I was greatly entertained to read a sad appeal recently by a home educating mother who is now being encouraged by her local Job Centre to get a job. She is wholly reliant upon state benefits and hopes to continue in this condition until her child is sixteen. Nice work if you can get it! This started me thinking about the mental agility and sophistry which one would need in order to claim firstly that the state should simply ignore one's educational provision, while at the same time paying for it. In other words, requiring the state to back off and going absolutely mad if any questions are asked, while at the same time expecting regular maintenance payments to be sent to pay for it all.
I remarked yesterday that the state had a stake in home education to the extent that if they were later required to pay benefits to an unemployed and perhaps unemployable young person, then the mode of education which brought the youth to this pass is their proper concern. If one is home educating on a remote island and completely self-sufficient, taking nothing at all from the infrastructure of the state; then one might reasonably tell the state to get lost. Few of us are in this position. Our lives, in one way and another, involve us giving money to the state and the state giving money or other benefits to us. The welfare bill in this country is astronomical and attempts are now being made to reduce it. The welfare bill, in simple terms, means that people who are working support and pay for those who are not working. This is fair enough in the case of those who are unable to work. When one hears of a woman whose inability to work is caused by her refusal to send her child to school, one is entitled to ask, 'Why on earth should I subsidise this person?' In short, if somebody wishes to educate her child out of school, all well and good, but why should she think that I will pay for her to do so? Now if I, as a home educator feel this way, only imagine how those workers who send their children to school will view the situation!
I could name several able-bodied high profile home educators on social security, whose children are now also on benefits. I am sure that there are many more of whom I don't know. I am wondering about the implications of such a situation. Of course I have a perfect right to refuse to arrange for my child to gain any qualifications if this forms part of my principles. But this decision does not take place in a vacuum. Actions have consequences and one possible consequence of this particular action might be that the state has to pay, via other people's taxes, to support my child. This is especially unfair for society if it has had to pay for me not to work while I raise an ill educated and unqualified young person who will then go on to claim benefits himself. I am not saying that this is the case with most home educated young people. I know a number of such cases and I am sure that most readers will know a few themselves. Home educators make a lot of fuss about the money which they save the state by not sending their kids to school, but this two or three thousand a year, the Age Weighted Pupil Allowance, is dwarfed by the benefits bill of a non-working family.
I am wondering how these parents are able to square this particular circle. They want to be left alone and become angry if asked any questions about the educational provision which they are providing, but then they wish for plenty of money from other people so that they are free to pursue their unconventional lifestyle. I would be glad to hear what others think about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As far as I am aware, no one has yet succeeded in calculating whether home education results in an overall cost or benefit to the community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the cost to the community of supporting a single parent on benefits and then supporting their child on benefits is high. On the other hand, there are many home educating parents who work part-time and whose children end up in gainful employment, who probably represent a net financial benefit to the community.
In addition, the savings to the public purse of home education do not consist only of the Age Weighted Pupil Allowance; there are also overhead costs to local authorities to be taken into account. In the case of home-educated children with special educational needs the savings can be considerable.
How incredibly harsh you are. People are on benefits for so many reasons. Both times our family had to claim benefits we had absolutely no choice in the matter so don't assume its a choice people will always make.
ReplyDeleteI think any parent wanting to stay home and look after their child should be supported by our government. I am a traditionalist in many ways and I believe a parent should be allowed to choose to be at home with their child if they want to. I have seen too many latch-key kids, too many kids out past 11 pm whilst their parents are working and too many knackered parents who are too tired to interact with their kids.
If a parent is a single parent why should that make their right to be with their child any less than any other parent? Again, each case is different and not every parent chooses this route. If they do there is a VERY good reason for it.
The money saved on education by home educating is fairly sizable when added up, so to pay it in other waysto support a needy family doesnt seem unfair to me. As for the government's right to interfere with HE, it should be based on whether there is a belief that education is not being provided - NOT what benefita person claims.
'How incredibly harsh you are.'
ReplyDeleteNot a bit of it. I had a friend on long term benefits who was a keen birdwatcher. This was his whole life and being unemployed allowed him to devote all his time to it. When the Job Centre began hassling him to get a job, he was pissed off. He realised however that it was quite reasonable for them to do so. If we choose to follow a special lifestyle, then we can hardly expect our fellow citizens to pay for it, whether the lifestyle is birdwatching or home educating.
