Education for military orphans.

[Al R]

Following the chopped debate about education from the other week, Lord Astor of Hever (Shadow Minister of Defence) wants to press forward with a few ideas, He has a military background, and is almost impossibly polite and courteous.

He is keen that orphans of all servicemen who have fallen in battle should be well educated at public expense (should the surviving parent decide that it would be appropriate - boarding maybe) and regardless (because?) of family circumstances. At present the parent can approach service charities for help and although service charities are superb (as we know), the surviving parent shouldn't have to go down the route of being desperate and invariably, its too late by then anyway. The child/children have already started to suffer and family life has started to fragment through 'simply' being victims of tragic circumstance. The MoD has no scheme in place and the RBL isn't aware of anything.

Lord Astor wants to table a parliamentary question and under the mistaken impression that I know my arse from my elbow, has asked for a steer. I know that it will be turned into Lord-ese anyway, but there will be one shot at this and I'm terrified of f#cking it up. Does anyone have insight, or perhaps a suggestion how to word it so that I don't 'merely' get a response but so that it presses the right buttons at the right level (covenant issues are of course, big political news and making hay springs to mind). Examples of how Lord Astor works are in these links and I suppose I'd like to be able to provide him with 70-80 words. I am open to suggestions, and would appreciate any help with this and how to take the idea forward. Dealing with children's welfare makes it a sensitive matter so tub thumping is a bit of a no-no.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-09a.77.3&s=astor#g77.4

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-03a.29.3&s=astor#g29.4

To summarise, as I see it and in terms of priority, these are the issues;

A) Good education for military orphans to rebalance their loss.

B) Studies into how being a military orphan dissadvantages a child.

Thanks.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

1.4g said,

"There was a reason why it was chopped, mainly because it was boring!!!! Just like you. Give it a rest or at least start this in jetblast. You crusty old fart.:E Hee hee hee he can't see this."

Not sure if Citizen Al has banned me yet so maybe he will get to see your comments :E

[Melchett01]

Think it would be a cracking idea - one of the few truly worthy things to come out of Parliament if it does go through.

Have you thought about having a look at what they do in the States for military orphans? I would have thought that this sort of thing would be typical of the US military and the way they look after their ex-serving & families. If nothing else, it may give you a steer or a few thoughts.

Is there a time limit on this?

[Al R]

Hi Melchett,

Thanks. No - no time limit apart from the fact that its an idea of its time I suppose. I have looked at lots of US material..

http://www.hhloans.com/cfbin/tofa2.cfm?ID=23

.. and they seem to have their own angle on it. The way that the Masons here do it though, is the way I would like to see things happening, ie; the nation's default setting assumes you will get help rather than having to apply for it, and if you don't need it, you can opt out. Just doing that would mean one problem less for the widow/widower, would ease the blow and reduce alienation. That seems slightly different to the US approach, which simply approaches things from a different angle, but has the same end result.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

You can only imagine and marvel at the way the USA treats it's military folk, as I sit here in a US airport waiting for a flight I am amazed at the amount of folk wandering round in uniform. Not just a few but hundreds all going to different locations, been her for 4 hours now and it's fantastic to watch how their fellow Americans pass compliment after compliment to them.

Read several US Airforce publications whilst here and the manner with which they treat the families of the fallen is truly humbling and if we could even get close we would be doing way better than we currently achieve.............Remember Headly Court etc etc..........ongoing over here it would appear with load of dosh being raised :D

If Al can get out of his computer chair, dust off both shoulders, stop bleating/harping on etc etc and start a meaningful campaign he WILL get my vote and support.

But if this is simply a return to the previous class conscious drivel then........................:ugh:

[NP20]

SFFP,

I agree that the US public do hold their Serviceman in high esteem, but their politicians (of whom the Executive are arguably a bunch of war dodgers - I think the phrase for them is 'Chicken Hawks') are a little less caring. See the scandal of the Walter Reed Medical Facility:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

Or, the state of the Barracks at Fort Bragg that soldiers returning from Afghanistan have to endure:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/28/barracks.bragg/index.html

Or Rumsfeld's response to troops in Iraq asking whether their equipment is good enough, was '...you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want'. Caring bloke eh...

It would seem that the grass isn't always necessarily greener on the other side. In addition, the millions of Americans without sufficient medical insurance would give their right arm for the level of service provided by the NHS (provided that the operation didn't cost them anything :}).

Back on topic, who could/would argue against providing school fees for children who have lost a parent on Ops?

[Al R]

NP said: .. who could/would argue against providing school fees for children who have lost a parent on Ops?

I agree, and everyone I have spoken to does too although I'm convinced that someone somewhere will simply pick up a dusty tome and refer to Reg: 123abc and tell me that it already exists and everyone will roll their eyes. But if there is 123abc, damned if I can find it.

