I can't speak for other people, but most homeschoolers I've met oppose the public school system everywhere. Whether or not a school is successful academically makes no difference to me. What I (and many other homeschoolers, private schoolers, etc.) oppose are (1) the state and the schools overstepping parental rights, (2) the hefty school taxes, (3) forcing us to pay for an agenda we oppose, and (4) public schools driving private and parochial schools out of business.
In my opinion, a revolution in education shouldn't begin in the poor communities. Like everything else, it should start with the wealthy and the middle class. Those higher-income townships should lead the way by moving toward a free-market model of the education system. Once it's established in wealthier and middle-class communities, then the lower-income and impoverished communities might benefit by employing the same ideas.
You may be thinking, There's no way a wealthy or middle class community would want to move to a free market model of education if their public school system is producing good results. But, as school taxes rise, there are demands for school spending cuts. My own township is a good example (hence my screenname). Homeowners here consistently vote against increasing the school budget. School spending increases have been knocked down in many townships in my state because the property owners turned out in such large numbers to vote against them.
Thomas Jefferson stated that without an educated populace, our system of government could not survive, and he was in favor of public schools. Being in favor of public education is not necessarily a liberal position, unless you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a liberal.
First, Jefferson himself isn't here to have the discussion with us. Secondly, his ideas for publicly funded schools were far more limited than the grandiose system we have today.
It seems to me that the first three problems might be "local control" issues...if you are living in a community in which the prevailing values are much more liberal than your own, you will have much greater problems with #1 and #3 in particular.
Down here in the "Bible belt" we don't seem to have nearly as many problems with that sort of thing as you in the urban northeast (and also some in states such as California and Oregon) do.
You state that the voters have begun the process of bringing school taxes more in line...I don't really understand how they got so high without complicity from the community and the voters. Do you not have elected representatives who set the tax rates and decide what the schools will and will not spend money on?
As far as "public schools driving private and parochial schools out of business," I'm sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous contentions I've heard in a long time.
Private schools are still thriving in my area, and generally private and parochial schools have been created in response to perceived weaknesses in the public school system - if the public schools are doing better in your area, it must be because the general public feels they are a better value.
Parochial schools have lost some of their ability to compete because there aren't as many priests and nuns available to teach basically "for free" and so parochial schools now have to hire teachers & compete in the market for them. Also, the Catholic church doesn't seem to be subsidizing these schools as they used to, and many are located in urban areas, whereas the wealthier parishioners have moved to the suburbs. Public schools can't be blamed for that, but many Catholics may find public schools more acceptable now that the Protestant religion and Protestant Bible aren't taught in them.
First, Jefferson himself isn't here to have the discussion with us. Secondly, his ideas for publicly funded schools were far more limited than the grandiose system we have today.
Jefferson isn't here to discuss this with us, but he left many writings expressing his feelings about and goals/ideas for public education. Jefferson did feel that even a college education should be subsidized for promising students, but I think his ideas would have been closer to the current European system, whereby students are sorted according to academic aptitude.