Putting the evidence cart before the school choice horse

Logic deals only with propositions. Propositions are statements that affirm facts. A fact is either true or false. For example, "A finch is a type of bird" states a fact that can be confirmed or falsified. "A finch is a lovely creature," on the other hand, expresses a value statement that no amount of research could falsify or confirm. So your point that "school choice" is a value issue, not one of evidence, is generally correct. But you characterize "academic performance" as somehow equivalent to test results. Then you make such results the object of "wonky" research studies that try to say this or that strategy is the best. That's silly. What we measure is never the same as the instrument used to do the measuring. Moreover, the measuring instrument is of "value" only in so far as it provides a clear reading of what it's measuring. We want students to have competence in reading, computing, making accurate observations, evaluating evidence, drawing conclusions, researching information, testing claims, and mastering a variety of other academic skills necessary for day-to-day living. These do not necessarily make our children successful professors, but these skills do empower them to live more successful lives. The kinds of tests used to measure academic mastery are never perfect, but the mastery is what we focus on, not the test scores. That's a bureaucratic mistake, not one that teachers embrace. Moreover, the "academic mastery" is itself a value, just as much as educational pluralism. What makes you think that it's not? Making academic performance equivalent to "test scores" hides its nature as a value. This also clouds the role that it plays in forming educational objectives and techniques. This permits you to pit "academic performance" against the value of educational pluralism--as if there were some kind of competition. As you note, there are "other" values parents may desire. Are you saying that parents would want a child to know their religious beliefs but would oppose acquiring the ability to read or make informed decisions? What kind of education would that be? Should it be accepted as legitimate because some parents may want it? Should a religious school that provides only limited education for girls be accepted on the same level as a college preparatory program that prepares all comers. Unless you willing to entertain the notion that pluralism permits an education that trains students wonderfully to paint or to act on a stage but leaves them incapable of reading or computing effectively, then your characterization of academic performance is illicit. But if you are willing to accept such a proposition, then your philosophy of education is blatantly anti-intellectual. Some values are broader and more inclusive than others. However the "values" of educational pluralism might be structured, the value of academic mastery had better be at the top of the hierarchy. There are other values to be considered, but the times during which an apprentice student could narrowly learn a trade by example have long passed. Academic mastery equips people with skills that empower future learning. These are more essential today than ever before. An "education" that does not put these as a top objective does neither students nor the nation a service.