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.

Yes because wbebey single parent you give money to will use it to educate their kids....are you crazy bonthey won't that money will go on holidays and other things but education.

Stupid idea

I think your OP comes across badly. If what you’re saying is - The government is expecting parents to spend 6 hours a day covering home education when the schools are shut (could be additional hours if you have multiple children). This limits their ability to work and earn but yet is compulsory. Therefore parents should be compensated, particularly low income families who cannot afford the loss of earnings. — Then I’d agree with that. It’s no small job and its just more caring work that isn’t seen as ‘real work’ isnt paid. Some families will struggle so much financially through this and at the moment they can’t claim any support for loss of earnings if they are at home looking after an isolating child or schools close (only an adult can claim the grant if they themselves have to isolate - madness!)

@AIMD it’s a non-covid thing. And how well it works, I don’t know. I’m assuming (hoping!) there’s controls to make sure the allowance is spent only on education. It’s an interesting idea, so wouldn’t write it off entirely. But personally I’m all for schools educating my children! Teachers are highly skilled and have years of training and experience. I simply won’t be able to achieve the same results myself unless it was a very academic child who could just do well in almost any setting

Safeguarding could be solved via video calls with health visitors. Which would actually be safer than a nation of latch key kids.

Latch key home educated children already exist, if by latch key kids we're meaning those at home without their parents. That's already a thing, been well known to happen for years. Home educated children are meant to have access to the school nurses team (not health visitors, they're largely too old for that), but how well that works depends on your area (I say as someone who is still waiting for my 16-year-old to get the jabs he was meant to get at 14).

I'm a home educating parent and have been for over a decade. I chose this option for primary for all of my children. I do not want the government to pay me for this choice. As has been raised on home educating sites when this comes up, if the government gives money, then the government can rightfully expect certain results. In areas of the US where money is available to home schooling parents, it's generally limited to certain suppliers and it is not uncommon to expect evidence of education through yearly exams or having a portfolio checked by a professional. The UK doesn't really have that market of home education focused creators to be able to create an acceptable list of suppliers, teachers in the UK have enough to do without being pushed to check the work on home educated children and British home educators largely don't want the government involved in what we do. Low income home educators are already eligible for benefits as much as any other parent.

If we're talking about improving the system, I personally would be happy if the government just covered the cost of exam fees for home educated teenagers who are compulsory education age and provided guaranteed exam sites. School educated children could also take extra exams if they desired.

If we're talking superwish list, funding to ensure the school nurses teams could be accessed by all home educated children who wanted to talk to them and that the computer systems that people use to register their choices for places at primary and secondary could include a home education option so we didn't have to deal with places being allocated to us that we don't want, that'd be great. Maybe even, when there are events where school children can submit work publically, home educated children being included in that more so they can feel more part of the community even if their local school isn't an appropriate fit for them.

Really, there are a lot of things I can think of that could help home educated children that would make it more of an option that parents could happily choose rather than now where it's mainly a choice because everything else has failed, but none of it really involves paying parents the money that would go to school. It's more funding for things that would include all children in the community regardless of how they're education.

@tinselwreath- have an other and then go to bed!

There are many reasons why your proposal isn't workable.
Some really good ones have already been mentioned.

So OP doesn't have a job or pays any tax presumably but thinks other people should fund her to teach her children during a pandemic since sacrifices have to be made? Fucks sake.

This has given me a good laugh today, I’m pretty sure they can’t be serious 😂

Also, tinselwreath, how would your money system deal with school educated children who end up on a part-time schedule or part-time home educated children?

Would I get funds for my DS1 who is enrolled at the local college for a home educated vocational programme based on hours at home or deducted from his hours there or what? How would that encourage schools to maintain these programmes that enable home educated children to get qualifications? It's hard enough for them to run as it is as they require a certain number of students to make enough to function (I've been told my son's programme requires a minimum of 8 pupils for the college to get the funding needed to run it) and without them, you're just putting more barriers in home educated teenagers way. That is the opposite of what I want.

How would it work with tax credits or universal credit (which many low income and/or self-employed home educators rely on)? With children who transfer in or out? With children who are home educated while waiting for places or for appeals?

Really, it seems like such an administrative headache, the costs of running it and the likelihood of fuckups seem likely to be high when we consider how complicated these things can get, that I really think community focused initiatives and funding would be a lot more effective in both doing good for more children and making home education an option parents might consider more seriously (not really something that's ever been my goal, I just want home education to be a better option for those who want to do so, and I want schools to be better for those who choose that).

While money is a barrier to some for home education, a far bigger barrier is often isolation, not knowing where to get resources to suit the child, and the great qualifications questions which this does absolutely nothing about.

We would need a whole host of layered protocols to ensure home education meets the required standard and children meet progress reports.

OP is having a laugh surely?

A thread so mental it's got everyone on the Coronavirus board in unanimous agreement. And on the topic of schools, no less. It took nine months, but we got there

@tinselwreath

I never said force people to home educate, I said give them the option. This makes sense when you consider you can't socially distance in schools and there are plenty of parents who have been made redundant in 2020 who deserve to be paid for doing the vast majority of work.

You do have the option to home educate. You shouldn't expect to be paid to do it.

