Yes, like all government programs, more money is always the answer whether they perform well or poorly--as long as it's other people's money.
Regarding that argument from supporters, I think it perfectly encapsulates what Bastiat mentioned in "The Law": When people hear that we don't want money extracted from us for education, they believe we hate education. Of course, those are the only two options when the government schools have done their job well.
Great illustration of how the "not enough money" argument from the public school unions is pure nonsense, using historical context and other examples.
Over 16k spent per pupil is an astounding figure, especially considering the result.
I found this interesting: "Proponents argue that without income taxes for funding, the programs would cease to exist."
Funny, the opponents (like me) make the same argument!
Yes, like all government programs, more money is always the answer whether they perform well or poorly--as long as it's other people's money.
Regarding that argument from supporters, I think it perfectly encapsulates what Bastiat mentioned in "The Law": When people hear that we don't want money extracted from us for education, they believe we hate education. Of course, those are the only two options when the government schools have done their job well.
Thanks for reading and commenting.