In the United States, much has been said to argue that a Private Education is better than a Public one. Most of the arguments for this have all implied that the quality of the information is more pure, or the knowledge gained is superior. In reality, the problem with Public Education is not that it has failed to educate, but rather, that it is not able to fail, or conversely, succeed. No matter how poor, or great the education is, money will continue to flow into Public Schools. Free Enterprise has a way of weeding out weak institutions, and promoting good ones. In such a setting, a Private School may appear to succeed, or fail in a spectacular way. Parents may choose which schools will be promoted above the rest based on their own criteria. So, to phrase it another way, the real problem with Public Education is that it will forever remain out of scope for any metrics. It cannot be allowed to fail lest the founding instution be forever crippled, and it cannot succeed unless the threat of failure is real. It is also an usurper, in that the State assumes a parental role deciding which school is best-usually determined by geographical considerations only. The term "Motherland" comes to mind in considering this Socialistic system.
In the previous paragraph, I implied that a Private School only appears to succeed. I say this because knowledge cannot really be marketed, or sold. Education today is like the wild grapevine discovered by a lone traveler along the road. Charging tuition, or exacting taxes for education is like the traveler setting up fruit stands on either end of the vine that is, otherwise, freely available. I am not suggesting in this analogy that institutions of education that require money need be abolished, but rather, that responsibility for aquiring knowledge rests with the individual.