The Goverment cuts EMA is that fair?

[Ridgley]

I Feel many students with parents on low income ,will be the most affected by these cuts. The EMA has been their only chance of a little financial independence at a time in their lives when it's most important."

[Huguenot]

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.

[Jah Lush]

Cu*ts

[daizie]

Ha ha Jah

[DJKillaQueen]

In many cases the EMA has only served to send people to college with no interest in learning anything.

[silverfox]

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.

[Huguenot]

Given that it's a redistributive fund that improves social mobility, DJKQ, I'm staggered that you're against it.

Or are you just against it because I said it was a good thing?

Do you think it should be cancelled altogether?

[ImpetuousVrouw]

It has helped a lot of kids I know stay on at college when they wouldn't have been able to attend due to lack of funds of their parents.

[Ridgley]

I disagree with you DJKQ, the EMA does help a lot of students with costs books travel expenses etc.... not all abuse the system and it helps poor income families otherwise you will just have larger dole queue

[Emerson Crane]

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.

[Narnia]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> In many cases the EMA has only served to send

> people to college with no interest in learning

> anything.

Just wondering how you know this?

[peterstorm1985]

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.

[PeckhamRose]

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!

[Huguenot]

That doesn't sound good at all. However, that doesn't tell us how widespread it is, nor whether the few bad eggs are worth tolerating for the sake of those whom it helps.

So what's your proposal? Close the scheme?

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[Huguenot]

So what's the solution?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

My 16 year old lost a week's EMA because she was five minutes late at the beginning of school. It is a school-imposed criteria - don't see why other colleges can't follow suit.

[zeban]

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.

[Huguenot]

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.

[peckhamboy]

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.

[Huguenot]

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?

[Ridgley]

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.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Hate to be agreeing with Hugo in some kind of unholy alliance, but gotta say I do in this case.

If there are problems with how the system is administered then maybe that could be looked at, but the idea of EMA is a good one, in my opinion.

[paragon]

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.

[zeban]

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.