Tooley, Dixon and Gomathi maintain that private unrecognised unaided schools in Hyderabad, India, catering for children of the poor, provide a better level of education than do their government counterparts. We examine this contention and argue first that Tooley et al.'s conceptualisation of education and its benefits is flawed and second that the evidence selected and provided to prove the empirical side of the case is one-sided and unrepresentative. We conclude that their case remains unproven and that flaws in the argument and its evidence provide no substantial case for their contention.