Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful and and critiques. You are correct that effective homeschooling is only possible for some families with specific privileges. In general, homeschooling requires a non-blended and family where one spouse has at least a flexible work schedule. This is why I say that homeschooling is not right for everyone, but it can be the better option for some - particularly families disadvantaged in other ways.

I think you may be under-estimating the number of low-income families that can homeschool. My experience is that the distribution of homeschoolers tends to be more low to middle class. Many lower-paying jobs involve odd hours, and between two spouses, they can usually work out a schedule. In any case, many families are willing to take the hit to their income to have one spouse stay home in order to help their kids get a better education than they can get in their public school. In some cases, the home-bound parent does odd-jobs or internet-based work through Amazon or Etsy. Homeschooling is less useful to wealthier families since typically both spouses have high income careers can afford either excellent public school districts or private school.

As for your point about one parent having sufficient aptitude, this problem is often mitigated through co-ops where other high aptitude parents supplement the education of other families.

I agree that primary education is not properly valued. I'm not sure that the amount of taxes used on education is the problem, but the distribution certainly is. We are one of the very few developed countries where wealthier school districts get more funds than poorer districts. That is unconscionable. However, we do spend a lot of education. As I point out in the article, we spend more than many countries with better education outcomes. Where does it go? I don't know, but your right that a lot more of it should be going to teachers.