By allowing states to direct up to 5% of CSP funds toward pre-charter planning subgrants, the bill would help promising educators and community organizations develop stronger, more viable applications — potentially reducing the rate of charter school failures after opening. Supporters also contend that converting the technical assistance floor into a flexible ceiling respects state-level differences: some states may need more technical assistance spending, while others have mature charter sectors that require less. This flexibility, they argue, allows states to tailor federal dollars to their specific needs rather than complying with a one-size-fits-all mandate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that redirecting up to 5% of CSP funds toward pre-planning subgrants diverts money away from applicants who are already in the pipeline and chartering agencies that rely on technical assistance to maintain oversight and quality. They contend that removing the 7% floor on technical assistance could lead states to underfund the support systems that help ensure charter schools meet accountability standards once they open. Critics also raise concerns that pre-planning subgrants could be awarded to applicants who never successfully open a school, resulting in federal funds that produce no educational benefit. More broadly, opponents argue that expanding the charter school pipeline without strengthening oversight mechanisms could accelerate the diversion of public school funding without commensurate accountability to taxpayers and the communities served.
Constitutional context
Federal funding for charter schools flows through the Spending Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), which allows Congress to attach conditions to federal grants to states, as established in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The bill modifies existing spending conditions rather than imposing new ones. Because CSP funds can flow to charter schools that may be religiously affiliated, Carson v. Makin (2022) is relevant — that ruling held that states cannot exclude religious schools from otherwise available public benefit programs. The Tenth Amendment is also relevant, as education is traditionally a state function; the bill's shift from a mandatory floor to a flexible ceiling on technical assistance spending moves modestly in the direction of greater state discretion. No direct Equal Protection or Free Speech issues are raised by this bill's mechanics.
Checks and balances
This bill would modestly shift discretionary authority from the federal level to state entities. By converting the technical assistance spending floor into a ceiling and adding a new optional subgrant category, Congress would give state educational agencies and state charter school boards greater latitude in allocating CSP funds. The executive branch (U.S. Department of Education) retains its existing oversight and grant administration role. No new agency rulemaking authority is created or removed.
Historical precedent
The Charter Schools Program was originally authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and has been amended multiple times, including through the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), which restructured CSP grant categories and introduced similar flexibility provisions for state-level charter school spending.