Is EMA Fair???

ceebeeby

I'm biased to the answer to that question as you can probably tell by the way I've posed the question.

DD2 came home quite miffed last night. It would appear that the majority of the people in her year receive £30 per week for turning up at school, and will be receiving £150 at Christmas as a bonus!

I read somewhere that the principal behind this was to encourage low earning families to allow their children to continue into higher education.

The reality as she lives and sees it is that many (granted not all) of these children obtained poor GSCE results, and instead of now fighting between themselves for the little available unskilled jobs, are sitting in classrooms still flinging bits of paper around, and not really studying at all. Therefore diluting the education standards for those that WANT to be there.

We don't have £30 per week to give to her to make her financially equal. Yet, we're well above the maximum threshold for eligibility.

I'm sure there's an element of jealousy on her part, as in her words, they've all got the latest phones, trendy clothes, go to the chip shop at lunch time, smoke and buy booze ... (not that I'm advocating her doing the latter btw!!) whereas her phone's 2 years old, she wears clothes from primark and makes her own packed lunch. However, don't get me wrong, if someone offered her this money on a plate, she'd take it too - and I'm sure she'd blow any princials about it away!

But what about the the overall ethos behind it.

Something here smacks to me of somehow encouraging children to be low earners / non-workers, because it brings you additional financial reward.

IMHO, and from my personal tax-payers perspective I think it's a joke - but then that's because I'm quite anti-benefits (there are exceptions before you flame me!)

Has anyone a really positive story to tell of this EMA to balance up my so far fairly negative view of it!

surfsister

Well at least she will grow up to learn to stand on her own two feet.

I do work in a school myself and can honestly say at the very low end of the income bracket it does encourage kids as they simply can't afford the fares to get to school if not local unless they get ema. (parents simply not there for them at all). If it helps keep a few good ones in school it's worth it.

Maybe the income threshold needs to go down? To make it fairer as only the really needy would get it.

Lokolo

I got EMA in first year but didn't need it. I had 2 parttime jobs.

Wasn't going to refuse it.

Then mother had someone move in and his income is huuuuuge (well done mother) so he took the household income over the threshold.

I was always planning on going to university anyway so it was just free money.

There were a few others who still got huge amounts of pocket money but also got EMA as parents divorced or mvoed out or whatever.

Its a pathetic system with many flaws, but I'm not going to complain as I got it. :cool:

elfen

A few people I went to college with (in both the colleges I went to) got EMA. For both the colleges I went to there were outside costs (such as a portfolio book for presenting work, trips essential to the course, little bits of kit - DV tapes for camcorders and DVDs) and it mainly went on them to be honest. You didn't get many blowing it on nothing, and the ones that did were on the more vocational courses (I did a BTEC and A Levels, both in a theory/practical split subject, so those on the course either wanted to be there, or left within two weeks)

atypical

How have these kids who need the support been coping with years 7 to 11 without it? Often they will stay at their secondary school to do their A-levels but suddenly they are entitled to £30 a week which the government tells us they absolutely need to support their learning. And bonuses?! They don't fit into the idea that the money is to meet costs.

They could have provided travel passes and a fixed amount in vouchers to be spent on stationary at the beginning of the year if this was the true intention of EMA.

It's a bribe dressed in politically correct clothing - and anyone who needs to be bribed into education doesn't deserve it.

bumpoowee

atypical wrote: »

How have these kids who need the support been coping with years 7 to 11 without it?

Exactly. Its a complete waste of taxpayer's money used purely to keep unemployment figures down as braindead chavs are paid to 'attend' college rather than go on the dole. Hopefully part of the upcoming government cutbacks will be to scrap this waste of millions of pounds.

percymoneysaver

EMA is not actually unfair in principle - those from low income backgrounds do benefit from it, and there are good students who actually rely on it for bus passes, dinner money etc.

What isn't fair is how many people can benefit from the loopholes - divorced parents where the non-resident parent earns way over the limit (but still contributes to the maintenance of the child), self employed parents who don't claim their income in the usual PAYE-type way. If the government would just close the loopholes then only the most deserving would benefit from a system that was meant to help them. Unfortunately, due to the loopholes, in my college an awful lot of the EMA students use their weekly money for petrol for their cars and spending money for the weekend. It's really quite irritating to me as a taxpayer, but you can't blame their parents for taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. After all, can anyone here claim that they wouldn't apply for it if they thought they could get it - whether they really needed it or not?

bestpud

EMA was never intended to cover course costs.

It was introduced to encourage children from low socio-economic groups to further their education.

It's a sad fact that we do not have an egalitarian education system and those in deprived areas often get a raw deal.

Add to this the low aspirations within their family and community and you have a child who thinks they are unable to achieve anything in life, so why bother.

