why doesn't the gov pay the parents to home educate if they want to?

[tinselwreath]

I just have a question as I'm curious what people think here since there is the obstacle of closing primary schools to keep virus numbers down.

Why doesn't the government offer the pupil funding to the parent instead? This could be completely voluntary but considering there is about £3750 attached to each primary school pupil, they could give this directly to parents at around £300+ per month for each child and not include this in universal credit calculation to make it more lucrative. Plenty of parents would probably choose not to send their children in and it would leave more space for rotas/social distancing for the parents who cannot take the pupil funding option instead. This shouldn't cost anymore money because it is simply taking the money that the school would receive and giving it to the parent.

I can picture SLT finding out from each individual parent who wants to educate at home and stay at school.
Then waiting for a response.
Then some families wanting, say, 2 out of the 4 kids in school (for personal circumstances for example).
Then SLT having to calculate the budget regarding this.
Then having to merge year groups because there aren't enough children to fill a class.
Then laying off teachers.
Then laying off T.As who are paid to work with a funded child.
Then parents phoning up and saying, actually, can DD2 for example come back to school? She misses her friends.

It would be a logistical nightmare.
Not to mention school staff being very worried that they haven't heard from a child for months and wonder if they're OK (not an exaggeration).

£300 a month also? Decent education is worth a lot more than this. After this pandemic, children will need the best education they can get.

Its also a teacher/ school basing thread in disguise.
Disguised as a ridiculous idea. Its the best one I've heard this year.

I don't agree with her but she sounds not unreasonably pissed off with her own situation.

Whatayear1234

To be fair, any thread on Mumsnet about schools that isn't clamouring for them to be closed is always described as a teacher-bashing thread.

* It is unfair to pay the school when the parents are actually doing the work if the schools close.*

Even with schools closed teachers were still working. They were providing home learning resources, online lessons and in school care for key worker children. If anything a large number of teachers have been doing more work than usual with huge personal risk.

Most parents "home educating" during lockdown were simply desperately trying to get anxious/bored/scared kids to engage with some online resources/educational videos/reading etc.

My child's class has been offered a few sessions of small group tutor support during school hours to help with specific key things they are struggling with due to lockdown leaving them with different levels of knowledge.

Assessments have identified gaps in knowledge and issues with specific topics and small groups set up accordingly. This is the kind of thing any extra education funding should go on.

Support kids and teachers as they catch up, don't encourage parents who can't/won't educate their kids to keep them home for monetary gain.

What a crazy idea.

Paying parents who can't be arsed to send their kids to school.

@Spikeyball I work in a resource base. My children have their provision named but there's not enough money to support them. It's awful 😞

Because parents could pull their children just to claim the extra money and the most underprivileged in society wouldn't even get their free school meals.

@MrsMiaWallis to be fair, the idea was never going to work, but we got to the main issue when the OP stared that its unfair for teachers to get paid for parents doing the work

@UserMcNewName I think the OP knows this. He or she is just angry at the situation and therefore likes ti state that teachers haven't worked this year. Its been done all year long.
Unfortunately its backfired.

*Because parents could pull their children just to claim the extra money and the most underprivileged in society wouldn't even get their free school meals.

And they would- £300 extra to spend , no getting up in the mornings for the school run.

🤦‍♀️

You have not anywhere in your posts addressed the biggest issue. If you offer parents £300 a month PER child to home educate then there will be a large proportion of certain parents who will take the money so they can afford more drugs etc. Those children are the most vulnerable and the ones that benefit most from school. You would be taking away thier only chance of hot meals, care and support.
So basically you are happy to throw a large proportion of children under the bus so you can get paid for teaching your child!
Home education has AlWAYS been a choice but that choice should not have financial implications because that encourages people to make a decision for the wrong reasons.
My kid’s have had full school input and online teaching right from the day of the first lockdown. No they aren’t at private they are at state primary and secondary schools.

Because it would attract the wrong type of person to keep their children home to pocket the money without actually educating them.

Also the schools wouldn’t manage.

I don't think the OP is getting much of a choice about teaching her child. She said her child is out of school because they don't have a special school place.

@MrsMiaWallis

Whatayear1234

To be fair, any thread on Mumsnet about schools that isn't clamouring for them to be closed is always described as a teacher-bashing thread.

It clearly is a teacher bashing thread. You can sense the undertones throughout the op's posts.

Once you have an EHCP the local authority has a statutory duty to ensure your child receives all the support set out in section F. If they are only in nursery for such a short time, obviously they're not getting it. Please phone IPSEA or SOS SEN as soon as their helplines open after the break.

To be fair the local authority are paying my mum 17.00 an hour for 16 hours a week to help with home educating my daughter during pandemic 🙈

The cost per pupil is meaningless, it is a numberbof total cost of schools divided by numbers.
To reimburse parents it would be teachers salery divided by weeks then divided by class size (33 average in my school) , so approx £24/week or aroind £100 a month. For that parents would need to creare/ provide forward planning , assessment, evidence of progression be able to attend online meetings when needed and provide 5h education daily for 5 days a week.
I think there is a confusion between home learning and home education and also the job a teacher does and this post highlights this confusion.

@tinselwreath

From what I've seen, children who have received their education at home have surpassed their peers academically as they receive more attention. Some parents wouldn't care for teaching and they would still benefit by having their child in an emptier school.

I see others have explained the economics of the situation.

Those were parents who were not doing it for the money. People who could afford to give the time and who were highly motivated. Tell people that they can be paid just to not bother to get the kids up in the morning and watch what happens.

So what we need to do is NOT pay people to homeschool, but provide places where professionals can teach them.

Anyway did those parents really teach the full curriculum? I doubt that is possible for older children though home schooling for little ones probably works ok.

@EachDubh

The cost per pupil is meaningless, it is a numberbof total cost of schools divided by numbers. To reimburse parents it would be teachers salery divided by weeks then divided by class size (33 average in my school) , so approx £24/week or aroind £100 a month. For that parents would need to creare/ provide forward planning , assessment, evidence of progression be able to attend online meetings when needed and provide 5h education daily for 5 days a week. I think there is a confusion between home learning and home education and also the job a teacher does and this post highlights this confusion.

It's less that a teacher's salary as you have to take into account the cost of the school building, heating etc

It's around £7 per week at primary to educate a child.

No, I can see many flaws with that idea. Giving parents £300 cash a month to home educate would encourage them to do so, but they would not really use the money towards home educating. Ima qualified primary teacher and I found it incredibly hard to home educate my own 7 year old during lockdown. It's not as easy as people think - well not if you do it properly. Parent/child does not really create the right dynamics for a successful teacher/ pupil relationship.

@Seafog

And if the parents can't teach for fuck, but just want the money?

This would be my concern also. £300 is a lot of money for some parents and they could just stick the kids in front of the TV 8 hours a day and keep the money. If they're being paid for it, parents would need to be regulated and inspected like schools are.