I watched a local parade yesterday for homecoming troops and it was great to see the polite but warm applause that greeted them. As you say, there can be no reason why we would deny the children of those who laid down their lives in our name the very best chances in early life. I suppose that in the grand scheme of things, the sums aren't massive, and I can't see any potential downside either.

[fin1012]

Related but slightly off topic, my understanding is that under the present system, in the event of the death of the serving parent, CEA for children already at boarding school continues until the end of the stage they are already in - i.e. if a child has just started a 2 year A Level course, payment continues until A Levels complete. Is this correct?

Isn't this whole issue a personal responsibility thing? As a responsible parent about to deploy on ops (again), I have ensured my life cover will be adequate for my wife to make her own decisions. If she wants to continue to pay the kids through school she can, if the need to send the kids to boarding school is removed because we no longer need to move every 2 years, she can spend it on shoes or anything at all. I am very much in favour of this approach, rather than expecting the nanny state to pick up the tab for everything. After all, it was my choice to join and my choice to stay in, knowing the risk I am taking. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned (or not a Socialist)

:cool:

[dallas]

I'm hesitant to agree Al, but it might be because of my underlying opposition to the nanny state dishing out everything to everyone. I do think the family of a serviceman killed on duty should receive some sort of one-off compensation to alleviate the financial pressures that the situation creates, but I'm not sure an 'education voucher' is the way, and many a pressured kid would probably agree in a few years time.

I would favour something akin to 5ish years gross salary - maybe more? - leaving the family to determine what works best for them; maybe paying off the mortgage would suit them better than a place at uni?

And if the state provides a free eduction to kids of servicemen, what about people killed in other occupations, such as the emergency services?

[gaylord]

The Duke of Yorks was set up specifically for Military Orphans and is still going. It used to be the case that if your father had died in service you automatically got a place and all boarding fees paid for, all the rest of us had to do an entrance exam. I think this rule still exists.

[covec]

AI R

There are already two military ONLY schools in the UK that give priority to kids suffering family loss due to Service - as well as other reasons.

I am not going to name them here: PM me if you wish.

My kids go to one.:ok:

Duke of York's is one, yes!

[Wycombe]

Gaylord, you beat me to it....

As this is a UK Mil Forum, surprised that no-one had mentioned DYRMS yet, esp. as it is now co-ed and takes offspring from all 3 services, unlike in my day!

As far as I know also, "compassionate" admission still exists, but I'm sure the School would be able to confirm.

Sadly I suspect there could be more of them these days. In my time, (70's, 80's) there were on average a couple of lads in each years' intake of approx 75 that fell into this category.

Sadly, the School also suffered it's first casualty of a former pupil in the Middle East last year.....RIP

[nav attacking]

... CEA or Boarding school allowance as we used to know it. This allowance is obviously open to all, but is often abused by the Senior ranks who are the only ones that can afford to contribute to it.

1.4G you are starting to spout c£&p again. If anyone really values their childs education they can afford the parental contributions to send their children to a private school. The whole idea of the scheme is that the kids avoid being messed around moving from school to school during what are the most important years of their lives. Most of the approved schools' fees are covered by the CEA payments with only a 10% parental contribution being required.

I know for a fact that a number of NCO and SNCOs take advantage of the CEA scheme as well the Senior Ranks that you are so obviously bitter towards. Me thinks it is just that you can't get promoted because of your attitude?

[Al R]

Thank you all, for taking the time to reply. The Dept for Children, Schools and Families has passed the buck back to the MoD. I suppose, by doing that, the implication is that 'even' an orphan has to have a sponsor - he/she doesn't have much in the way of individual rights at source. The Conservatives seem to like the plan and that bodes well.

I take the point completely that there are some schools which offer a fantastic service but maybe these vulnerable children shouldn't need to start life dependent on charity and a robust school business model. They should start life knowing that the nation valued their father/mother to the extent that 'it' sprang to action on behalf of us all, not legions of fantastic, well meaning people. I don't decry their efforts one bit - and I know that my default setting won't be suitable for all, but for so many reasons.. for the child and surviving partner or Estate, it should still be the first line of defence. Norton House at Headley should never in a million years have had to be the subject of a campaign by ARRSE and SSAFA and RBL etc.

Covec - shot over!

[Al R]

Reading that first post, I seem to have really had my head up my arse. :E

But.

The Press Association: Grants plan for war dead's children (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hTWBjMRma4l0YAXBm9q0boeHOO3g)

eta: Another area for concern which is going to cause big problems unless its addressed, is this.

MoD News - Armed Forces' Veterans In Jail 'On The Rise' (http://www.modoracle.com/news/Armed-Forces-Veterans-In-Jail-On-The-Rise_19632.html)