[House Report 118-540]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress   }                                      {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                      {      118-540

======================================================================



 
              EMPOWER CHARTER SCHOOL EDUCATORS TO LEAD ACT

                                _______
                                

  June 4, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 6418]

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 6418) to modify the program of grants 
to support high-quality charter schools, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Empower Charter School Educators to 
Lead Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS TO SUPPORT HIGH-QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS.

  Section 4303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 7221b) is amended--

          (1) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``and'' after 
                the semicolon; and
                  (B) in paragraph (2)--
                          (i) by inserting ``which may include 
                        assistance in locating and accessing a 
                        facility, and technical assistance in assessing 
                        financial options, prior to an eligible 
                        applicant receiving a subgrant under this 
                        section,'' after ``paragraph (1),''; and
                          (ii) by striking the period at the end and 
                        inserting ``; and''; and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) provide pre-charter planning subgrants (in amounts of 
        no more than $100,000 per prospective applicant) to charter 
        school developers that--
                  ``(A) intend to submit an application--
                          ``(i) to an authorized public chartering 
                        agency to operate a charter school; or
                          ``(ii) to nonprofit or public entities for 
                        the provision of financial support to such 
                        developers;
                  ``(B) are led by educators who--
                          ``(i) have not less than 54 months of school-
                        based experience (which may include experience 
                        in teaching in or administering after school or 
                        summer school programs); and
                          ``(ii) have demonstrated leadership 
                        competencies and success with students, as 
                        determined by the State entity; and
                  ``(C) have successfully completed the development of 
                an initial plan for opening a charter school, as 
                evidenced by a description of the educational needs of 
                the community in which the proposed charter school will 
                be located and how the proposed charter school will be 
                suited to meet those needs.'';
          (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
                  (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``90 percent'' 
                and inserting ``82 percent'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (B)--
                          (i) by striking ``not less than 7 percent'' 
                        and inserting ``not more than 10 percent''; and
                          (ii) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
                  (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph 
                (D); and
                  (D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
                following:
                  ``(C) reserve not more than 5 percent of such funds 
                to carry out the activities described in subsection 
                (b)(3); and'';
          (3) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by striking ``this section'' and 
        inserting ``subsection (b)(1)'';
          (4) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``this section'' and 
        inserting ``subsection (b)(1)'';
          (5) in subsection (f)(1)(A)(vi)--
                  (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by 
                inserting ``under subsection (b)(1)'' after 
                ``program''; and
                  (B) in subclause (II), by striking ``subgrant funds 
                under this section'' and inserting ``subgrant funds 
                under subsection (b)(1)''; and
          (6) in subsection (h), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
        by striking ``this section'' and inserting ``subsection 
        (b)(1)''.

                                Purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 6418, the Empower Charter School 
Educators to Lead Act, is to modify the program of grants 
supporting high-quality charter schools. Specifically, the bill 
gives state entities the option to devote a share of their 
federal Charter School Program (CSP) grant to aspiring charter 
leaders and the option to devote more resources to technical 
assistance.

                            Committee Action


                             118TH CONGRESS

First Session--Hearings

    On February 8, 2023, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on ``American Education in Crisis.'' 
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the state of American 
education, including the need to add additional transparency 
and accountability into the system, to update the education 
system to serve the needs of students and families, and to 
protect and restore the rights of parents to have a say in 
their children's education; issues around school choice and 
charter schools were also discussed. Specifically, Chairwoman 
Virginia Foxx (R-NC) mentioned the surge in enrollment that 
charter schools have seen in recent years. Additionally, 
Representative Jim Banks (R-IN) questioned Governor Jared Polis 
(D-CO) regarding his support for charter schools after the 
Governor wrote a letter to make the case for charter schools by 
saying they are some of the most innovative, accessible, and 
successful schools in Colorado. Testifying before the Committee 
were Ms. Virginia Gentles, Director, Education Freedom Center, 
Independent Women's Forum, Arlington, VA; Dr. Monty Sullivan, 
President, Louisiana Community and Technical College System, 
Baton Rouge, LA; Mr. Scott Pulsipher, President, Western 
Governors University, Salt Lake City, UT; and The Honorable 
Jared Polis, Governor, State of Colorado, Denver, CO.
    On April 18, 2023, the Committee's Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing 
on ``School Choice: Expanding Educational Freedom for All.'' 
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the need to expand 
educational freedom through school choice policies, including 
charter schools. During the hearing, witness and former Member 
of Congress Luke Messer (R-IN) stated, ``In America today, it's 
hard to find a public policy issue in which Republican, 
Democrat, independent, Latino, African American, and millennial 
voters all agree, yet poll after poll shows 70 to even 90 
percent support for these groups for various forms of school 
choice.'' Testifying before the Committee were the Honorable 
Luke Messer, former Member of Congress and President, Invest in 
Education, Washington D.C.; Mrs. Denisha Allen, Senior Fellow, 
American Federation for Children, Jacksonville, FL; Dr. Lindsey 
Burke, Director of the Center for Education Policy, Heritage 
Foundation, Washington D.C.; and Mr. Derek Black, Professor of 
Law and Ernest F. Hollings Chair in Constitutional Law, 
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
    On July 24, 2023, the Committee's Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing 
on ``Generational Learning Loss: How Pandemic School Closures 
Hurt Students.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
devastating impact of pandemic school closures and the learning 
loss it created. Additionally, Chairwoman Foxx stated her 
belief that school choice is essential to getting students back 
on track in the classroom, with witness Darrell Bradford 
agreeing by mentioning that ``by some reports a million kids no 
longer attend their neighborhood public school, and about two-
thirds of those kids have chosen charter schools.'' Testifying 
before the Committee were Dr. Nat Malkus, Senior Fellow and 
Deputy Director, Education Policy Studies, American Enterprise 
Institute, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Derrell Bradford, President, 
50CAN: the 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, New York, NY; 
Ms. Catherine Truitt, Superintendent, North Carolina Department 
of Public Instruction, Raleigh, NC; and Ms. Mary-Patricia Wray, 
Parent, Baton Rouge, LA.

Second Session--Hearings

    On March 6, 2024, the Committee's Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing 
on ``Proven Results: Highlighting the Benefits of Charter 
Schools for Students and Families.'' The purpose of the hearing 
was to examine the benefits of charter schools, to showcase 
their sustained track record of raising students' academic 
achievement (particularly in the wake of pandemic-era learning 
loss), and to highlight how charter schools can be part of a 
vibrant school choice ecosystem that empowers parents to choose 
the best education options for their children. During the 
hearing, witness Kenneth Campbell commended Representative 
Julia Letlow (R-LA) for introducing legislation that would help 
charter schools solve two of their biggest hurdles: access to 
facilities and access to resources necessary to help educators 
and community leaders strengthen their charter applications. 
Additionally, Representative Letlow urged the Committee to 
consider H.R. 6418, which would help ensure high-quality 
perspective charter school applicants have the tools and 
assistance they need to successfully complete the process. 
Testifying before the Committee were Dr. Macke Raymond, Founder 
and Director, Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 
Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Mr. Robert Pondiscio, Senior 
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Greenville, NY; Mr. 
Kenneth Campbell, CEO, New Schools for Baton Rouge, Baton 
Rouge, LA; and Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig, Founding Board 
Member, Network for Public Education, Augusta, MI.

