Boarding School Allowance under Review
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, someone would be along to argue against the obvious.
If you enjoy the "good fortune" of your poster's lack of a need to move you, why shouldn't the Treasury enjoy the resultant lack of a need for your bin lids to be housed and educated away from home?
You say it's nice to have the option even though you might not genuinely need it.
THEY say it's nice (cheap) not to have the option even though you might need it.
It's a perk really, not a right, and like all perks it is going to vanish, sooner or later. I'd lay money on it, cheap housing, free uniforms, home to duty, will all slowly disappear as someone in HM Counting House says with blissful ignorance "Civvies don't get this, why should our services?". Civvy police are buying certain items of their own uniform in some forces now.
Remember the good old days when the wife and kids were cared for by military folk in the on-base med centre?
Delete "Medical care", insert "Education".
If you enjoy the "good fortune" of your poster's lack of a need to move you, why shouldn't the Treasury enjoy the resultant lack of a need for your bin lids to be housed and educated away from home?
You say it's nice to have the option even though you might not genuinely need it.
THEY say it's nice (cheap) not to have the option even though you might need it.
It's a perk really, not a right, and like all perks it is going to vanish, sooner or later. I'd lay money on it, cheap housing, free uniforms, home to duty, will all slowly disappear as someone in HM Counting House says with blissful ignorance "Civvies don't get this, why should our services?". Civvy police are buying certain items of their own uniform in some forces now.
Remember the good old days when the wife and kids were cared for by military folk in the on-base med centre?
Delete "Medical care", insert "Education".
Not to worry chaps. The rumour from the Centre is that the Principal Personnel Officers of all 3 Services have just agreed to a freeze on ALL allowances bar LOA ('cos there's lots of Green that receive that) and BSA or CEA or whatever its called this week ('cos lots of VSOs receive that). All other allowances will be frozen at current levels.................
and that includes all specialist pay
Open the flood gates....
and that includes all specialist pay
Open the flood gates....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to worry chaps. The rumour from the Centre is that the Principal Personnel Officers of all 3 Services have just agreed to a freeze on ALL allowances bar LOA ('cos there's lots of Green that receive that) and BSA or CEA or whatever its called this week ('cos lots of VSOs receive that). All other allowances will be frozen at current levels.................
Free Man, Not a Number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Well here of course.
Age: 58
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 school moves before I was 10 years old (none after as YWIW senior left the RAF) - family life was always a priority so we stayed together (I think he wanted the posting allowance!). So I and my sister went to local schools and learnt to fit in, tricky in Morayshire in the 70's as English kids were openly bullied, but not impossible.
My cousins went to Finborough (? SP) boarding school, their father was an NCO - having said that they could have gone to a local school as there were no moves during the school period of their lives - I always thought it was a bit of a cheek, as it reduced the pot of available money for those who did need it. But they seemed to survive on the stability.
In the end, it's a renumeration benefit that was offered and is now being altered / withdrawn. So worthy of discussion, but for my money going to local schools and moving every few years is pretty much what working life is all about. Mrs YWIW went through the US DODS scheme and also moved every two years to no great character flaws (apart from her liking for me) or educational defects.
My cousins went to Finborough (? SP) boarding school, their father was an NCO - having said that they could have gone to a local school as there were no moves during the school period of their lives - I always thought it was a bit of a cheek, as it reduced the pot of available money for those who did need it. But they seemed to survive on the stability.
In the end, it's a renumeration benefit that was offered and is now being altered / withdrawn. So worthy of discussion, but for my money going to local schools and moving every few years is pretty much what working life is all about. Mrs YWIW went through the US DODS scheme and also moved every two years to no great character flaws (apart from her liking for me) or educational defects.
Civvy police are buying certain items of their own uniform in some forces now.
As he does a very worthwhile job involving machine guns I don't mind that much.
But for all the other fed to$$ers pointing speed cameras at congested A-roads and long, straight B-roads..... why should they get any special privileges?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking Radalt
"You say it's nice to have the option even though you might not genuinely need it."
Just where did I say that!
State your view by all means, but do not invent "quotes" in an attempt to discredit the opposition. That is the territory of the spin doctor.
You also missed the main point of my last post. It is all very well to look back now and argue that someone who is re-toured in place obviously had no need of support in the first place. When I came here, the move coincided exactly with the time that I had to plan how to give my children stability for the vital 5 years from 11 to 16. Since they are 2 years apart at school, I had to look for the best solution for at least the next 7 years. I had a posting notice (sorry - "assignment") good for 3 years maximum at the time. The state schools here are good (at least some of them), but I had to consider that, if and when I were posted, I would have no guarantee that they would have similar access to a half-decent school at another location. My other options included to serve unaccompanied or commute daily, possibly over unacceptably long distances. That would not do me much good, nor do I believe it does the Service any good in the long term. So I chose the Boarding School route, and, while I remain here, I now claim CEA(Day) partly because it saves the taxpayer money while it remains a practical solution. I also did all I could to limit the cost, for example by chosing a perfectly good, but not excessively expensive, school. Furthemore, I entered my kids for Scholarships at my expense, and which they won by their own efforts and on their own merits, with the side benefit that the fees are reduced and the taxpayer pays less CEA. I think I have been reasonably pro-active and avoided excessive "sponging", so I resent the implication.
The arguments surrounding this issue are much more complex than glib one-liner headlines about "perks". But I wonder how many people with my views will be invited to contribute to the MoDs debate!
Regards
Ginseng
Just where did I say that!
State your view by all means, but do not invent "quotes" in an attempt to discredit the opposition. That is the territory of the spin doctor.
You also missed the main point of my last post. It is all very well to look back now and argue that someone who is re-toured in place obviously had no need of support in the first place. When I came here, the move coincided exactly with the time that I had to plan how to give my children stability for the vital 5 years from 11 to 16. Since they are 2 years apart at school, I had to look for the best solution for at least the next 7 years. I had a posting notice (sorry - "assignment") good for 3 years maximum at the time. The state schools here are good (at least some of them), but I had to consider that, if and when I were posted, I would have no guarantee that they would have similar access to a half-decent school at another location. My other options included to serve unaccompanied or commute daily, possibly over unacceptably long distances. That would not do me much good, nor do I believe it does the Service any good in the long term. So I chose the Boarding School route, and, while I remain here, I now claim CEA(Day) partly because it saves the taxpayer money while it remains a practical solution. I also did all I could to limit the cost, for example by chosing a perfectly good, but not excessively expensive, school. Furthemore, I entered my kids for Scholarships at my expense, and which they won by their own efforts and on their own merits, with the side benefit that the fees are reduced and the taxpayer pays less CEA. I think I have been reasonably pro-active and avoided excessive "sponging", so I resent the implication.
The arguments surrounding this issue are much more complex than glib one-liner headlines about "perks". But I wonder how many people with my views will be invited to contribute to the MoDs debate!
Regards
Ginseng
Talking Radalt
Ginseng makes some very good points, are you are talking b***ocks!
Take the example of somebody posted to Lossie, who has kids coming up to 11-13. You have a posting notice for 3 years, but who knows what will happen after then, or where you will be? Do you put your kids into the Scottish state system, studying for Standards/Highers, only to find 3 years later, when they in the middle of important exam years, you have to move them to England, into a totally different system, with GCSEs/A-levels. Do you take the risk that you can be retoured at Lossie/Kinloss, or at least in Scotland. Alternatively do you consider boarding school as an option for continuity for your kids.
If you do elect to put them in boarding school and your next tour is at Kinloss is that your fault? Are you advocating you should then remove them from boarding school, once again disturbing their education, just because you weren't actually moved geographically. Maybe you should just get desk officers to move everyone with kids in boarding school every 3 years, to justify the paying of the allowance!!
Ginseng makes some very good points, are you are talking b***ocks!
Take the example of somebody posted to Lossie, who has kids coming up to 11-13. You have a posting notice for 3 years, but who knows what will happen after then, or where you will be? Do you put your kids into the Scottish state system, studying for Standards/Highers, only to find 3 years later, when they in the middle of important exam years, you have to move them to England, into a totally different system, with GCSEs/A-levels. Do you take the risk that you can be retoured at Lossie/Kinloss, or at least in Scotland. Alternatively do you consider boarding school as an option for continuity for your kids.
If you do elect to put them in boarding school and your next tour is at Kinloss is that your fault? Are you advocating you should then remove them from boarding school, once again disturbing their education, just because you weren't actually moved geographically. Maybe you should just get desk officers to move everyone with kids in boarding school every 3 years, to justify the paying of the allowance!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mentioned about having the "good fortune" of not being posted, yet you also still want BSA?
All I'm asking is why is it so unacceptable for the Treasury to also look at the benefits of this "good fortune" from their point of view?
Maybe they (and I) have got totally the wrong end of the stick, but I can see why the MOD is questioning it. There are MILLIONS of people who now have as turbulent a domestic lifestyle as the military. They all cope, so the question now being asked is why can't we. As I said before, this applies to nearly every aspect of our work. Notice the rail card (once free) is now going up to over a tenner. Defence-funded dentistry is on the decline too. All small losses but they add up to one huge saving and THAT is what HMG want.
I think it sucks too but it's going on everywhere. Sadly, the cheapest and therefore most attractive option in the eyes of our current lords and masters is just you, in post, doing your job. If any outside financial burdens can be done away with or reduced they will be.
So morale will plummet. Yeah, and? That has no short term or easily identifiable financial value, it carries no pound-sign and appears on no spread sheet, so it can be allowed to decline. Cut an allowance though and kerching! You've suddenly saved a very real and visible figure.
"Last year BSA cost the taxpayer £Xmillion, this year, nothing!". It's yet another example of the accountants knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
And it wasn't a glib one liner. The BSA really is a perk at the end of the day, it's the MOD subsidising something to make Service life less disagreeable. The fact that a number of people have become so accustomed to certain allowances as to rely on them (and admit it, that does happen) doesn't help the defence.
OK so there are genuine cases out there, but these are the wheat that need separating from the chaff - that's too difficult and costly to administer so everyone loses out.
This loss of BSA is just MOD coming in line with a great many other employers, or at least trying to.
It falls apart when you look at what we've also been missing out on all these years
All I'm asking is why is it so unacceptable for the Treasury to also look at the benefits of this "good fortune" from their point of view?
Maybe they (and I) have got totally the wrong end of the stick, but I can see why the MOD is questioning it. There are MILLIONS of people who now have as turbulent a domestic lifestyle as the military. They all cope, so the question now being asked is why can't we. As I said before, this applies to nearly every aspect of our work. Notice the rail card (once free) is now going up to over a tenner. Defence-funded dentistry is on the decline too. All small losses but they add up to one huge saving and THAT is what HMG want.
I think it sucks too but it's going on everywhere. Sadly, the cheapest and therefore most attractive option in the eyes of our current lords and masters is just you, in post, doing your job. If any outside financial burdens can be done away with or reduced they will be.
So morale will plummet. Yeah, and? That has no short term or easily identifiable financial value, it carries no pound-sign and appears on no spread sheet, so it can be allowed to decline. Cut an allowance though and kerching! You've suddenly saved a very real and visible figure.
"Last year BSA cost the taxpayer £Xmillion, this year, nothing!". It's yet another example of the accountants knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
And it wasn't a glib one liner. The BSA really is a perk at the end of the day, it's the MOD subsidising something to make Service life less disagreeable. The fact that a number of people have become so accustomed to certain allowances as to rely on them (and admit it, that does happen) doesn't help the defence.
OK so there are genuine cases out there, but these are the wheat that need separating from the chaff - that's too difficult and costly to administer so everyone loses out.
This loss of BSA is just MOD coming in line with a great many other employers, or at least trying to.
