This is a good point, but the fact is that in many rural areas, there are no schools as it is, so public funding isn’t really helping in that respect.

Economies of scale applies to government enterprises too, and they won’t open a high school in a town with 15 students any more than a private company would.

Leigh seems to be granting Norton’s claim that public education does inculcate values, but instead of seeing it as tyrannical, he focuses on the positive side, euphemistically describing it as the fostering of shared values. He does make a good point about the fact that in areas of low demand (most prominently in rural areas) there may be a need for state-run schools. (The lack of schools may lead to a geographic centralization, paradoxically leading to a lack of choice.)

Norton’s comparison of state controlled media with schools is not appropriate considering the different societal functions they play (one to inform the other to prepare for employment). And I’m wary of the whole ‘culture wars’ angle; it is quite cynical to see each curriculum as simply the desire to indoctrinate (there are benefits to having a common curriculum: a means of adequately comparing scores, e.g.).

You could even argue that we are dealing with a false binary. That the future resides in a hybrid public/private partnership. I’m sure by the end of the debate that option will feature prominently.