> Those with means (and I would be one) send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons.
I don't think this is true at all. There are plenty of areas where the public schools do a fantastic job, and plenty of people "with means" sending their children there.
Private schools can reject problem kids, so the "both defect" case doesn't really apply as long as the school is selective (which for schools catering to rich people is the entire point).
Obviously an orderly school is preferable to a disorderly school, but I doubt it's enough.
I am completely convinced by the arguments for individual tutoring. I got some in languages and I liked the outcome (it was also a fun social thing to do with my parents). It would have saved a lot of time to also get it in maths, physics, chemistry and biology.
Public education is considered one of the greatest successes of the 20th century, if you have a better idea might I suggest you and your techno-libertarian brethren try it on the Moon, or whatever other non-Earth body your amazing education has convinced you will support life.
Its more that like many great innovations, people take for granted the benefit of some technical or cultural improvement to the point that they question its need in a reductionist way. IE rather than fighting for reform, fighting for elimination of public school entirely, in ways that effectively shift tax benefit towards the well off (ex: school vouchers).
Taxing people to fund education seems to be reducing the product to glorified day care.
Those with means (and I would be one) send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons.
This deserves more analysis.