Plus, children from this sort of background often just want to get out and earn money, but often this means years on Jobseekers allowance, and on goes the cycle.

It is very difficult to break through entrenched attitudes but, hopefully, college will convince some of them to aim higher and not just give into the only life they know. Jeez, many never go beyond their estate and have no idea what the world has to offer them.

If EMA gets even a few of those into reasonable jobs, where they become tax payers and pay their way in life, then it is worth it, don't you think?

To give an example, my son is not academic and, on leaving school he just wanted to earn some money and provide himself with things we just hadn't been able to.

His experience of education had put him off study and he was reluctant to look at college courses.

EMA convinced him to check it out at least and he was accepted onto a fabrication course, and would have received £30 a week. He didn't take it in the end as he was also offered an apprenticeship which was even better for him.

That was three years ago and now he is earning good money and is likely to add a fair chunk to the public purse over his working life.

Had he dropped out after his GCSEs he may be working, but he'd no doubt be in a minimum wage job and would remain so for most of his life. If he were to live alone, or get married etc, he'd probably need his income topped up with benefits of some kind too.

Clearly he was capable of going to college, so does it matter how he was persuaded to give it a go? Isn't it better to look at the result? It's a small price when you consider what he will contribute over his life span.

If you multiply his case, it becomes obvious why EMA was introduced. Or it is obvious to me at least!

bestpud

percymoneysaver wrote: »

EMA is not actually unfair in principle - those from low income backgrounds do benefit from it, and there are good students who actually rely on it for bus passes, dinner money etc.

What isn't fair is how many people can benefit from the loopholes - divorced parents where the non-resident parent earns way over the limit (but still contributes to the maintenance of the child), self employed parents who don't claim their income in the usual PAYE-type way. If the government would just close the loopholes then only the most deserving would benefit from a system that was meant to help them. Unfortunately, due to the loopholes, in my college an awful lot of the EMA students use their weekly money for petrol for their cars and spending money for the weekend. It's really quite irritating to me as a taxpayer, but you can't blame their parents for taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. After all, can anyone here claim that they wouldn't apply for it if they thought they could get it - whether they really needed it or not?

I agree with you on the loop holes - there is a big flaw when it comes to children of divorced parents.

However, it is fine for it to be spent on the weekend as it was never intended to pay for course costs.

Many use it for course costs but there is nothing to say they should do this.

swstudent

I received £30 a week from EMA when at sixth form. Although I received this money I do think it's an unfair system - the same with student loans. There are grants etc given to those from low income families (which I think is right) and those from high income families can mostly rely on their families (not in all cases I know, but most of my friends could rely on their parents to provide them with money). However there is little to help those from families that are seen as in the middle. £25,000 joint income is not a great amount - I lived with my dad when I was receiving EMA but I now live with my mum and step dad who are classed as those in the middle. Because of their income it is assumed that they will meet some of the costs of my education but they can't and quite frankly, why should they? I think there should be more to help those who are earning above what is classed as "low income households" but can't afford to pay for their children's education. In my eyes the system is not quite right.

In the EMA system the bonuses are slightly different in that they are not handed out because pupils have a good attendance record but they are assessed on how well a pupil is doing in their lessons. So they are slightly different from the money given to pupils every week just for attending their lessons.

atypical

bestpud wrote: »

If EMA gets even a few of those into reasonable jobs, where they become tax payers and pay their way in life, then it is worth it, don't you think?

Not in a world of finite resources. There is an acceptable cost that can be spent on an individual’s education, in the same way NICE puts an acceptable cost on the price of someone’s life.

bestpud wrote: »

EMA convinced him to check it out at least and he was accepted onto a fabrication course, and would have received £30 a week.

This is the saddest thing. Education should be sold on its intrinsic values, not on the value of £x a week.

An arguably more effective use of the money would be an education campaign which could have changed the mindset of generations, spelling out the value of education (if it isn't obvious enough). Rather than bribing them into it and hoping they recognise the advantages themselves somewhere down the line (and hoping they don't get disillusioned if they can't find a job because their qualification isn't valued by employers).

bestpud wrote: »

Clearly he was capable of going to college, so does it matter how he was persuaded to give it a go? Isn't it better to look at the result? It's a small price when you consider what he will contribute over his life span.

If you multiply his case, it becomes obvious why EMA was introduced. Or it is obvious to me at least!

It depends on how many times you can multiply his case. I don't know by how many times and more worryingly I don't think the government does either.

bestpud wrote: »

However, it is fine for it to be spent on the weekend as it was never intended to pay for course costs.

Many use it for course costs but there is nothing to say they should do this.

On the direct.gov website it states EMA is "to help you carry on learning" and this is the way the government has always presented it: as a means of helping individuals meet the costs of an education they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.