To wonder if its fair that some forces children get fees paid at private schools?

[scruffybird]

A few old friends of mine have their children at good private boarding schools due to ninety percent of the fees being paid for by the forces. I am perfectly aware that I may be being unreasonable for even questioning this, but it just seems wrong?
One of the girls has gone to a school hundreds of miles away from where her family live so that she would be eligible.

Only those who meet the ever stricter mobility criteria can receive continuity of education allowance. This does not have to mean private school - as the ceilings are falling against the cost of actual fees, state boarding (for the comparative few households who do actually opt for boarding) is an increasingly popular option.

Please see the Gareth Malone thread about these families; and the add moving every two years to the picture. The choices they have to make are unenviable, but I think it is totally right that there are a range of options.

The recent investigations and prosecutions of those who make false claims is also to be welcomed. This is (and must be seen to be) an allowance for mobile personnel only.

If you think you know a case which breaches guidelines, there is a hotline for reporting fraud. Please use it. But do check carefully first - distance of school isn't an eligibility criteria (and of course varies depending where the family is posted over the years)

Incidentally, it is not only Forces families who receive this; similar is also available to civil servants from various other Govt Departments who are posted every two or three years including internationally. And it's very common in private sector companies with similar posting patterns too (especially foreign correspondents, engineers and oil company employees, plus quite a lot of others).

Seriously? Seriously? It's called continuity of education. How else do you expect them to get this? Or do you not think that the children of those who serve their country are entitled to this?

YABU.
If your job requires you to move long distances then you normally get compensation for that disruption. It's not a "perk" unless you consider breaking up the family for the majority of the year (either one parent from their spouse and child, or both parents from their children) to be a perk; it's an attempt to make up for the problems caused by the job.

g33k I stand by my statement. The Armed Forces are already greatly reduced. They also exist during peacetime when they still receive help to send their children to boarding school if they need to.

Why should their children not be deserving of a stable education because of their parent's/s' career choice?

I was brought up with dad in the forces and also my dh only left a few years ago. The friend who's daughter started last year is averaging a move every three to four years which seems normal among the non officers. And she told me they were getting ninety percent paid.

It's because the children deserve to have uninterrupted schooling.

Of course they knew the risks/terms and conditions when they joined. Does that mean they should be denied a family? Does that mean their children should be uprooted every couple of years?

I'm no great fan of the forces, and don't agree with all the military involvement in 'world affairs' over the past decade, but when the news is littered with stories of another young man/woman, who has chosen this career despite the risks, has been killed in action, the very least we can do as a country is support their families.

g33k I take it you've missed the news about compulsory redundancies in the Forces then? If the stable environment is down to the parents, what do you suggest they say to their employer then? Sorry I can't go with the rest of the regiment because Callum is settled at school .

Have we had an influx of new members from somewhere odd? We seem to have had a huge increase in 'They've got that. I want it. It's not fair.' threads in the last few weeks.

YABVVU.

What do the parents do when they are posted to an area where there is no suitable school to go to g33k. I know my fathers wage would not have covered 3 kids schooling in the uk when he was working overseas. It is the government after all who are sending forces personal overseas or contusion moving them around so do they not have any responsibility at all? Perhaps you have to experience it to fully understand the impact it has.

"Why should their children not be deserving of a stable education because of their parent's/s' career choice?"

You could apply this to any group, that you believe to be deserving, so why the armed forces? Why as a group are they more deserving than others?
You have not put forward a convincing argument for this.

Out of all the bollocks things our taxes pay for, continuity of education for children from military families is not something I would ever complain about. At least military families work and are paying taxes to contribute to the counrty, there are plenty of families that get things provided by the state whilst contributing nothing.

Well its being looked into at the moment I think as there has been abuse of this 'benefit'

'The friend who's daughter started last year is averaging a move every three to four years which seems normal among the non officers.'

I attended 4 different primary schools and a kindergarten. My dad wasn't an officer, just a very useful person who got put into a lot of critical areas.
With his family usually following along.

"Out of all the bollocks things our taxes pay for, continuity of education for children from military families is not something I would ever complain about. At least military families work and are paying taxes to contribute to the counrty, there are plenty of families that get things provided by the state whilst contributing nothing."

An unconvincing strawman of an argument presented here. Can you break down the amount paid by members of the armed forces in tax in relation to the benefit received?
You can not simply state that as some who do not contribute receive that the armed forces, for some undefined reason, should gain.

A fair whack of the 90% discount will be a in the form of a bursary (fee remission) from the school itself.

The advantage with not being in the Forces is that we can give our children a stable educational experience without needing to pay fees; we can choose where we live and are not forced to move every few years.

I am always happy to argue for a reduced military presence around the world, but since successive governments have established work for the Forces to do, I think it is their duty to provide for them- and a government has to spend taxpayers' money to make any kind of provision.

Personally, I hated the experience of boarding school.I'd have been a lot happier travelling the world, attending forces schools, getting straight As and kicking several shades of shit out of the locals in the UK if necessary.
My parents thought it was a bad idea.

I leaned a lot about this from other MN threads. Very sympathetic to continuity of education, for the DCs of all ranks.

Until then I only had my SiL's experience to go by. She followed her husband to Germany when she certainly didn't have to, and did fuck all while she was there, and they put their two children - 7 and 9 - into a boarding school in Hampshire. Their family home was in Winchester. She could have stayed with her children but didn't. She married her husband knowing he was in the army, and then they had the DCs. She was 'desperate' for children.

The husband was then posted back to Aldershot, and she came back with him - and the DCs stayed in the same boarding school.

The army apparently kept paying, and the SiL kept boasting about it.

It's this aspect of it that I don't understand. The children weren't even happy. They would spend 'exeat' weekends with their granparents when their mother was hosting a party about 5 miles away. It was a bit 1950 tbh. But in 2009.

g33k - no case needs to be made - several Government Departments have such an allowance, as do many private companies it is based on the mobility (including international moves) requirement only. It is not only Forces, so your not based on fact.

Pay scales of Armed Forces personnel are published, so it is easy for anyone to check their tax if so minded. i can save most people the bother: Slavetofilofax is however totally correct, all personnel earn over the personal tax allowance and are therefore taxpayers.

YANBU.

So because the children's parents are doing a job you don't agree with, they should suffer?

The system exists so basically it's tough really. it's all part of the Military Covenant. The Forces do the Governments bidding so they get help to make sure the families are looked after. TBH, there aren't many 'perks'.

LRLC: that sounds terrible - but I suspect crap parents would be crap parents irrespective of career choice, and as such shouldn't be taken as representative.

"Pay scales of Armed Forces personnel are published, so it is easy for anyone to check their tax if so minded. i can save most people the bother: Slavetofilofax is however totally correct, all personnel earn over the personal tax allowance and are therefore taxpayers."

It was never disputed that they were taxpayers, I wish posters would spend the time to properly read comments. It was merely asked as to why a public sector group such as the armed forces, when such controversy exists in their role in the 21st century, should enjoy this benefit that many other public and private sector workers do not enjoy.

"So because the children's parents are doing a job you don't agree with, they should suffer?

The system exists so basically it's tough really. it's all part of the Military Covenant. The Forces do the Governments bidding so they get help to make sure the families are looked after. TBH, there aren't many 'perks'."

As they are not conscripted I don't think it is quite as woeful as you would make out.

And you have experience of this to know?

"And you have experience of this to know?"

It is 2011 and not 1916, consciprtion does not exist; if you are foolish enough to sign up without properly considering what you are actually doing then more fool you.