"Unclear consequences"?

In a post that misses its own unstated contradictions, Del Stover at the American School blog bemoans the fact that people give a lot of money to charter schools across the country.  Apparently, it's a bad thing when private foundations pump millions of dollars into education students in chartered public schools.

The author gives himself away and should lose all credibility with this nugget from the introductory paragraph: "This year, public funding for charters will run into the billions of dollars. That’s a lot of money to invest in an education policy with still-unclear consequences for America’s public school system."

So, two things right off the bat.  First, he's concerned not about consequences for children or for the quality of education they receive, but for the "public school system."  Second, the "unclear consequences."  For the sake of argument, let's grant that the consequences for the "system" are unclear.

Charters will spend "billions" across the country this year, according to Stover.  Traditional districts will spend in the hundreds of billions across the country.  The consequences of that are very clear--continued mediocrity as children in the United States fall further behind those in other countries.

Which is the bigger risk?  Spending comparatively little on a reform with real promise, widespread political support, millions in additional funding from private foundations, and a lot of instances of incredible success, or pumping hundreds of billions into a system that has been degrading for more than 50 years?