2) His argument still would fundamentally function as a regressive tax burden greater than the existing tax burden [for education] on the poor.
3) A fee-for-service regressive tax burden will ultimately cut the poor off from services.
> With a minimum wage of about $33 per month in the area, monthly fees in the private unrecognized schools are thus about 12 percent of the average monthly earnings of an adult earner.
You do understand in the US the poor aren't paying 12% of their income to send their kids to school right?
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi...
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco...
The full federal tax burden for education, infrastructure, etc. on the poor is ~3%.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rank...
If you factor in the state-and-local burden, the full burden is barely higher at ~13%. So for literally one service, the cost is nearly the entire tax burden for the poor.
There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author.
[1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm...
[2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/