Ummmm. . . no.Once again, due entirely to underfunding. Easily fixable.
Well, there are different ways of tackling the problem. Milton Friedman was a big proponent of vouchers that will allow parents to send their children to a school of their choice. Parents would make up any difference in tuition through their own money or financial aid/scholarships from the private institution. However, some hardcore libertarians fear further governmental regulation of private educational institutions because of the strings that could be attached to vouchers. They advocate a complete separation of schools and the federal government. In a free market for education, different organizations would exist to serve different needs, and there would be much room for things like academic scholarships and financial aid to get bright-but-poorer students into superior schools in order to enhance their reputations (which, as we all know, enhances bottom lines). You could actually see an increase in poor students getting into better private schools, since there would be competition amongst the schools to get the students with the most potential. Obviously, some dull-but-rich students would still be taken on for economic/familial reasons, but there certainly would not be a pandemic of rich idiots going to great schools while poor geniuses languish in substandard ones. That scenario looks a lot closer to what we have now. The people who are hurt most by our mediocre-to-terrible public schools in the inner city are the poor students who are academically inclined. Do you honestly think that our public schools (that are very expensive per student and to the country through taxation) would be better than some of the more affordable private schools? I seriously doubt that, especially since many working-class people stretch their paychecks to send their children to Catholic parochial schools (even if they themselves are not Catholic) because A) the Church runs the only private schools they could possibly afford; and B) their local public schools are awful. More choices = better outcomes for almost every other good or service in the world. Why should education be any different?Can you explain how totally privatized education would work out? I don't see that as helping anything so much as making socioeconomic divides even bigger/worse/more permanent.
Also, your tone in your second sentence seems to suggest that one of the purposes of public schooling is social engineering via leveling. If I am wrong in that inference, let me know, but that seems a little unsettling to me. Educating children to achieve to the best of their natural abilities should be the goal, not eliminating socioeconomic differences.