A Democratic bill with 20 Democratic cosponsors · See all 20 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "CHARTER Act," seeks to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It aims to prevent federal funds from being awarded to charter schools or their management organizations that contract with for-profit entities to operate or oversee the school. The legislation specifically prohibits for-profit entities from managing essential services like curriculum development, budget management, or faculty supervision to prevent profit extraction. However, schools may still contract with for-profit entities for services such as food, transportation, or classroom supplies. These changes are intended to ensure public funds are used to best serve student educational needs.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +5
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Aims to ensure public funds are not used for profit extraction by for-profit charter operators.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Promotes transparency by ensuring public funds are not diverted to private profit.
- Scored +4
Would children be better off under this?
Intended to ensure more public resources are spent on students rather than corporate profit.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Directly targets and restricts for-profit charter management organizations.
- Scored -4
Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one?
Limits the operational options for charter schools by prohibiting for-profit management contracts.
- Scored -3
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Reduces opportunities for profit extraction from public education funds.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Student Resources: The bill aims to ensure that school revenue is not used to extract profit for for-profit entities, which is intended to keep publicly funded resources from being depleted (Section 2(a)(2); Section 2(b)(7)).
-
Improved Stewardship of Public Funds: By prohibiting contracts where for-profit entities operate or oversee schools to exert influence, the bill seeks to ensure taxpayers that public funds are being responsibly stewarded (Section 2(a)(2); Section 2(b)(8)).
-
Focus on Educational Needs: The purpose of the act is to ensure charter schools best serve the educational needs of students by limiting the influence of for-profit management (Section 2(a)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Management Options: Charter schools and their management organizations would be prohibited from entering into contracts with for-profit entities for essential administration tasks such as curriculum development, budget management, or faculty management (Section 3(a)(1)).
-
Constraint on Contractual Relationships: The bill prohibits schools from having a charter management organization or other nonprofit entity enter into a contract with a for-profit entity for the administration of the school (Section 3(a)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Aims to ensure public funds are not used for profit extraction by for-profit charter operators.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Promotes transparency by ensuring public funds are not diverted to private profit. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight by setting stricter eligibility requirements for federal funding (ESEA and IDEA). Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Limits the ability of states to approve charter contracts with for-profit entities if they wish to receive federal funds.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one? — Limits the operational options for charter schools by prohibiting for-profit management contracts.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Protects IDEA funding for students with disabilities by preventing it from being extracted as profit.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Intended to ensure more public resources are spent on students rather than corporate profit. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Protects IDEA funding meant for students with disabilities from for-profit extraction. Would students be better off under this? — Aims to maximize the use of public funds for educational services rather than profit. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protects funding for schools often serving low-income populations from profit extraction. Would business owners be better off under this? — Directly targets and restricts for-profit charter management organizations. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Reduces opportunities for profit extraction from public education funds. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Reduces opportunities for profit extraction from public education funds. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Reduces opportunities for profit extraction from public education funds.
- 9/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/12/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 14 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Emanuel CleaverDemocrat · Missouri
Kathy CastorDemocrat · Florida
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
Janice SchakowskyDemocrat · Illinois
Melanie StansburyDemocrat · New Mexico
Andrea SalinasDemocrat · Oregon
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Mark TakanoDemocrat · California
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida