Looks like Education Secretary Michael Gove could have a SECOND court-case defeat before long.

 

Before the election, both Gove and David Cameron explicitly promised not to cut EMA; this therefore gave students who started sixth form last September a "reasonable expectation" they would have EMA for the whole of their course - yet, in yet another broken promise from the Coalition, EMA is now due to be scrapped from this September, halfway through the course for some 300,000 students who had been promised they'd get it for the whole of sixth form. Legalistically, the Government are on pretty weak ground, because there's a strong argument that students effectively signed a contract with the government when they started sixth form, and now, the government has unlawfully broken one of the terms of the contract...

They're buggered, and rightly so. I live in a relatively affluent area and I still know many people who get by because of EMA. Scrapping it... words can't describe the idiocy.

Edited February 22, 201114 yr by MancunianGiraffe

There are far too many items of expenditure where the decision process seems to have been along the lines of

 

Who introduced this?

Labour

Oh, must be crap then. We'll abolish it

Blasphemy! I don't know if I'm committing some form of social heresy here but if students are able to get by without it one week they are able to get by without it the next. Even with, as Simon pointed out, the questionable reasoning's behind the cut they are still in my mind absolutely right. It would be incorrect to state that every student who receives EMA uses it for even remotely the reason for it being in place.

 

 

I don't doubt that there are some people receiving EMA who don't really need it. However, there are others for whom it is the difference between, for example, being able to afford to travel to college and not being able to afford it. So, look at whether the system can be improved by all means. But don't just scrap it for ideological reasons.

I got EMA when i was at High School [We get it for S5 and S6 up here, where you don't need it to travel to school as you're still covered by the free school buses, unless you live in Cupar like i did in which case you walked] and it went towards the cost of Uni.

 

For a lot of people up here from poorer backgrounds it encourages them to stay on at school and get the qualifications they need to get a uni place. I feel very very very lucky to live in a country with a free higher education system. The only cost i will have incurred is the £40 it costs me to Graduate.

I don't doubt that there are some people receiving EMA who don't really need it. However, there are others for whom it is the difference between, for example, being able to afford to travel to college and not being able to afford it. So, look at whether the system can be improved by all means. But don't just scrap it for ideological reasons.

 

I would question that too. I cannot speak for the whole demographic but for people who do live further away from college than as to walk there are still heavily subsidised prices available. For the students that do receive EMA and live close enough to go walk to college; this money isn't being spent on college books or stationary. I work all day, every other Saturday (which isn't a lot; even less on £4 an hour) and still earn in a fortnight less than what a large proportion of EMA receiving students do in a week. I do this so I can pay for my driving lessons and tests etc. I believe it to be, and rightly so, unfair when a student who receives EMA gets a job which I have also applied for. Why? Because they have the best of both worlds.

 

Unless a systematic check of every student who applies for EMA is carried out there is no way that it can be feasibly continued. There are so many students at my college who are able to cheat the system because one of their parents didn't work for a month last year or because they don't live with their fathers etc.

But it can be feasibly continued? It's £400m (hardly a big ticket item) and the benefits of the increased participation rate in A-levels are reaped fairly easily through the income tax that comes with the higher wages that the students are likely to get in the long run from getting higher qualifications rather than dropping out at GCSE level...

But it can be feasibly continued? It's £400m (hardly a big ticket item) and the benefits of the increased participation rate in A-levels are reaped fairly easily through the income tax that comes with the higher wages that the students are likely to get in the long run from getting higher qualifications rather than dropping out at GCSE level...

 

You can't go handing money out as incentives for someone to do something. Students should go to college because they want to, not because (as I find far too often the case), "I have to because if I don't I won't get my EMA."

I'm in two minds about scrapping EMA. The emotionalist inside me is glad to see it gone, given that I was never able to receive it given how comfortable our family was, and many of the people in my year only continued on to Lower/Upper 6th solely to receive their payments (I don't know if 16-17 year olds are entitled to the dole, so I don't know whether they saw it as a replacement for that).

 

However, the rationalist in me sees how foolish it is to scrap it, as there were some people in my year who would never have been able to finish school if it wasn't for their EMA, and quite a few of my friends who received it are studying medicine, law etc. I don't know if the lawsuit would stand up in court if it makes it that far, but the more pressure put upon the Tories, the better.

You can't go handing money out as incentives for someone to do something. Students should go to college because they want to, not because (as I find far too often the case), "I have to because if I don't I won't get my EMA."

Why? Education is a merit good - if left down to the person themselves to decide whether or not to take it, a lot of the time they don't because they either don't perceive the full benefits of taking it or believe the immediate costs to outweigh the benefits when they don't. Simply, you can and we do, and it's been shown to improve participation rates and in 2007 we were beginning to see the first signs of higher uptake in employment as a result of it - obviously the financial crisis has made it difficult to measure since then, but encouraging more education is hardly a bad thing. Let's face it, not all 16 year olds are fully rational...

Blasphemy! I don't know if I'm committing some form of social heresy here but if students are able to get by without it one week they are able to get by without it the next. Even with, as Simon pointed out, the questionable reasoning's behind the cut they are still in my mind absolutely right. It would be incorrect to state that every student who receives EMA uses it for even remotely the reason for it being in place.

 

When my sister went to college she had full EMA and a part time job and still struggled to get there everyday aswell as buy supplies, when the nearest college is about 4 miles away walkng everyday to save on EMA isnt really feasable. Theres many people of this age out there, especially in city areas who don't get the support from their parents, if they don't get EMA they literally wouldnt be able to go to college at all, and let's face it even if you're not doing A Levels if you just leave school after GCSE's your f***ed for life already, i'd say it's vital for most people to go to college, mayve their should be cuts to EMA but it shouldnt be scrapped like it is.

 

 

as for money as an incentive, I don't think we should have some 'students should stay on in education because they want to' attitude, it's for their own good, but it gets to the point where some just can't afford to, which is part of the reason I am not at university right now, and I know plenty of people who havent gone to uni for the same reason, or taken a gap year to work full time so they can afford it. University would benefit me alot, i've especially realised this recently but it's just not worth the finacial risk anymore, where as a money incentive could make it worth it. However were in a broken down economy the country can't really afford to do this.

The most crazy part of scrapping EMA is it actually SAVES MONEY. A study estimated that, if EMA hadn't been in place for the last six years, 11% of people each year who've been getting it wouldn't've stayed on - which doesn't sound a lot, but nonetheless, the amount of money we'd have paid out in benefits to those people would've been far more than the £400m a year EMA costs. And even for that 89% who would stay on, for a lot of those people, it's going to mean skipping lunch a couple of times a week, missing trips that are a vital part of the course (e.g. theatre trips for Drama/English Literature people, or field trips for Geography students), or maybe having to work stupidly long hours on several weeknights each week (considering graduates with 2:1's are evn struggling to find jobs right now, no 16-year-old is going to be able to just have their pick of a load of Saturday jobs) - which means that, even if they stay on, the attainment levels for people from poor backgrounds will probably fall further behind the richest.

Why? Education is a merit good - if left down to the person themselves to decide whether or not to take it, a lot of the time they don't because they either don't perceive the full benefits of taking it or believe the immediate costs to outweigh the benefits when they don't. Simply, you can and we do, and it's been shown to improve participation rates and in 2007 we were beginning to see the first signs of higher uptake in employment as a result of it - obviously the financial crisis has made it difficult to measure since then, but encouraging more education is hardly a bad thing. Let's face it, not all 16 year olds are fully rational...

 

No, you're right. Please don't let my own personal opinion get in the way of rational thoughts. I just feel that sometimes students like myself, who don't qualify for EMA and aren't of middle class / private schooling backgrounds get left out by this as we are stuck in the middle between getting benefits and being well off. Ho-hum. If rationality is the case then there is a much bigger issue than education that needs to be looked at.

 

When my sister went to college she had full EMA and a part time job and still struggled to get there everyday aswell as buy supplies, when the nearest college is about 4 miles away walkng everyday to save on EMA isnt really feasable. Theres many people of this age out there, especially in city areas who don't get the support from their parents, if they don't get EMA they literally wouldnt be able to go to college at all, and let's face it even if you're not doing A Levels if you just leave school after GCSE's your f***ed for life already, i'd say it's vital for most people to go to college, mayve their should be cuts to EMA but it shouldnt be scrapped like it is.

as for money as an incentive, I don't think we should have some 'students should stay on in education because they want to' attitude, it's for their own good, but it gets to the point where some just can't afford to, which is part of the reason I am not at university right now, and I know plenty of people who havent gone to uni for the same reason, or taken a gap year to work full time so they can afford it. University would benefit me alot, i've especially realised this recently but it's just not worth the finacial risk anymore, where as a money incentive could make it worth it. However were in a broken down economy the country can't really afford to do this.

 

I cannot comment on individual circumstances obviously. Some people probably do need some form of payment to help with college and transport but they amount that gets wasted on kids that don't deserve needs to be looked at.

 

The most crazy part of scrapping EMA is it actually SAVES MONEY. A study estimated that, if EMA hadn't been in place for the last six years, 11% of people each year who've been getting it wouldn't've stayed on - which doesn't sound a lot, but nonetheless, the amount of money we'd have paid out in benefits to those people would've been far more than the £400m a year EMA costs. And even for that 89% who would stay on, for a lot of those people, it's going to mean skipping lunch a couple of times a week, missing trips that are a vital part of the course (e.g. theatre trips for Drama/English Literature people, or field trips for Geography students), or maybe having to work stupidly long hours on several weeknights each week (considering graduates with 2:1's are evn struggling to find jobs right now, no 16-year-old is going to be able to just have their pick of a load of Saturday jobs) - which means that, even if they stay on, the attainment levels for people from poor backgrounds will probably fall further behind the richest.

