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)

@Bluedeblue

My Uncle's side of the family is like Shameless except less charming. They have four children. For an extra £7k a year which OP is proposing, none of the children would have gone to school or been educated at all

That was the very first thought that came in to my head.

Also, what I just can't fathom re Home schooling, is what happens if your children are cleverer than you? I got a few crap O'Level's and I'm not very academic. My son has a Masters in Engineering and my Daughter has a Bachelors in Education. There is literally no way that I could have home schooled them without massively holding them back. I mean, I got a "U" in O'Level Maths (unmarked paper it was so bad), whereas my son got an "A" in Higher Maths.

Simple:

You outsource.

I know home educators who did an excellent job; and others who made a total hash to the detriment of the offspring.. The difference was never about money.

The provision and quality of state education is endlessly checked and reviewed throughout a child's years in the system. Home education in UK is barely supervised or assessed at all . So (in the current state of HE) I would no more advocate state funding for home-educators, than for alternative health care at home, by parents with no medical training.

I don't think it should. Funding tends to come with strings and hoops...and many HE families won't want that.

On that basis people who send their children do private school should get funding too? They are saving the state money.

It is an appalling idea. Would just serve as a financial incentive for some people who would otherwise not contemplate home education and might be ill equipped to do it.

YABU, OP. Quite unreasonable in fact.

Education is for the greater social good. State education is an essential service because not everyone can afford to pay school fees. it's there for everyone's children, and everyone's taxes goes towards it, even those who don't have and never plan to have children.

People who pay for private school education pay 'twice' as you say; they don't get a refund, and nor should they.

People who home education make the same choice. If they think they can do it better at home, they are welcome to try, but they still need to contribute to public school education via their taxes just as those without children do.

Simple:

You outsource.

... to the thing known as... schools?

Very sensible.

And FTR, the majority of home educated children I know who later joined mainstream schooling had been failed terribly at home and struggled terribly in school for quite some time while they tried to catch up (reading and maths). Not all, but most.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

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.

I agree.

It’s such a pointless question really because if you asked home educators the majority would not want funding. I do think that all children should be able to sit their exams without paying fees but apart from that no.
You don’t have to be wealthy to home educate. Of course as with anything in life money helps and gives you more options but you can home educate on a smaller budget. We make certain sacrifices in order to be able to home ed and for us it is worth it but others would feel differently,

As a past H.edder, definitely not.
There is absolutely no way I'd have wanted interference from the government.

I REALLY don’t think paying parents to keep children out of school is a good approach.

The only way this comes close to working is if HE is subject to the same scrutiny as school. I don’t see any appetite for that.

@DeathByWalkies

Simple:

You outsource.

... to the thing known as... schools?

Very sensible.

No - to whatever works for your child.

Facetious much?

There are a lot of excellent resources out there.

@shakingstevensfan

I have known families who would decide to "home educate" just to get free money from the state. Their children would get zero education.

I know a few families who would happily do the same; it would be an utter disaster for the poor children.

I'd be concerned about vulnerable children falling through the cracks because their parents have picked "HE" so that they can use the money for drugs and alcohol. (The quotation marks are there to mean these parents wouldn't really home educate ) I'd be concerned about abusers using it to trap their kids in the house too and that without going to school these kids wouldn't be known to Social Services.

If HE were to be subsidized by the government then it would strictly have to be for educational purposes eg discounted subscription to education websites rather than cash but I'm not sure the cost of checking would make it worthwhile. What happens if you move your child into a school during the school year - would you have to pay the government back? Plus if you subsidize home education then private school parents would have a good reason to demand a subsidy and that's obviously a road that we shouldn't go down because it turns into why should I pay for the NHS if I've not had medical attention in 5 years etc

I have some sympathy for parents in that position, but as a principle that would have very significant knock on implications, so no.

We all pay tax into the pot for a common education system, health service etc whether or not we use those services. It's the social contract we operate under to ensure a certain level of equality in society.

My dc went to school, I have a nephew who has always been HE.
I don't think dn's family would want funding as it may result in a strict regime that doesn't suit the dc. He's very well educated and hasn't missed out on school imo.
For those who talk about school providing safeguarding, hollow laugh here. It's in schools where dc are bullied and also sexually assaulted.
If schools tackled bullying properly then I would agree but we all know that turning a blind eye rather than affect school stats often happens.
I listened to a horrific report on Radio 4 at the weekend about the treatment of girls in school.
Of course HE could hide abuse at home but most HE children belong to clubs and go to classes and tutors and have as much contact with independent adults as schoolchildren.

www.bbc.com/news/education-57231920

I don't think it works in England. Those who are already disadvantaged with neglectful parents who don't care about children's education may happily declare they will be HE children just to get extra money. Then those children may lose only safe place for them.

Free and easy access to exams would be good but I don't think many HE parents would want the extra scrutiny that generic funding would bring. That doesn't mean that the education they are providing is not up to scratch but is often very different from what is provided in schools.

I work with a lot of HE families now my own HE days are over, providing courses and in some cases language tutoring - there is such a wide variety of approaches amongst those families. I wouldn't want to see the government swooping in and telling them they all have to follow the National Curriculum!

Simple:
You outsource.

But, with the best will in the world, every one of us has our own limitations and may not recognise what opportunities or aptitudes a child needs or has. You don't know what you don't know, if you see what I mean, so how can you possibly compensate for that? It's the danger of your own world view and limitations shrinking the options you even consider for your child.

There are many legitimate child-led reasons for home education ( unresolved bullying, unmet SEN needs etc) I think most would agree with that. I don’t think that a “tax rebate” approach is appropriate given all the well argued reasons given already.
However HE children should not be denied access to free education services just because they don’t want to accept the mainstream package. Exam taking, some SEN services, student cards, online resources etc - why not ? I don’t see a justification for withholding these things. They should be offered through the LEA when contact is made for home schooled children. It would provide a little bit of encouragement for a parent to keep a child on the radar - some tangible benefit rather than just demands for reports and meetings from parents who might already have had negative experiences with school authorities.
To borrow the NHS example - just because you don’t want to do another round of chemo despite it being the doctors prescribed treatment, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still get the pain management bit.
Disclosure: me and mine have been educated by state, private and home Ed. I have nothing against any of them.

Imagine having to justify say a trip to the woods as an educational rather than leisure trip? Are you supposed to send photographic evidence or something? Fuck that

I'd imagine that a lot of HE is very creative compared to school so not just claiming for the obvious like pen and paper. For example you might slime in order to practice measuring and reading instructions. Should you have to justify that? Or maybe you use Minecraft to explore the ISS? Do you have to prove that?

If you only see the benefit of paying taxes for your own selfish means then I see your logic.

However we pay general taxation for a greater good which benefits us all in different ways at different points in time.

So no, I think it’s a terrible idea.

No.

Of course HE could hide abuse at home but most HE children belong to clubs and go to classes and tutors and have as much contact with independent adults as schoolchildren.

You’re being naive if you don’t see that offering financial incentive would alter the profile of HE families significantly.

No. It is to everyone’s benefit for there to be universal state-funded education, ensuring a minimum level of education across the populace and particularly the workforce.

Funding comes with accountability. Ofsted would inspect home-education settings in the way that they do childminders. I don’t see many home-educators being open to that.