Probably, which demonstrates that you can't *buy* education in itself, you can only buy the opportunity for education. If the child is unable to use the opportunity, it doesn't achieve anything.
Conversely, one can say that providing opportunity by virtue of access to facilities and low teacher:pupil ratio can facilitate education and learning.
I can still vividly remember my first days at primary school and indeed each of the teachers of my primary years. All of this was in the state sector. The teachers were essentially facilitators. Some children were interested in sports and were encouraged in that; others in natural history which became a great vehicle for learning some science in a real way. Others showed aptitudes in maths or english and were suitably encouraged in those directions. There weren't the hangups about selection at 11 that there became later through political interference. The point was that the children were encouraged to learn as opposed to being taught.
Some years later, during my secondary years, the comprehensive system began to be introduced. There was an almost immediate demise in motivation among teachers with the more able ones across a wide range of disciplines moving to schools still having selection (not all grammar I might add) and to the independent sector. I was fortunate in the sense that I had left the system before head teachers had become politicians and the major damage of the comprehensive system was in place.
I was able to go through university when that still had the approach of facilitating learning.
Nowadays, in both schools and the new "universities" we have what are basically training programs. Training does not equal education and it most certainly doesn't equal learning or the ability to learn.
In essence, for more than a generation now, the politicians have been comprehensively wrecking any semblance of education that we had.