It falls apart when you look at what we've also been missing out on all these years
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, no matter how much posturing and shouting goes on, how many people actually DO vote with their feet? Every year the pay rise/drop comes out, the allowances change, and people say "that's it, I'm going" - but 6 months later they are still there because in reality, you have very little choice but to keep slogging away for the pension at the end of it all. It does people good to let off steam, but at the end of the day, the upper echelons know that only a very small percentage will actually walk - and this is a recognised fact. When Pay2K came in to the RN, and everyone was divided into Upper and Lower Classes, the WO(MAA)s put their notices in. Nice as an expression of dislike for the system, but over the next 6 months, all the notices came out again as they realised that they liked the job, could cope with the money, and they wanted that nice big pension at the end of it.
If you leave know, no matter how much stability you inject into your life, your next employer is not going to cough up to educate your children....
If you leave know, no matter how much stability you inject into your life, your next employer is not going to cough up to educate your children....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR, I think the millions having a turbulent life is a bit of an exaggeration, the real point of the CEA is that outside your employer does not move you around the country every three years, often to remote rural locations. Yes some people are fortunate that they are able to put down roots in their locality, but there are plenty who don't. Personally I am grateful for the fact that I have been able to place my children in a stable environment whilst my wife and I have followed the flag. No1 son is due at OASC shortly, I have no doubt that he was able to work very hard at school because it was settled (useful 'cos he wants to be a pilot). Maybe a quick survey on the backgrounds of our senior leadership would reveal, I suspect, that many, if not all did not have their schooling interrupted.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are getting very emotive over this subject and arguably rightly so, however, lets remember that the existing system allows serving personnel to buy their own home, put this kids into a local boarding school (or vice versa) and then, after one year, bring their kids out and draw CEA (Day) or day school allowance for the remainder of their kids school life. No need to move the kids due to posting (serving partner lives away and probably bean steals to boot) and no need to put kids back into boarding as they will living with the non-serving partner in their privately owned home.
If the review of the boarding school allowance removes this option, then I have no particular problem with the review. What the review mustn't do is remove the allowance altogether otherwise some children’s education will be severely compromised (egg the Scotland to England example given above).
If the review of the boarding school allowance removes this option, then I have no particular problem with the review. What the review mustn't do is remove the allowance altogether otherwise some children’s education will be severely compromised (egg the Scotland to England example given above).
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR, I understand where you are coming from when you talk about turbulence outside of the military, but we must remember that a lot of that is down to personal choice. Yes people are staying in jobs for less time; however, civilians are able to choose when they move and also pick another job within a reasonable commuting distance, thereby managing their children's education that way.
In this current climate of manpower reductions, it probably suits to keep eroding at the 'perks' of the job to see if they can convince a few more people to leave of their own accord without having to make them redundant. I just wonder what they are going to do to maintain the status quo of age and experience once they have achieved their aims...
In this current climate of manpower reductions, it probably suits to keep eroding at the 'perks' of the job to see if they can convince a few more people to leave of their own accord without having to make them redundant. I just wonder what they are going to do to maintain the status quo of age and experience once they have achieved their aims...
Also whilst emotive, the numbers involved vs cost are small. Times was quoting there as being abour 6000 personnel claiming BSA at a cost of nearly £100 million pa. Thats a lot of money for roughly 3% of the armed forces.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In ARRSE, I mentioned that perhaps we could/should return to Service Children's Education - ie Service schools (and got annihilated by those who believed that I was trying to support the case to remove BSA/CEA!).
We already have these in certain foreign locations, but with the drive to co-locate and increase manpower in fewer locations in the UK, perhaps it would be more beneficial to fund Service schools. This would prevent the local infrastructure from being over-run with Service children, and would ensure continuity of education - the schools-on-camp could be boarding school based to ensure continuity, and the costs would be more reasonable and kept "in-house". As "faith" schools are being established and supported (or in some cases sponsored by business), why should we not have "service" schools that run on the same basis? We even have serviing personnel who are qualified to teach.....
Obviously too simplistic as a total solution, but possibly a way towards preventing the Treasury from eroding a benefit completely?
