Advice needed on 'Secondary Education'
Discussion
My son has now finished his GCSE's, has a summer job before starting his AS levels at the same state maintained school in September.
My chosen interpretation of it is that he's now finished Secondary Education and is beginning further education. His mother's interpretation is in line with the CSA, so no shocks there.
My interpretation is taken from 2 principal sources, firstly, the Education Act 1966 which has a section on 'definitions' stating "*full time education* suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsary school age who have not attained the age of 19 is further education for the purposes of this act and not secondary education".
The second element of my argument (to be tested if required) is that my son is not pursuing *full time education* as there is no legal definition of 'full time education' for pupils at state maintained schools after their 16th year according to circulars 7/90 and 11/99.
I do see potential conflict from section 2 of the definitions, where it states that "secondary education" means .... *full time education* suitable to the requirements of pupils who are over compulsary school age but under 19 which is provided at a school at which <secondary education> is also provided.
It does seem to hang on interpetation of *full time education*.
The nub of this plea for guidance or precedent is that I wish to cease paying money to my son's mother for his maintenance and pay him directly. If he chooses to pay his monther the full amount, I have no issue at all. I just wish for him to have control over the money and hopefully less of it will go to pay for all inclusive holidays and bottles of wine every night of the week ('stressful job' I'm told) as it appears to have done for a number of years.
Any constructive guidance would be most gratefully received.
My chosen interpretation of it is that he's now finished Secondary Education and is beginning further education. His mother's interpretation is in line with the CSA, so no shocks there.
My interpretation is taken from 2 principal sources, firstly, the Education Act 1966 which has a section on 'definitions' stating "*full time education* suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsary school age who have not attained the age of 19 is further education for the purposes of this act and not secondary education".
The second element of my argument (to be tested if required) is that my son is not pursuing *full time education* as there is no legal definition of 'full time education' for pupils at state maintained schools after their 16th year according to circulars 7/90 and 11/99.
I do see potential conflict from section 2 of the definitions, where it states that "secondary education" means .... *full time education* suitable to the requirements of pupils who are over compulsary school age but under 19 which is provided at a school at which <secondary education> is also provided.
It does seem to hang on interpetation of *full time education*.
The nub of this plea for guidance or precedent is that I wish to cease paying money to my son's mother for his maintenance and pay him directly. If he chooses to pay his monther the full amount, I have no issue at all. I just wish for him to have control over the money and hopefully less of it will go to pay for all inclusive holidays and bottles of wine every night of the week ('stressful job' I'm told) as it appears to have done for a number of years.
Any constructive guidance would be most gratefully received.
Edited by StuB on Monday 16th July 22:05
StuB said:
My son has now finished his GCSE's, has a summer job before starting his AS levels at the same state maintained school in September.
My chosen interpretation of is that he's now finished Secondary Education and is beginning further education. His mother's interpretation is in line with the CSA, so no shocks there.
My interpretation is taken from 2 principal sources, firstly, the Education Act 1966 which has a section on 'definitions' stating "*full time education* suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsary school age who have not attained the age of 19 is further education for the purposes of this act and not secondary education".
The second element of my argument (to be tested if required) is that my son is not pursuing *full time education* as there is no legal definition of 'full time education' for pupils at state maintained schools after their 16th year according to circulars 7/90 and 11/99.
I do see potential conflict from section 2 of the definitions, where it states that "secondary education" means .... *full time education* suitable to the requirements of pupils who are over compulsary school age but under 19 which is provided at a school at which <secondary education> is also provided.
It does seem to hang on interpetation of *full time education*.
The nub of this plea for guidance or precedent is that I wish to cease paying money to my son's mother for his maintenance and pay him directly. If he chooses to pay his monther the full amount, I have no issue at all. I just wish for him to have control over the money and hopefully less of it will go to pay for all inclusive holidays and bottles of wine every night of the week ('stressful job' I'm told) as it appears to have done for a number of years.
Any constructive guidance would be most gratefully recieved.
A levels come under secondary education. So the cut off is the September after the A level exams.My chosen interpretation of is that he's now finished Secondary Education and is beginning further education. His mother's interpretation is in line with the CSA, so no shocks there.
My interpretation is taken from 2 principal sources, firstly, the Education Act 1966 which has a section on 'definitions' stating "*full time education* suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsary school age who have not attained the age of 19 is further education for the purposes of this act and not secondary education".
The second element of my argument (to be tested if required) is that my son is not pursuing *full time education* as there is no legal definition of 'full time education' for pupils at state maintained schools after their 16th year according to circulars 7/90 and 11/99.
I do see potential conflict from section 2 of the definitions, where it states that "secondary education" means .... *full time education* suitable to the requirements of pupils who are over compulsary school age but under 19 which is provided at a school at which <secondary education> is also provided.
It does seem to hang on interpetation of *full time education*.
The nub of this plea for guidance or precedent is that I wish to cease paying money to my son's mother for his maintenance and pay him directly. If he chooses to pay his monther the full amount, I have no issue at all. I just wish for him to have control over the money and hopefully less of it will go to pay for all inclusive holidays and bottles of wine every night of the week ('stressful job' I'm told) as it appears to have done for a number of years.
Any constructive guidance would be most gratefully recieved.
Sorry mate, If he is taking three or more AS levels, he is in full-time education at secondary level. Even if he goes to College and does NVQ's, they all carry an 'A-Level Equivalence'. He will also do 'General Studies' and some other Mickey Mouse subject, just so that the DES can show how wonderfully 'value-added' the system is in sending kids into tertiary education with five A-Levels. Puts me in mind of the great film 'This Is Spinal Tap' with the Marshall amp with dials that went to '11'!
BT
BT
Best wishes to you in funding your son. I am in a similar position and my child is just about to start a Masters degree after three years at University! The positive thing is that I changed to paying my support directly to the child. This might be a thought in your circumstances, but if you have a CCJ or similar it might be beyond the scope of the existing order.
StuB said:
The nub of this plea for guidance or precedent is that I wish to cease paying money to my son's mother for his maintenance and pay him directly. If he chooses to pay his mother the full amount, I have no issue at all.
Have you asked your son and his mother if they are happy for the money to be paid directly to your son? They might say yes! He will obviously have to agree a "board and lodgings" rate with his mum but that’ll be between them.black-k1 said:
StuB said:
The nub of this plea for guidance or precedent is that I wish to cease paying money to my son's mother for his maintenance and pay him directly. If he chooses to pay his mother the full amount, I have no issue at all.
Have you asked your son and his mother if they are happy for the money to be paid directly to your son? They might say yes! He will obviously have to agree a "board and lodgings" rate with his mum but that’ll be between them.
).iantanyrallt said:
Best wishes to you in funding your son. I am in a similar position and my child is just about to start a Masters degree after three years at University! The positive thing is that I changed to paying my support directly to the child. This might be a thought in your circumstances, but if you have a CCJ or similar it might be beyond the scope of the existing order.
There is a court order, which was for a clean break settlement and I specifically stated secondary education. I pay significantly more than the CSA guidelines, have helped in many other ways too and just want my son to have more say in the use of the cash. My ex-wife is not prepared to consider this as an appropriate way forward, which kind of indicates her subjective assessment!Thanks for the replies.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff