The Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 appropriations process is well underway. While we are likely to end up with a continuing resolution (CR) through at least the election, the National Alliance has led the way to protect wins from last year and to make the Charter Schools Program more flexible through an unprecedented amount of bipartisan report language.
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations finalized their FY25 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Bill in early July, initially including $450 million for the Charter Schools Program (CSP) and adding an additional $10 million during the markup. This represents the most significant proposed increase to the CSP in recent years. The bill also increases the set-aside for technical assistance so that grantees have more resources to support the opening and replication of high quality schools.
In early August, the Senate Appropriations Committee finalized their bill, maintaining funding for the CSP at $440 million. While the bill does not provide an increase to the CSP, it includes critical report language that will help the CSP better serve communities around the country. The nature of the process is such that the report language is in effect regardless of what happens in conference, and the Department will need to address it in their FY 2026 Budget Request.
Here’s what you need to know about what was included in the Senate report language and what it means for the charter school community.
1. Maintains flexibilities provided by the final FY 2024 spending package.
The final FY 2024 spending package included key flexibilities for the CSP, including lifting the cap on the State Facilities Incentive Grant (SFIG) and allowing limited flexibility to move funds between different competitions to respond more effectively to the changing needs of the sector. Previously only $10 million could go towards SFIG, and new awards have been made only every five years as a result. This year, the Senate report language also directs the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to run competitions on a similar cycle, meaning the CMO competition should be competed around the same time as the other competitions rather than on a lag as it has been in recent years.
2. Supports and Evaluates Technical Assistance.
While the Senate does not change the amount of funds available for technical assistance like the House bill does, the Senate report language directs the Department to continue to support and evaluate the flexibility and effective use of technical assistance resources under the CSP State Entity (SE) competition. The Committee also requests a briefing on the Department’s plans to effectively oversee the program.
3. Directs Department to Focus on Quality, not Micromanagement of Budgets.
When State entities apply for SE grants, their applications must include the proposed number of subgrants they anticipate making for new starts, replications, and expansions. Applicants can do their best to project their pipeline, but often the subgrant competitions take place a year or more after the applicants were first submitted. As a result, the highest scoring applicants may not mirror the projected number of new start, replication, and expansion applications. The Senate language directs the Department to allow grantees to diverge from their projections if this would result in funding the highest quality subgrantee applications and urges the Department to provide timely approvals of amendments to subgrant projections.
4. When Questions Arise Regarding Uses of Funds, the Department Should Expedite Decisions and Maximize Flexibility.
Too many SE grantees have encountered delays in the implementation of their grants, which leads to school opening delays, due to uncertainty over whether certain uses of funds are allowable under the ESEA. For example, one of the trickier questions is whether costs are considered sustained or non-sustained or whether activities are allowed only during the planning period. The Senate language urges the Department to quickly resolve questions on uses of funds and provide flexibility to the extent possible under statute. It also reiterates concern about how long it takes the Department to answer questions, approve amendments, and generally respond to the needs of grantees.
5. Removes Bureaucratic Hurdles to Spending Full Grant.
Some CSP grantees have found that they are unable to complete their projects during the original project period, often due to circumstances beyond their control, such as receiving fewer subgrant applications than anticipated, challenges with obtaining authorization, delays in approvals from the Department, and even global pandemics. Sometimes subgrants are made at the end of a five-year grant and won’t be spent in their entirety for several years. To address these challenges, the Department has generally approved an additional 12-month no-cost extension (NCE) for SE grantees. However in states where a new grant is made to a different entity than the previous grantee (such as when a Charter Support Association receives a grant that was previously awarded to the state educational agency) the Department has been unwilling to approve a no-cost extension for the original grantee because of the statutory prohibition established by ESSA on a state receiving more than one SE grant at the same time (what we refer to as overlapping grants). The original intent of this language was to prevent two active grantees awarding subgrants at the same time, however, not to prevent a grantee from finishing its grants with a no cost extension. The Department’s implementation of this new policy is challenging for states that want to award new subgrants in year 4 or 5 since those subgrantees who receive subgrants during the final years of the original SE grant period would not have sufficient time to spend down their funds. The Committee urges the Department to allow for longer extensions when this would allow subgrantees to complete their projects without additional delays and bureaucratic hurdles such as needing to reapply for funds under the new grantee.
6. Declines Administration Request to Place more Requirements on Charter School contracts
The President’s proposed budget for FY 2025 included additional language that would prohibit CSP grants to schools that contract with for-profit entities. The Senate report language takes no additional action on this proposed language and directs the Department to enforce existing assurances and requirements on the reporting of contracts with for-profit entities.
The theme of this extensive report language is greater flexibility for the CSP and the dedicated educators putting those dollars to work across the country. These provisions are the product of sustained advocacy from the National Alliance and advocates like you making your voices heard. While the final funding level for the CSP in FY 2025 remains to be seen, these flexibilities stand to benefit the entire charter school community.
Christy Wolfe is the senior vice president for policy, research, and planning for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Fiona Sheridan-McIver is the director of policy at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
