I would consider a lack of ability to move ahead with needed changes because of parental pressure and lack of money (etc) a kind of inertia (hence my use of the word), but I don't need to quibble about semantics. My point is that as long as the schools are unable to deliver the quality of services that learning disabled students need, home schooling will be a very important option.

I don't really agree that a person can't be educated without an imposed structure. I think that it's very possible for people to learn what they need to learn in the absence of structure. Especially if they have never been turned off to learning by bad experiences in structured environments. People who haven't been ruined by schools understand that there are things they need to learn in order to do the things they want. And such children tend to want to do a lot.

I used some structure when I was home schooling my son, but he had already gone through five years of public schools in the US and I didn't see changing things to being totally non-structured as being the best thing for him. But I definitely wouldn't rule it out if I was home schooling a child right from the start. The most important thing is not structure, but opportunity. Put the opportunities for learning in reach of the child, and the child will naturally take advantage of them.