Because teachers still need to be paid and school buildings maintained for when covid is over.

Because bad parents would take the money but not educate their children.

Because it's an open invitation for fraud on a massive scale.

Because parents have a responsibility to educate their children without needing the inducement of money.

Where parents have 50:50 parental responsibility, who would get the money?

How would it impact child maintenance? Or income tax, or UC?

I could just imagine vast swathes of people who care not one jot about their child's education keeping them at home and 'home educating' them just to pocket the money. 5 kids x £3750 = £18,750 on top of what they get given for benefits or earn forwages, nice little earner. Plus imagine all the abused and neglected kids who would go under the radar if not sent to school... Yes this could happen at present however it's much more likely if you're chucking nearly 4 grand a year at folk to encourage them to not send the kid to school.

Also... "Why shouldn't parents be compensated for taking on the work?". Erm they're your kids, you made the choice to have them. Why should you be paid to do the right thing by them? Mental.

And.... "Why shouldn't parents be compensated for taking on the work? It is their tax money at the end of the day anyways, and they are paying for an unusable service."

What about those without kids? Should they be refunded a portion of their taxes because it's their money and they are paying for a service that they aren't using? Don't be so daft.

Is it all about the money? Why begrudge a parent the opportunity to take some pressure off the system and make the income feasible enough for them to not work as there are not enough jobs anyway. This could encourage schools to do better as well, as they will want parents to choose them instead. I truly think that the vast majority of parents want the best and healthiest setting for their children. It's not just about the money, and that's why some parents actually pay money to go private if they have the ability to anyways. I don't think it's appropriate to generalise as people want to do here. There should be options.

The people without children pay because those children will be the ones funding/operating the childless their healthcare and retirement in the future.

Teaching is a skill. Just because you know how to do something it doesn't mean you know how to effectively teach someone else how to do it. For me it's half basic teaching and half being around other kids and learning how to be social, how to operate in groups.

You can be smart as you like, doesn't mean you're a good teacher. Knowing how to deliver and engage a certain age group on a certain topic is something you learn how to do. It's horribly arrogant to assume anyone can do it without training.

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.

Let's look at traditional measures of academic achievement.

In 2014, SAT "test scores of college-bound homeschool students were higher than the national average of all college-bound seniors that same year," according to NHERI.

...By contrast public school kids "bombed the SAT" reports Bloomberg. Mixed, but generally disappointing results since then have education experts worry that many public school graduates are unprepared for either higher education or the workforce.

No wonder colleges not only welcome, but actively recruit, homeschooled applicants.

reason.com/2019/01/22/homeschooling-produces-better-students/

@tinselwreath

The people without children pay because those children will be the ones funding/operating the childless their healthcare and retirement in the future.

By that same logic, why should parents who home school get their taxes back to home school their child? The taxes these parents pay also goes towards funding the education of other children in society who will be the doctors/nurses, emergency services personnel who will look after them throughout their lives and fund their retirement when they get old.

The money should follow the child and where they are receiving their education. As someone mentioned upthread there have been people dealing with this issue before covid due to SEN. Those parents should have been compensated at the time as they are unable to work and as parents of course they love their child and will try their best to teach them functional knowledge at home, but society should not be taking advantage of their good will. It's immoral.

1. Many parents do not have the capacity to home educate. The majority of the families whose children attend the school I work at have a stay at home mum, but the mum does not speak English to any degree of proficiency. Remote learning set up by a school does at least allow the children chance to practice the language.
2. £300 a month would not be enough to 'compensate' for the loss of a wage. People who need to work couldn't quit their jobs on it- you'd just get parents who currently stay at home anyway just taking the money as a nice extra.
3. Safeguarding is a massive concern here. Teachers In contact with kids remotely at least know that the children are alive, and parents know they're being monitored. If a teacher has concerns, a home visit can be arranged. Home educators are not monitored in such a way, leaving children at risk of harm. You're also presuming that unmonitored home educators would actually try to educate. I've seen kids who have never been enrolled in school or nursery and literally can't hold a conversation aged five because they've not been spoken to- just shoved in front of a screen since infancy.

All in all, it's not a great idea, OP.

Sorry, spacing required:

1. Many parents do not have the capacity to home educate. The majority of the families whose children attend the school I work at have a stay at home mum, but the mum does not speak English to any degree of proficiency. Remote learning set up by a school does at least allow the children chance to practice the language.

1. £300 a month would not be enough to 'compensate' for the loss of a wage. People who need to work couldn't quit their jobs on it- you'd just get parents who currently stay at home anyway just taking the money as a nice extra.

1. Safeguarding is a massive concern here. Teachers In contact with kids remotely at least know that the children are alive, and parents know they're being monitored. If a teacher has concerns, a home visit can be arranged. Home educators are not monitored in such a way, leaving children at risk of harm. You're also presuming that unmonitored home educators would actually try to educate. I've seen kids who have never been enrolled in school or nursery and literally can't hold a conversation aged five because they've not been spoken to- just shoved in front of a screen since infancy.

All in all, it's not a great idea, OP.

... That's better.

"society should not be taking advantage of their good will. It's immoral."

What goodwill? They are your kids, you aren't doing anyone a favour. Society is doing you a favour with everything it already provides for your child.