High-Quality Charter Schools Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1813
Last Updated: July 23, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

ID: S001184

Follow the money

The bill

High-Quality Charter Schools Act

S. 1813, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$287,300 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 383-385 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of Senator Scott from South Carolina. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The High-Quality Charter Schools Act (HQCSA) claims to promote the creation and expansion of charter schools by offering a tax credit for charitable donations. But don't be fooled – this is just a cleverly crafted Trojan horse designed to funnel more money into the pockets of wealthy donors and corporate interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individuals to claim a 75% tax credit for qualified contributions to eligible charter school organizations. The credit is capped at $5,000 or 10% of adjusted gross income, whichever is greater. But here's the kicker: these "eligible" organizations must be certified by the state as being in the top 10% of charter management organizations or schools based on student performance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: wealthy donors, corporate interests, and politicians looking to curry favor with their benefactors. Charter school operators and managers will also benefit from this largesse, but at what cost? The real losers here are public schools, which will continue to be starved of resources as the charter school gravy train rolls on.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a masterclass in money laundering for the wealthy. By offering a tax credit for charitable donations, Senator Scott and his cohorts are effectively allowing donors to buy influence and shape education policy while reaping a tidy profit. The "volume cap" provision ensures that only a select few will benefit from this largesse, further concentrating wealth and power.

But what about the supposed benefits for charter schools? Don't be naive – this is just a Trojan horse for more privatization and deregulation of public education. By creating a new class of "eligible" charter school organizations, HQCSA sets the stage for further erosion of accountability and oversight in the charter sector.

In short, S 1813 is a cynical ploy to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of public education. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of money in politics and the relentless pursuit of power and profit over people.

Related Topics

Education & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$287,300
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$23,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$264,000

No PAC contributions found

1
FAIRWAY INVESTMENTS, LLC
2 transactions
$16,500
2
MK INTERNATIONAL LLC
1 transaction
$3,300
3
OSWALD COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1 transaction
$1,500
4
HUDSON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
EMMET, RICHARD
2 transactions
$26,400
2
BOLDRICK, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200
3
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$13,200
4
GROFF, SUSAN
1 transaction
$13,200
5
SLUSKY, ALEX
1 transaction
$13,200
6
HAMMOND, GREGORY
1 transaction
$13,200
7
NAVARRO, ANNE
1 transaction
$13,200
8
NEWMAN, BRAD
1 transaction
$13,200
9
ANDERSON, MORGAN
1 transaction
$13,200
10
BROWN, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200
11
CANN, DAVID
1 transaction
$13,200
12
CHAMBERLAIN, LEE
1 transaction
$13,200
13
COLQUITT, DAVID
1 transaction
$13,200
14
CONVERSE, JUSTIN
1 transaction
$13,200
15
DEERING, TONY
1 transaction
$13,200
16
DEJONG, ROBERT
1 transaction
$13,200
17
GOLDBAUM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$13,200
18
HASLAM, BILL
1 transaction
$13,200
19
HASLAM, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Top Contributors

20

1
YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$14,000
Jun 11, 2024
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
DMM PROPRIETA MANAGEMENT • MANAGER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
SOROBAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LP • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualASPEN, CO
$9,900
Nov 2, 2023
4
JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$9,900
Jun 13, 2024
5
KARP, ALEXANDER C.
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • CEO
IndividualBEDFORD, NH
$9,900
Apr 16, 2024
6
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
7
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
OBERNDORF ENTERPRISES • OWNER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$9,900
Jun 5, 2024
8
YAWITZ, ALICE G.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualST. LOUIS, MO
$9,900
Jun 18, 2024
9
GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
10
GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.
CAJUN INDUSTRIES LLC • CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
IndividualBATON ROUGE, LA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

ID: T000278

Top Contributors

43

1
BROAD METRO LLC
OrganizationOLD WESTBURY, NY
$3,300
Apr 18, 2023
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Apr 28, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,900
Feb 20, 2023
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,900
Apr 28, 2023
5
SUMMERLIN FARMS
OrganizationMOULTRIE, GA
$1,000
Oct 8, 2023
6
KENT HANCE BUSINESS
OrganizationLUBBOCK, TX
$1,000
Aug 17, 2023
7
SUMMERLIN FARMS
OrganizationMOULTRIE, GA
$1,000
Sep 8, 2023
8
KENT HANCE BUSINESS
OrganizationLUBBOCK, TX
$1,000
Sep 16, 2023
9
BEACH ICE LLC
OrganizationMOULTRIE, GA
$500
Oct 8, 2023
10
LEELAND VENTURES LLC
OrganizationHAMPTON COVE, AL
$500
Dec 4, 2023

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

22

1
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
3
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$90,795
May 31, 2024
4
SCOTT, RICK SEN
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$77,714
May 31, 2023
5
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$69,607
Apr 30, 2024
6
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$68,538
Aug 31, 2023
7
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$53,187
Sep 30, 2023
8
SCOTT, RICK SEN
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$49,992
Jun 30, 2023
9
SCOTT, RICK SENATOR
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$39,695
Jun 30, 2024
10
SCOTT, RICK
US SENATE • US SENATOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$34,494
Jan 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 42 nodes and 55 connections

Total contributions: $55

Top Donors - Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • Section 2 creates a tax credit for charitable contributions to eligible charter school organizations, which are defined as entities that manage or operate charter schools. This provides a financial benefit to organizations involved in charter school creation or expansion, which includes for-profit education entities that operate charter schools.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Education

Strong
Vector: 71%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's educational choice agenda by creating a federal tax credit to incentivize private donations to charter schools, mirroring the Educational Choice for Children Act's approach of using tax incentives to expand access to alternative education options. Both policies aim to increase funding for non-traditional K-12 education through charitable giving incentives, reduce reliance on traditional public school funding, and promote market-based education reform."

Key themes:education choicetax credit incentivescharitable donations for educationcharter school expansionalternative education funding

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Education

Strong
Vector: 66%
Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill creates a tax credit to encourage private donations for high-quality charter schools, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on school choice, federal scholarship tax credits, and shifting education funding toward state/local and private options to serve underserved students."

Key themes:school choicetax credit incentivescharter school supportreducing federal controlserving underserved communities

— 350 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise would give the families of children with special needs approximately $1,800 per child to help meet a child’s unique learning needs. l Members of Congress and the White House should consider a similar update to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I is the largest portion of federal taxpayer spending under this federal education law, and the section provides additional taxpayer resources to schools or groups of schools in lower income areas. Federal taxpayers committed $16.3 billion to Title I in FY 2019, spending that is dedicated to students in low-income areas of the U.S. Per student, this spending amounts to more than $1,400 for a child in a large city and approximately $1,300 for a student in a remote, rural area.19 Research finds, though, that this enormous investment has not produced positive results for children in need. The achievement gap between children from the highest and lowest income deciles has not improved over the past 50 years. And recent, dismal outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed declines for all students, with math scores registering declines for the first time in history. l Initially, the responsibilities for administering and overseeing Title I should be moved to HHS, along with IDEA. l Students attending schools that receive Title I spending should also have access to micro-education savings accounts that allow families to choose how and where their children learn according to their needs. l Parents should be allowed to use their child’s Title I resources to help pay for private learning options including tutoring services and curricular materials. l Over a 10-year period, the federal spending should be phased out and states should assume decision-making control over how to provide a quality education to children from low-income families. Additional School Choice Options House Republicans included school choice in their “Commitment to America” agenda. l Though actions by state lawmakers are essential and any federal policies should be strictly designed so they do not conflict with state activities, Congress could consider school choice legislation such — 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by

Department of Education

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 374-376AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt promote education reform through expanding school choice and reducing reliance on traditional public‑school structures, though the bill focuses on charter‑school tax credits while the excerpt emphasizes higher‑education loan reforms, rescinding union charters, and parental‑rights protections."

Key themes:school choicecharter schoolseducation reformreducing union influence

— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills