Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) gives students aged 16-18 up to ?30 cash each week to carry on learning.


If the parents income exceeds 30k then they don't qualify, so it's definitely aimed at youngsters who might be under financial pressure to quit education early and help support the family.


So in principal it's a great thing!


So far as I understand it, it's not these payments that are being cut. The cash being cut is the twice yearly ?100 'bonus' payment.


The cut isn't actually because of a reduction of the EMA fund overall, it's just that this money will be directed at opening up the fund to more disadvantaged kids. I understand that the cancelling of the bonus means that up to 80,000 more kids will receive the core payment.


I guess regarding 'fairness' a lot depends on whether you agree this is a good objective.

Surely Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a fancy title designed to reduce the unemployment figures.


Post YOPS (Youth Opportunites Scheme - ie, six week crash course in how to be a brain surgeon etc) the government had to invent a new title so yoof didn't appear in the jobless figures.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In many cases the EMA has only served to send

> people to college with no interest in learning

> anything.



Very sweeeping generalisation, from my expereince it is a lifleine to many who otherwise could not have afforded further education with the help of EMA. Not everyone on assistance/benefits is con artist/sponger.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In many cases the EMA has only served to send

> people to college with no interest in learning

> anything.


I am afraid that this can be true in some cases (personal experience of a young family relative). But I am certain that it's only a small percentage who misuse the system and, for many who do want to learn, the opportunity might not otherwise be available.

?30 a week is a small amount compared to the amount of state aid that will be received in a lifetime by those who don't want to work so I think it is worth the risk for those who might benefit.

MrPR was teaching at a college in South West London.


The EMA kids would turn up, not stay, then demand they got their qualification at the end of it.

The college was told Failure was not an option, because the college needed the funds too.

So the kids got their EMA, their qualification, and the college got its funds and nobody (including the government) learns anything.


In one case a load of very expensive equipment was stolen from the college by two teenagers at the college, and they were not allowed to be dismissed because the college needs their money. So the kids learn no boundaries or any sense of wrong or right.


This year, the college were told they had to specifically encourage 16-18 year olds and that other age groups were very definitely not encouraged in case they took the place of the 16-18 year olds.

Opening day arrived. No-one came. The 16-18 year olds didn't come in enough numbers to fill classes and the older people who REALLY wanted to learn what MrPR and others had to teach, did not turn up because they assumed there would not be room.


Please tell me how this is right!

It is widespread H. Many FE teachers will tell you so. And that was what my post was about really. A system that won't fail students for fear of losing funding. It's wrong and no-one gains anything from it....least of all employers who increasingly are finding they have to test prosective employees to find out just what they DO know or have learned.

I have to agree with DJKQ on this one. That may be a shock to you H.


It seems like a scheme with strange intentions- possibly about reaching targets more than anything else. No doubt it helps some, but I think if a 16 year old really wants to learn they'll find a saturday job whilst they study which might help them later in life anyway becaue they'll learn a set of skills they probably haven't acquired so far. Obviously this is easier in the bigger cities where there are a number of those kind of jobs around.


I think more apprenticeships are what is needed, and more scholarships for those who show potential/drive/determination but lack focus, or teachers that recognise a potential in them early and can help lead them in a specific direction rather than a general push into higher ed. For example, a friend of mine had a teacher at school who recognised his strengths and encouraged him to apply for a scholarship aimed at people from ethnic/minorities and working class families, to study architecture. I'd never heard of such things before, I honestly didn't think they existed.

There's no shock to me - I've little doubt of people's capacity to play the system.


I'm only surprised that self-professed supporters of the poverty stricken and those searching to increase social mobility would deny the poor a financial and educational benefit on the grounds that they're not trustworthy enough.

Oh come on. It's ?30 a week - a reward for staying on but not a reason to do so, surely? And in any case, I thought it was established that it was an annual bonus of ?100 that was being taken away, not the weekly award?


"those searching to increase social mobility would deny the poor a financial and educational benefit on the grounds that they're not trustworthy enough" seems to be putting it a bit strong. Taking away ?100 is not quite the same thing as denying an education. But then, I suspect you know that and are simply trying to get a reaction.

Sorry peckhamboy, I'm aware that this 'cut' only covers 2 x ?100 payments per year. I think it was actually me that highlighted it.


However, it might be my misunderstanding, but both DJKQ and zeban seem to be saying that they disapprove of the EMA completely (not just the bonus), and would prefer to see it discontinued or exchanged with another service.


Their rationale for this seems to be that both the students and the schools are ripping off the system.


Both have fought fiercely on other threads that poor people are denied access to educational resources and hence lack social mobility.


Hence the only logical conclusion of this debate is that both DJKQ and zeban think that access to key resources should be withdrawn because poor people are not trustworthy enough.


Given that they claimed the whole world is incorrectly victimising "benefit scroungers", they seem to have actually jumped on this bandwagon themselves here?

I am surprised DJKQ, in a lot of your previous threads you tend to champion low income families or anyone of a disadvantage yet you and Zeban, will deny those students that this will help and not all students are not trustworthy I know a few students whose parents are on low incomes and it helps them. And for your information there are some students that do have part-time jobs.

I think it is a disgrace that EMA is being cut. EMA is there to encourage, or make possible, young children from low income families (?20,817 for the highest award) to stay longer in school.


I think the attitude of "if they really want to stay in School then they should get a job on Saturday" is stupid and naive. A lot of children that qualify for EMA will come from families with parents that left school at 16 those situations don't inspire all children to push themselves to gain further qualifications. If EMA helps 100 or even 1000 children break the cycle of leaving school as soon as possible then I think it is positive thing.


As I have said previously on here I think how likely you are to gain A-Levels or a Degree is positively correlated to how likely your parents did. So anything that breaks supports breaking thay cycle is positive in my book as I believe education is a positive thing.


*Just a quick caveat to say that clearly not all EMA kids have parents that are unemployed or left school at 16 and that is not what I am trying to say.

To be fair that was a naive statement and you're right, it does help some students, my sister being one of them who worked part time and saved the EMA money towards her living costs for uni which is helping her tremendously.


So in many respects yes maybe I was too quick on this one. However it does worry me that if colleges are motivated by the extra funding then maybe they're not actually thinking about whether the academic route is actually for the people they're being told to target. If students can't be failed for fear of losing funds then are the colleges or the government really looking out for the people they're supposed to be educating? Failing doesn't necessarily make you a failure, sometimes it just means that you're on the wrong course in life.


Maybe I'm completely off the mark though? I just think if this is the case, then my argument isn't about distrusting young people, it's about helping them to decipher what's right for them because there are other means to social mobility than pure academic education, one being apprenticeships, others being more (and I hate this word because it seems to be looked down on as being for the less intelligent which I don't think is the case at all) vocational courses.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...