EMA withdrawall

purch

As said before, my son would have gone to 6th form regardless of being paid EMA or not, we would have found a way to pay for his books etc (probably a loan from bank of mum and dad - my mum and dad that is) as I believe that a good education is of extreme importance but for some others, the receipt of EMA is an essential for them to be able to go, especially if they have parents who do not believe in the merits of further education and as such, are unsupportive financially

I think that one thing we should remember is that 16-18 education has changed hugely over the years, and maybe our own recollections of what it was like in our day.

Sue has direct experience of recent trends, as noted above. When I went to 6th form, the only difference from being in the 5th year was that I didn't have to wear uniform, and didn't have to be in school all day every day. The idea of paying for books and equipment, like they have to now, was unheard of.

Nowadays, in my sons school in the 6th form (they don't call it that) they run courses for hair dressing, beauty, brick laying, car mechanics etc etc.

When I was that age, kids who wanted to learn those skills could easily get a job as an apprentice or trainee, and go to college in the evenings, or on day release. Today it is the exact opposite. The kids go to college full time, and get day release to do work experience.

The education landscape has hugely changed.

Funding is needed, especially for kids from less well off backgrounds, but IMO the EMA was not the tool.

EMA like Tax Credits is another example of Gordon Brown conceiving a complicated and overly expensive to operate centralised system to deal with a relatively simple problem.

silvercar

Even though the EMA supposedly pays for transport and books, in practice it is the ones with the EMA that have the gadgets and get the expensive gig tickets/ designer clothes.

Find a non EMA entitled student who gets £30 a week from his parents. They don't exist.

lemonjelly

purch wrote: »

I think that one thing we should remember is that 16-18 education has changed hugely over the years, and maybe our own recollections of what it was like in our day.

Sue has direct experience of recent trends, as noted above. When I went to 6th form, the only difference from being in the 5th year was that I didn't have to wear uniform, and didn't have to be in school all day every day. The idea of paying for books and equipment, like they have to now, was unheard of.

Nowadays, in my sons school in the 6th form (they don't call it that) they run courses for hair dressing, beauty, brick laying, car mechanics etc etc.

When I was that age, kids who wanted to learn those skills could easily get a job as an apprentice or trainee, and go to college in the evenings, or on day release. Today it is the exact opposite. The kids go to college full time, and get day release to do work experience.

The education landscape has hugely changed.

Funding is needed, especially for kids from less well off backgrounds, but IMO the EMA was not the tool.

EMA like Tax Credits is another example of Gordon Brown conceiving a complicated and overly expensive to operate centralised system to deal with a relatively simple problem.

In fairness, tax credits was Blairs flagship, not Browns.

I agree with everything else you say though. We do hairdressing courses here. Students who qualify for support can apply for help with the exam fees, transport (depending on how far away, if other colleges are closer etc) and also in example, the hairdressing kit. All this stuff is very expensive.

Now the jobcentre did a scheme for lone parents, & hairdressing was a massively popular scheme. Interestingly, they pulled funding for it last september, as in 2 years, they funded over 400 people to do hairdressing courses.

Guess how many of those have jobs. 2. All the rest are still on benefits.

So pulling the funding is valid. The funding should go to meet local needs. How many hairdressers does a city like birmingham need? And are 400 people going to get jobs as hairdressers? Doubtful!

Blobby8_2

silvercar wrote: »

Find a non EMA entitled student who gets £30 a week from his parents. They don't exist.

Mine did ..........

Stompa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We seemed to cope for decades up until EMA came in.

What's different now? Why can we now not cope with what we did for decades?

Goodness knows, it's beyond me.

JonnyBravo

Shakethedisease wrote: »

When I was 16/17... during the big 80's recession, 3 million unemployed and all that. I, and all my peers left school and did a YTS for about 30 quid a week for 2 years. Sound familiar ?

I can only assume those crapping on about Saturday jobs and the like have never experienced what it's like to be 16/17 in the midst of a huge recession. Where there are no Saturday jobs, no supermarket shelf-stacker jobs or paper rounds going. Especially in areas of high unemployment and rural areas.

Try not to be so self-satisfied and smug about 'what you did'. Times change. 16 and 17 year olds are at the bottom of of the pile in terms of part-time work atm.

I'm your age - I had a job shelf stacking whilst in 6th form.

Our 17 and 20 yr old (both in full time education) have p/t jobs. One in an area of 10% unemployment. Sure, it's not easy but if you look hard enough you can find a job.
I'm sure excuses are easier to find though.

Blobby8_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Now the jobcentre did a scheme for lone parents, & hairdressing was a massively popular scheme. Interestingly, they pulled funding for it last september, as in 2 years, they funded over 400 people to do hairdressing courses.

Guess how many of those have jobs. 2. All the rest are still on benefits.

So pulling the funding is valid. The funding should go to meet local needs. How many hairdressers does a city like birmingham need? And are 400 people going to get jobs as hairdressers? Doubtful!

I would have thought if you train 400 people to do something that can be done at home and supply the equipment required ,then that is what they will do, more black economy jobs

Jowo_2

I think it is much harder for teenagers to get jobs now. The types of casual employment I could get as a sixth former are now often taken by those who never previously had to take up these types of jobs.

For example, lone parents used to be able to stay out of employment until their youngest child reached their teens and this has now been halved and will be reduced further. In addition, tax credits tempt more people to take crappy part-time jobs by providing a top up that never used to be provided. Lastly, there's greater conditionality to receiving JSA and much more pressure to be less fussy about the jobs being applied for. Finally there's huge immigration and they tend to be concentrated in low paid roles.

I am still happy that EMA is being scrapped. Paying for expenses associated with travel, such as books/travel is a parental, not public purse responsibility. Parents with kids in non Uni education can still receive child benefit and their kid is treated as a dependent for calculations for other means tested benefits.

It's a shame that some low income families can't see the value of further education but that's a cultural issue rather than a primarily economic one and I can't see why we have to bribe them or their offspring to become educated.

EDIT: Also, many people previously on Incapacity Benefit being migrated onto ESA are found fit to work under the new criteria and moved onto JSA. I don't know if it's representative of the whole of the UK but one academic study for an IB blackspot showed most IB claimants had few or no qualifications, skills and experience. So I assume as well as lone parents and migrants, those who don't qualify for ESA will also form part of the demand for casual/low paid employment.

dori2o

this will seriously backfire on the government. Instead of paying these young people £30 to attend college and improve their prospects for the future, many will now not bother and instead claim £50.95 per week JSA and maybe never get out of the benefit trap.

As I said before it should continue to be given but in vouchers that are redeemable only on transport and books/stationary.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

In addition, it is not always the case that those in genuine need are the ones recieving it.
.

I see this. Family friends...single parents with homes owned outright working part time out of choice (i.e. could work more hours, not that they don't need to work).