Sure, if the place paid everyone a lot and had much higher staff:child ratios then everything would be great. Except it would cost an absolute fortune for parents thus even less viable under a government program.
Government programs almost universally have higher overhead and more waste than private businesses. There is no incentive for government employees to improve efficiency, reduce budgets, or cut costs.
We didn’t notice a positive correlation between teacher tenure and cost when we looked around.
If anything, there was a negative correlation: The big corporate ones had high teacher turnover, more levels of administration, and turned a healthy profit for ownership/shareholders. They were priced to match.
Also, government run programs usually are less expensive (take pretty much any privatization program anywhere as an evidence). The government programs don’t have to pay money to shareholders, and aren’t siphoning resources for expansion, marketing, etc.
If government leadership is corrupt as we see in the US right now, then, of course, prices skyrocket, though that usually comes hand in hand with outsourcing/subcontractors/privatization. It’s hard to collect bribe money from civil servants…
Teachers union(s) are some of the highest profile anti union targets in the US as well. There’s also issues on a structural level that leads to poor compensation for teachers vs other government positions.
Really school funding and public education in the US in general is in a very strange place across the board and has been for decades
