My lone parent consultation response
Dear Sirs,
Here are my comments on The Social Security (Lone Parents and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008, as per your consultation dated 15/05/08
I am a single parent home educator in receipt of Income Support, and if the proposed changes go ahead I will potentially lose my freedom to home educate my children and thereby my ability to personally ensure that my specific duties as set out in section 7 of the Education Act 1996 are complied with. My children might have to go to school if I am forced to seek paid employment because, contrary to the Minister's apparent belief, home education does not take place solely during school hours but more usually it happens organically throughout the child's entire waking hours and I don't expect to always be able to find a babysitter in the evenings or at weekends - if ever. The only reliable, free babysitter, I fear, is school.
I have already raised three children by home educating them and making myself 100% available for them and, in these days of widespread adolescent disaffection, my three older teenagers buck the current trend by being clean living, hard-working, emotionally stable, and highly self-motivated. My hope was to provide the same kind of upbringing for my younger two children - something I see as being essential for the enjoyment of childhood and good long term mental health - but this proposal would seek to thwart my intention to continue being a devoted parent to all of my children, who have no other actively involved parents to facilitate their upbringing.
I do not 'need a break'. I am not 'asking for help'. I do not wish to seek paid employment because it will take me away from the invaluable and priceless job of taking care of my own children, and put me in the ludicrous position of having someone else be paid to take care of them in my place. This might be good for the nation's economy, but it is most definitely not good for the nation's children or for its families. In particular, from my own point of view, it is most definitely not a good proposal for my family.
Income Support provides us with enough money to live on. We don't smoke, drink, go out to expensive places or have expensive holidays. We can pay our bills, our mortgage and have enough left for food and basic supplies, which is all we need. Regardless of what official statistics insist, my family is not living in poverty, because we do not go without anything which we really need. I resent being told that we live in poverty when it isn't true, and that this must be corrected by me being forced to abandon my children to strangers while I seek paid employment whether I like it or not. It seems that the government, in its relentless and unrealistic pursuit of the goal of 100% employment, intends to actively damage the lives of thousands of defenceless people. I feel that my children's well being and stability will be put at risk by this move and that, once I agreed that I am 'available for work' (which I am not) and committed the younger two to the school system, I would not be in a position to utilise the safety valve of deregistration that will still be available to other families, if things went wrong for them there. My children would be trapped in school and I will be trapped in my paid employment, unable to help them. There would be no other family member to help them in my place either: single parent means just that and we are by no means all blessed with the luxury of an interested and supportive extended family network.
There isn't even any financial benefit in forcing home educating single parents into paid employment. When every state school place costs around £6000 per year, it's obvious straight away that home educating families like mine are saving the state thousands of pounds. By the time any small income I earn is topped up by tax credits, the Treasury will definitely be out of pocket. And yet this idea has the steam roller effect of a done deal. I am not optimistic that my response hold any sway whatsoever. We're all just statistics under this frighteningly bleak new world order, aren't we? I seriously fear for all our children and our grandchildren. And this is not what our grandparents fought for in the war, and it is certainly not what my father spent the greater part of his life walking for miles to deliver leaflets and to campaign on behalf of the Labour Party for either. It's a mercenarily harsh political decision and "I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned."
Gill Kilner
Here are my comments on The Social Security (Lone Parents and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008, as per your consultation dated 15/05/08
I am a single parent home educator in receipt of Income Support, and if the proposed changes go ahead I will potentially lose my freedom to home educate my children and thereby my ability to personally ensure that my specific duties as set out in section 7 of the Education Act 1996 are complied with. My children might have to go to school if I am forced to seek paid employment because, contrary to the Minister's apparent belief, home education does not take place solely during school hours but more usually it happens organically throughout the child's entire waking hours and I don't expect to always be able to find a babysitter in the evenings or at weekends - if ever. The only reliable, free babysitter, I fear, is school.
I have already raised three children by home educating them and making myself 100% available for them and, in these days of widespread adolescent disaffection, my three older teenagers buck the current trend by being clean living, hard-working, emotionally stable, and highly self-motivated. My hope was to provide the same kind of upbringing for my younger two children - something I see as being essential for the enjoyment of childhood and good long term mental health - but this proposal would seek to thwart my intention to continue being a devoted parent to all of my children, who have no other actively involved parents to facilitate their upbringing.
