Adam Swift objects to private schools on the grounds of equal opportunity and efficiency, and to both private and selective public schools on the grounds of solidarity and improving the academic achievement of less advantaged students. I argue that private schools are not inefficient, and that a meritocratic ideal of equality of opportunity in K-12 contexts is either inapplicable or undesirable. Swift's objection that private school students unfairly "jump the queue" is based on envy. Enforcing a queue by blocking extra parental investment in their children's education would be inefficient and unjustly burden people who value education highly. Nor do the educational interests of the less advantaged always justify restrictions on selective schools. However, Swift's solidarity objection against selective public schools is sound. I develop this objection in the context of ideals of democracy and equal citizenship. (Contains 3 notes.)