Support For The Passage of The H.R. 3453: Empower Charter School Educator To Lead Act
- Apr 28
- 6 min read
Updated: Apr 30
PART I: THE CHALLENGE
Legislative Context
The Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act is a bipartisan bill in the 119th Congress (2025-2026) aimed at expanding support for experienced educators (such as teachers and school administrators) to open and lead new high-quality charter schools. It amends the Charter Schools Program (CSP) under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Key Provisions: The bill modifies how states can use CSP grant funds (competitive grants awarded to state entities like state education agencies or charter school boards). Specifically, it:
Allows state entities to use up to 5% of their CSP grant funds for pre-charter planning subgrants to prospective charter school applicants. This helps educators design their school model, build a leadership team, and prepare a strong application before formal submission.
Permits funding for mechanisms like revolving loan funds to cover pre-opening expenses (before full reimbursement kicks in).
Authorizes assistance to eligible applicants in finding and securing charter school facilities.
House Version (H.R. 3453): Introduced on May 15, 2025, by Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA-5), with Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-HI-2) as a key original cosponsor (bipartisan). It advanced through the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (ordered reported June 25, 2025; full committee report H. Rept. 119-443). On January 13, 2026, it was reported to the House and placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 379).
Constitutional Context
Primary Constitutional Authority: The Spending Clause
Congress justifies H.R. 3453 (like the underlying CSP) under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution — the Spending Clause (also called the General Welfare Clause). This clause empowers Congress to "lay and collect Taxes... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
Federal education grants, including those for charter schools, are structured as voluntary conditional spending programs. States or eligible entities (state education agencies or charter authorizers) may choose to apply for and accept CSP funds, but they must comply with the statute’s conditions (e.g., accountability requirements, nondiscrimination rules, and use restrictions).
The Supreme Court has upheld broad congressional discretion in spending for the general welfare, with limits primarily from cases like South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest, not coercive, and not violate independent constitutional bars.
H.R. 3453 simply expands allowable uses of existing CSP funds (e.g., up to 5% for pre-charter planning subgrants to experienced educators, revolving loan mechanisms, and facilities assistance). It does not create new mandates or significantly expand federal spending, making it comfortably within established Spending Clause precedent.
Federalism and the Tenth Amendment
Education is traditionally a state and local function, with no explicit federal power over schools in the Constitution. Critics of federal education programs sometimes invoke the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") to argue against federal overreach.
However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that conditional grants do not violate the Tenth Amendment as long as they remain non-coercive (see New York v. United States and Printz v. United States for anti-commandeering limits, which do not typically apply to voluntary grant programs).
The CSP is framed as supportive assistance to states that already authorize charter schools under their own laws. It does not force states to create or expand charter programs; it provides supplemental federal dollars to those that choose to participate. H.R. 3453 further defers to state entities, reinforcing rather than undermining state flexibility.
Religion Clauses (First Amendment) and Charter Schools
The most active constitutional flashpoint involving charter schools — though not unique to H.R. 3453 — concerns the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and the Free Exercise Clause.
Core issue: Charter schools are public schools under state law — publicly funded, open to all students via lottery or enrollment, and subject to state oversight. If a charter school engages in religious instruction or operates as a religious entity, opponents argue it constitutes impermissible government establishment of religion or direct taxpayer funding of religious activity.
H.R. 3453 itself is neutral on religion. It does not mention religious schools, authorize religious instruction, or alter nondiscrimination or secular-use requirements that apply to all CSP funds. Any religious charter school issues would arise at the state level or in implementation of the broader CSP, not from this narrow technical amendment.
The Issue
The legislative changes built on the existing requirement that state entities use at least 7% of CSP funds for technical assistance to applicants and authorizers. The goal is to lower barriers for educator-led charter startups, which proponents argue are often best positioned to meet specific community needs but face resource and planning hurdles
The H.R. 3453 currently has only a moderate (rather than high) probability of becoming law as of late April 2026.
H.R. 3453 is a targeted, low-drama technical fix (allowing states to use up to 5% of CSP funds for pre-planning subgrants to experienced educators, revolving loans, etc.). It is not a sweeping reform or high-salience issue that generates intense public or member pressure. Such bills often pass quietly when attached to larger packages (e.g., an omnibus or ESEA reauthorization) but struggle to move on their own.
PART II: OUR STRATEGY
General Approach: Our approach is rooted in providing a holistic overview and specialized guidance for each issue that needs to be solved. We utilize an inclusive, data-driven process designed to help institutional leaders navigate complex legislative and regulatory environments.
Our Position on this Issue: Aristeia supports the passage of this bill. Indeed, the bill addresses the financial burden on teachers who want to launch charter schools, often needing to leave their jobs to do so.
Support Educators: It provides up to ($100,000) for pre-charter planning and development.
Increased Innovation: By providing financial support during the planning phase, it empowers educators to design innovative schools that reflect community needs.
Improved Quality & Access: The bill intends to improve the quality of new charter schools by providing resources for better planning and enabling more experienced educators to lead them.
Flexibility in the Use of Funds: It uses existing federal funds more effectively rather than creating entirely new, costly programs, by allowing states to use up to (5%) of their CSP funds for these planning grants.
Our Plan for This Issue: We develop a comprehensive policy proposal examining how the passage of H.R. 3453 would deliver significant ROI for charter schools–how it would provide financial support to educators, increase innovation, improve quality and access, and facilitate the use of funds. We believe this bill should be made a priority as it will massively contribute to the improvement of the American educational system.
PART III: OUR RESULTS
The results show that the enactment of H.R. 3454 would have direct and long-term effects on public education.
Direct Impacts
More Support for Educator-Led Charter Startups
States receiving CSP grants could use up to 5% of those funds for pre-charter planning subgrants (capped at $100,000 per applicant) to experienced educators (teachers, principals, or school leaders with proven track records).
These subgrants would help cover early-stage work: designing the school model, building a leadership team, developing curricula, conducting community needs assessments, and preparing a strong formal application — activities that currently often occur without dedicated federal support.
States could also use CSP funds for revolving loan funds or similar mechanisms to help cover pre-opening costs (before full subgrant reimbursement begins) and assist applicants with finding and securing facilities.
Increased Flexibility for Technical Assistance
The bill raises the cap on funds states can use for technical assistance to charter applicants and authorizers from 7% to 10%.
This gives states more room to provide training, capacity-building for authorizers (including fiscal oversight), and other support services.
Long-term Effects
Higher-Quality Applications and Openings: Research cited by supporters (e.g., National Alliance for Public Charter Schools) suggests that early planning support leads to stronger applications, higher approval rates, and better-prepared schools at launch.
More Educator-Driven Charters: It would lower financial and logistical barriers for classroom veterans who want to found schools tailored to specific community needs, potentially increasing innovation and teacher leadership in the charter sector.
Student Outcomes: This bill will modestly expand access to high-quality charter options. Studies of charter schools (some funded via CSP) have shown average gains equivalent to several extra days of learning per year in reading and math, though results vary widely by school and location.
Meeting Parent Demand: With surveys indicating strong interest in charter options, the bill aims to help supply keep pace in areas with waiting lists or underperforming traditional schools.
Overall Assessment: Passage of H.R. 3453 would represent a technical but meaningful improvement in the federal Charter Schools Program by front-loading modest support for the earliest and often most challenging phase of starting a charter school. Its effects would primarily benefit experienced educators seeking to launch schools and the states that choose to prioritize them.
