Should we cut child benefit for school truancy?

seamus

So, I'm convinced that someone in the Dail reads boards.

Three months ago I made this post

Then today an indepedent TD puts forward the same proposal

What does AH think? I'm guessing, "scrap child benefit altogether, we have too many children already", and perhaps, "put a cap on it".

But in terms of using it to encourage school attendance?

Timberrrrrrrr

Awaits the deluge of "most vulnerable in society" posts.

BoJack Horseman

There already is a fine mechanism for persistent truency.

brevity

I think the child benefit should be cut for antisocial behavior. If your children are causing hassle for people, destroying property and generally being a bloody nuisance and you are doing nothing about it then your benefits should be cut.

The existing laws allow for fines or imprisonment if parents are negligent in sending kids to school. All it needs is for them to be enforced. If one lax parent who doesn't get up to get the kids off sees a similar neighbour face consequences for neglect, they'll smarten up.

It's just a shame people have to be cornered into caring enough about their kids to educate them.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

hmmm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Awaits the deluge of "most vulnerable in society" posts.

And how "it's the parent's right to...". I've rarely seen posts about responsibilities however.

draiochtanois

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would be an obvious exemption.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it's taken for granted that children who have poor attendance due to chronicaled illness will not be affected.

eviltwin

It depends on the reason. My daughter missed most of this year due to depression and bullying. It's not like we couldn't be bothered.

Mr. Incognito

The cost of policing it would be more than the benefit.

Parents, even poor ones believe it or not WANT their children to go to school.

When children are persistenty not attending it is because of other issues in the home like addiction and absentee parents.

A monetary fine is not the way to tackle this. Investing in social supports and services is.

Another stupid middle class bigot idea.

Akrasia

True, but the social services should still get involved, not to harrass the parents, but to help them access services to help their kids.

I know a child who was borderline on the autistic spectrum but was never assessed properly and was having a really really hard time at school and did everything he could to get out of going in, including forcing himself to get sick and defecating in his pants at school so he could go home.

His mother was a bit clueless to be honest and missed all of the signs that her son was having so many problems and she just pandered to him and kept him from school when he said he was sick. This resulted in him missing loads of school, falling way behind and storing up huge problems for him later.

It was only when the school stepped in and organised assessments for the boy to find out how he could be helped that his mother accepted that he might need help and even then, it was the school and social services who took all the initiative in dragging him through the process of getting him assessed and now he has access to extra assistance at school and he is in extra curricular activities to help him with his social problems and to make friends and be happier at school.

Parents are usually well meaning, but they aren't always equipped with the skills or knowledge or financial resources necessary to help their children when they need it.

Social services exist to support the family and when they're properly used, they do excellent and important work.

Tombi!

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The cost of policing it would be more than the benefit.

Parents, even poor ones believe it or not WANT their children to go to school.

When children are persistenty not attending it is because of other issues in the home like addiction and absentee parents.

A monetary fine is not the way to tackle this. Investing in social supports and services is.

Another stupid middle class bigot idea.

Not always... I knew a girl that refused to go to school since being a teenager. No reason. Not bullied or anything. Just found it boring.
parents "cared" as far as acting like she should go but that was it.

kneemos

Sounds like a populist brain fart by some gombeen politician.

Help!!!!

brevity wrote: »

I think the child benefit should be cut for antisocial behavior. If your children are causing hassle for people, destroying property and generally being a bloody nuisance and you are doing nothing about it then your benefits should be cut.

Totally agree with you. Also if someone goes to prison some of their benefits should go for their up keep in the prison rather than waiting for them when they get out

Nodin

Help!!!! wrote: »

Totally agree with you. Also if someone goes to prison some of their benefits should go for their up keep in the prison rather than waiting for them when they get out

...and what about the kids.......

Just a little Samba

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I think it's taken for granted that children who have poor attendance due to chronicaled illness will not be affected.

You'd think that but I've a cousin with Chrons disease, he misses a lot of school because of his illness between infusion treatments, checkup checkups and other hospital or doctor visits. Not to mention the days when he's in too much pain to go to school.

The school knew he was ill, knew his treatment regime and still a truancy officer ended up at my aunt and uncle's door.

Just a little Samba

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The cost of policing it would be more than the benefit.

Parents, even poor ones believe it or not WANT their children to go to school.

When children are persistenty not attending it is because of other issues in the home like addiction and absentee parents.

A monetary fine is not the way to tackle this. Investing in social supports and services is.

Another stupid middle class bigot idea.

hitting the nail on the head there.

Tombi!

You all do realize truancy is just unexplained absences, right?
Kid being sick or being bullied and parents know and keep them out of school isn't truancy.
Refusing to go to school is.

smash

Child benefit & school truancy have absolutely no connection, and shouldn't have either.

Gatling

Scrap it full stop .
Put the money to Better use rather than having a reward for having babies.
Put the funds into education and community programmes

BrianBoru00

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The cost of policing it would be more than the benefit.

