Regarding item 1, I’m always for additional local aid for education, and I am troubled as you are about the particular issue of charter funding. But, I’m not troubled about this issue as it relates to this bill.

Targeted as they are in this bill, new charters will emerge mostly in larger urban districts, many of which have very high state aid levels already — in some instances, the state is paying most of the cost of the local school system. The districts are also usually large enough that adding charters does not necessarily create diseconomies of scale or awkward grade configurations.

I think your items 2 and 3 are well taken, but they are just not addressed in this bill. You are quite right that this bill probably creates more paperwork — for underperforming and charter schools — but that paperwork is the control on the special powers given to charter boards and to the commissioner (in the case of underperforming schools). General paperwork reduction will have to await another reform. And you are quite right that the bill is geographically focused — it does not change the special education framework at all or otherwise help underperforming kids in performing district.