Per the GP, in their area "the high school math and reading proficiency rate are 8% and 44% respectively, while the graduation rate is >95%". That sounds like an absolute denial that public schools are working, unless your definition of a working school includes ones that don't teach the majority to read and comprehend mathematics at an adult level. Spending on schools is higher than it's ever been, and the results are flat-lining - and have been for decades. See [0]. Perhaps the issue is something that throwing money at them won't fix? Perhaps it behooves us to look deeper and see if the education system is performing what we need it to do.
[0]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...
Just "throwing money at them" isn't going to work, no, because the money needs to go to the right places. But there are so many places where it's pretty clear that extra money will make a huge difference that arguing that schools are overfunded—or that "public schools don't work"—is just ludicrous.
The link I provided shows a 375% increase in funding to public schools between 1970-2010, adjusted for inflation. Spending rose from $2.9 billion for ~46 million students (per https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98018/#chap2a) to $73.3 billion for ~50 million students - per-student spending actually rose, even after adjusting for inflation. Where are you getting the idea that money is being siphoned away from public schools to fund private schools?
That is like saying that the Space Shuttle worked.
It was certainly able to reach the orbit, but the loss of life was politicaly unpalatable, the technology was much more expensive to build and operate than promised and the supply chain was one huge boondoggle covering the entire USA so that every Senator would be happy.
At the end of the day, more efficient rockets like Falcon 9 just work better and the only attempt to resurrect a project organizationally similar to the Space Shuttle - SLS - looks corrupt and foolish at the same time.
Back to public schools. If I look at the international comparisons, American public education burns through a lot of money for mediocre results. This is your money; you should be more critical. Why isn't there any Silicon Valley for education?
Because, the fundamental issue with education isn't the quality of teachers. It's the home lives of the students. That's why there's such a big disparity in public education in the States. Until we fix the cultural and social issues, schools will continue to be at the level they are. If we want to fix education, we need to fix the underlying problems that cause some kids to not do well. And it's generally not the teachers (yes, there are bad teachers; but socioeconomic factors of the kids have much more impact)
For example, an absent father tends to put a lot of stress on households, which can only to a limited extent be alleviated by extra money. I know, I grew up without father.
But no one can really provide new fathers to kids from fatherless families and the culture that frowned upon guys leaving their kids is long dead.
American everything burns through a lot of money for mediocre results. We're a country of middle-men and middle-men don't make money from efficiency.
This is somewhat surprising to me. SS launches were very expensive. Is it possible that SS was cheaper per maximum payload?
The catch is that maximum payload for SS was pretty big and its capacity was underutilized.
"Most of the cost of the program was R&D."
Well, refurbishment of the orbiters after each return was a significant recurring cost in both work-hours and money. The heat shield was a maintenance nightmare.
What a bigoted statement against conservatives and Christians. I am both and everyone I know thinks education is a good thing. Even public education. Perhaps you need to check your biases.