Indiana blogger Steve Hinnefeld reports on a disturbing possibility in the Hoosier state: charter schools are eyeing property taxes as a source of additional funding.
I remember when charter schools were first launched, in the late 1980s, their advocates (and I was one at the time) made three promises: one, they would get better results than public schools (they don’t); they would be more accountable than public schools (they are not); and they would cost less because they eliminate bureaucracy (they insist on the same funding as public schools).
Hinnefeld wonders whether it would be “taxation without representation” if property taxes were allocated to privately managed schools.
Unfortunately, the heavily gerrymandered legislature gives the privatizers whatever they want.
Will they draw a line now?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The clarity, directness and accuracy of that second paragraph above is an example of why I’m nuts about Diane Ravitch. I can steal her ideas and everyone, even if they disagree, understands the importance immediately and becomes incapable of responding. Because they don’t know what they are talking about. And completely sure that they do.
Hinnefeld wonders …
Does this mean Santa
didn’t give him
a crystal ball?
Will they draw a line now?
I doubt the majority of Republicans in the state legislature will draw any line (they depend on the money and support from the extreme-right fat-cats for their election campaigns), but the courts might, because if this goes through there will be lawsuits challenging this.
Indiana would not be the first. Utah has had a special section in our property taxes earmarked just for charter schools for several years now
I think all three of these expectations might have been possible if opponents of public education had not hijacked the idea for their nefarious purposes. It is my understanding that charters were supposed to be experimental, run by teachers who understood things that were happening on the ground. That does not sound like what happened.