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)

What happens in private schools ? Do you have to pay exam entry? If not I can see an argument for home educators to get assistance for that.

Exam fees always have to be paid. State schools pay it out of their budget and clearly cannot pass the costs on. Private schools vary as to whether they roll the costs into their fees or bill separately for them - but ultimately parents end up paying.

Chloe
Schools already provide work for children spending time off for health reasons don't they?

Things like oak cost far more to run than you might think. There is a requirement for it to be maintained and updated for there to be data security and the like.

Any of these things would essentially being provided for a very small group of kids, relatively speaking. Its very costly to provide anything that isnt used regularly by large numbers.

No

Should I get a grant of £150K given that I chose to educate my children privately?

Should I get a grant for all the services the council provide that I don't use? The only benefit I get from all the council tax I pay is a fortnightly rubbish collection. I have to pay extra for the green bin collection too.

It's a contribution to society - I'm a big net loser but I accept that the council provides services to those that need them and they have to be funded somehow.

State schools pay it out of their budget and clearly cannot pass the costs on.

State schools do often pass on the fee if it is a re-sit that the parent/carer/child wants though. That’s how close to the bone school financial budgets are. Especially this year with the exam boards not actually doing anything!

As a home Ed family I’m totally against the idea of being paid for it. It’s already terrifying to see how children can slip through the gaps including safeguarding. The idea of paying people to not bother sending their kids to school is not good. School is a lifeline for some and an incentive to keep them off would be awful. I don’t agree HE should be regulated- the whole point of it is a child can learn in their own way which may not be the governments way.

I would support having exam fees paid and the ability to access Some resources that schools have- like phonics books for smaller children and literary texts that don’t have a 2 week library return. But apart from that I’m more than happy to be left alone.

I wonder about the implications of this sometimes: if all HE children had to get a school place tomorrow, would there be capacity in the system for them?

Chloe
Schools already provide work for children spending time off for health reasons don't they?. Not good quality work-they just don’t have the time/budget/staffing to do so. And only if long term. If short term, schools are not obliged to. These kids are often the ones who slip through the net disadvantage-wise.
How much do you think it would cost the Govt to keep the existing Oak platform running, just out of interest? It’s not as much as you think and certainly not the figures being talked about for HE here.

That is ridiculous. Should people with no kids get a tax rebate? Should people with 8 kids have to pay extra tax?

Also, while that may be the average cost per child, removing a single child certainly does not save that amount for the government. The base costs of staffing, buildings, etc, remain the same.

No, I don't think that parents who are home educating should be paid for opting out of the state system. By the same token, then anyone who has children at an independent school should get the same financial reimbursement as they are not using the state's resources. That would then move from being a small number of pupils to a much larger number.

At the core of it is this.....

Why would the government want to make HE easier? Why would they want to encourage it?

They don't want it to be easier. If it's easier & there's funding and resource readily available, more people might choose it, and that would not be cost efficient, effective. It would take more parents out of the workforce, probably would not improve educational outcomes for most children. The best option for the vast majority and in terms of state funds, is group education at much larger scale and in bigger groups than is ever provided by home education, which is why every single country in the world has schools as the main medium of education rather than encouraging parents to stay at home and do it themselves.

Only if it was properly regulated and inspected. And I doubt that would go down well!

There are plenty of things I pay for with my taxes but don't use. That's the deal.

If you take government funding then you need to be up for government control and inspections etc. I could see certain bad parents seeing this as a way to get money from the government and not caring about their child's education. Also these inspections would add cost to the government.

It's hard to say without a cost analysis but I'm not sure how much homeschoolers are practically saving the taxpayer. In some cases, it won't be anything as there will be spaces available at school which aren't being used. It surely costs the same amount to run a classroom with 15 kids as with 16 kids. Homeschoolers are going to be dotted around the country and not concentrated in one area.

no.

once you are taking money you loose the freedom that is much of what home education is about.

I would support HE funding for examinations however, because they can be very costly.

Chloe I think it would cost more per head for the children using it regularly, than is reasonable relative to the amount spent for the full education of other children in schools. There will only be a few thousand children a year in the position you describe. Having the state continuing to be responsible for operating a large online database for learning would require a few staff, regular updates, hosting and maintenance charges etc. It could easily run into £1m plus.