Legislative Action

    On November 15, 2023, Representative Julia Letlow 
introduced H.R. 6418, the Empower Charter School Educators to 
Lead Act, with Representatives Jill Tokuda (D-HI), John James 
(R-MI), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), Erin Houchin (R-IN) as original 
co-sponsors. On March 21, 2024, the Committee considered H.R. 
6418 in a legislative session and reported it favorably, as 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 
22-13. The Committee considered the following amendments to 
H.R. 6418:
          1. Representative Letlow offered an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute that strikes the introduced 
        bill's increase in the percentage of grant awards that 
        may be spent on administration (leaving the current cap 
        in place), replaces a reference to a ``revolving loan 
        fund'' with ``technical assistance in assessing 
        financial options,'' and makes minor language 
        adjustments for clarity and conformity with existing 
        statute. The amendment passed by a recorded vote of 22-
        13.
          2. Representative Haley Stevens (R-MI) offered an 
        amendment that prohibits using any CSP grants for 
        virtual charter schools, including pre-planning, 
        development, or technical assistance for virtual 
        charter schools. The amendment failed by a recorded 
        vote of 13-22.
          3. Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA) offered an 
        amendment that would require that the initial charter 
        school plan include an assessment of segregation in the 
        community in which the proposed charter school will be 
        located, a strategy for how the proposed charter school 
        will effectively address desegregation in the 
        community, and an assurance that the strategy will be 
        carried out. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 
        13-22.

                            Committee Views


                              INTRODUCTION

    Every student deserves a high-quality education that 
prepares him or her for success later in life. Unfortunately, 
traditional public schools often have failed to meet the needs 
of students. While some traditional public schools are doing 
good work, too many students are trapped in failing districts 
that provide poor instruction, ignore the concerns of parents, 
and fail to prepare students for a successful life.
    Charter schools can provide a vital lifeline for students 
left behind by failing traditional public schools. Charter 
schools serve nearly four million students across 45 states. 
Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough high-quality charter 
schools, and launching a new school can be a daunting process. 
Aspiring charter school leaders must generally complete 
extraordinarily lengthy and complex charter applications in 
their spare time, often with little financial or technical 
support.
    Representative Letlow's bipartisan Empower Charter School 
Educators to Lead Act (H.R. 6418) would help remedy this 
problem by allowing states the option to use their existing 
grant funds to support potential charter school leaders at the 
pre-planning stage. It also would allow states to provide more 
technical assistance to applicants.

Background on charter schools

    A public charter school is a publicly funded elementary or 
secondary school operated according to the terms of a charter 
or contract granted by a charter authorizer. The terms of a 
charter typically provide the charter school operator with 
increased operational autonomy in exchange for greater 
accountability for results or student outcomes. These 
accountability reviews typically weigh factors such as the 
schools' operational and fiscal health as well as student 
academic performance. Authorizers are the entities that are 
granted authority by a state legislature to approve, oversee, 
renew, and close charter schools. These are typically public 
agencies, such as local school districts and state educational 
agencies. Charter schools do not draw students from an assigned 
area; rather, families apply to send their children to them. If 
demand for enrollment in a charter school exceeds space, 
students are usually picked by lottery.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://publiccharters.org/charter-schools-program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are roughly 7,800 charter schools and campuses 
serving approximately 3.7 million students in 45 states, the 
District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Charter schools 
serve 7.5 percent of the approximately 50 million public school 
students in the United States. The number of charter schools 
and campuses has more than doubled since the 2005-2006 school 
year, and enrollment has more than tripled.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\https://publiccharters.org/what-is-a-charter-school/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most charter schools are located in urban areas (58 
percent), but charter schools are also found in suburban areas 
(25 percent), rural areas (11 percent), and towns (5 percent). 
Charter schools have historically served proportionately more 
students of color and more students from low-income communities 
than district schools.\3\ Seventy percent of charter school 
students, versus 53 percent of district school students, are 
students of color.\4\ Most charter schools are free standing 
(57 percent), meaning they are independently operated. The 
other 43 percent contract with external organizations to assist 
with operation management. There are two types of management 
organizations: charter management organizations (CMOs) and 
education management organizations (EMOs). CMOs are nonprofit 
organizations and manage 32 percent of charter schools 
nationwide, while EMOs are management organizations with a for-
profit tax status and manage 11 percent of charter schools.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-
digest/where-are-charter-schools-
located/.
    \4\https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-
digest/who-attends-charter-schools/.
    \5\https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-
digest/who-manages-charter-
schools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background on charter school results

    Charter schools tend to have a positive effect on students' 
academic achievement. A 2023 study from Stanford's Center for 
Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) focused on the progress 
that students make over an academic year and found that the 
typical charter school student had reading and math gains that 
outpaced their peers in traditional public schools (TPS) they 
otherwise would have attended. On average, charter school 
students learned the equivalent of an additional six days per 
year in math and 16 days per year in reading.\6\ Eighty-three 
percent of charter school students performed the same as or 
better than their peers in reading, and 75 percent performed 
the same as or better in math.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-
NCSS3-ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to CREDO, the gains are especially pronounced in 
urban charter schools, where students gain an additional 29 
days of growth per year in reading and 28 additional days in 
math.\7\ Suburban charter school students also had stronger 
growth in reading, adding 14 days, while in math they added 
three days. Charter school students in rural areas had the 
equivalent of five additional days of learning in reading but 
10 fewer days of growth in math than their TPS peers. The one 
major exception to these results was virtual charter schools, 
which enroll about 6 percent of charter school students; 
virtual charter students achieved 58 fewer days of learning in 
reading and 124 fewer days in math.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-
NCSS3-Report.pdf.
    \8\https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-
NCSS3-ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Academic achievement also is especially pronounced for at-
risk students. Students in poverty achieve an additional 23 
days of learning in reading and 17 days in math; English 
language learners achieve an additional six days in reading and 
eight days in math. Also, many charters have narrowed the 
achievement gap between black and white students; about 7 
percent of charter schools even reverse the achievement gap, 
with black students performing equal or better than their white 
peers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-
NCSS3-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Charter schools have proven popular with parents and 
families. A 2022 national survey conducted by The Harris Poll 
found that 81 percent of parents support expanding the number 
of slots in existing public charter schools in their area and 
78 percent want more public charter school offerings in their 
area.\10\ A January 2023 poll from EdChoice found that 70 
percent of parents and 61 percent of all adults support charter 
schools.\11\ A January 2024 survey from National School Choice 
Week found that 72 percent of parents considered new schools 
for their children last year compared to just 52 percent in 
2022, a 35 percent increase. Lastly, just 29 percent of parents 
said that the same school type works well for all of the 
children in their home.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\https://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/publications/never-
going-back-analysis-parent-
sentiment-education.
    \11\https://edchoice.morningconsultintelligence.com/.
    \12\https://schoolchoiceweek.com/survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background on the need for assistance in starting a charter school and 
        H.R. 6418

    As the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools notes, 
the charter school application process can be extraordinarily 
lengthy and complex.\13\ Further, aspiring charter school 
leaders generally must complete these applications in their 
spare time, often with little financial or technical support 
from philanthropy, their state, or other sources. These 
constraints can present formidable barriers to entry for the 
educators and school leaders who know their communities best 
and might be best positioned to open a new school.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\https://publiccharters.org/news/how-the-empower-charter-school-
educators-to-lead-act-
supports-equity-and-innovation/.
    \14\https://publiccharters.org/news/how-the-empower-charter-school-
educators-to-lead-act-
supports-equity-and-innovation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Establishing a modest amount of funding for the pre-
planning stage of charter development could enable more 
aspiring charter leaders to develop, refine, and submit charter 
school applications.
    The charter school community has also noted the need for 
states to provide more technical assistance to applicants.\15\ 
A recent National Charter School Resource Center report showed 
that most state entity grantees of the federal CSP concentrated 
their technical assistance funds on issues such as helping 
schools meet the needs of students with disabilities and 
English learners.\16\ A separate study found that state 
entities often use technical assistance to provide pre-award 
workshops, share resources on grant management and application, 
and provide post-award grants management instruction.\17\ 
Expanding the amount of grant funds that may be spent on 
technical assistance activities would provide states the 
flexibility to target resources to where they are needed most.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\https://publiccharters.org/news/how-the-empower-charter-school-
educators-to-lead-act-
supports-equity-and-innovation/.
    \16\https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/resource/how-2017-2019-
state-entity-grantees-are-using-technical-assistance-set-aside-funds.
    \17\https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/upload/
reports/How-2017-2019-State-
Entity-Grantees-Are-Using-TA-Set-Aside-Funds.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Letlow's bipartisan Empower Charter School 
Educators to Lead Act (H.R. 6418) would authorize state 
entities to use up to 5 percent of their federal CSP grants to 
make pre-planning awards (of no more than $100,000 each) to 
prospective charter applicants (or public or nonprofit entities 
that will support prospective applicants) and increase the 
percentage of CSP grant funds state entities may use for state 
technical assistance from 7 percent to 10 percent.
    Note that the bill does not create a new program or contain 
a new authorization. Neither does the bill micro-manage how 
state entities allocate funds. Instead, the bill simply gives 
state entities the option to devote a share of their CSP grant 
to aspiring charter leaders and the option to devote more CSP 
resources to technical assistance.

                               Conclusion

    With likely hundreds of thousands of students on charter 
school waiting lists nationwide, policymakers should be doing 
everything possible to support the development of additional 
high-quality charter schools. Polling shows that parents of all 
political, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds support 
charter schools and want more educational options. This bill 
would enable more promising schools to get off the ground, more 
parents to choose what is best for their children's education, 
and more children to get an education that is best suited to 
their unique needs.

                                Summary


                  H.R. 6418 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

Section 1. Short title

           This Act may be cited as the ``Empower 
        Charter School Educators to Lead Act'.'

Section 2. Grants to support high-quality charter schools

           Amends Section 4303 of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7221b) to 
        authorize state entities to use up to 5 percent of 
        their grants to make pre-planning awards (of no more 
        than $100,000 each) to prospective charter applicants 
        (or public or nonprofit entities that will support 
        prospective applicants) if prospective applicants:
                   Are led by educators with at 
                least 54 months of experience;
                   Have completed the development 
                of an initial plan for the opening of a public 
                charter school;
                   Have demonstrated leadership 
                competencies and success with students, as 
                determined by the state entity; and
                   Have not yet submitted a 
                proposal for approval of a charter to an 
                authorized public chartering agency.
           Increases the percentage of grant funds 
        state entities may use for state technical assistance 
        from 7 percent to 10 percent.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch. H.R. 6418 modifies the program of grants supporting 
high-quality charter schools and therefore it does not apply to 
the Legislative Branch.

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344 (as amended 
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-4), the Committee traditionally adopts as 
its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section 402 of 
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. 
The Committee reports that because this cost estimate was not 
timely submitted to the Committee before the filing of this 
report, the Committee is not in a position to make a cost 
estimate for H.R. 6418. The Chairwoman of the Committee shall 
cause such estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record 
upon its receipt by the Committee.

                           Earmark Statement

    H.R. 6418 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of House rule XXI.

                            Roll Call Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for 
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter 
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the 
total number of votes for and against and the names of the 
Members voting for and against.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House of 
Representatives rule XIII, the goal of H.R. 6418, the Empower 
Charter School Educators to Lead Act, is to provide state 
entities with the option to devote a share of their federal 
Charter School Program (CSP) grant to aspiring charter leaders 
and the option to devote more resources to technical 
assistance.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 6418 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the body of this report.

                       Required Committee Hearing

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives the following hearing held 
during the 118th Congress was used to develop or consider H.R. 
6418: On March 6, 2024, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing entitled 
``Proven Results: Highlighting the Benefits of Charter Schools 
for Students and Families.''

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a cost estimate was not made 
available to the Committee in time for the filing of this 
report. The Chairwoman of the Committee shall cause such 
estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its 
receipt by the Committee.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 6418. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report, 
the Committee has requested a cost estimate for the bill from 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

             ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE IV--21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART C--EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4303. GRANTS TO SUPPORT HIGH-QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS.

  (a) State Entity Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
term ``State entity'' means--
          (1) a State educational agency;
          (2) a State charter school board;
          (3) a Governor of a State; or
          (4) a charter school support organization.
  (b) Program Authorized.--From the amount available under 
section 4302(b)(3), the Secretary shall award, on a competitive 
basis, grants to State entities having applications approved 
under subsection (f) to enable such entities to--
          (1) award subgrants to eligible applicants to enable 
        eligible applicants to--
                  (A) open and prepare for the operation of new 
                charter schools;
                  (B) open and prepare for the operation of 
                replicated high-quality charter schools; or
                  (C) expand high-quality charter schools; 
                [and]
          (2) provide technical assistance to eligible 
        applicants and authorized public chartering agencies in 
        carrying out the activities described in paragraph (1), 
        which may include assistance in locating and accessing 
        a facility, and technical assistance in assessing 
        financial options, prior to an eligible applicant 
        receiving a subgrant under this section, and work with 
        authorized public chartering agencies in the State to 
        improve authorizing quality, including developing 
        capacity for, and conducting, fiscal oversight and 
        auditing of charter schools[.]; and
          (3) provide pre-charter planning subgrants (in 
        amounts of no more than $100,000 per prospective 
        applicant) to charter school developers that--
                  (A) intend to submit an application--
                          (i) to an authorized public 
                        chartering agency to operate a charter 
                        school; or
                          (ii) to nonprofit or public entities 
                        for the provision of financial support 
                        to such developers;
                  (B) are led by educators who--
                          (i) have not less than 54 months of 
                        school-based experience (which may 
                        include experience in teaching in or 
                        administering after school or summer 
                        school programs); and
                          (ii) have demonstrated leadership 
                        competencies and success with students, 
                        as determined by the State entity; and
                  (C) have successfully completed the 
                development of an initial plan for opening a 
                charter school, as evidenced by a description 
                of the educational needs of the community in 
                which the proposed charter school will be 
                located and how the proposed charter school 
                will be suited to meet those needs.
  (c) State Entity Uses of Funds.--
          (1) In general.--A State entity receiving a grant 
        under this section shall--
                  (A) use not less than [90 percent] 82 percent 
                of the grant funds to award subgrants to 
                eligible applicants, in accordance with the 
                quality charter school program described in the 
                State entity's application pursuant to 
                subsection (f), for the purposes described in 
                subsection (b)(1);
                  (B) reserve [not less than 7 percent] not 
                more than 10 percent of such funds to carry out 
                the activities described in subsection (b)(2); 
                [and]
                  (C) reserve not more than 5 percent of such 
                funds to carry out the activities described in 
                subsection (b)(3); and
                  [(C)] (D) reserve not more than 3 percent of 
                such funds for administrative costs, which may 
                include technical assistance.
          (2) Contracts and grants.--A State entity may use a 
        grant received under this section to carry out the 
        activities described in subsection (b)(2) directly or 
        through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.
          (3) Rule of construction.--
                  (A) Use of lottery.--Nothing in this Act 
                shall prohibit the Secretary from awarding 
                grants to State entities, or prohibit State 
                entities from awarding subgrants to eligible 
                applicants, that use a weighted lottery to give 
                slightly better chances for admission to all, 
                or a subset of, educationally disadvantaged 
                students if--
                          (i) the use of weighted lotteries in 
                        favor of such students is not 
                        prohibited by State law, and such State 
                        law is consistent with laws described 
                        in section 4310(2)(G); and
                          (ii) such weighted lotteries are not 
                        used for the purpose of creating 
                        schools exclusively to serve a 
                        particular subset of students.
                  (B) Students with special needs.--Nothing in 
                this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit 
                schools from specializing in providing specific 
                services for students with a demonstrated need 
                for such services, such as students who need 
                specialized instruction in reading, spelling, 
                or writing.
  (d) Program Periods; Peer Review; Distribution of Subgrants; 
Waivers.--
          (1) Program periods.--
                  (A) Grants.--A grant awarded by the Secretary 
                to a State entity under this section shall be 
                for a period of not more than 5 years.
                  (B) Subgrants.--A subgrant awarded by a State 
                entity under [this section] subsection (b)(1) 
                shall be for a period of not more than 5 years, 
                of which an eligible applicant may use not more 
                than 18 months for planning and program design.
          (2) Peer review.--The Secretary, and each State 
        entity awarding subgrants under this section, shall use 
        a peer-review process to review applications for 
        assistance under this section.
          (3) Grant awards.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary--
                          (i) shall for each fiscal year for 
                        which funds are appropriated under 
                        section 4311--
                                  (I) award not less than 3 
                                grants under this section; and
                                  (II) fully obligate the first 
                                2 years of funds appropriated 
                                for the purpose of awarding 
                                grants under this section in 
                                the first fiscal year for which 
                                such grants are awarded; and
                          (ii) prior to the start of the third 
                        year of the grant period and each 
                        succeeding year of each grant awarded 
                        under this section to a State entity--
                                  (I) shall review--
                                          (aa) whether the 
                                        State entity is using 
                                        the grant funds for the 
                                        agreed upon uses of 
                                        funds; and
                                          (bb) whether the full 
                                        amount of the grant 
                                        will be needed for the 
                                        remainder of the grant 
                                        period; and
                                  (II) may, as determined 
                                necessary based on that review, 
                                terminate or reduce the amount 
                                of the grant and reallocate the 
                                remaining grant funds to other 
                                State entities--
                                          (aa) by using such 
                                        funds to award grants 
                                        under this section to 
                                        other State entities; 
                                        or
                                          (bb) in a fiscal year 
                                        in which the amount of 
                                        such remaining funds is 
                                        insufficient to award 
                                        grants under item (aa), 
                                        in accordance with 
                                        subparagraph (B).
                  (B) Remaining funding.--For a fiscal year for 
                which there are remaining grant funds under 
                this paragraph, but the amount of such funds is 
                insufficient to award a grant to a State entity 
                under this section, the Secretary shall use 
                such remaining grants funds--
                          (i) to supplement funding for grants 
                        under section 4305(a)(2), but not to 
                        supplant--
                                  (I) the funds reserved under 
                                section 4305(a)(2); and
                                  (II) funds otherwise reserved 
                                under section 4302(b)(2) to 
                                carry out national activities 
                                under section 4305;
                          (ii) to award grants to State 
                        entities to carry out the activities 
                        described in subsection (b)(1) for the 
                        next fiscal year; or
                          (iii) to award one year of a grant 
                        under subsection (b)(1) to a high-
                        scoring State entity, in an amount at 
                        or above the minimum amount the State 
                        entity needs to be successful for such 
                        year.
          (4) Diversity of projects.--Each State entity 
        awarding subgrants under this section shall award 
        subgrants in a manner that, to the extent practicable 
        and applicable, ensures that such subgrants--
                  (A) are distributed throughout different 
                areas, including urban, suburban, and rural 
                areas; and
                  (B) will assist charter schools representing 
                a variety of educational approaches.
          (5) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive any statutory 
        or regulatory requirement over which the Secretary 
        exercises administrative authority, except any such 
        requirement relating to the elements of a charter 
        school described in section 4310(2), if--
                  (A) the waiver is requested in an approved 
                application under this section; and
                  (B) the Secretary determines that granting 
                such waiver will promote the purpose of this 
                part.
  (e) Limitations.--
          (1) Grants.--No State entity may receive a grant 
        under this section for use in a State in which a State 
        entity is currently using a grant received under this 
        section.
          (2) Subgrants.--An eligible applicant may not receive 
        more than 1 subgrant under [this section] subsection 
        (b)(1) for each individual charter school for a 5-year 
        period, unless the eligible applicant demonstrates to 
        the State entity that such individual charter school 
        has at least 3 years of improved educational results 
        for students enrolled in such charter school with 
        respect to the elements described in subparagraphs (A) 
        and (D) of section 4310(8).
  (f) Applications.--A State entity desiring to receive a grant 
under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary 
at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. 
The application shall include the following:
          (1) Description of program.--A description of the 
        State entity's objectives in running a quality charter 
        school program under this section and how the 
        objectives of the program will be carried out, 
        including--
                  (A) a description of how the State entity 
                will--
                          (i) support the opening of charter 
                        schools through the startup of new 
                        charter schools and, if applicable, the 
                        replication of high-quality charter 
                        schools, and the expansion of high-
                        quality charter schools (including the 
                        proposed number of new charter schools 
                        to be opened, high-quality charter 
                        schools to be opened as a result of the 
                        replication of a high-quality charter 
                        school, or high-quality charter schools 
                        to be expanded under the State entity's 
                        program);
                          (ii) inform eligible charter schools, 
                        developers, and authorized public 
                        chartering agencies of the availability 
                        of funds under the program;
                          (iii) work with eligible applicants 
                        to ensure that the eligible applicants 
                        access all Federal funds that such 
                        applicants are eligible to receive, and 
                        help the charter schools supported by 
                        the applicants and the students 
                        attending those charter schools--
                                  (I) participate in the 
