Lord Lucas on welfare reform: thumbs down

[Ali Admin]

Lord Lucas may mean well, but why should home educating parents be singled out for more favourable treatment than other parents when it comes to welfare benefits?

Amendment 74, moved by Lord Lucas: Jobseekers who are home-educators

The joint AHEd/Schoolhouse Every Single Parent Matters campaign was founded in the belief that all parents should be able and available to care for and educate their children without being plunged into poverty by the removal of benefits.

Creating exceptions for home educators is not the way to go, so I'm personally glad the amendment was withdrawn. No parent should be subject to a forced labour regime when they have such an important role in caring for and educating their children, whether or not they choose to send them to school.

[HomeEdMum]

agree so much. Pointed out our campaign to him on the blog. He took the line EO took during the consult and, I believe, persuaded OPF/Gingerbread in England to take once it became public that AHEd were talking to them; because OPF changed their stance and this can be seen from their statements. :-(

[noschool]

I can see the same old EO elitism creeping into other areas too, whereby some parents are deemed 'unsuitable' to home educate.

A parent is a parent as far as I am concerned. Home educators on benefits should not receive special concessions by dint of their HE status as that is plain wrong.

Not that it was ever going to happen as it would be entirely unworkable - and just think, it might incentivise too many of the 'wrong' sort to masquerade as home educators in order to avoid signing on.

[Riaz]

Originally Posted by noschool

I can see the same old EO elitism creeping into other areas too, whereby some parents are deemed 'unsuitable' to home educate.

A parent is a parent as far as I am concerned. Home educators on benefits should not receive special concessions by dint of their HE status as that is plain wrong.

There are HE parents out there who are opposed to benefits and go round thinking that everybody should stand on their own two feet financially, and hold the view that taxation is theft.

[noschool]

Originally Posted by Riaz

There are HE parents out there who are opposed to benefits and go round thinking that everybody should stand on their own two feet financially, and hold the view that taxation is theft.

I'm not one of them. I just believe there should be a much smaller state.

I take it that those who believe that taxation is theft just don't pay it, and by extension, don't use any state provided services?

I find myself drawn towards the citizen's income model, but don't pretend to have researched it properly.

[Renegade Parent]

I'm not one of them. I just believe there should be a much smaller state.

I take it that those who believe that taxation is theft just don't pay it, and by extension, don't use any state provided services?

I also would like to see a much smaller state, and I don't believe there should be no benefit system, but I would like to see it dramatically reconfigured (and I haven't sussed out how exactly either). But that's my personal opinion and I can also understand why others are more reticient about being taxed in the manner that they are to provide benefits to those who don't then contribute to society, whether that's parenting their children to the best of their ability or whatever.

The natural step of course would be to define or assess such contributions to society, intangible though they may be, in order to determine suitability for benefits. And yet we're all agreed, I think, that assessment against government-defined criteria is a Very Bad Thing Indeed and to be avoided at all costs as it results in arbitrary decision making that is detrimental to well-functioning and happy,loving families. So we're back to the beginning of the problem.

I have sympathy with both sides of the argument. I'd be far better off if I paid a rate of tax that was more representative of my actual take-up of public services, but I am also happy to pay what I pay and not use many services - especially so if I knew that it was really going to help other families. But that's me and my personal preference - not sure I can automatically expect others to feel similarly.

A big part of our decision to work for ourselves and purchase services privately, with all of the stresses, sacrifices and risks that has entailed, is to avoid even the possibility of finding ourselves accountable to someone else's whims - although it looks like for Ed Balls, even this is not enough.

However, if we moved to an education system that was more similar to the Swedish voucher model, then I think it would solve a number of problems we currently see in this country, both in terms of the failure to meet local educational diversity and need, and also recognising the costs that HE families take on themselves.

Eeek. Big comments today, sorry. Lots on my mind that has come up here.

[Riaz]

I'm fed up with encountering stroppy people who say they work really hard for a living and pay their taxes whilst sending their children to state schools going round condemning lone parents as feckless idle dole scroungers. I then point out that the state school system is not free but costs the taxpayer an average of £5,000 pounds each year per child. Therefore if a parent's annual tax bill does not cover the cost of educating their own children, then not only are they not paying a penny of their tax money to those on benefits, they are actually making a loss to UK PLC. Sadly these facts and figures fail to register with those who oppose the so called welfare culture. There is a general consensus in Britain that "free" state education is a God-given right so few people ever question how much it costs the taxpayer and are happy to see the government keep chucking billions of pounds into this hugely expensive project whilst vilifying home educating parents on benefits that are actually saving the taxpayer money.