I am not, by the way, advocating that the government should have more right to intervene in a home educating family on benefits! I am simply pointing out that it is not fair to expect others to subsidise our minority interests; especially controversial ones like home education.
I remarked yesterday that the state had a stake in home education to the extent that if they were later required to pay benefits to an unemployed and perhaps unemployable young person, then the mode of education which brought the youth to this pass is their proper concern.
ReplyDeletemany many children end up on long term benefits who went to a state school! but very little is done to correct this! one in 5 16 to 24 are now out of work and claiming benfits and most of these when to a state school!
Hi
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I'd like to quote some actual facts.
The amount of money a school gets per child, per year is between £3,000 and £8,000 for a primary school and £4,000 and £9,000 for a secondary school.Source: BBC, Department of schools and families.
The amount of benefits a single paretn gets is approx £120 per week, or £6,760 per year. This is based on one parent, one child and doesn't take into account housing or council tax benefit as they are dependant on area and are too variable. Source: experience.
Also, a point, a working single parent also gets benefits. The extra benefits I get that I wouldn't get if my child was at school is exactly £2240. (This is based on 80% of childcare at £3.50 per hour for 16 school hours, 40 term weeks per year). Source: experience.
OK, so, I don't think the state should be excluded from the education of a child, but neither do I think they should prescribe it (this, I feel, would negate the point of HE).
I don't think telling someone to get a job to pay for this themselves is prescriptive; most of my working hours are out of school hours so a) I would still get help with childcare and b) the social activities my daughter takes part in is invaluable.
The only contradiction I can find in this is that my EWO expressed concern at me going back to work in case it meant I was not providing a full time education.
I would like to express concern at the mention of single parents on benefits though, suzyg. I don't see why we should be singled out for special mention, surely the mention should be for absent fathers who refuse to support their children.
The welfare bill, in simple terms, means that people who are working support and pay for those who are not working.
No, lots of benefits are in work benefits, paid from the same budget as non working benfits.
Alison
'First of all I'd like to quote some actual facts.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of money a school gets per child, per year is between £3,000 and £8,000 for a primary school and £4,000 and £9,000 for a secondary school.Source: BBC, Department of schools and families.'
Here are the current figures for the Age
Weighted Pupil Units. This is the money which central government gives to the local authority for every child registered at school. These relate to the year 2010/2011
1 5+ 2,231
2 6+ 2,308
3 7+ 2,092
4 8+ 2,096
5 9+ 2,307
6 10+ 2,312
7 11+ 2,558
8 12+ 2,564
9 13+ 2,837
10 14+ 3,322
11 15+ 3,659
I am absolutely dying to know where the figures for £9000 a year come from.
"When one hears of a woman whose inability to work is caused by her refusal to send her child to school, one is entitled to ask, 'Why on earth should I subsidise this person?'"
ReplyDeleteI object to them spending my money on unnecessary home visits to all home educators. Experience in other countries agrees that this approach is not cost effective. The current system allow them to make enquiries to be sure an education is being provided and gives them powers to do something about it if not. Any more is an unnecessary and unproductive expense.
'I would like to express concern at the mention of single parents on benefits though, suzyg. I don't see why we should be singled out for special mention'
ReplyDeleteIf I understand you correctly Alison, you are saying that you are a single mother on benefits?
'I object to them spending my money on unnecessary home visits to all home educators'
ReplyDeleteYou may rest easy, because this does not happen! Only about twenty thousand home educated children are known to local authorities and many of these do not have visits. According to Mike Fortune-Wood, there are now over a hundred thousand children being educated at home in this country. It looks to me as though only 10% or 20% of families are likely to be getting visits. This is hardly 'all home educators'.
If I understand you correctly Alison, you are saying that you are a single mother on benefits?
ReplyDeleteNo, but I was at one point.
Here are the current figures for the Age
ReplyDeleteWeighted Pupil Units. This is the money which central government gives to the local authority for every child registered at school.
This does not take into account the dedicated schools grant which comes from local authority.
£9k is the higher end of the spectrum and not the norm. If you would like a list of schools that allocate £9k+ to their pupils I would happily oblige.
Alison said:
ReplyDelete"I would like to express concern at the mention of single parents on benefits though, suzyg. I don't see why we should be singled out for special mention, surely the mention should be for absent fathers who refuse to support their children."