                                Federal programs in which the 
                                schools and students are 
                                eligible to participate;
                                  (II) receive the commensurate 
                                share of Federal funds the 
                                schools and students are 
                                eligible to receive under such 
                                programs; and
                                  (III) meet the needs of 
                                students served under such 
                                programs, including students 
                                with disabilities and English 
                                learners;
                          (iv) ensure that authorized public 
                        chartering agencies, in collaboration 
                        with surrounding local educational 
                        agencies where applicable, establish 
                        clear plans and procedures to assist 
                        students enrolled in a charter school 
                        that closes or loses its charter to 
                        attend other high-quality schools;
                          (v) in the case of a State entity 
                        that is not a State educational 
                        agency--
                                  (I) work with the State 
                                educational agency and charter 
                                schools in the State to 
                                maximize charter school 
                                participation in Federal and 
                                State programs for which 
                                charter schools are eligible; 
                                and
                                  (II) work with the State 
                                educational agency to operate 
                                the State entity's program 
                                under this section, if 
                                applicable;
                          (vi) ensure that each eligible 
                        applicant that receives a subgrant 
                        under the State entity's program under 
                        subsection (b)(1)--
                                  (I) is using funds provided 
                                under this section for one of 
                                the activities described in 
                                subsection (b)(1); and
                                  (II) is prepared to continue 
                                to operate charter schools 
                                funded under this section in a 
                                manner consistent with the 
                                eligible applicant's 
                                application for such subgrant 
                                once the [subgrant funds under 
                                this section] subgrant funds 
                                under subsection (b)(1) are no 
                                longer available;
                          (vii) support--
                                  (I) charter schools in local 
                                educational agencies with a 
                                significant number of schools 
                                identified by the State for 
                                comprehensive support and 
                                improvement under section 
                                1111(c)(4)(D)(i); and
                                  (II) the use of charter 
                                schools to improve struggling 
                                schools, or to turn around 
                                struggling schools;
                          (viii) work with charter schools on--
                                  (I) recruitment and 
                                enrollment practices to promote 
                                inclusion of all students, 
                                including by eliminating any 
                                barriers to enrollment for 
                                educationally disadvantaged 
                                students (who include foster 
                                youth and unaccompanied 
                                homeless youth); and
                                  (II) supporting all students 
                                once they are enrolled to 
                                promote retention, including by 
                                reducing the overuse of 
                                discipline practices that 
                                remove students from the 
                                classroom;
                          (ix) share best and promising 
                        practices between charter schools and 
                        other public schools;
                          (x) ensure that charter schools 
                        receiving funds under the State 
                        entity's program meet the educational 
                        needs of their students, including 
                        children with disabilities and English 
                        learners;
                          (xi) support efforts to increase 
                        charter school quality initiatives, 
                        including meeting the quality 
                        authorizing elements described in 
                        paragraph (2)(D);
                          (xii)(I) in the case of a State 
                        entity not described in subclause (II), 
                        a description of how the State entity 
                        will provide oversight of authorizing 
                        activity, including how the State will 
                        help ensure better authorizing, such as 
                        by establishing authorizing standards 
                        that may include approving, monitoring, 
                        and re-approving or revoking the 
                        authority of an authorized public 
                        chartering agency based on the 
                        performance of the charter schools 
                        authorized by such agency in the areas 
                        of student achievement, student safety, 
                        financial and operational management, 
                        and compliance with all applicable 
                        statutes and regulations; and
                          (II) in the case of a State entity 
                        described in subsection (a)(4), a 
                        description of how the State entity 
                        will work with the State to support the 
                        State's system of technical assistance 
                        and oversight, as described in 
                        subclause (I), of the authorizing 
                        activity of authorized public 
                        chartering agencies; and
                  (xiii) work with eligible applicants 
                receiving a subgrant under the State entity's 
                program to support the opening of new charter 
                schools or charter school models described in 
                clause (i) that are high schools;
                  (B) a description of the extent to which the 
                State entity--
                          (i) is able to meet and carry out the 
                        priorities described in subsection 
                        (g)(2);
                          (ii) is working to develop or 
                        strengthen a cohesive statewide system 
                        to support the opening of new charter 
                        schools and, if applicable, the 
                        replication of high-quality charter 
                        schools, and the expansion of high-
                        quality charter schools; and
                          (iii) is working to develop or 
                        strengthen a cohesive strategy to 
                        encourage collaboration between charter 
                        schools and local educational agencies 
                        on the sharing of best practices;
                  (C) a description of how the State entity 
                will award subgrants, on a competitive basis, 
                including--
                          (i) a description of the application 
                        each eligible applicant desiring to 
                        receive a subgrant will be required to 
                        submit, which application shall 
                        include--
                                  (I) a description of the 
                                roles and responsibilities of 
                                eligible applicants, partner 
                                organizations, and charter 
                                management organizations, 
                                including the administrative 
                                and contractual roles and 
                                responsibilities of such 
                                partners;
                                  (II) a description of the 
                                quality controls agreed to 
                                between the eligible applicant 
                                and the authorized public 
                                chartering agency involved, 
                                such as a contract or 
                                performance agreement, how a 
                                school's performance in the 
                                State's accountability system 
                                and impact on student 
                                achievement (which may include 
                                student academic growth) will 
                                be one of the most important 
                                factors for renewal or 
                                revocation of the school's 
                                charter, and how the State 
                                entity and the authorized 
                                public chartering agency 
                                involved will reserve the right 
                                to revoke or not renew a 
                                school's charter based on 
                                financial, structural, or 
                                operational factors involving 
                                the management of the school;
                                  (III) a description of how 
                                the autonomy and flexibility 
                                granted to a charter school is 
                                consistent with the definition 
                                of a charter school in section 
                                4310;
                                  (IV) a description of how the 
                                eligible applicant will solicit 
                                and consider input from parents 
                                and other members of the 
                                community on the implementation 
                                and operation of each charter 
                                school that will receive funds 
                                under the State entity's 
                                program;
                                  (V) a description of the 
                                eligible applicant's planned 
                                activities and expenditures of 
                                subgrant funds to support the 
                                activities described in 
                                subsection (b)(1), and how the 
                                eligible applicant will 
                                maintain financial 
                                sustainability after the end of 
                                the subgrant period; and
                                  (VI) a description of how the 
                                eligible applicant will support 
                                the use of effective parent, 
                                family, and community 
                                engagement strategies to 
                                operate each charter school 
                                that will receive funds under 
                                the State entity's program; and
                          (ii) a description of how the State 
                        entity will review applications from 
                        eligible applicants;
                  (D) in the case of a State entity that 
                partners with an outside organization to carry 
                out the State entity's quality charter school 
                program, in whole or in part, a description of 
                the roles and responsibilities of the partner;
                  (E) a description of how the State entity 
                will ensure that each charter school receiving 
                funds under the State entity's program has 
                considered and planned for the transportation 
                needs of the school's students;
                  (F) a description of how the State in which 
                the State entity is located addresses charter 
                schools in the State's open meetings and open 
                records laws; and
                  (G) a description of how the State entity 
                will support diverse charter school models, 
                including models that serve rural communities.
          (2) Assurances.--Assurances that--
                  (A) each charter school receiving funds 
                through the State entity's program will have a 
                high degree of autonomy over budget and 
                operations, including autonomy over personnel 
                decisions;
                  (B) the State entity will support charter 
                schools in meeting the educational needs of 
                their students, as described in paragraph 
                (1)(A)(x);
                  (C) the State entity will ensure that the 
                authorized public chartering agency of any 
                charter school that receives funds under the 