 

I don't think that's exactly fair. I can't afford to go on school trips; I work as much as I possibly can and I usually take packed lunch to college with me to save up on money for more important things (ie. driving lessons > driving > putting in more work hours). There are certainly people who are more deserving than me who should recieve it but there is equally people who are less deserving than myself who shouldn't receive it but do.

No, you're right. Please don't let my own personal opinion get in the way of rational thoughts. I just feel that sometimes students like myself, who don't qualify for EMA and aren't of middle class / private schooling backgrounds get left out by this as we are stuck in the middle between getting benefits and being well off. Ho-hum. If rationality is the case then there is a much bigger issue than education that needs to be looked at.

Full rationality of teenagers is a problem that isn't going to get solved any time soon, and probably can't be solved...

I always wondered why this never happened earlier... When I first signed my EMA agreement I was eligible for EMA for up to 3 years and I always considered that it would be a two way thing. That as long as I done what I agreed to, I would get EMA for as long as I was in FE and in return I would recieve my payments. I'm not too sure if the contract was ever changed but I always assumed at least a two year minimum contract was made available to even people who started FE in September. I'm surprised it didn't happen when the bonus was taken away because once again I thought that was included in the contract...

 

I do think however that some students are taking this whole EMA thing a bit to heart. My college done some survey and some ridiculous percentage said that they wouldn't be able to continue the course if EMA was taken away. Which is complete bollocks as people who are eligible for EMA are eligible for free travel on the buses. I see no valid reason why by cutting EMA, people cannot continue to study. Other than having no motive to get out of bed for college.

I would question that too. I cannot speak for the whole demographic but for people who do live further away from college than as to walk there are still heavily subsidised prices available. For the students that do receive EMA and live close enough to go walk to college; this money isn't being spent on college books or stationary. I work all day, every other Saturday (which isn't a lot; even less on £4 an hour) and still earn in a fortnight less than what a large proportion of EMA receiving students do in a week. I do this so I can pay for my driving lessons and tests etc. I believe it to be, and rightly so, unfair when a student who receives EMA gets a job which I have also applied for. Why? Because they have the best of both worlds.

 

Unless a systematic check of every student who applies for EMA is carried out there is no way that it can be feasibly continued. There are so many students at my college who are able to cheat the system because one of their parents didn't work for a month last year or because they don't live with their fathers etc.

 

I went to FE college in Scotland in the early 90s after I finished school to do an NC (National Certificate), now I got a bursary from my local authority which, trust me, was a bit more than £30 a week (mind you this is the Scottish Education Dept we're talking about here, Scotland actually does place education in high regard and sees it as an investment rather than a burden...). Did I use it ALL on travel or books...? No, I didn't, my parents actually expected me to contribute a little bit towards the house-hold, considering they'd raised me for the first 17/18 years of my life, it didn't actually seem all that unreasonable to me to help out a bit... So, seriously, WTF dude..???

 

At the end of the day, scrapping EMA is absolutely bloody crazy IMHO...

 

I went to FE college in Scotland in the early 90s after I finished school to do an NC (National Certificate), now I got a bursary from my local authority which, trust me, was a bit more than £30 a week (mind you this is the Scottish Education Dept we're talking about here, Scotland actually does place education in high regard and sees it as an investment rather than a burden...). Did I use it ALL on travel or books...? No, I didn't, my parents actually expected me to contribute a little bit towards the house-hold, considering they'd raised me for the first 17/18 years of my life, it didn't actually seem all that unreasonable to me to help out a bit... So, seriously, WTF dude..???

 

At the end of the day, scrapping EMA is absolutely bloody crazy IMHO...

 

You are comparing 20 years difference; differing amounts, economies, different families, values, norms etc. It's hard to compare the current situation to yours specifically.

You are comparing 20 years difference; differing amounts, economies, different families, values, norms etc. It's hard to compare the current situation to yours specifically.

 

20 years ago there was a recession and a Tory Government... Errrr....

 

People keep saying stuff like this, frankly, I think it's a crock and a cop-out. It's about what you value as a society, do you value education and public services, or not? The Scottish.and Welsh Executives thankfully do and are doing all they can to resist the "Coalishun" nonsense...

 

There's other ways to cut the deficit - collecting taxes avoided by rich bast*rds and corporations like Vodafone and ending the offshore tax havens in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man would do the job...

 

You are comparing 20 years difference; differing amounts, economies, different families, values, norms etc. It's hard to compare the current situation to yours specifically.

Not really.

 

There have been slight tweeks to the education system but the core values remain the same up here. The only change that's happened in Scotland in the past 20years is the rise of the teenage parent. Other than that there really isn't a huge difference between the grant Grimly got from his Local authority [Dundee City Council, or it's forerunner iirc] and the EMA i was given by Fife Council.

 

 

 

Grimley - Have you been reading the slaughtering the SNP have gotten for refusing to cut spending this year? I say good on them on one hand for realising that we can't cut expenditure this early into the recovery but it does mean they will have to be deeper cuts the year after when the money we get from England is reduced even further. Unless the SNP get more power over Scotlands fiscal matters.