A substantive modification to the bill's funding allocation for national charter school activities and a clarification regarding advance payments. V2 introduces a specific 15% allocation for competitive grants for charter school activities in non-grant states, previously part of a general remainder. It also clarifies advance payment provisions for subgrants and adds a corresponding heading.
FLEX Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to provide more operational and financial flexibility to charter schools and the state entities that support them, potentially accelerating their growth and programmatic diversification.
What it actually does
H.R. 7082, the FLEX Act, amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to increase flexibility and expand eligible activities for federal charter school grants. It modifies funding allotments, broadens the scope of activities supported by grants (including program expansion and facilities costs), streamlines application processes, and mandates advance payments for subgrants. The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to consult with charter school operators before rulemaking and to limit regulations to only what is necessary.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill reduces bureaucratic hurdles, allows charter schools to innovate and expand more easily, and ensures more efficient use of federal funds by providing advance payments and broader eligibility for facilities and operational costs. They contend it will lead to more high-quality educational options for students, especially in underserved areas, by fostering growth and program development.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that increasing flexibility and funding for charter schools diverts resources and attention from traditional public schools, potentially exacerbating inequities. They may also express concerns that reduced regulatory oversight could lead to less accountability for public funds and that the expansion of single-sex schools, while not prohibited, could raise questions about equitable access or educational philosophy.
The bill is moderately complex due to its reliance on existing statutory references, but its length makes it accessible for a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(1) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4302(a)(1)
Expansion of Supported Charter School Activities
This provision broadens the scope of activities that federal funds can support for charter schools. Previously, funds supported the planning, program design, and initial implementation of new charter schools, as well as the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools. This amendment adds 'the addition or expansion of programs at high-quality charter schools' as another eligible use of these federal funds. This means existing successful charter schools can now use federal grants to grow their offerings or introduce new educational models, enhancing their ability to adapt and innovate.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this allows successful charter schools to innovate and serve more students without needing to open entirely new schools or replicate existing ones, providing flexibility to adapt to student needs and educational trends.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this further expands the reach of federal funding into charter school operations, potentially diverting resources from other educational priorities or entrenching a system that some believe lacks sufficient accountability.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for charter school innovation and growth with concerns about the allocation of federal education funds and potential mission creep for federal programs.
Section 2(2)-(3) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4302(b) and adding (d)
Revised Funding Allotments and Remaining Fund Allocation
This section revises the minimum percentages of federal funds allocated for specific charter school programs. It increases the amount reserved for national activities from 12.5% to at least 15% and for grants to Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) from 22.5% to at least 25%. It also changes the language for the remaining funds, reserving 'at least 30 percent' for other purposes. Crucially, it adds a new subsection (d) granting the Secretary of Education discretion to allocate any remaining funds across charter school facilities assistance, national activities, and grants to support high-quality charter schools, allowing for more flexible deployment based on perceived needs.
Section 3(1)(D) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4303(b)(1)
Expanding Eligible Grant Activities for High-Quality Charter Schools
This provision explicitly allows federal grants to support the addition or expansion of curricular or other offerings at high-quality charter schools. This includes adopting new academic programs, delivery models, personalized learning, or new curricular approaches, with the condition that such additions are designed to enable additional students to enroll and benefit. This is a direct expansion of what federal funds can be used for within existing high-quality charter schools, moving beyond just startup or replication.
Section 3(2)(C) of the bill, adding ESEA Section 4303(c)(3)(C)
Affirmation of Single-Sex Educational Services
This amendment explicitly states that nothing in this part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (related to charter school programs) shall be construed to prohibit schools from providing educational services to students of a single sex. This clarifies that federal charter school funds can support schools or programs that offer single-sex education, provided they comply with other relevant laws and regulations.
Section 3(3)(D) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4303(d)(3)
Mandated Advance Payments for Grant Funds
This provision significantly alters the payment structure for federal charter school grants. It mandates that the Secretary of Education provide advance payments of grant funds to State entities, and in turn, requires State entities to provide advance payments of subgrant funds to eligible charter school applicants upon request. These payments must be made in accordance with federal regulations (2 CFR 200.305(b)(1)), ensuring that funds are available upfront rather than on a reimbursement basis, which is crucial for operational planning.
Section 3(5)(C)(iii) of the bill, adding ESEA Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(iii)
Option to Use Approved Charter Authorization Applications
This amendment allows State entities to opt to use an eligible applicant's approved charter authorization application in lieu of requiring a separate application for federal subgrants. This is permissible if the charter authorization application was approved under relevant State law during the year preceding the date the State entity first accepts subgrant applications. This aims to reduce duplicative paperwork and streamline the process for new or expanding charter schools, making it easier for them to access federal funds.
Section 3(5)(B)(iii) of the bill, adding ESEA Section 4303(f)(2)(H)
Requirement to Address Student Transportation
This provision adds a new requirement for State entities receiving federal charter school grants: they must ensure that each charter school receiving funds under their program will address the transportation needs of its students. This makes addressing transportation a condition for receiving federal support through the state program, aiming to improve accessibility for all students.
