You mean the significant majority of home schoolers, driving most of the agenda e.g. around certification and curriculum standards? Public schools are meant to ensure that every child can get a minimal level of education. Obviously it's great when people can do better, whether it's through regular public schools, charter schools, private schools, or home schooling. The problem is that when you open it up to just anyone without any kind of certification, testing, or oversight, it results in a form of neglect.

> it is only available to middle and upper class families

Sadly, no. That might describe the home schoolers you see, but "home schooling" which involves little or no actual schooling is also a common option for the (especially rural) poor. Some of my own first and second cousins grew up that way, and basically never recovered.

> My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their grade level in every subject.

My parents told themselves the same thing. I apparently had top percentile test scores in several early years, particularly in math. Despite that, my parents completely failed to provide an education after choosing to homeschool.

> She had a teaching license up until a couple of years ago (they do expire after a while) and taught for several years before we had kids.

Neat! Not that it really matters, but I am curious: what did she teach?

> they're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that they meet up with several times a week.

That's also something my parents told themselves and others. Despite that, it wasn't exactly an honest statement. We met with other church members about once every week for about a month. Then about once every quarter of a year for about a year. Then basically never, while my parents fell deep into paranoia.

> it can also be the platform for an elite education like no other.

Yes, it can. But my experience brings with me a very skeptical mind.

> There's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one from a capable instructor.

While you're right in that there's a reason for private tutors and elite schools, I think you're wrong about your conclusion for the wealthy. I think wealthy parents don't want their children to associate with poor people who can't afford to hire their own private lessons. I think that's also a despicably-elitist action.

> They'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.

It's almost as if you're parroting the same things my parents said. Indeed, I walked away better equipped for computers than pretty much anyone I know. But that's more of a byproduct of spending years in front of a computer than anything that my parents actively tried to teach. Where I gained knowledge about computers there's also loss of other opportunities and knowledge.

> Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it's that it is only available to middle and upper class families.

You are wrong. I consider myself middle class. Almost all of my family are somewhere between poor and destitute.

Except for those whose parents also hire expert tutors. It's not like kids going to traditional schools can't also get additional educational opportunities.

When you consider how much homeschooling is by parents who are not themselves professional educators, I suspect a hybrid approach works better on average.