                State entity's program adequately monitors each 
                charter school under the authority of such 
                agency in recruiting, enrolling, retaining, and 
                meeting the needs of all students, including 
                children with disabilities and English 
                learners;
                  (D) the State entity will provide adequate 
                technical assistance to eligible applicants to 
                meet the objectives described in clause (viii) 
                of paragraph (1)(A) and subparagraph (B) of 
                this paragraph;
                  (E) the State entity will promote quality 
                authorizing, consistent with State law, such as 
                through providing technical assistance to 
                support each authorized public chartering 
                agency in the State to improve such agency's 
                ability to monitor the charter schools 
                authorized by the agency, including by--
                          (i) assessing annual performance data 
                        of the schools, including, as 
                        appropriate, graduation rates, student 
                        academic growth, and rates of student 
                        attrition;
                          (ii) reviewing the schools' 
                        independent, annual audits of financial 
                        statements prepared in accordance with 
                        generally accepted accounting 
                        principles, and ensuring that any such 
                        audits are publically reported; and
                          (iii) holding charter schools 
                        accountable to the academic, financial, 
                        and operational quality controls agreed 
                        to between the charter school and the 
                        authorized public chartering agency 
                        involved, such as through renewal, non-
                        renewal, or revocation of the school's 
                        charter;
                  (F) the State entity will work to ensure that 
                charter schools are included with the 
                traditional public schools in decisionmaking 
                about the public school system in the State; 
                and
                  (G) the State entity will ensure that each 
                charter school receiving funds under the State 
                entity's program makes publicly available, 
                consistent with the dissemination requirements 
                of the annual State report card under section 
                1111(h), including on the website of the 
                school, information to help parents make 
                informed decisions about the education options 
                available to their children, including--
                          (i) information on the educational 
                        program;
                          (ii) student support services;
                          (iii) parent contract requirements 
                        (as applicable), including any 
                        financial obligations or fees;
                          (iv) enrollment criteria (as 
                        applicable); and
                          (v) annual performance and enrollment 
                        data for each of the subgroups of 
                        students, as defined in section 
                        1111(c)(2), except that such 
                        disaggregation of performance and 
                        enrollment data shall not be required 
                        in a case in which the number of 
                        students in a group is insufficient to 
                        yield statically reliable information 
                        or the results would reveal personally 
                        identifiable information about an 
                        individual student.
          (3) Requests for.--Information about waivers, 
        including--
                  (A) a request and justification for waivers 
                of any Federal statutory or regulatory 
                provisions that the State entity believes are 
                necessary for the successful operation of the 
                charter schools that will receive funds under 
                the State entity's program under this section 
                or, in the case of a State entity defined in 
                subsection (a)(4), a description of how the 
                State entity will work with the State to 
                request such necessary waivers, where 
                applicable; and
                  (B) a description of any State or local 
                rules, generally applicable to public schools, 
                that will be waived, or otherwise not apply to 
                such schools.
  (g) Selection Criteria; Priority.--
          (1) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall award 
        grants to State entities under this section on the 
        basis of the quality of the applications submitted 
        under subsection (f), after taking into consideration--
                  (A) the degree of flexibility afforded by the 
                State's charter school law and how the State 
                entity will work to maximize the flexibility 
                provided to charter schools under such law;
                  (B) the ambitiousness of the State entity's 
                objectives for the quality charter school 
                program carried out under this section;
                  (C) the likelihood that the eligible 
                applicants receiving subgrants under the 
                program will meet those objectives and improve 
                educational results for students;
                  (D) the State entity's plan to--
                          (i) adequately monitor the eligible 
                        applicants receiving subgrants under 
                        the State entity's program;
                          (ii) work with the authorized public 
                        chartering agencies involved to avoid 
                        duplication of work for the charter 
                        schools and authorized public 
                        chartering agencies; and
                          (iii) provide technical assistance 
                        and support for--
                                  (I) the eligible applicants 
                                receiving subgrants under the 
                                State entity's program; and
                                  (II) quality authorizing 
                                efforts in the State; and
                  (E) the State entity's plan to solicit and 
                consider input from parents and other members 
                of the community on the implementation and 
                operation of charter schools in the State.
          (2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, 
        the Secretary shall give priority to a State entity to 
        the extent that the entity meets the following 
        criteria:
                  (A) The State entity is located in a State 
                that--
                          (i) allows at least one entity that 
                        is not a local educational agency to be 
                        an authorized public chartering agency 
                        for developers seeking to open a 
                        charter school in the State; or
                          (ii) in the case of a State in which 
                        local educational agencies are the only 
                        authorized public chartering agencies, 
                        the State has an appeals process for 
                        the denial of an application for a 
                        charter school.
                  (B) The State entity is located in a State 
                that ensures equitable financing, as compared 
                to traditional public schools, for charter 
                schools and students in a prompt manner.
                  (C) The State entity is located in a State 
                that provides charter schools one or more of 
                the following:
                          (i) Funding for facilities.
                          (ii) Assistance with facilities 
                        acquisition.
                          (iii) Access to public facilities.
                          (iv) The ability to share in bonds or 
                        mill levies.
                          (v) The right of first refusal to 
                        purchase public school buildings.
                          (vi) Low- or no-cost leasing 
                        privileges.
                  (D) The State entity is located in a State 
                that uses best practices from charter schools 
                to help improve struggling schools and local 
                educational agencies.
                  (E) The State entity supports charter schools 
                that serve at-risk students through activities 
                such as dropout prevention, dropout recovery, 
                or comprehensive career counseling services.
                  (F) The State entity has taken steps to 
                ensure that all authorizing public chartering 
                agencies implement best practices for charter 
                school authorizing.
  (h) Local Uses of Funds.--An eligible applicant receiving a 
subgrant under [this section] subsection (b)(1) shall use such 
funds to support the activities described in subsection (b)(1), 
which shall include one or more of the following activities:
          (1) Preparing teachers, school leaders, and 
        specialized instructional support personnel, including 
        through paying the costs associated with--
                  (A) providing professional development; and
                  (B) hiring and compensating, during the 
                eligible applicant's planning period specified 
                in the application for subgrant funds that is 
                required under this section, one or more of the 
                following:
                          (i) Teachers.
                          (ii) School leaders.
                          (iii) Specialized instructional 
                        support personnel.
          (2) Acquiring supplies, training, equipment 
        (including technology), and educational materials 
        (including developing and acquiring instructional 
        materials).
          (3) Carrying out necessary renovations to ensure that 
        a new school building complies with applicable statutes 
        and regulations, and minor facilities repairs 
        (excluding construction).
          (4) Providing one-time, startup costs associated with 
        providing transportation to students to and from the 
        charter school.
          (5) Carrying out community engagement activities, 
        which may include paying the cost of student and staff 
        recruitment.
          (6) Providing for other appropriate, non-sustained 
        costs related to the activities described in subsection 
        (b)(1) when such costs cannot be met from other 
        sources.
  (i) Reporting Requirements.--Each State entity receiving a 
grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary, at the 
end of the third year of the 5-year grant period (or at the end 
of the second year of the grant period if the grant is less 
than 5 years), and at the end of such grant period, a report 
that includes the following:
          (1) The number of students served by each subgrant 
        awarded under this section and, if applicable, the 
        number of new students served during each year of the 
        period of the subgrant.
          (2) A description of how the State entity met the 
        objectives of the quality charter school program 
        described in the State entity's application under 
        subsection (f), including--
                  (A) how the State entity met the objective of 
                sharing best and promising practices described 
                in subsection (f)(1)(A)(ix) in areas such as 
                instruction, professional development, 
                curricula development, and operations between 
                charter schools and other public schools; and
                  (B) if known, the extent to which such 
                practices were adopted and implemented by such 
                other public schools.
          (3) The number and amount of subgrants awarded under 
        this section to carry out activities described in each 
        of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1).
          (4) A description of--
                  (A) how the State entity complied with, and 
                ensured that eligible applicants complied with, 
                the assurances included in the State entity's 
                application; and
                  (B) how the State entity worked with 
                authorized public chartering agencies, and how 
                the agencies worked with the management company 
                or leadership of the schools that received 
                subgrant funds under this section, if 
                applicable.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 6418, the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead 
Act, would allow charter school developers to use Charter 
School Program funds as pre-planning grants to develop ideas 
for charter schools. The Majority claims that H.R. 6418, the 
Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act, will ``support 
high-quality charter school developers so we can continue to 
expand learning opportunities for our students.\1\'' However, 
the bill is largely duplicative of current law and increases 
opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse of government 
funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Press Release, Rep. Julia Letlow (LA-05), Rep. Jill Tokuda (HI-
02), Rep. John James (MI-10), and Rep. Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06) Introduce 
the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act (Nov. 16, 2023), 
https://letlow.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-julia-letlow-la-05-
rep-jill-tokuda-hi-02-rep-john-james-mi-10-and-rep-juan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          SUMMARY OF CONCERNS

