[r00fus]

> People really think free markets are better.

Sure - despite being proven that charter schools (ie, free choice) have worse or equivalent scores to public schools [1]. There is not agreement here, there is controversy and the facts are not on the so-called "free markets" side.

[1] http://www.nea.org/home/33177.htm

[macspoofing]

Honestly, no surprise (though 'equivalent' is more correct - nea.org isn't a dispassionate objective observer). The dirty secret in education is the quality of instruction, the condition of the building and the textbooks, whether or not iPads are readily available, all of that take a backseat to the circumstances in the child's private life. Stable home and engaged parents that take a personal interest in the child's education will mean those children will do well. We try to put too much on schools and teachers to make up gaps in parenting. A student that drops out or graduates functionally illiterate is a failure of the parents, not the school systems.

Having said that, don't dismiss the idea of choice. Parents, for all kinds of reasons, may not want to be funneled to the specific school or schools they are limited to geographically, and may want to have a different kind of instruction (i.e. they want CHOICE). Opponents of 'school choice' always miss this point.

[r00fus]

Choice for "some" is at odds with fair access for all.

Charter school discriminate in responsiveness to requests [1] in admissions against special-needs and the poor (ie, the hard cases). Public schools simply can't do this.

[1] https://www.futurity.org/charter-schools-students-1937902/

[macspoofing]

>Choice for "some" is at odds with fair access for all

So instead of implementing policies to make sure the choice is available to all, your approach is to remove this choice from everyone and funnel them through the same monolithic system?

Nothing you argued, even if true (and I suspect you're not an objective observer either), is unsolvable through policy or regulatory changes.