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)

@Moonface123

There are many thousands of parents in the UK alone that have been forced into HE. Can we please stop saying it is a choice, for most it is a last resort after exhausting all other options.

I would say in my experience it is about 50/50 of those who HE through choice - like us and those forced to due to lack of suitable provision.

We could have the best school with the best SEN provision on our doorstep and we would still choose HE as we want our children to have all the amazing opportunities HE allows them.

I feel for those parents who feel forced into it through lack of provision and really are desperate but many once they experience HE realise how much better it can be and choose to continue and often HE their other children as well.

I think this thread has been really good at recognising that there are two distinct groups - and i hate it when HE is portrayed as the last resort of desperate people - for many it is not it is the first choice for empowered enthusiastic people.

• This would be abused as well, I'm sorry to say.

I know several children who are functioning perfectly well at school and doing well, but their parents insist they're not because they melt down at home, and want more school support in place than they already have. I do believe that they melt down at home, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are succeeding at school with the provisions that have been made, I have seen it with my own eyes. A few of them are now considering 'home schooling' because they claim the school' is failing their children when it isn't. I would not support paying them 'teacher's salaries' to keep them at home.*

Well it depends why the meltdowns are happening , doesn't it?
If it's because the child is overwhelmed,exhausted and anxious from masking and performing all day to high standards then that can very well mean the school environment isn't right for them.

If the child is distressed,self harming, refusing to go to school etc it's irrelevant how well they perform once there. Their emotional and mental well being is just as important as their education.

Luckily, most schools i know take their duty of care responsibility seriously even after 3:30 pm and work with and support parents even if the issues are at home.

After all, I bet you wouldn't look too favourably on parents on the other side that said their kid never melts down at home and they have no issues so it's the school's problem to deal with,would you?

@waitingforthenextseason
It worries me that you work in a school with this completely blinkered attitude.

Absolutely not.
I don’t think just anybody should be allowed to HE, either. They should at least be made to take a rigorous test on basic maths and English - which they should be required to pay for.

They've given up on giving Maths tests to potential primary teachers haven't they?

No I don't and I HE.

With money would come oversight by people not trained to know what they are looking at or who have their own agendas about what should be happening.

While many people choose HE, many others are forced to or feel they have no other option.

While my ds could be given a school place in a special school, it would be a bums on seats situation. He wouldn't thrive or get the education he deserves but he'd be 'in school' and not kicking off while there so - result . Bugger the impact at home.

Should the same people who think that situation was suitable be allowed to judge how I educate him?

An analogy I heard someone use was this, if everyone ate at the same restaurant but you found you often got sick when you ate there. You asked for accommodations to your food because it was making you ill but you were either ignored or only half-heartedly accommodated or maybe the staff didn't understand what you needed so you thought you'd just cook your own meal at home.

But then the council said that's OK but the owners of the restaurant will be coming to monitor you and you'll have to follow their advice about the food you eat.

Would anyone be happy with that?

So no. I don't want government money.

It should be used to make the education system better to accommodate more children.

[quote BroccoliRob]@waitingforthenextseason
It worries me that you work in a school with this completely blinkered attitude.[/quote]
It's not blinkered. I just don't think decimating educational budgets to give parents money directly is the answer.

@waitingforthenextseason meltdown when not at school.

Only if people educating privately can also have access ‘their’ funding

I'm not clueless. You'd be shocked at how not clueless I am on this. We provide all kinds of support for these children in school, offer support to the parents, and make referrals to CAHMS regularly. We check in regularly. We talk with the children when the parents ask us to when things aren't going well at home. I think you would be stunned to know how much I actually do for struggling children quietly behind the scenes that nobody knows about in real life other than those children and families and how I am frequently the go to adult for the children who do struggle at home;

That notwithstanding, I don't think it would be right to decimate school budgets by giving their educational funds to parents instead of schools when they are being educated successfully at school and otherwise supported as much as possible.

"I know several children who are functioning perfectly well at school and doing well, but their parents insist they're not because they melt down at home, and want more school support in place than they already have. I do believe that they melt down at home, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are succeeding at school with the provisions that have been made."

It's called masking. Something that I would expect someone with a basic knowledge of SEND to know. Someone masking isn't fine and coping perfectly well. Ds masks in some situations and then when he is somewhere he feels safe he screams and bites himself.

I don’t think you are being unreasonable; home educators are paying twice, once for everyone else’s children’s education and again privately for their own. They should at least have tax breaks. However asking in a general forum you are just going to get the usual Home Ed bingo win.