I do not 'need a break'. I am not 'asking for help'. I do not wish to seek paid employment because it will take me away from the invaluable and priceless job of taking care of my own children, and put me in the ludicrous position of having someone else be paid to take care of them in my place. This might be good for the nation's economy, but it is most definitely not good for the nation's children or for its families. In particular, from my own point of view, it is most definitely not a good proposal for my family.
Income Support provides us with enough money to live on. We don't smoke, drink, go out to expensive places or have expensive holidays. We can pay our bills, our mortgage and have enough left for food and basic supplies, which is all we need. Regardless of what official statistics insist, my family is not living in poverty, because we do not go without anything which we really need. I resent being told that we live in poverty when it isn't true, and that this must be corrected by me being forced to abandon my children to strangers while I seek paid employment whether I like it or not. It seems that the government, in its relentless and unrealistic pursuit of the goal of 100% employment, intends to actively damage the lives of thousands of defenceless people. I feel that my children's well being and stability will be put at risk by this move and that, once I agreed that I am 'available for work' (which I am not) and committed the younger two to the school system, I would not be in a position to utilise the safety valve of deregistration that will still be available to other families, if things went wrong for them there. My children would be trapped in school and I will be trapped in my paid employment, unable to help them. There would be no other family member to help them in my place either: single parent means just that and we are by no means all blessed with the luxury of an interested and supportive extended family network.
There isn't even any financial benefit in forcing home educating single parents into paid employment. When every state school place costs around £6000 per year, it's obvious straight away that home educating families like mine are saving the state thousands of pounds. By the time any small income I earn is topped up by tax credits, the Treasury will definitely be out of pocket. And yet this idea has the steam roller effect of a done deal. I am not optimistic that my response hold any sway whatsoever. We're all just statistics under this frighteningly bleak new world order, aren't we? I seriously fear for all our children and our grandchildren. And this is not what our grandparents fought for in the war, and it is certainly not what my father spent the greater part of his life walking for miles to deliver leaflets and to campaign on behalf of the Labour Party for either. It's a mercenarily harsh political decision and "I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned."
Gill Kilner
posted by Gill at
21:14
9 Comments:
Cool letter! Why has it all gone quiet on this ? Here's EO's response by the way
http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/ssac.htm
Fiona
Thanks. I suspect one reason why it seems to have all gone quiet is that those who were interested in responding might have been confused by the varying stances taken by different people and orgs.
I'm not sure though - am not on any home ed single parent lists, having been kicked off the first one by speaking out in the defence of three new members when they were falsely accused of being someone else by the mods. Some of the mods (official and unofficial) weren't even single parents! What a racket.
I very soon get tired of being on over-moderated lists anyway. Not that I usually have very incendiary things to say, (if anything at all) I just like to be free to say what I think.
So yes, I haven't really been privvy to much collective thinking about the issue at all. My response was just my instinctive reaction typed in a rush, close to the deadline as usual.
Dani got a letter from Steven Timms, asfter writing to our mp, which just said nothing. It assured her that they would take notice of the consultation responses... I bet...
Great letter, though!
Thanks Allie, though it was by no means as clear and well-structured as Dani's IMO, but given that it will most likely be totally ignored by Mr Timms et al., I thought I'd take the opportunity to just get it off my chest in a therapeutic sort of way!
Still waiting to hear back from my MP re: her further appeal to himself.
Great letter!
I wrote to my MP about this situation a while back and had a very encouraging response as he has visited our local home ed group and was genuinely delighted with the experience. He said he would pass on my concerns to the DCSF and the DWP.
2 days ago, I had another letter from him, and he enclosed a copy of a letter he had received from Jim Knight (DCSF). My MP said "I am sorry to say that the Minister does not appear very sympathetic to the cause of home education, and I regret that I cannot send you a more encouraging response."
