I remember when the charter idea was first launched, in 1988.

Al Shanker thought charters would be schools-within-schools, that they would be started by teachers, that they would be approved by the other teachers in the rest of the school and the local board, that they would be unionized, and that they would collaborate, not compete, with the existing schools. More than three decades later, we know that charters seldom meet any of these conditions. Ninety percent are non-union. They compete, not collaborate. They may be started by almost anyone without regard to prior experience.

Charter advocates on the right insisted they would cost less, be more accountable, and get better results. Typically, none of these conditions are met except when charters cherrypick the students they want and exclude those they don’t want. Typically, state charter associations lobby to block accountability.

In Ohio, most charter schools are graded either D or F by the state. This very low-performing sector costs Ohio taxpayers nearly $1 Billion per year.

Now the charters want a 22% increase in funding.

Stephen Dyer explains here why they should get no increase at all. 

Not only is their academic performance abysmal, but they are already paid more than the schools that educate 90% ofthe state’s students. And they have higher administrative costs.

A bad deal for students and taxpayers.