"I've been in exactly your position and am out the other side, please do feel free to get in touch if you need any help x"

That was ds aged 4. He is an independent specialist now and doing fine.

I think the LA would rather give us 20k a year for us to go away rather than fund his placement which costs much more. That's another a danger with funding HE - it being seen as a cheaper option for some children and parents being pushed into it in the way children are offrolled now.

@PinkyU

I feel that I’m seeing a lot of “why should they get when I don’t”.

That's not true at all. You've actually been given many valid and important reasons why government funding for HE is not viable but are choosing to only listen to/respond to those agreeing with you.

For the record, I don't think the government should be paying for people to home educate, unless in extreme/specific circumstances. And if HE was government funded then why shouldn't private education be funded as well? I do, however, think exams for HE children should be paid for by the government. If any money was going to be pumped into education then it should be put into state education.

We have an education system provided for us and we can choose to use it or not. Just like we can choose to use our health system or not, or any of the other government funded facilities. I think when people simplify paying taxes as "I'm paying that police officers wage..." or "I'm paying for state education but don't use it..." then it leads to this sense of injustice or unfairness. In actual fact your taxes are paying for basic services that everyone can choose to access if they need to. Some people will never use those services and some people will use those services excessively. We can't and shouldn't expect refunds or extra funding just because we choose not to use those services.

Our home school inspector told us that the money our kids get from the government go to the local school as we home educate. There are 6 home schooled children on our estate so the local school is already benefiting more as they’re receiving money for 6 children that don’t attend.

I wouldn’t want money to help home educate as it would come with strings attached! However I would say yes to some help towards GCSE cost... but that’s not going to happen! it’s been an eye opener to how expensive exams are now I have teens.

The state provides free education. You can choose to use it or not to use it.
The state also provides NHS for free. Same principle, you use it or you do not. You do not get a rebate because you have not used it.

Paying for the exams that other kids get for free would be reasonable….

…by which I mean the gov could fund at least English and Maths GCSEs or equivalent.

@pointythings

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.

I agree entirely.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

Chloe I think it would cost more per head for the children using it regularly, than is reasonable relative to the amount spent for the full education of other children in schools. There will only be a few thousand children a year in the position you describe. Having the state continuing to be responsible for operating a large online database for learning would require a few staff, regular updates, hosting and maintenance charges etc. It could easily run into £1m plus.

Those few thousand are too many for me and although I think over overestimation is to high (the man who started Oak would certainly think so) that is still far far cheaper than what is currently spent on these children.

And my first point earlier on would be key here , which was that this is a service that all children can benefit from. Those in state, those in private, those who HE, those who are too ill to go to school, ad infinitum.
Everyone benefits.
Extremely good value for money quite frankly.

An alternative would be to keep BBC Bitesize in all it’s current form (not just the static website) but then this would cost vastly more sums than Oak. Maybe licence fee payer’s money is more acceptable?

Absolutely not. The second you make any kind of financial incentive to fuck over you child, people will. What would happen when they spend all the money and then complain they can't educate their child anymore? Do they get more money or does their child simply not get an education? How would you ensure the money is spent on education? Why should the government be encouraging home educating?

500,000 childre are in fee paying schools and most also pay exam fees. Indeed I did wonder if I could register my 5 at a state secondary and see if the exam fees could be paid via that even if the child never attended - pie in the sky but it does feel unfair given we pay so much - massive taxes at up to 45%, then pay the school fees on that money already taxed so highly plus pay the exam fees. A tax off set would be nice including for parents whose children get the minimum university maintenance loan of about £4k who make it up to the full loan of £8k. That used to be off set against tax in the 1970s so why not now?

[quote PinkyU]@Proudboomer I think my point is more that people who HE are paying for school education and then also experiencing the additional costs of HE their child, in effect (but not necessarily) paying twice to educate their child.

People who don’t have children aren’t incurring the (potential) double cost.[/quote]
I highly doubt it. How are they paying £75k in tax for a school place if very likely not working to home educate?