Not really answering anybody’s question here, but I wanted to comment on the ‘education’ section from the raikoth critiques of libertarianism FAQ (http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#education):
Compared to private schools, public schools actually do better once confounders like race, class, and income have been adjusted out of the analysis.
(Yes, without such adjustment private schools do better - but considering that private schools cater towards wealthy students - who usually do better in school - and often have selective admission policies in which they only take students who are already pretty smart - whereas public schools have to take everyone including dumb kids, kids with learning disabilities, and kids from broken families in ghettos - such unadjusted data is meaningless. It’s the equivalent of noting that the doctor who specializes in acne has fewer patients die than the doctor who specializes in cancer: it’s not that she’s a better doctor, just that she only takes cases who are pretty healthy already.)
Notwithstanding the strange logic of this argument (‘once I make the stats look as rosy as possible for public schools, I can discount them for private schools, but public schools are still better due to the stats!’), I’m not sure how this argument explains how private schools wouldn’t or couldn’t take poorer students once the structural barriers set by the monopoly of public schooling are removed. The public school system is not independent of economics.