Putting aside the dubious claim that what goes on in the government school system bears any relationship to "a society where most folks have basic literacy and can work in a high-tech, high-productivity society", this argument from externality simply doesn't make sense. If it did, then I would be justified in demanding that everyone who ever looks at my house must help pay to paint it.
Dear steve-b,
LOL! I like your analogy!
However, I think it misses a premise that most folks assume. That's that although you should be able to paint your house on your own, it's likely that many millions of families would be unable to afford education for their children if we didn't all bear the cost together.
I'm not sure I believe this premise. I'm a little iffy on the whole idea of public funding of education, in the first place (at least at the elementary and high school level - public support of colleges and universities can also be partly justified on their contribution to expanding knowledge of the sciences, etc.).
However, if one accepts the premise as true, and one points out that an educated populace will be much more economically productive, then public education can be seen as akin to physical infrastructure, like roads and bridges.
Some folks won't accept that, especially libertarians.
But hey, I'm not a libertarian, I've gone around the track with libertarians more than once on these issues, so those arguments are largely lost on me.
As to whether public education delivers on its promise, as I posted to linda_22003, I don't really think we're getting the bang for the buck that we're spending, absolutely no question.
sitetest