Would you give up your job and go on benefits to get your child into the "right" school?

[Saffron]

If getting your child into the "right" school meant moving house and giving up your job with no immediate prospect of a new job in the new location, would you move house and go on benefits to get your child into the right school?

We all know economic times are tough, and with the high cost of childcare, from some people's financial point of view it hardly makes sense to work compared to going on government benefits.

And, of course we've probably all known people who moved house to get their child into the school they felt was right for them.

But if moving = no job, just how far would you be willing to push it? Is this the right/good use of benefits? (Consider that top schooling might confer a life-long advantage for the child?)

(Edited to say the scenario is not mine personally. I'm going back to KCL the second my postdoc grant comes through, come hell or high water!)

[sunbob]

Remember that if you intentionally become unemployed you may well not be entitled to benefits. Also, if you no longer have a job/income a bank would lend you less in terms of a mortgage.

[Saffron]

That's an interesting point, re intent. If the intent is to work again, but no jobs in your field are immediately available in the new location, how does that stack up in the government's eyes as far as benefits are concerned?

Would that only be unemployment benefit? Jobseekers allowance? Or would intent affect other benefits, eg housing or child benefits?

[vicki08]

you would not receive benefits if you made yourself unemployed for about 6-8 weeks then you would get the sum of ?65.00 roughly to live on

[Saffron]

So that's just JSA, no? You could still receive delayed JSA harship payment. What about council tax benefit, income support, child benefit? Taken that you're not working, you don't have to pay childcare fees, so you don't have that cost about which to worry. Is it worth it, and would you do it if you were convinced it was the right decision for your child?

[Carbonara]

Of course not.

There would never be one and only 'right' school that the child could attend and still succeed.

What a hysterical response it would be.

It would put so much pressure on the child.

And it would set a bad example and make a terrible role model of you. The home environment is at least as important as the school.

Not sure why the taxpayer should support someone on benefits just to get a place in a queue for a preferred school!

[Saffron]

Yes, the point about pressure on the child is a good one. And what if your child hated the school after a couple of years?! Of course, if you're on the margins of society financially, what do you stand to lose otherwise? Think of someone moving from inner-city conditions, perhaps to a location further afield. In that case, you might be a good role model if you brought your child to a better environment.

[zeban]

Actually you can and probably would be sanctioned for up to 6 months if you leave your job voluntarily. You definitely cannot rely on getting the hardship payment- if you've left your job voluntarily then you probably wouldn't be entitled to get the hardhip payment anyway. I don't know if in that time you could get housing benefits or council tax benefits either-the amount you get depends on your income and if you have none then I think you have to have proof that you have nothing coming in which is usually through a letter showing you get job seekers allowance, as well as bank statements etc etc. Also remember there's a maximum amount of housing benefit you can get and these have been lowered so don't assume you'ld get everything covered. Personally I agree with Carbonara. Not a great idea to say the least!

Edited to add I also think it's wrong when middle class parents buy a house or rent a place on top of the house they already have just to get their kids into the 'best' schools. But that's another topic which I don't intend to go into don't worry!

[prickle]

Is this a serious question?

House move, unemployment and possible poverty leading to possible debt to possible strains on relationships, new school, loss of friends ? I could go on ? all highly stressful for the child (not to mention the parent). How can you justify inflicting all that on your family for the *chance* of getting into the 'right' school. Likely as not such a good school will be over-subscribed in any case!

Talk about thinking grass is greener ? only to discover too late that its not!!

[dulwichgirl2]

Most responses focus on the child and the effect on the family.

Few focus on the immorality of accepting benefits that others have paid into from their hard earned cash.

Put it this way: why should the bus driver with a family to feed, the single woman working at tesco or the factory worker pay into a pot that the hypothetical person is choosing to take benefits from?

That is where the immorality lies- expecting others to work to look after you and your family.

[sunbob]

Benefits are a small amount of money. If you were living off them you would be worrying about how you could afford the uniforms for this hypothetical school and how to put decent food in their lunch box. If you were poor enough to get free school meals then you would be worrying how to feed your family in the holidays.

There is a fine line between having enough and not having enough (eg you could lose your job and not be able to get another). There is fine line between not having enough and becoming destitute (eg you can no longer pay your rent/mortgage, spiraling debt lose your home etc). I wish I could write more eloquently to give some kind of picture of what poverty is like for the many people engine are living through it day by day.

[zeban]

Absolutely sunbob

[EDmummy]

Good post Sunbob. I'm a little confused as to how you would receive benefits unless you were a single parent. Having no experience of the system am I correct in understanding that if the wife in a couple where the husband is earning a good salary gives up her job that you would be entitled to benefits?!

[canadianlisa]

EDMummy, no you would not be able to claim benefits if your husband was making a good salary.

I think that it is a bit simplistic to consider this. If you left your current property, how would you afford mortgage /private rent on benefits? You are potentially (likely) going to be seen as 'intentionally homeless' if you left or were evicted from your current property. There is basically no way you are going to be given a council house given waiting lists almost everywhere in the country. I think you would want to seriously research what temporary accomodation looks like for a family before you thought about this. Having seen lots of it, I can assure you it is not very nice for the most part. Or looked at the standard of private rentals that accept housing benefit. Overall a risky strategy and one that I think would be much harder than expected. It is a very poor use of benefits in my opinion.

[zeban]

No they wouldn't get benefits EDmummy

[tiddles]

I cannot see how you can move house to a more expensive area (as in most cases, houses near a 'good' school have a serious premium) and lose/give up your job. I cannot work out on what basis the original poster is basing the argument??

sorry if being dim.....

[sunbob]

Edmummy - I think you might get your 6 months worth of jobseekers allowance if you were looking for work (hard work with mo childcare). After that its all means tested. 'good money' not sure I'd call it that, I think the line for getting anything is somewhere around twenty grand.

[Otta]

I'm with Carbonara and Prickle.

[Saffron]

I wouldn't consider doing it personally b/c I have been working very hard for a long time in my area of interest to get to where I am now (and I'm fortunate that my department would go out on a limb to keep me!), but it can and does happen.

I've known 3 families that have successfully moved houses (and 1 more that is considering it), all of them out of London to varying distances, so they could get what they felt was the right school in the right environment. And it wasn't always private/independent schools for which they were aiming. Obviously the hypothetical scenario as I've given it is an extreme one; however, all 3 of the families who have done this already, have at some point claimed some form of government financial benefit. (And they all did eventually find some form of employment.)

Re JSA: Directgov says that a person can claim some forms of JSA even if the individual has resigned voluntarily.

"If you have voluntarily quit without good reason, your Jobcentre Plus can delay your Jobseeker's Allowance. ... If you can't claim Jobseeker's Allowance, you may still be able to claim a hardship payment, which is a reduced amount of Jobseeker's Allowance."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/index.htm

Interesting that people's main concerns are the benefits payments to the parent, and not the child's future. If moving for a better school, into a better environment, could lift the child into better life circumstances, then the advantage conferred to the child would be life long. This could mean that the child would be more likely to hold longterm full time employment as an adult and be less likely to seek governmental financial support as an adult.

A recent Panorama program (Panorama: The Cost of Raising Britain) highlighted the differences between British and Norwegian attitudes towards taxes and benefits. Nursery fees are capped in Norway, where the childcare system is heavily subsidised by the goverment, allowing more women to enter the workforce and benefitting the economy as a whole. Childless Norwegian couples do not resent their taxes being used to this purpose b/c they recognise the overall societal benefit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cz4bx/Panorama_The_Cost_of_Raising_Britain/

Does supporting people to move house and attain betterment for their children help them to break free of low income cycles? If so then that's a good thing. But how does this apply to middle income families? Should they not have the same support? How would you draw the line?

Well, I certainly don't have all the answers, but it's great food for thought, Forumites! :)

[GinaG3]

Having been on benefits, to now not being on benefits, spending the whole time whilst on them wishing everyday I could come off them and feeling like I cant even provide for my own family. I wouldn't understand why anyone would consider putting themselves into this position. It's horrible. Everyone treats you like your in the same boat. You know just taking what you can get, going along for an easy ride. Even if your not! The hat fits and all that..

If my child was happy, I could keep them fed, warm, loved and safe that's enough for me. A child can come from nothing and make a great life for themselves. Without the need for an 'amazing' school. Being on benefits and not knowing what's around the corner, having your claims stopped for assessments, altered, running about with paperwork, hectic phone calls, worrying about when you will be paid. It's not a nice situation. I never wish to be in that situation again, let alone out of choice. You've got to be mad!

That's my opinion..

[prickle]

Saffron: "Interesting that people's main concerns are the benefits payments to the parent, and not the child's future. If moving for a better school, into a better environment, could lift the child into better life circumstances, then the advantage conferred to the child would be life long. This could mean that the child would be more likely to hold longterm full time employment as an adult and be less likely to seek governmental financial support as an adult."

I think you make a major assumption that somehow schools outside London are better. Not so says Ofsted.

Evening Standard

Also, school is only a part of the picture. Family, stability, friends, money are all very important for a child. I moved house several times in my childhood. The loss of good friends (children don't really have the wherewithall to keep long distance friendships) and trauma of starting in new schools are things that stay with me still.

As I said before grass *always* seems greener, the trick is to make the best of what we have here. And that is a lot.

[Saffron]

prickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron: "Interesting that people's main concerns

> are the benefits payments to the parent, and not

> the child's future. If moving for a better school,

> into a better environment, could lift the child

> into better life circumstances, then the advantage

> conferred to the child would be life long. This

> could mean that the child would be more likely to

> hold longterm full time employment as an adult and

> be less likely to seek governmental financial

> support as an adult."

>

> I think you make a major assumption that somehow

> schools outside London are better. Not so says

> Ofsted.

>

Actually, the statement doesn't mention London at all, and I do agree that there are good (and no so good) schools to be found everywhere. You're right that school isn't everything. Environment is important too, and I think the two would always have to be examined together. Also, in some people's eyes good is not equal to right, where schools are concerned. (Crazy but true, not making this up!)

Of the 3 families I know that have moved, their children were all under 5 years old. They weren't affect by the friendship issues for the children, but everyone's different. Although one of the parents did say that she missed her own friends, and the new location wasn't initially as nice as she'd expected. As you say, grass always greener etc.

[Otta]

I think what some people may describe as "better" (and I am NOT talking about Saffron) is probably more accurately described as "white middle class twee".

[Saffron]

Yup. Not everyone's circustance, but I've seen that in one case. And this was the one family that was not initially happy with their new environment post-move. They were probably the family that was the best off, just trying to improve what they had. The other 2 families were not all in good circumstances and are now much, much happier, parents and children alike.

[Yak]

There was a Radio 4 analysis programme on schools, selection, league tables & lifeoutcomes recently.

What I found really interesting was the research on league tables, which showed them to be frankly useless, and that the effect of schooling on life chances amounted to about 10%. The other 90% was other socio-economic factors which were set in stone way before little Timmy set foot in a primary. You can listen or download the transcript here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b9hjs