If it saves just one child...
Public school has for many been a cesspool of child-on-child abuse (and adult-on-child abuse as well). How many future criminals found their beginning in being raised in the impersonal environment of the school as peers abused them while teachers were busy trying to avoid trouble and their parent(s) were too busy staying employed. Yes! Bullying! Liberals are anti-bullying, right? Cause-celebre. I don't remember liberals having much to say about bullying before it could be used as an excuse to preach same-sex normalcy in the schools. In fact, I don't see them doing anything to prevent the harrassment of the overweight, the mildly autistic, the shy, the geeks, the defenseless. It's all about the liberal reinvention of the family, not a wit about the kids that have always been abused and continue to be abused. In fact, the aggressive kids are coddled and repeatedly shown that there are few consequences for being nasty. (Few consequences as long as they don't express themselves in a way that is pro-gun, pro-God, or pro-military, anyway.)
I've seen a lot of mental illness develop from immersion in the hostile environment of public schools, and I think many kids have been irreparably hurt by it that would have had a much better chance of mental health if home-schooled. I myself was largely self-taught, and I believe public school would probably have succeeded in destroying my self-esteem and made my performance more average and ordinary in the No Child Moves Ahead lockstep of the public school system.
See, Progressivism desperately needs this implied contract: You need to work (both of you parents) in order to send us that check--in return we will teach your children how to think, in addition to teaching the children of whoever manages to sneak into this country. Keep producing that income for us. We do the rearing, you make the goods. Then later your children will make goods for us, like properly taught collectivists.