[Renegade Parent]

Sorry for going on and on, but this is helping me clarify some thoughts. Hope no-one minds. Riaz, you have helped me arrive at the following, but I am still not 100% sure of where I am going with it:

I'm fed up with encountering stroppy people who say they work really hard for a living and pay their taxes whilst sending their children to state schools going round condemning lone parents as feckless idle dole scroungers.

It is an unhelpful and destructive attitude. It is also one that you will encounter amongst people who do not have children, or other lone parents, or those who home educate - as you mentioned previously. It's not isolated to a specific group of people, alas.

I then point out that the state school system is not free but costs the taxpayer an average of £5,000 pounds each year per child.

At least.

Therefore if a parent's annual tax bill does not cover the cost of educating their own children, then not only are they not paying a penny of their tax money to those on benefits, they are actually making a loss to UK PLC.

Correct - but then there are people who are paying signficantly higher taxes than the cost of a state education per annum; these also tend to be the people not using public services to the same degree, if at all, really. They presumably also have opinions on how they are taxed and what they are taxed for (some of course will argue that taxation is theft and that they do not want to pay it, but most people will accept some level of contribution is acceptable).

Sadly these facts and figures fail to register with those who oppose the so called welfare culture.

I suppose there is the pop culture construct of welfare as a "hammock", as opposed to a "safety net", and it is that which seems to be most objectionable to people. I reckon the vast majority of people support the idea of welfare as a safety net. Unfortunately it's impossible to achieve consensus on those definitions, which is the biggest problem here. I would love to see more children looked after by their parents - how do we effectively convince others that this is a "safety net" and not a "hammock" approach though?

There is a general consensus in Britain that "free" state education is a God-given right

Agreed - this is highly problematic as it has to be paid for somehow. My own personal opinion is that I wish people could see just how cheap and wonderful honest to goodness learning can be! However, I would suggest that nevertheless most people will have no objection to some form of universal, tax-funded education.

So few people ever question how much it costs the taxpayer

I suspect the people who do may not be the stroppy people you describe, but they do exist and the numbers are growing as the lid is lifted on some closely guarded political agendas that have feathered nests for far too long.

and are happy to see the government keep chucking billions of pounds into this hugely expensive project

Indeed, many are. Still. "More spending on public services" is the rallying cry of a government garnering votes - but the money ultimately comes from the voters themselves and there are far better ways of doing things, so yes, they should wake up!

whilst vilifying home educating parents on benefits that are actually saving the taxpayer money.

Agreed, absolutely. Which is why, as one option, a voucher-based system where the parent had direct "purchasing power" would actually reduce the cost of education across the board as well as redressing the balance between home educators and other parents.

Admittedly, it wouldn't accommodate those parents who choose to stay at home once their children reached a certain age and were in school, but it would reduce the issue purely to that of education, which few would object to funding to some degree.

*More thought necessary*

I don't see that the fundamental problem is mean people - I would like to think that the majority want to help others as well as themselves. The problem as I see it is that when that help becomes wholly state ministered, then state intervention (in the form of rules, monitoring and control) is almost certain to follow as a show of accountability to the people, at least. Being in receipt of that help therefore puts one in a more vulnerable position, which requires careful consideration to defend adequately.

[Riaz]

Originally Posted by Renegade Parent

It is an unhelpful and destructive attitude. It is also one that you will encounter amongst people who do not have children, or other lone parents, or those who home educate - as you mentioned previously. It's not isolated to a specific group of people, alas.

I suspect that these types of attitudes largely stem from the strong / Victorian / Protestant work ethic that has pervaded Britain for decades.

I suppose there is the pop culture construct of welfare as a "hammock", as opposed to a "safety net", and it is that which seems to be most objectionable to people. I reckon the vast majority of people support the idea of welfare as a safety net. Unfortunately it's impossible to achieve consensus on those definitions, which is the biggest problem here. I would love to see more children looked after by their parents - how do we effectively convince others that this is a "safety net" and not a "hammock" approach though?

I have encountered numerous people who say that living off benefits for years on end is dishonest and abusing the benefits system in order to HE is totally unacceptable. Then they start prattling on about how if it wasn't for the workshy then we wouldn't need all these Polish workers and how the Job Centre should have the rights to force benefits claimants to take a job and enrol their children in a school of the LA's choosing or have their benefits terminated.

Agreed - this is highly problematic as it has to be paid for somehow. My own personal opinion is that I wish people could see just how cheap and wonderful honest to goodness learning can be! However, I would suggest that nevertheless most people will have no objection to some form of universal, tax-funded education.

HE is generally regarded as a lifestyle choice for a small minority of eccentric families and school is the norm for conventional families.