The proposed rule would allow “federal reviewers to ignore state and local decisions to authorize new public charter schools,” Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Diane Feinstein of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey wrote in a to U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. 

Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Richard Burr of North Carolina also signed the letter. The proposed requirements, they wrote, “would make it difficult, if not impossible, for new public charter schools start-ups, and for high-performing public charter schools seeking to replicate or expand, to access [Charter Schools Program] funding.”

The $440 million competitive grant program, now almost 30 years old, supports schools’ start-up costs, from facility needs to staffing. Department officials say the revisions, which would require potential grantees to demonstrate “sufficient demand,” would encourage more racially balanced schools that don’t compete with traditional districts losing enrollment. Provisions would also require charters to be transparent about any contracts they have with for-profit organizations, which would increase accountability. But charter advocates argue the plan would make it harder for applicants to win approval, even if there’s demand from families. 

After backlash from the field and six in the Senate, the department last month extended the comment period on the rule for five days. Over 26,000 , both for and against the plan, have been submitted. 

Ranking Republicans on the House and Senate education committees have also threatened to repeal the rule if the administration doesn’t change it. They’ve asked the department to confirm by May 12 that it will submit the final rule to Congress for review.

In the recent letter, the senators said the proposal would “add significant burdens and time to an already complex application process, with little time for technical assistance, particularly for the upcoming 2022 grant cycle.”

Under the current schedule, the department is due to award grants to states by Sept. 30, which means the department has less than four months to finalize its rule, post the grant application and review submissions. New and expanding charter schools depend on the grant program because they don’t receive funding until after they begin serving students.

The senators want the department to allow charter operators to apply for the program under existing rules released in 2020.

“The time frame is definitely very tight, which is why it’s better to stick to the old rule this year,” said Nina Rees, CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. The Alliance is opposed to the department’s major revisions to the rule and argues it would hurt charters at a time when the sector has seen record growth. 

The department didn’t directly respond to the bipartisan letter, but said in a statement that the proposed rule is intended to “improve the quality and accountability of charter schools.”

Bennet, Feinstein and Booker advocate for funding for the Charter Schools Program every year, Rees said, but added it’s significant that they’re “expressing their views publicly.”

“We hope the department takes them seriously,” she said. “The three are not just any Democrats. They come from 
 states with a rich history of chartering.”

The $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan, which the House passed in November, has been stalled in the Senate largely due to opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate West Virginia Democrat, to some proposals, including extending a beefed-up version of the credit. The monthly payments, up to $300 per month for young children, ended in December. shows most families have used the money for rent, groceries and school-related expenses.

“The expanded [Child Tax Credit] is a signature domestic policy achievement of this administration, and has been an overwhelming success,” Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Rev. Ralph Warnock of Georgia and Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote in . “After historic progress, it is unacceptable to return to a status quo in which children are America’s poorest residents and child poverty costs our nation more than $1 trillion per year.”

The senators’ letter comes a week after Biden cast doubt on his ability to reach a deal with Manchin that includes the expanded credit. In a Jan. 19 press conference, he said he cares “a great deal” about the credit and said he would keep trying to get it passed. The senators also highlighted showing such policies can have positive impacts on babies’ brain development. With the Senate soon expected to return to over Build Back Better, the question is whether the study could influence Manchin’s position.

Supporters of cash support for low-income families are “quite enthusiastic” about the findings, said Greg Duncan, an education professor at the University of California, Irvine, and a lead researcher on the $17 million project. He’s working with advocacy groups in West Virginia to schedule a briefing for Manchin, and added that the researchers have “tried to connect with all sorts of people on the political spectrum.”

The first U.S. evaluation of a “direct poverty reduction” focused on early childhood, according to the press release, the study randomly assigned 1,000 low-income, mostly Black and Hispanic mothers in four cities to receive debit cards with monthly payments of either $333 or a nominal $20. After one year, infants in households that received the assistance were more likely than those in the control group to show brain activity associated with thinking and learning.

The researchers suggest that the cash support can reduce stress on mothers and in turn improve home environments for young children. The study began before the pandemic, but by researchers at the University of Oregon have shown that lockdowns, family isolation and financial stress related to COVID-19 have led to greater anxiety among parents and irritability among children.

While researchers can’t predict if children in the families receiving the payments will continue to have an advantage, they didn’t expect to see such quick results.

“It surprised most of us that after only one year of [cash] transfers that this would actually show up as clearly as it did in the data,” Duncan said. “We always take the long view and thought it would take several years before the stress levels would be reduced.”

A second paper focusing on whether mothers spent the money on drugs or alcohol is expected this spring, followed by a third looking at whether the financial support is associated with mothers pulling out of the workforce. Critics, including Manchin, argue such programs should have a work requirement.

Duncan said that the findings add to a body of evidence that suggests “income has a causal effect on child well-being, particularly in early childhood and when poverty is quite persistent.”

Katharine Stevens, founder and CEO of the Center on Child and Family Policy, called the study an “unusually rigorous attempt to begin identifying the most effective, policy-relevant drivers of child well-being.” But she rejected the suggestion that the money was a direct cause of the brain growth in children. 

Babies “do not eat, breathe or interact with money,” she said, adding that more research is needed to determine the “mechanisms that matter most” in young children’s development.