Might there be a tension in the thought of conservatives and libertarians who laud the market while advocating not merely the right to home school but the superiority of homeschooling itself?
One of the virtues of the extended free market is that it allows for (and rewards) the division of labor and the benefits that flow from this arrangement.* In particular, as Adam Smith noted in his An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, the division of labor allows for “the great multiplication of the production of all the different arts . . . which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.” Add to that the idea of comparative advantage, and to riff on the Red Stripe beer commercials, “Hooray markets!”
But does this hold true in the realm of education? I don’t see why not. If some individuals focus on learning and practicing the knowledge and methods most effective at producing education, we could certainly expect better outcomes to flow from this than if we used amateurs (including ourselves) to educate our children. But the potential benefits don’t stop there. Those who don’t choose to enter the teaching profession or formally teach their own children can specialize and focus their productive energies on activities for which they have a comparative advantage. The outcome?: Kids benefit from better teaching. Parents benefit from the more efficient allocation of their talents/labor. And society is better off as a whole.
Therefore, those who value efficiency and market outcomes should celebrate this. But why then do so many conservative and libertarian parents homeschool their children and celebrate it as a superior arrangement?
One possible reason is that they believe education is not exactly rocket science, so the benefits from the division of labor are anywhere from zero to minimal (or even negative if you can’t replicate the individualized instruction when farming out education to specialists). This might be true for grades K-5 – but even there parents face huge opportunity costs from doing something that, ostensibly, others can do easily. And I really doubt this assumption is true for grades 6-12 since it is probably quite difficult for most parents to have the specialized knowledge necessary to teach children more advanced subjects. I’m a university professor, and I’m pretty sure someone else would be better placed to teach my kids a whole range of subjects than I am (even leaving aside the opportunity cost issue). That doesn’t mean I believe that all or even a lot of teachers – especially in public schools – actually know what they are talking about. But theoretically specialization should result in…actual specialized knowledge. And superior schools with the right incentive structures are likely to get teachers who know their stuff and how to teach it.
Another possible reason is that homeschooling advocates believe the benefits of individualized instruction (possible with homeschooling) will more than compensate for the losses sustained due to lack of specialized knowledge. Again, this might be true for grades K-5. But I doubt it for the higher grades. And I think many homeschoolers doubt it too – which is why homeschoolers of older children often try to arrange a more traditional group instruction session led by another parent who has special knowledge in a particular subject area like math or science. Of course, doing this necessitates sacrificing one of the supposed benefits of homeschooling.
A third possible reason is that homeschooling advocates think peer effects in regular school settings are decidedly negative, while homeschooling allows for greater and better control of whom their kids associate with during their formative years. I think this is a decent argument if we assume that the kids your children interact with in your neighborhood, churches, and other social institutions aren’t pretty much the same as they’d meet at your local public or private school. But is this assumption true? Moreover, what is lost from not having to interact and learn how to deal with a broader set of people? Of course, this last question could also be asked of those who send their kids to selective (read: expensive) private schools and public schools in high-end communities.
A fourth possible reason is that homeschooling advocates simply reject what goes on in more traditional group educational settings, public or private. Here we have what I think is the strongest grounds for the superiority of homeschooling. Whether it is the green theology, the cult of athletics, fear of school drug cultures, the politically-influenced (or just plain misguided) curriculum, or the general base culture that many schools tolerate or even celebrate, traditional educational settings give parents a lot of reasons to think they aren’t the best environments for their children. However, many communities have private schools that, while not immune from such things, do not suffer greatly from them either. This is particularly the case for religious schools, which many prefer anyway. Therefore, parents have an option other than homeschooling that allows them to avoid the overall environment problem. Religious schools also offer the moral and ethical education that many homeschoolers want for their children (and that, according to one study, motivates them to take their kids out of traditional school settings in the first place). Unfortunately, the fact that individuals in the US are forced to pay twice for schools if they send their kids to private school prevents many parents from choosing the private school option (or at least forces more trade-offs).
Of course, there are many other reasons why parents might choose homeschooling. Moreover, I don’t want to suggest that homeschooling is a bad option, especially compared to the many failing public school systems around the country. However, I did want to note the possible tension between belief in the efficacy of what markets can harness and zeal for homeschooling. For many people, private schooling seems to offer the best option if one wants to take advantage of the division of labor and comparative advantage, avoid the worst aspects of public schooling, and minimize opportunity costs involved in home schooling. Politically, this means that we ought to work for greater school choice so that more parents can take their children out of destructive public schools without having to lose out on what Adam Smith taught us more than two centuries ago.
* Interestingly, Smith believes that the division of labor itself is rooted in our natural “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another” rather than any “human wisdom” about its positive consequences.