I referred to the example Simon opened with. The reasons why parents are dependent on benefits are many and varied.
SW said:
ReplyDelete"I am absolutely dying to know where the figures for £9000 a year come from. "
The figure for Tower Hamlets a couple of years ago was around £7000 I seem to recall.
I referred to the example Simon opened with. The reasons why parents are dependent on benefits are many and varied.
ReplyDeleteQuite, then why single out single parents? It wasn't specifically referred to in the original piece.
I know it sounds like I'm having a go at you personally and I apologise for that, I'm just using you as an example. Again apologies for using you as an example.
"I am absolutely dying to know where the figures for £9000 a year come from."
ReplyDeleteThe Age Weighted Pupil Units from central government is the main source of funding to schools (not the only source) and it doesn't include capital costs. According to this document, http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/TIM/m002012/NSRStatsJuneGDP140809.pdf, the average cost per pupil aged from 3-19 in England was planned to be £6350 for 2009-10, which suggests the £3000-£9000 depending on age figure is probably about right.
"You may rest easy, because this does not happen! Only about twenty thousand home educated children are known to local authorities and many of these do not have visits."
ReplyDeleteI know what the current system is. I'm arguing against the changes you seem to want brought in and the practice of regular annual visits in some LAs.
I doubt that many home educators will be unknown to the LA in future. The LAs duty to identify children missing education is sure to mean they will follow up on those letters asking parents of 3+ year old children to choose a school or let them know which private school the child will attend. We received one of these letters for each of ours and none were followed up 10+ years ago. I cannot imagine that this would be the situation now.
Do you know what proportion of people in an area where the LA 'ask' for visits by suggesting they are compulsory do not actually have visits? In my experience with a local group where this happened, it's rare.
'I could name several able-bodied high profile home educators on social security, whose children are now also on benefits.'
ReplyDeleteGo on then. I can't think of any. But I suppose you might define 'able-bodied' and 'high profile' differently to me.
Professionals will sometimes cooperate in a dodgy diagnosis of special needs when a child is a registered pupil at a school because there is extra funding to be had.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example as to why there is some variation in funding per pupil in schools. Additionally a child of a family on benefits will b e at the higher end of the scale as they will be eligable for free school meals, trips, vouchers for uniforms etc...
I think you have to factor in SN educational costs.
ReplyDeleteI had to give up work due to school not being able to cope with my child. No employer will put up with 10-11 am phone calls to come and collect a child 2/3 times a week. I then had to waste time going to tribunal to get my child a decent statement and then spend another year going to endless meetings to ensure it was implemented. Cue the start of year 3. I heaved a sigh of relief that the school now knew what support my child needed and how to implement it, and began to send out my CV.
School chose not to implement the statement (though took the public funding for a fulltime TA, just didn't use her for my child).
At age 9 I decided it was high time my son learned to read if he was not to wind up as a life time welfare claimant, or worse in prison. The old adage "if you want a job done well, then you need to do it yourself" is proving true. He is finally learning to read! He now finally has a shot a decent employable future. I expect him to get the critical core subject GCSE's he would never have managed to achieve at a state school.
I am now able to look for home-based income opportunities. This will pay a fraction of what I was earning before so state education's failure has cost the national purse a 40% taxpayer as I'll only manage to bring in a subsistence income.
Sadly I know for a fact that my story is far from an isolated one (I can think of 5 SN children in my area alone whose parents had a similar experience with state education).
I think you are only telling half the story as more & more children with invisble disablities such as dyspraxia, Autistic spectrum disorders, sensory processing disorders, dyslexia etc find themselves effectively excluded from state education, so the number of parents who opt to home school these children rises. It's the dirty secret of a supposedly inclusive education system and the advent of illegal admission and exclusion practices by the new academies, increasing pressures on league tables etc, etc make it worse every year.
A higher level teaching assistant is £18K per year, a laptop and special equipment is £2k, an assessment for a statement costs £2,500. The expensive children are being pushed out of the state system. Add in SALT/OT & ASD outreach specialists once or twice a term and the cost of a state education starts mounting. I always had to supplement my child's therapies from my own pocket too.
Parents claiming benefits in order to allow their children to access an education makes far more sense if you include this segment of the student population. I think the author is missing a significant part of the story in not including these children in his article.