To think that families who choose to home educate should receive government funding?

[PinkyU]

It costs the uk government(s) circa 75K to educate a child from 4/5-18.

AIBU to suggest that families who HE (home educate) should receive a percentage (50%-75%) of this to aid in their ability to provide learning opportunities for their child, given that it would still save the government money?

Do you think more families would HE if it seemed more financially viable?

I’m torn. I can see that part of the plethora of reasons school education exists in the format it does is to allow for (potentially) two adults to be working full time and paying tax, so the money saving aspect may fall down there.

From another perspective, accepting government involvement financially may come at the cost of government involvement concerning how and what the child should learn which is the antithesis of what HE seeks to do.

I do think that part funding HE would allow much more access to learning opportunities which would hugely benefit the child.

What do others think?

(Rambling over)

No. The government provide education in the form of schools from general taxation. If people choose not to use them then that's up to them. Much like people who only use private healthcare shouldn't be given government grants.

Do you think more families would HE if it seemed more financially viable?

I don't see why that would be a good thing? HE May work very well for a minority of children but the majority are best learning with their peers.

Now if you'd asked if we should put more money into education then that's a yes.

I think providing funding for HE would be OK - if it came with a rigorous inspection regime. Just to make sure that those children were learning the things they need in later life and of course to ensure that the small % of people who HE for religious nutjob/abuse reasons don't get away with it.

For children who don't thrive in mainstream I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea.

No. Schools have safeguarding, health and safety rules, curriculums they have to follow and qualified staff.
Parents are free not to take up school places but shouldn’t be paid the funding instead. If they want different opportunities then they can fund them.

Where does it end though, should people who pay for private education also get support from the government, given they're also saving them £75K per child?

Should families who choose to send their children to private schools also get a rebate as they are not using state education?

And should we give a bonus to healthy people if they haven't used the NHS this year/have private medical insurance?

Home education, like private education is a choice and the person making the choice needs to make sure they have the funds available to pay for their choice.

(I do appreciate that some people will say that due to their DCs disability they had no choice but to home ed, but that's a different battle that needs to be fought. Paying people to home educate is not the way to get proper state provision for children with additional needs).

Unfortunately, I think that idea could get abused. All those people claiming to HE for the extra money.
Maybe, if they got inspected like schools, but then, they’d need to spend more money employing inspectors.

I don’t think so. Where do you draw the line with this? Should people who don’t use the NHS because of private healthcare get a grant? Should people who don’t have a car so don’t use roads get a grant back? Etc etc

The school system is set up to educate people, I don’t think they should then be handing out money to people who choose not to use it

I’d do it if I could afford to.

Absolutely not

I don’t think they should be given it it the form of cash, no. It would be abused by some and therefore not benefit the child. I think though they should find exams, online resources and access to training courses.

Not everybody home eds because they want to.
I think it would be helpful if home edders received help towards the cost of exams though.

Paying people not to send their kids to school? You can see how that would go! Dreadful idea.

If this was possible it could lead to some poorer parents pulling their kids out of school to receive the money and then not use it to educate their children. So the children end up even more disadvantaged. Schools also provide protection for some youngsters so home ed shouldn't have a financial insentive.

Perhaps if the funding was means tested, in the way the uniform grant or FSM is?

I home educate and no I don’t want funding. I don’t want the strings that would no doubt come along with it. Most seasoned home educators feel the same,

You're entire basis is the assumption that Home Education saves the government money by not having to pay the 75,000, but of course it doesn't - since the schools still need to exist and the incremental cost of a single student is not 75k.

You just want another huge subsidy to the already privileged - those in the position to home educate.

I do think home Ed dc should be able to have their GCSE’s funded if they choose to sit them.

No, the government fund education, if people choose not to take school places up that’s their choice.

No, all that will happen is families who are already troubled will home educate for the extra money, and then nobody will see the kids, which will put them in more danger.

I home educated one of my dc, so I'm not against it at all, but there shouldn't be a financial incentive.

If this last year has shown us anything, it's that home education results in less progress than regular schooling for the vast majority of children.

The last thing we need is people deciding to "home school" their many children for the wrong reasons - because it would supplement their benefits in a way that sending them to school wouldn't. There's no inspection regime so no chance of checking whether or not a 10 year old has learned to read yet, and it would remove the best safeguarding opportunity we have - school attendance.

If financial support was given it should only be in the form of vouchers for materials - stationery, textbooks, tickets to the local science centre etc etc.

I wouldn't seek to ban home education, but it needs a better inspection regime and better safeguarding opportunities.

@PinkyU

It costs the uk government(s) circa 75K to educate a child from 4/5-18.

AIBU to suggest that families who HE (home educate) should receive a percentage (50%-75%) of this to aid in their ability to provide learning opportunities for their child, given that it would still save the government money?

Do you think more families would HE if it seemed more financially viable?

I’m torn. I can see that part of the plethora of reasons school education exists in the format it does is to allow for (potentially) two adults to be working full time and paying tax, so the money saving aspect may fall down there.

From another perspective, accepting government involvement financially may come at the cost of government involvement concerning how and what the child should learn which is the antithesis of what HE seeks to do.

I do think that part funding HE would allow much more access to learning opportunities which would hugely benefit the child.

What do others think?

(Rambling over)

No, any more than those who drive a car should get back money because they don's use PT. Or money back because they don't believe in war.

Nope. How would you differentiate between HE and private education? Are you suggesting I should receive £75k because I send dd to private school? Because technically I pay for her education twice, once through my taxes and then again out of my taxed income. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like 75k but it’s clearly ridiculous.
Schools are on their knees financially anyway, there’s no room in the budget. We are all welcome to avail of ourselves of state provided education, but if you opt out then you’re on your own.

Government uses tax payers money to provide certain core services, we all have to pay for them regardless of whether we use them personally or not.
Where would it stop, should people who buy books rather than getting them free from a library get money towards books? Should people who choose not to have children at all get a lump sum?

I think in cases where the state has failed to provide suitable education or haven't protected children from bullying, such that the parents have been forced to remove a child for their own safety, then yes, the state should pay for alternative education, be that HE or expenses to travel to a better school depending on circumstances.
Generally though I don't think the state should pay extra for this - it's so open to abuse and I think the education department at the councils wouldn't have the staff/expertise to check that every HE child, whose parents were claiming the money, were actually delivering a proper education.