Jim Knight's letter is as follows:
"Parents who choose to educate their children at home must be prepared to assume full financial responsibility. In Nov.'07 we published the guidelines for LAs...blah blah...which can be downloaded from...blah blah. I note that your constituent has expressed concern about the provision of local childcare. Childcare sufficiency assessments, which all LAs were required to have completed by 31 March this year, will show the demand for different kinds of childcare from local parents, including those who educate their children at home. Local Family Information Services will be able to advise parents about available childcare in their area either through extended schools or elsewhere. Stephen Timms will respond...blah blah."
Kind of missing the point a bit, isn't he? I live in a very small town, where I am the only lone parent home educator. Am I to assume they will set up some sort of childcare specifically for my one child?? Because it's either that, or school. Childminders here do not take children of my daughter's age. Or perhaps they expect me to find a job that fits in with 'extended schools' hours, which locally are 4pm-6pm, so I would have 2 hours to drop her off, travel to workplace, do job and get back to collect her at 6pm!! Would become self-employed if only I could think of something to do....
Sorry that was rather long!!!
Hi Zoe, nice to hear from you. Please don't apologise about the length of your comment - the longer the better as far as I'm concerned!
Have you got a strategy in place for these barbaric changes then? Mine is to refuse to sign as being 'available for work' then to see what they'll do next. They absolutely can't persuade me that I am available to leave my children when I'm not.
But I appreciate that's a risky strategy and that some people will feel they have to sign to get JSA then argue the toss with the panels.
Have they succeeded in criminalising relative poverty yet? I had to smile - albeit wryly - when Ivan Lewis was explaining on Radio 4 last week, that the amount of people living in 'poverty' last year had gone up due to the numbers of people at the top end of the scale who had made extra £billions. So.. um... it was a good thing, not a bad thing. Talk about being hoist by your own petard! LOL.
Hi Gill,
Yes that would be rather a risky strategy for me. I have no other income to fall back on, and no savings either. So if I refused to sign as available for work then I would be refusing JSA and would have not a penny! Like you, I also believe I am unavailable for paid work - my work is here, educating my daughter. I do not see Income Support as financing our home education - I was on it before we began, due to being a lone parent with a right to stay at home. This right is now being taken away from us. I have never been unemployed because I could not get a job, I was simply doing what I had a right to do. My letter from Stephen Timms came yesterday - he and Jim Knight both really came across as believing that my Income Support is funding our HE, which is simply not true - if it were, we would surely be able to afford to go on all the educational trips out that our local group organises, yet we have to miss them. My Income Support pays the bills leaving a small amount for groceries. Clothes & shoes? Forget it! For those we have to rely on family to help us out. So how can it be funding our HE??? Ugh, the whole thing makes me so mad. And sorry, I'm ranting again, lol. Perhaps you could set up a new blog called 'Sometime's We're Ranting' - then I wouldn't feel so guilty :o)
Back to the point!
The only real strategy for me as far as I can see is to become a self-employed...something(!)... enabling me to work the minimum 16 hours a week, from home, after my daughter has gone to bed. Then I would be off Income Support, not on JSA and would be entitled to Working Tax Credits....I think (the whole thing is just making me confused).
Hi again Zoe,
"So if I refused to sign as available for work then I would be refusing JSA and would have not a penny!"
Well, you'd presumably have your child tax credit, your housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit and any child maintenance you receive. You'd be losing the £60pw adult bit of your IS, sizeable chunk of most lone parents' incomes though that is.
"My letter from Stephen Timms came yesterday - he and Jim Knight both really came across as believing that my Income Support is funding our HE"
That's such a weird way of looking at it, isn't it? They've started with the argument that school is a free babysitter, therefore parents of school age children will all be using it, so are available for work while their children are in school. Then when we reminded them that we don't choose to use the schools, they're suddenly somehow paying us not to. I don't see how the one leads to the other, either!
I agree that our right to HE is being removed. They're effectively making school compulsory for the children of benefits recipients, or trying to.
Job ideas for WTC: selling things on ebay? Writing a book? Being a self-employed consultant (in anything you know something about)?
We're going with the off-grid plan, in the desperate hope that it will mean we can manage without that £60 pw, but it feels like a bit of a wing-and-a-prayer solution ATM. Having said that, we've got a few years to put it in place, so we might manage it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home