Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act
Latest action. Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act - (Sec. 4) Revises subpart 1 (Charter School Programs) of part B (Public Charter Schools) of title V (Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(Sec. 5) Replaces the current charter school grant program with a program awarding grants to state entities (state educational agencies, state charter school boards, or Governors) and, through them, subgrants to charter school developers to open new charter schools and expand and replicate high-quality charter schools.
Requires grantees to use 10% of the grant funds to provide technical assistance to subgrantees and authorized public chartering agencies, and work with those agencies to improve the charter school authorization process.
Limits the duration of charter school grants and subgrants to no more than five years. Gives subgrantees no more than 18 months to plan and design their programs.
Limits grantees to no more than one grant over a five-year period. Limits subgrantees to no more than one subgrant per charter school over a five-year period, unless the subgrantee demonstrates at least three years of improved educational results for students enrolled in the applicable charter school.
Requires the Secretary of Education and each grantee to use a peer review process to review applications for charter school grants and subgrants.
Requires grantees to award subgrants in a manner that ensures, to the extent possible, that subgrants are distributed to different areas and assist charter schools representing a variety of educational approaches.
Permits the Secretary to waive certain statutory or regulatory requirements if the waiver is requested by a grant applicant and promotes the purpose of the Charter School program without tampering with what is definitionally required of charter schools.
Favors grant applicants to the extent that they are from states that: (1) have a quality authorized public chartering agency that is not a local educational agency (LEA), if the state allows entities other than LEAs to be authorized public chartering agencies; (2) do not impose any limitation on the number or percentage of charter schools that may exist or the number or percentage of students that may attend charter schools; (3) ensure equitable financing, as compared to traditional public schools, for charter schools and students in a prompt manner; and (4) use charter schools and best practices from charter schools to help improve struggling schools and LEAs. Favors grant applicants also to the extent that they: (1) partner with an organization experienced in developing management organizations to support charter school development; (2) effectively support and monitor charter schools; (3) support charter schools that support at-risk students; and (4) authorize all their charter schools to serve as school food authorities.
The summary continues for 10 more paragraphs. Read it in full on Congress.gov
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Passed House amended" stage on September 13, 2011. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on September 14, 2011: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 112th Congress (2011-12), 283 of the 10,618 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 2.7 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) introduced it on June 16, 2011, and 13 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 2 Democrats, 11 Republicans.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on June 16, 2011, 5613 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 5523 days ago, on September 14, 2011.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 112th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2013 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers