Sadly, graduated income taxes (for most states) and value-based property taxes make that different for everyone. If you have many children in government education, have a low or modest income and live in a less expensive house it may represent good value. If you have a higher income and live in a more expensive house with no children in government schools it represents poor value. Of course, if the schools fail to educate their students, then it is bad value for everyone.
Because nobody pays directly for education they tend to be price insensitive, always open to "a small tax increase" ... "for the children". Because there are more tax-spenders than tax-payers, the pressure will always be to increase costs (someone else will pay). However, because education is largely a government monopoly there will be less pressure to increase service. Therefore, over time government education will become poorer value.
One big reason for establishing the government role in education was to assimilate the large number of immigrants who arrived here at the turn of the last century. However, now we have multi-culturism, bi-lingual education and a "progressive" slant on American history. In that sense, they are not offering good value, or indeed good values.
I think it's become a poorer value, and the purpose of No Child Left Behind is to reverse that trend.
We can argue about how it's being implemented, but I think the intent is worthwhile and necessary.