H.R. 6418 is Largely Duplicative of Current Law But Removes Basic 
        Guardrails
    Republicans assert that H.R. 6418 ``authorizes State 
Entities who receive grants through the Charter Schools Program 
(CSP) to use a portion of their funding to support the 
application process and development of new charter schools'' 
but claim that ``[current law] does not allow funding to be 
used for the planning phase of charter schools.''\2\ They fail 
to acknowledge that current law does support charter school 
planning and development but it includes requirements that are 
geared toward ensuring a developer has taken official action to 
solidify their intentions--that is, submitting an application 
to a charter authorizer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CSP is comprised of several grant programs, authorized by 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),\3\ that have 
the purpose of ``supporting innovation; providing financial 
assistance for the planning, design, and initial implementation 
of charter schools; increasing the number of high-quality 
charter schools; encouraging states to provide charter schools 
facilities financing; and strengthening the charter school 
authorizing process.''\4\ H.R. 6418 would amend the CSP grant 
program specifically designed to provide funds to state 
entities\5\ (hereinafter referred to as ``CSP Grants to State 
Entities''\6\). Under this program, state entities ``must use 
at least 90% of the funds received to award []grants to 
eligible applicants to enable them to open and prepare for the 
operation of a new charter school or replicate or expand an 
existing high-quality charter school.''\7\ To be eligible for a 
grant through the current CSP Grants to State Entities program, 
a charter school developer must have applied to a charter 
authorizer to open a charter school but it is not necessary as 
a condition of receiving the funding that the application has 
been approved. Once funds are received, a grantee may use up to 
18 months for planning purposes. Under current law, there is no 
guarantee that a proposed charter school for which a developer 
received a grant will open, but at the very least, the 
developer must have applied to a charter authorizer. The 
requirement that the developer apply to a charter authorizer 
before receiving grant is an important first step in the 
charter school process, as charter authorizers are charged with 
determining which charter schools can open, establishing both 
operational and academic expectations, overseeing a charter 
school's performance, and determining which charter agreements 
to renew and which charter schools should close.\8\ Applying to 
an authorizer demonstrates serious intent and commitment on the 
part of the developer as they have to meet the application 
requirements that have been established by the charter 
authorizer and state law, and it begins the process of working 
with the charter authorizer to determine whether the 
application will be approved, which may include guidance and 
feedback from the charter authorizer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7221-7221j.
    \4\Rebecca R. Skinner & Isobel Sorenson, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12601 
ESEA: Charter Schools Program, 1, (2024), https://www.crs.gov/reports/
pdf/IF12601/IF12601.pdf.
    \5\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7221b defines a ``state entity'' as a state 
educational agency, a state charter school board, a governor of a state 
or a charter schools support organization.
    \6\U.S. Dep't of Educ., Expanding Opportunities Through Quality 
Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities, https://
oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grants-support-services/
charter-schools-program/state-entities/ (last visited April 1, 2024).
    \7\Id. Technically, states are the entities awarded grants through 
the CSP Grants to State Entities grants program; states then provide 
subgrants to eligible applicants. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 7221b. For the purpose 
of this report, subgrants from the state will be referred to as grants.
    \8\Jamison White, How Are Charter Schools Held Accountable?, Nat'l 
All. for Pub. Charter Schs. (Dec. 19, 2023, updated Dec. 22, 2023), 
https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-digest/who-
authorizes-charter-schools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet H.R. 6418 would remove that requirement--a guardrail 
that ensures that a developer is working with a charter 
authorizer--by making charter school developers\9\ eligible for 
``pre-charter planning'' grants prior to submitting an 
application to a charter authorizer. To be clear, H.R. 6418 
eliminates this critical step necessary for receiving federal 
funds without any added requirements for transparency or 
accountability by a charter school developer. Moreover, the 
bill would create a set-aside for these funds by reducing the 
amount of CSP Grants to State Entities that, as stated 
previously, are already designed to go to charter school 
developers who have begun the process of planning a new or 
replicating or expanding an existing high-quality charter 
school. This has the potential to reduce the impact of the 
funds as originally designed, that is, the ability of an 
existing high-quality charter school to successfully serve more 
students and ensure that those students receive a high-quality 
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\The bill defines the term ``charter school developer'' in this 
instance as an entity led by educators with not less than 54 months 
working in a school, summer school, of after school program and who 
have ``demonstrated leadership competencies and success with students, 
as determined by'' a state entity. In addition, the charter school 
developer must have completed an initial charter school plan, including 
``a description of the educational needs of the community'' and ``how 
the planned charter school will be suited to meet those needs.'' See 
Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act, H.R. 6418, 118th Cong. 
Sec. 2 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 6418 also enables states to use funds from CSP Grants 
to State Entities to help developers locate, access, and 
renovate facilities and secure financial support. However, 
funds under other CSP grant programs can already be used for 
these purposes. CSP Credit Enhancement Grants (CEGs)\10\``are 
made to public or private entities (or a combination of the 
two) for the development of credit enhancement initiatives to 
assist charter schools in acquiring, constructing, or 
renovating facilities.''\11\ In addition, CEGs ``may be used to 
guarantee, insure, and reinsure bonds, notes, evidences of 
debt, and interests therein; guarantee and insure leases of 
personal and real property; facilitate financing by identifying 
lending sources and encouraging private lending to, or for the 
benefit of, charter schools; and facilitate the issuance of 
bonds by charter schools or other public entities for the 
benefit of charter schools.''\12\ Further, CSP Facilities 
Incentive Grants\13\ (also called Per-Pupil Facilities Grants) 
``provide[] funds to states to establish or enhance and 
administer per-pupil facilities allowances to help charter 
schools obtain facilities'' in states that permit such per-
pupil facilities aid.\14\ Still, the bill would expand funding 
available for these already-permitted activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7221c.
    \11\Skinner, supra note 4 at 2.
    \12\Id.
    \13\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7221c.
    \14\Skinner, supra note 4 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6418 Could Increase Lack of Accountability, Transparency, and 
        Oversight Resulting in Conflicts of Interest, Profiteering, and 
        Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Charter Schools
    There is data demonstrating that some funding that is used 
to plan and open charter schools is used by charter schools 
that either never come to fruition or open and then close. A 
2022 audit by the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) found that for CSP funds distributed 
between 2013 and 2016, grantees opened or expanded only 51 
percent of the schools promised and for which they received 
funding.\15\ Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos 
disclosed that from school year 2006-2007 to school year 2013-
2014, $70 million in CSP funding was provided to 634 charter 
schools that did not open or were not likely to open.\16\ And 
according to a report by the Network for Public Education, the 
numbers for that same time period are much higher--over $502 
million was awarded to schools that never opened or opened and 
closed.\17\ While these are substantial amounts, without any 
new accountability guardrails or requirements of expertise, it 
would not be surprising if these numbers were higher if H.R. 
6418 were to become law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\U.S. Dep't of Educ. Off. of Inspector Gen., ED-OIG/A21IL0034, 
Effectiveness of Charter School Programs in Increasing the Number of 
Charter Schools (Sept. 21, 2022), https://www.oversight.gov/sites/
default/files/oig-reports/ED/FY22A21IL0034020724v100SECURED.pdf.
    \16\Letter from Sec. Betsy DeVos to Rep. Raul Grijalva (June 28, 
2019), https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/
12/Sec-DeVos-CSP-Response-6-28-19.pdf.
    \17\Still Asleep at the Wheel: How the Federal Charter Schools 
Program Results in a Pileup of Fraud and Waste, Network for Pub. Educ., 
https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Still-
Asleep-at-the-Wheel.pdf (last visited Mar. 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other audits have found additional financial issues. In a 
2016 audit of charter school management, ED's OIG found lack of 
accountability of federal funds; waste, fraud, and abuse; and 
schools not providing students the services required by federal 
programs.\18\ A 2023 ED OIG audit found that charter school 
management did not always address compliance issues relating 
``to their uses of Replication and Expansion grant funds, 
fiscal control, and fund accounting'' and that charter schools 
``with highly problematic applications'' still received 
millions of federal dollars from CSP.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\U.S. Dep't of Educ. Off. of Inspector Gen., ED-OIG/A02M0012, 
Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations 
(Sept. 2016), https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-
reports/a02m0012.pdf.
    \19\U.S. Dep't of Educ. Off. of Inspector Gen., ED-OIG/A18IL0009, 
The U.S. Department of Education's Processes for Overseeing Charter 
Schools Program Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the 
Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Aug. 3, 
2023), https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-03/
FY23A18IL0009012924SECUREDv100.pdf; Valerie Strauss, How did this 
charter school get a nearly $2 million federal grant?, Wash. Post (Dec. 
6, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/12/06/how-did-
this-charter-school-get-big-federal-grant/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 6418 paves the way for further misuse of federal funds 
because the bill does not require the charter school developer 
or entity supporting the developer to have applied to a charter 
authorizer to open a charter school. As discussed above, the 
importance of working with a charter authorizer from the outset 
should not be underestimated. While state laws vary on the 
roles and responsibilities of charter authorizers, and there 
are both good and bad actors, in general it is the role of such 
authorizers to establish expectations and parameters around 
charter schools and oversee their performance, including which 
to open, renew, and close.\20\ In addition, the bill has no 
requirement of charter experience by a charter school 
developer, no guarantee the charter school developer will reach 
the application stage much less get approved or be opened, no 
requirement that the initial charter school plan consider 
evidence or standards of high-quality, and no limits on for-
profit charter school managers. By expanding CSP funds to 
``pre-charter planning'' grants prior to application without 
any expectations or limitations, the bill creates further lack 
of transparency and accountability and greater potential for 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Authorizing Matters, Nat'l Ass'n of Charter Sch. Authorizers, 
https://qualitycharters.org/authorizingmatters/ (last visited Mar. 28, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6418 Ignores Issues Found in Some Charter Schools
    When public charter schools are established and run with 
oversight, accountability, and protections for students and 
families, they can be a tool to achieving high-quality 
educational opportunities for students. While there are 
certainly high-quality charter schools, it is worth noting that 
there are concerns and issues that have surrounded many charter 
schools for decades, including: whether charter schools meet 
the same academic outcomes of traditional public schools\21\; 
reports that charter schools are more segregated than 
traditional public schools, most recently for suburban Black, 
Latino, and Asian students\22\; reports that charter schools 
often utilize harsher punishment methods than traditional 
public schools, and Black students and students with 
disabilities are disproportionately punished;\23\ the fact that 
charter schools are not bound to hire only certified teachers 
the way traditional public schools are;\24\ reports that 
charter school teachers tend to be less experienced, have 
higher turnover rates, lower pay, less job security, and more 
challenging working conditions than teachers in traditional 
public schools;\25\ and data showing the enrollment of students 
with disabilities in charter schools consistently lags behind 
traditional public schools, and once enrolled, students with 
disabilities are ``pushed out'' of charter schools at a higher 
rate than their non-disabled peers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\See, e.g., Philip Gleason, et al., The Evaluation of Charter 
School Impacts: Final Report, Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Evaluation and Reg'l 
Assistance Report No. 2010-4029 (June 2010), https://eric.ed.gov/
?id=ED510573; see also Will S. Dobbie and Roland G. Fryer, Charter 
Schools and Labor Market Outcomes, Nat'l Bur. of Econ. Rsch. (Aug. 
2016), https://www.nber.org/papers/w22502.
    \22\Erica Frankenberg, & Chungmei Lee, Charter Schools and Race: A 
Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education, Educ. Pol'y Analysis 
Archives (Sept. 5, 2003), https://epaa.asu.edu/index/EPA/article/view/
260/386; Erica Brandenburg, et al., Choice without Equity: Charter 
School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards, The C. R.. 
Project (Jan. 2010), https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-
education/integration-and-diversity/choice-without-equity-2009-report/
frankenberg-choices-without-equity-2010.pdf; Erica Brandenburg& 
Genevieve Siege, Understanding Suburban School Segregation: Toward a 
Renewed Civil Rights Agenda, The C. R.. Project (Feb. 2024), https://
overnights/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/
understanding-suburban-school-segregation-toward-a-renewed-civil-
rights-agenda/suburban-segregation-021224-v2.pdf.
    \23\Mikailla Carwin, The Charter School Network: The 
Disproportionate Discipline of Black Students, The City Univ. of N.Y. 
L. Rev. (2018), https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1445&context=clr; see, e.g., Gov't 
Accountability Off., GAO-17-165, District of Columbia Charter Schools: 
Multi-Agency Plan Needed to Continue Progress Addressing High and 
Disproportionate Discipline Rates (Feb. 9, 2017), https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-17-165.
    \24\Am. Univ. Sch. of Educ., Charter School vs. Public School: 
Differences in Teaching Environments, (Dec. 22, 2020), https://
soeonline.american.edu/blog/charter-school-vs-public-school/; Shawgi 
Tell, Countless Charter Schools Hire Many Uncertified Teachers, Hampton 
Inst. (June 27, 2021), https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/countless-
charter-schools-hire-many-uncertified-teachers.
    \25\Id.; Am. Univ. Sch. of Educ., Charter School vs. Public School: 
Differences in Teaching Environments, (Dec. 22, 2020), https://
soeonline.american.edu/blog/charter-school-vs-public-school/.
    \26\School Choice Series: Charter Schols--Implications for Students 
with Disabilities, Nat'l Council on Disability (Nov. 2018), https://
www.ncd.gov/report/choice-and-vouchers-implications-for-students-with-
disabilities/ at page 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill is silent on all of these issues. Once again, 
school choice appears to be of primary importance to the 
Majority, more so than other important issues, such as 
students' academic outcomes and students' civil rights.

