All true, but I must note that home educating is also going to be better for the child in the vast majority of these cases. It can also work out ok even in poorer families in terms of finances, because when you home-educate/school, there is no requirement to 'do school' during school hours; work can be covered in a much shorter time than it would take in school; and actually, you can shape it to fit your child and your family, there's noreason why the school curriculum be used, you could try a different one, or even throw out the idea of using curriculums and formal lessons at all.

Of course I don't mean to reject the point you make here, you are absolutely right in saying fining for truanting with no nuance involved for assessing circumstances, is designed to hit hardest where it can't be afforded.

The fallacy is that all children are better attending state schools (and some are, depending on home and family situations and the effectiveness and fit of the school). The fact of the matter is, wholesale generalised education en masse, as introduced at the time of the Industrial Revolution, simply does not produce the best outcome for so many children and alternative arrangements should be supported. Up until the last few years, home educating was like some secret, underground, rebellion - despite the fact it was perfectly legal.

(I think I shall descend from my soapbox now...)