If they are poorly educated from a young age then: (a) they might not even make it to college, or at least not a good one; and (b) they will be behind those students who benefited from good education from a young age.

Why do so many in this thread seem blind to the difference between good and bad education? As if teaching quality only matters when a person is in their 20s? If anything, once a person has matured into an adult then teaching qualiy becomes far less important as people are generally more capable of self-learning and self-motivation than a naive child is. It is vital that young children receive good guidance, advice, education etc. from as young as possible.

I went to a generic free school but which had quite a few clever kids, just from poor families. Sadly, many of them (that I kept in touch with) ended up going to crappy universities and then dropping out, or not going at all and just going straight into some mundane job.

Against the odds, and perhaps because I had very helpful parents who taught me a lot that I wasn't taught in school, I managed to get to a high-tier university. Most of my cohort were privately educated. They weren't necessarily smarter than I was - some were in fact less intelligent, I would say - but they were far better read in most important ways and far more refined. They were more disciplined when it came to their studies. As I struggled at university, they excelled since they had already mastered writing and speaking skills from a younger age, as well as knowing how to effectively learn and study.

I struggled to catch up, they were always one step ahead. It was completely unequal.

When I have kids I will do absolutely everything in my power to get them into good education (so probably not free) from as young as possible. I don't care if I have to spend tons of money if it means they get a lifelong benefit from it. It would be cruel of me not to if I can afford it.