We already have these in certain foreign locations, but with the drive to co-locate and increase manpower in fewer locations in the UK, perhaps it would be more beneficial to fund Service schools. This would prevent the local infrastructure from being over-run with Service children, and would ensure continuity of education - the schools-on-camp could be boarding school based to ensure continuity, and the costs would be more reasonable and kept "in-house". As "faith" schools are being established and supported (or in some cases sponsored by business), why should we not have "service" schools that run on the same basis? We even have serviing personnel who are qualified to teach.....
Obviously too simplistic as a total solution, but possibly a way towards preventing the Treasury from eroding a benefit completely?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Figures for the last few years, climbing steadily. Due to increasing turbulence, poor local school performance, or something else?
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/41116w05.htm
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the columns carefully in Hansard, the climb is not steady, there is a single and distorting jump at Autumn 2001. Take that out and the variation across the 3 services in less than 1.5%, in fact according to the published figures the Army and RN have slightly fewer claimants at the end of the reporting period.
Reasons? Maybe our expeditionary ethos, it is again easier to reduce disruption to the childrens lives if they are with their friends at school rather thanseeing dad (or mum) disappearing again. Thats what mine have said to me anyway, of course they may just want to get rid of me
Reasons? Maybe our expeditionary ethos, it is again easier to reduce disruption to the childrens lives if they are with their friends at school rather thanseeing dad (or mum) disappearing again. Thats what mine have said to me anyway, of course they may just want to get rid of me
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the columns carefully in Hansard, the climb is not steady, there is a single and distorting jump at Autumn 2001. Take that out and the variation across the 3 services in less than 1.5%, in fact according to the published figures the Army and RN have slightly fewer claimants at the end of the reporting period.
Reasons? Maybe our expeditionary ethos, it is again easier to reduce disruption to the childrens lives if they are with their friends at school rather thanseeing dad (or mum) disappearing again. Thats what mine have said to me anyway, of course they may just want to get rid of me
Reasons? Maybe our expeditionary ethos, it is again easier to reduce disruption to the childrens lives if they are with their friends at school rather thanseeing dad (or mum) disappearing again. Thats what mine have said to me anyway, of course they may just want to get rid of me
Total claims rise from 4,511 to 5,239 over the 3 year period, but yes, the Army (2,823 to 2,812) figures decrease by a couple, but the RN (753 to 925) and RAF (935 to 1,502) figures rise. It's still not a huge percentage of the total strength, in which case the Treasury are possibly looking at this as a huge saving that only affects a small amount of people. Of course, the "small amount of people" that the Treasury sees doesn't take into consideration that these people are likely to be teeth-personnel of a certain rank/rate. I assume they believe that it would be worth pissing these people off to save money (anyway, the planned changes and savings are not until 2020, and there will be transitional arrangements in place for those in receipt).
But still another chapter of our T&Cs being consigned to the archives.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We also have to be careful with the stat - BSA is not claimed for the duration of a career - more like a window of 5 years to provide stability at a certain stage of a child's development. Hence while it says 2-3%, that is at any one time; the numbers that claim it (and rely on it) during their careers are significantly higher.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talkng Radalt
What I actually said, if you read back, was that my desk officer considered that it was my good fortune if he had no need to post me. Please stop misquoting me on this forum, or I may have to stop taking you seriously.
Regards
Ginseng
Regards
Ginseng
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gained the impression that there were quite a few middle-ranking officers and SNOs who stayed in past their IP point because their kids were in receipt of BSA. This is a small but significant cadre of all 3 Services and, if the incentive to stay in beyond 22/38 (or whatever it is now) whilst raising a family is removed, then many will walk out.
Someone mentioned a mass PVR on this thread or another. Although the powers-that-be could deal with this under QRs by extending notice periods, the political fall-out could not be contained. If a significant percentage applied to PVR (say above 10%) then this would generate much press coverage and Parliamentary debate - perhaps leading to a vote of confidence in Browne (or whichever other nonentity it is by then).
Someone mentioned a mass PVR on this thread or another. Although the powers-that-be could deal with this under QRs by extending notice periods, the political fall-out could not be contained. If a significant percentage applied to PVR (say above 10%) then this would generate much press coverage and Parliamentary debate - perhaps leading to a vote of confidence in Browne (or whichever other nonentity it is by then).