If the social constructs are removed there is no defense fund. That wealth stays locally, to where people can afford to give teachers a lot of wealth for the service they provide.
Plus what the states waste in education would be gone. So all the wealth wasted in inefficiencies would go directly to the teachers. There would be absolutely no loss between the person providing the teacher wealth, and the teacher receiving that wealth.
Curriculum may be important, so why would you ever trust a social construct to get that right?(the social construct may intentionally have motive to get it wrong) (can we mention the social construct of religions mixing in the social construct of education, that's like a whole post right there)
Subject matter and specialization isn't a great thing when distributed with a wide brush. Why not have teachers more oriented in what they teach?
Allow the teaching value provided to determine the wealth they receive. It has a direct incentive for the teachers to be good at what they do. I certainly wouldn't give wealth to some of the teachers I have seen, yet wealth is taken from me and given to them anyway. There is no choice. These social constructs are not voluntary if they require taxes.
It is true that owner operating isn't for everyone, but it has potential for better outcomes than when many social constructs distort what it is supposed to be doing.