It's not rare. I went to public school in a medium sized, mixed income district, in a red state, that had VT schools, and alternative pedagogy schools for creative and gifted kids. All run by the public school district.

I don't know what you think a Charter School is, but when I say educational style, I mean alternative pedagogies. Which is is how charter schools typically differentiate themselves publicly, but again, they're not mentioning out loud the other aspects that I've laid out previously.

Which is why although you say you understand what I'm saying, I don't think you really do. And maybe that's my fault for not properly articulating everything, but I'm on a phone and these comments are already way too long to properly review and manage.

I didn't say they shouldn't exist. You asked me for ideas for reform. I suggested reading real academics who study this issue, but for the sake of conversation, one of my suggestions was folding the concept of charter schools into the public education system. As in, let them fulfill they're publicly stated objective of developing alternative pedagogies schools for differently abled students, but bring them into the public sector, with all the accountability, transparency, and legal protections for all students.

To be fair, I can see you're being genuine, but not sure you understand the money and influence behind these pushes for charter schools for the past 2 decades.

I'm wondering if part of the disconnect is that your envisioning charter schools from when you were a kid, versus what they are now after the explosion they've had in the last 20 years.

I feel that you sincerely believe this movement is done benevolently, and for the purpose of educating and creating better students. While I don't deny that those schools do exist, nor that many parents and students believe that is the mission statement, that's not as relevant to the political forces driving these changes.

This movement has gained political traction in the last two decades from the same people who push vouchers, and they do it with intent to degrade truly public education infrastructure, and create publicly funded private schools for the correct social and economic classes.

Because otherwise, there's no reason why it couldn't have been done within the framework of public education, just like my old school district did.

Oh, and public education isn't failing. America has some of the best public schools in the world, and some of the worst. This comes down to a lot of factors, including the fact that schools are primarily funded by local property taxes. Meaning wealthy schools get more resources, and poor schools get a whole lot less, even if they're right next to each other.

those that do offer different education are in largely high income districts where they have the money to offer those in addition

The first thing I’d want to know is actual data on this. What districts offer these? What percentage? Where? I don’t know enough about this to see a pattern but I know at least one district that is not high income. Is it rare or common? Is it because my state has among the best education systems in the country? Is it because we’re willing to spend more on our kids? Is it because a high cost of living area means that even low income is not low relative to other parts of the country? Gotta ask, but is it political?

Chances are the best answer is to do the hard work, spend the money to improve public education everywhere. I know that’s not always practical, and it would take too long to benefit current kids, but we really need to find a way.

School vouchers have the appearance of helping individual students immediately, but starving the school system just makes the overall problem worse