Parents, even poor ones believe it or not WANT their children to go to school.

When children are persistenty not attending it is because of other issues in the home like addiction and absentee parents.

A monetary fine is not the way to tackle this. Investing in social supports and services is.

Another stupid middle class bigot idea.

There are different degrees of "Want" - what about those "Ah sure he won't listen to me." excuses are the problem. Force the parents into parenting. What are they doing if they re not in school? playstation/TV etc. .

If there are addiction problems then presumably the child benefit is feeding those habits. I wouldn't stop at child benefit though - any state aid should be dependent on conditions as well.

In short if parents won't parent- it costs the state more money in the long run so yes the state should intervene.

anncoates

Gatling wrote: »

Scrap it full stop .
Put the money to Better use rather than having a reward for having babies.
Put the funds into education and community programmes

I'd say a lot of child benefit already ends up doing that, albeit saved in college funds.


Er, so I've heard....

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Scrap it full stop .
Put the money to Better use rather than having a reward for having babies.
Put the funds into education and community programmes

For most people it's far from a reward, just something to help pay the related costs of raising kids.

anncoates

Candie wrote: »

For most people it's far from a reward, just something to help pay the related costs of raising kids.

Also if somebody thinks 135 quid a month is a 'reward' for many people when factored against the cost of raising a kid, they may want to rethink their grasp of the phrase.

Egginacup

Candie wrote: »

The existing laws allow for fines or imprisonment if parents are negligent in sending kids to school. All it needs is for them to be enforced. If one lax parent who doesn't get up to get the kids off sees a similar neighbour face consequences for neglect, they'll smarten up.

It's just a shame people have to be cornered into caring enough about their kids to educate them.

What is the percentage of truants as opposed to kids who dilligently go to school everyday? Very small I would imagine. Also it's not necessarily the parents' fault if a child is truant.

Growing up I knew a few lads from normal hardworking parents who were constantly "bonking off".
There were also one or two lads in my class whose parents were alcoholics. The lads would get themselves up in the morning, make breakfast for little sister/brother, walk her to school and meet up with us, go through the school day, get home, parents would be up at this stage but already half plastered again, do homework, help make some kind of dinner, rinse, repeat.

Some of those lads deserved a medal.

Boom_Bap

No, this is ridiculous. The money is to support the child(ren) with food, clothes and shelter, not forced education. If there was to be something done about this, they should be increasing the benefit as the child will be having longer hours at home......neither are needed or acceptable or related.

Cee-Jay-Cee

eviltwin wrote: »

It depends on the reason. My daughter missed most of this year due to depression and bullying. It's not like we couldn't be bothered.

And I'm sure you notified the school accordingly. It's not like the parents of children who couldn't be bothered to attend school are ringing the school authorities to tell them that.

The current legislation regarding absenteeism is lethargic and complicated. A simple pro rata cut in child benefit for children absent from school without a legitimate excuse (provided in a timely manner by the parents) would ensure tax payers money isn't wasted on social services and who ever else gets involved in taking cases to task under current rules/legislation.

anncoates

Always handy that these ostensibly altruistic measures always have a conveniently punitive cost-cutting dimension, with extra scope for arbitrary "adjustments" down the line or indeed, ample scope for 'accidental' suspension of benefits for a whole range of false positives.

TwoShedsJackson

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Awaits the deluge of "most vulnerable in society" posts.

At least we didn't have to await anyone trying to shut down a discussion before it could start...

eviltwin

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

And I'm sure you notified the school accordingly. It's not like the parents of children who couldn't be bothered to attend school are ringing the school authorities to tell them that.

The current legislation regarding absenteeism is lethargic and complicated. A simple pro rata cut in child benefit for children absent from school without a legitimate excuse (provided in a timely manner by the parents) would ensure tax payers money isn't wasted on social services and who ever else gets involved in taking cases to task under current rules/legislation.

The school knows, the school has known all along, it's hard to prove though. If you tell the school your child is terrified to go in and they won't / can't deal with it what can you do? You can't get a medical cert until things have become a medical issue.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Awaits the deluge of "most vulnerable in society" posts.

Yeah, at what point does is actually kick in...?

CruelCoin

eviltwin wrote: »

It depends on the reason. My daughter missed most of this year due to depression and bullying. It's not like we couldn't be bothered.

Most of a year ??

Wow. You should have moved school. Unless she's in 6th class/year then the bullys are still going to be there..

eviltwin

CruelCoin wrote: »

Most of a year ??

Wow. You should have moved school. Unless she's in 6th class/year then the bullys are still going to be there..

She's in leaving cert.

pmasterson95

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, this is ridiculous. The money is to support the child(ren) with food, clothes and shelter, not forced education. If there was to be something done about this, they should be increasing the benefit as the child will be having longer hours at home......neither are needed or acceptable or related.

I'm sure the slow starvation of the truant will put it right.