[Bolded bit]If you're talking about the 'less qualified' bit, then sure - I fairly well disagree with that.
However, if you're saying that being choosy about which students enter a private school doesn't skew results in their favor, then you're wearing blinders imo. How could it NOT skew results in favor of private schools if they refuse to let anyone who doesn't score at least X on an entrance exam even enter the school? If they expel anyone doing poorly? Of course that leads to a higher average grade. The quality of the teacher would hardly matter, at this point - parents are invested, and probably worry about their social status dropping if their child is removed, so they're more interested. The kids also feel peer pressure and parental pressure to avoid shame, which motivates them, not to mention the likelihood of hiring a private tutor if their grades begin to slip.
[Italicized bit]If liberals are so hell-bent on enslaving an uneducated populace, why are they in such a hurry to increase funding toward college educations, allowing people to have a chance to become more educated?
See, I ask because I work with this guy who's extremely conservative. His view tends towards only the 'elite' getting a college education (the ones with the money to afford it and the skill set to do well in college) stating that any outside funding (Pell grants, for instance) is a 'bleeding heart liberal' thing that is destroying the country etc. What you stated seems more along those lines than what liberals are actually doing, so I'm curious where you hear that idea, that liberals want people to remain uneducated. It just doesn't seem to fit very well.

 

-----signature-----