      Democratic Amendments Offered During the Markup of H.R. 6418

    Committee Democrats proffered two amendments in response to 
H.R. 6418. In order to ensure that students receive a quality 
education and taxpayers funds are responsibly spent, Rep. 
Stevens offered an amendment to prohibit states from using 
grant funds received from the federal government for virtual 
charter schools. In order to combat increased segregation in 
charter schools and take a step towards fulfilling the promise 
of Brown v. Board of Education,\27\ Ranking Member Scott 
offered an amendment requiring prospective charter school 
developers to conduct an assessment of segregation in the 
community in which the proposed charter school will be located, 
a strategy for how the proposed charter school will effectively 
address desegregation in the community, and an assurance that 
the strategy will be carried. Committee Republicans rejected 
both Democratic amendments that were considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Amendment Number                   Offered By              Description              Action Taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................................  Ms. Stevens............  Prohibits states from    Defeated
                                                                 using any grants under
                                                                 that section for
                                                                 virtual charter
                                                                 schools.
3....................................  Mr. Scott..............  Requires that the        Defeated
                                                                 initial plan completed
                                                                 by a developer include
                                                                 an assessment of
                                                                 segregation in the
                                                                 community in which the
                                                                 proposed charter
                                                                 school will be
                                                                 located, a strategy
                                                                 for how the proposed
                                                                 charter school will
                                                                 effectively address
                                                                 desegregation in the
                                                                 community, and an
                                                                 assurance that the
                                                                 strategy will be
                                                                 carried out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    In summary, H.R. 6418 is a bill largely duplicative of what 
is already permissible under the Charter Schools Program; where 
it expands upon the existing programs it does so by eliminating 
basic guardrails that protect students and taxpayers. For the 
reasons stated above, Committee Democrats unanimously opposed 
H.R. 6418 when the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
considered it on March 21, 2024. We urge the House of 
Representatives to do the same.
                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Joe Courtney,
                                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
                                   Suzanne Bonamici,
                                   Mark Takano,
                                   Alma S. Adams,
                                   Mark DeSaulnier,
                                           Members of Congress.

                                  [all]