FEDERATION NEWS
The Federation’s Response to the CEA Review
Alongside many concerned RAF families, we had long awaited the outcome of the Continuity of Education Allowance Review. This was an independent, ‘root and branch’ look at the allowance over and above the changes to the rules that were brought in by the MoD in December 10 as a consequence of the SDSR.
T
he Review, conducted by a small team headed by Martin Fuller, was at the request of the Armed Forces Minister,
Nick Harvey MP, and its remit was to: consider the fundamental rationale for the allowance; the justification for the current set of entitlements; to look at alternatives to reliance on the independent school sector; and to consider how the allowance might be changed in order to deliver necessary cost savings.
Representatives of all three Service Families Federations, the Directorate of Children and Young People, the Children’s Education Advisory Service, Defence Analytical Services Agency, the single-Service Pay policy staffs, MoD policy staffs and the Boarding School Association were all consulted as part of the Review. Once the Review team had made its recommendations, their Report was passed to the Ministerial Reference Group, headed by Nick Harvey, and this Group then made formal recommendations to the Secretary of State.
In the Federation’s view it took far too long to put families out of their misery (the initial report was passed to the Ministerial Reference Group in April and to the Secretary of State in May). Major concerns lingered over families as they awaited decisions on the possibility of increased parental contributions, schools being removed from the approved list or further changes to child entitlement.
We understand that the delay was caused by the complexity of some of the recommendations and the need for further Ministerial consideration but still feel the uncertainty caused by the Review could have been reduced by prompter decision- making at the highest levels.
When the Review was finally announced on 13 Oct 11 it confirmed that the principles of the allowance would remain the same. It also
22 Envoy Winter 2011
confirmed that CEA contributed to operational effectiveness by supporting family mobility and accompanied service, and therefore there were to be no key changes at this stage. The Review announced that:
• current rates for parental contributions (a minimum of 10% of the school fees) would be maintained
• parents would continue to be able to choose the school that was most appropriate for their children from the wide range of independent and state schools on the MoD’s Accredited Schools Database
• there would be no change to the allowances for Special Needs, North Wales and Day School provision
There was, however, to be a new restriction on eligibility and that was that initial claims for Year 12 and 13 children who had not previously been in continuous receipt of CEA would no longer be permitted.
The Review announcement also made clear that there were other changes in the pipeline:
• the MoD would seek to establish a central payment system so that CEA is paid directly to the school rather than to the claimant
• parents would be encouraged to use State boarding schools which provide continuity of education at a lower cost to both the MoD and to parents as the State already funds the tuition element of costs
• the MoD will continue to simplify CEA policy to ensure that its purpose and procedures are well understood
The Federation, for its part, were pleased to have been able to contribute to the Review by representing families’ views on this allowance and we were pleased that the measures taken at this stage were not as drastic or far reaching as they might have been. Although it cannot be proved, we’d like to think that the three Families Federations’ contribution to the Review, backed by the evidence you provided to us, helped minimise the impact of the recommendations made.
There is still a remit to reduce the spending on CEA by 50% by 2020 and the onus is on the New Employment Model team to achieve this, primarily by stabilizing the workforce thereby negating the need for claims for CEA in the first place. If the required reduction in costs is not achieved by this method, we are assured that CEA will once again come under the microscope, (see also article on page 25).
www.raf-ff.org.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56