‘But socialisation’
‘But you are not teachers’
‘But hypothetical monstrous child abusers/terrorists’
‘But children are fine in school they just lie to their parents, teachers always know better, they just need to toughen up’
‘They need to experience bullying (peer abuse) it’s character building’
‘Home Ed should be inspected like a school’

There’s nowhere you can get an unbiased opinion on the topic unfortunately. Especially with the education establishment constantly briefing against home educators because they are annoyed they lose out on funding for every child not in the system.

I don’t think you are being unreasonable; home educators are paying twice, once for everyone else’s children’s education and again privately for their own. They should at least have tax breaks.

On that basis, surely you'll also be supporting tax breaks for those who choose not to have children, on the basis that otherwise they'd be paying for a service they will never use?

Perhaps a lump sum at age 45 (for women) if they haven't given birth - to cover the money not spent on educating their children, medical care, use of children's playparks and so on. An extra lump sum if they chose not to have children because they would likely pass on a genetic condition that's expensive to treat - after all, that selfless decision has saved the NHS £££.

Seems very fair to me.

No because it’s already funded - if you choose to home educated you’re choosing the non-funded option.

@DeathByWalkies

I don’t think you are being unreasonable; home educators are paying twice, once for everyone else’s children’s education and again privately for their own. They should at least have tax breaks.

On that basis, surely you'll also be supporting tax breaks for those who choose not to have children, on the basis that otherwise they'd be paying for a service they will never use?

Perhaps a lump sum at age 45 (for women) if they haven't given birth - to cover the money not spent on educating their children, medical care, use of children's playparks and so on. An extra lump sum if they chose not to have children because they would likely pass on a genetic condition that's expensive to treat - after all, that selfless decision has saved the NHS £££.

Seems very fair to me.

You are incorrect, everyone benefits from education. The Dr I see was educated by my taxes for my benefit. The police officers investigating crime can do so because of the education they received via my taxes.

All society benefits from children being educated. Home educators have to pay twice, once for the general societal benefits of other people’s children being educated and once entirely separately for their children to be educated.

They get no help from any state actor, purposefully so. The government even blocked them from achieving any grades over the pandemic. The only ways the education establishment are willing to suggest helping home educated children are ways that conveniently attract funding for them.

Home educators have to pay twice

Only if they have contributed the £75k in tax in the first place and presumably if they are at home to educate they aren’t working. That’s without covering their nhs costs, maternities, services used etc.

No. Any money would come with strings.
I don’t want to be dictated by that jumped up group of toddlers.

I’m a forced home edder but still it’s a no.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Home educators have to pay twice

Only if they have contributed the £75k in tax in the first place and presumably if they are at home to educate they aren’t working. That’s without covering their nhs costs, maternities, services used etc.

I’m not sure what you are getting at. Just because it costs the Government £75,000 to educate a child that doesn’t mean that each parent has to pay that much in taxes to have paid for their child’s education. As a general benefit to society all tax payers contribute to a child’s education, the amount an average taxpayer will have paid is much less. Not counting that home education does not have all the overheads a state education has. Parents are not paid to teach, they do not have additional premises to upkeep nor a bureaucracy.

Home educating families do frequently work. I’m not aware of a single family that does not have at least one parent working in some capacity. Sure there will be some entirely dependent on benefits but they will be the minority.

Home ed parents will pay as much as other taxpayers and then more so.

*41PinkyU

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

No because low educated poor people would "home educate" for the money and not have the skills to properly educate their child

I'm also vehemently opposed to home education. I think you need to learn subjects you might be less interested in, learn to cope with other people around and to compromise and to leave your family and home to develop independence.

Don't even get me started on the potential to only teach your child one world view that you believe in.

I do wonder if people that are opposed to home Ed think our kids never go out and see other people?

@Tomorrowillbeachicken

I do wonder if people that are opposed to home Ed think our kids never go out and see other people?

I think it’s Schrodingers home educated child.

At the same time as they are lounging around doing no work and messing with their friends they are shut ins being hot housed with no time for socialising...

I agree with your point on funding almost certainly coming with strings attached to engage with the ignorant muppets at the council unfortunately.

No because it would incentivise a certain demographic to choose homeschooling and not use the money for education, the same kids that need to be in school. The state provides education for children, if parents don't want to use it that's up to them (only exception is in sen cases)

Home ed parents will pay as much as other taxpayers and then more so.
Probably not as a family they won’t. There are many many families with both parents working and paying tax and home educators are less likely to be in that group. And why do you think they pay more so?

All this is irrelevant though. Paying parents to home Ed would put children at risk, so it’s not acceptable.