$77.4 billion for the Department of Education across the entire US. The article mentions that this $1 billion investment will go toward "free education and fre

$77.4 billion for the Department of Education across the entire US. The article mentions that this $1 billion investment will go toward "free education and free healthcare for low-income students in the Palo Alto area". So comparing the two it's obvious that the investment is going into an unsustainable model. The way I'm thinking about this, that could be for one of a few reasons. 1) They want to pour a lot of money into research and development to figure out how to improve education. Concentrate a bunch of money into one place to figure out how to improve the overall model. 2) They want to show how they can do better than public education system. If they're after #1 I can see no reason why they wouldn't try to give back by sharing data from their research. If they're after #2 then it's obvious they're simply creating a facade (an unsustainable "model" implementation of what primary education should look like). Depending on the results they'd be looking to sway public opinion that private sector can do better than government. Needless to say, #1 is constructive, and #2 IMO is highly destructive.