Kathleen Anderson Some years ago I asked why students in private schools do better. The answer I received was that the private schools are comprised of a concentrated, self-selected population who are focused on education. What do you think?
I think BOTH the question and answer are wrong. 
Another FB friend, Susan Goding, posted this to argue that our schools treat different ethnicity differently. Perhaps, but the more obvious conclusion is that ethnic origins are very important in how well a kid does in college. One way to answer this might be to compare Black and Hispanic kids vs white kids who graduate from Catholic schools. My bet is that the Catholic Schools wipe out much of this ethnic gap. So, why shouldn’t a kid from Mexico have this choice?
Our current public schools treat this class of kids very much like we treat welfare recipients or … sadly … prisoners. While we need some limits, it seems obvious to me that our present system violates the freedom of association as well as several implied rights in the Constitution. Imagine what would happen if we applied the same rules to all the schools, private as well, in WA state?
Second, the argument that private schools do better because they are selective is not supported by real data. The only way to actually make that comparison is by a rigorous demographic study focused on classes of kids. Eg there are private schools that focus on high achieving kids. So, we should ask do kids with high IQs (however that is measured) do better in private schools? How about autistic kids? Immigrant kids???? That kind of study design is hard to do.
Third, the argument is also contradicted by the comparison to foreign schools. The advantages of ethnic homogeneity in Finland or Malaysian schools are obvious.