Section 3(7) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4303(h)
Broadened Eligibility for Facilities and Operational Costs
This section significantly expands the eligible uses of federal charter school grant funds. It explicitly allows funds for hiring and compensating teachers and school leaders, purchasing academic subscriptions and curricular support, carrying out necessary renovations, upgrades, facilities repairs, or acquiring portable classrooms. It also removes previous limitations like 'one-time, startup' and 'appropriate, non-sustained' from certain eligible costs and adds 'Providing costs associated with operations and management of the charter school facility.' This broadens the scope of what federal grants can cover for charter schools.
Section 4(1)(E) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4305(a)(1)(E)
Targeted Support for Charter Schools in Specific States and Serving Specific Populations
This provision directs a portion of funds reserved for national activities (not more than 10%) to increase the number of available seats in charter schools that are located in states that have enacted charter school legislation within the preceding five years, serve rural students, and serve students with disabilities. This creates a specific focus for federal support on particular geographic areas and student populations, aiming to strategically expand access.
Section 6(b) of the bill, adding ESEA Section 4309(b)
Restriction on Regulatory Imposition
This new subsection explicitly limits the Secretary of Education's authority in promulgating regulations for the charter school program. It mandates that the Secretary shall issue 'only such regulations as are necessary for the administration of this part' and 'shall not impose additional nonstatutory requirements on those entities subject to the regulations.' This aims to prevent the Department from creating new rules or burdens beyond what is strictly required by the statute, enhancing grantee autonomy.
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Education provide advance payments of grant funds to State entities, and that State entities, in turn, provide advance payments of subgrant funds to eligible charter school applicants upon request, aligning with federal regulations for upfront funding.
Section 3(3)(D) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4303(d)(3)
Why it matters:While technically an amendment to an existing paragraph, the shift from discretionary to mandatory advance payments is a substantive change that could be easily overlooked by a casual reader focusing on program eligibility or funding levels. Its placement within administrative details makes it less prominent.
Case for: Proponents argue that mandatory advance payments are critical for the financial viability and operational planning of charter schools, especially during startup or expansion, as it provides necessary working capital and reduces cash flow challenges often faced by new or growing entities.
Case against: Critics might express concern that mandatory advance payments, while beneficial for recipients, could increase the risk of misuse of funds or require more stringent oversight mechanisms from federal and state agencies to ensure accountability, as funds are disbursed before expenses are incurred.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly alter the cash flow for federal charter school grant recipients, potentially improving financial stability and accelerating program implementation across all states participating in the program.
This small strike removes a requirement that subgrant funds be used 'in a manner consistent with the eligible applicant's application for such subgrant.'
Section 3(5)(A)(i)(II) of the bill, amending ESEA Section 4303(f)(1)(A)(vi)(II)
Why it matters:The removal of this phrase, while seemingly minor, could subtly reduce the specificity of accountability for how federal subgrant funds are ultimately spent, allowing for more flexibility post-award. Its burial within technical language might be standard legislative drafting but could also be seen as minimizing attention to a shift in oversight.
Case for: Proponents would argue that removing this phrase provides greater flexibility for charter schools to adapt their plans as circumstances evolve, without being rigidly tied to initial application details, fostering responsiveness and innovation.
Case against: Critics might contend that this removal reduces accountability, making it harder to ensure that funds are used for the specific purposes outlined in the original application, potentially leading to less transparent spending of federal dollars.
Estimated impact: This change could lead to increased operational flexibility for charter schools receiving federal subgrants, potentially affecting how funds are tracked and evaluated post-award.
This provision allows State entities to opt to use an eligible applicant's approved charter authorization application, if approved within the preceding year, in lieu of requiring a separate application for federal subgrants.
Section 3(5)(C)(iii) of the bill, adding ESEA Section 4303(f)(1)(C)(iii)
Why it matters:This streamlines the application process significantly, potentially reducing administrative hurdles for charter schools. Its placement within the technical details of grant applications is standard but might obscure its impact on reducing paperwork and accelerating funding access.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision significantly reduces administrative burden for charter school operators, allowing them to focus more on educational programming rather than redundant application processes, thereby accelerating school development and access to funds.
Case against: Critics might contend that using a state-level authorization application for federal funds could lead to less federal oversight specific to the grant's objectives, potentially weakening accountability for how federal dollars are used, as the state application may not cover all federal requirements.
Estimated impact: This could lead to a noticeable reduction in administrative overhead for charter schools seeking federal subgrants and for state entities processing them, potentially speeding up the allocation of funds.
This new subsection explicitly limits the Secretary of Education's authority in promulgating regulations for the charter school program, mandating only necessary regulations and prohibiting additional nonstatutory requirements.
Section 6(b) of the bill, adding ESEA Section 4309(b)
Why it matters:This provision represents a significant legislative check on the executive branch's regulatory authority over charter school programs. Its placement at the end of a section on 'Paperwork Reduction' could be seen as a way to frame it as an administrative improvement rather than a substantive policy shift regarding federal oversight.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is essential for reducing bureaucratic overreach and ensuring that the federal program remains flexible and responsive to the needs of charter schools, preventing the imposition of unnecessary administrative burdens that can stifle innovation.
Case against: Critics might contend that limiting the Secretary's regulatory authority could hinder the Department's ability to ensure accountability, protect federal investments, or adapt to evolving program needs and challenges, potentially leading to less oversight and greater risk of program mismanagement.
Estimated impact: This provision will reduce the regulatory burden on state entities and charter schools, potentially leading to faster implementation of programs and greater operational autonomy, but it also shifts the balance of power between the executive branch and grantees.