EMA withdrawall

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

Agreed, but you are only entitled to transport to the nearest local school. At 6th form level students travel further to the place that offers the course they want to study.

When I worked in FE, students had their travel funded if they went to the nearest school/college that offered their course. If they chose to travel to somewhere further away, they had to fund the travel themselves.

Oldernotwiser

Masomnia wrote: »

This is a misconception that Labour are now peddling because it suits their argument.

Back in t' day when I got EMA they made no secret of the fact that it was there just as an incentive to study and you were more than welcome to spend it on whatever you wanted.

You are absolutely right and it's a fact that everybody chooses to ignore.

EMA was introduced as a solution to the NEET problem, as an incentive to this group to remain in education. As an incentive, it was always going to be more effective if spent on entertainment rather than books!

SingleSue

clarrie8466 wrote: »

I have three daughters, two of whom are successfully making their way in life. The third (who does not live with me) dosses around, enrolling each year for college but never going, and collecting her ema to continue what she thinks is a good life. She should not be given it. I know jobs are scarce but my ex and I can't get her to even start looking for one - and she certainly is wasting state resources being booked onto courses. Unfortunately this is common amongst her so-called 'friends'. I am pleased EMA is going.

Incidentally my elder daughters never lacked for much. I resented that friends of theirs got EMA but they did not qualify (because of my earnings), as it put pyschological pressure on me to pay it instead. £30 a week (or £1500 per year) is a lot extra to find on top of what you are already doing.

It isn't possible for my son to 'doss around' instead of going to 6th form, any missed days, even half days and that is his EMA gone for that week.

To receive his EMA, he has to have full attendance at the 6th form college.

Masomnia

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

EMA was introduced as a solution to the NEET problem, as an incentive to this group to remain in education. As an incentive, it was always going to be more effective if spent on entertainment rather than books!

Indeed, though most of mine was spent on books as it happens

Jowo_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. ...

In some US states which have a much harsher benefit system, lone parents whose children reach 3 years of age are expected to go into full time employment. However, those states do guarantee childcare.

They do not agree with providing any kind of education or training, they simply want them to get a job, any job, and consider all jobs are good jobs.

Unemployment benefit is limited to two years across a persons entire lifetime and some unemployment benefit is conditional on undertaking either a full time supervised jobsearch or community placement.

Studies have shown that those who attend training courses generally end up no better in terms of their wages than those who don't, hence there's no real return on the investment made.

Oldernotwiser

Jowo wrote: »

Good point. Currently the unemployment rate for the under 25s is 3 times the national rate of unemployment, standing at 20%.
.

It's not a good point! For the umpteenth time, 16 and 17 year olds cannot claim JSA and their parents will lose their child benefit and child tax credits if they leave education.

Low income families will be enormously worst off if their children leave education, even without EMA!

life_in_termoil

Batchy wrote: »

Sorry but, as a parent, why are you living 15 miles from whereever, you have kids ... did you not think of them when you moved? or the consequences of living where you are living.

Im sorry but when your in an abusive relationship and you really need to get out quick weighing up all your options isnt really a thing you have time to do

Oldernotwiser

lemonjelly wrote: »

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!

We had a similar situation in the college where I used to work, before the introduction of the Level 2/3 entitlements. In those days the college funded child care and travel costs and we had many lone parents who were serial students, studying hairdressing for a couple of years, beauty therapy next and then, say, Access. It was a pleasant life for them, attending college for a few days a week, mixing with other young women in the same situation, without the kids around.

When this funding was withdrawn (my college was cash strapped and didn't offer much extra funding), people would come into Student Services and complain, saying "doesn't the government want us to get any qualifications?". The answer was obviously tat the governnment wanted people to get jobs and had never envisaged a situation where students would do a vocational course for a couple of years and then not use it to get into employment!

It took them a number of years to twig that one!

savemoney

Sorry to be pedantic but you right in part but some can in special circumstances, also many students will be in education by the time they reach 18 and able to get JSA although this may effect some benefits

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Employedorlookingforwork/DG_10018757

Who can get Jobseeker's Allowance?

To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be:

• available for, capable and actively seeking work
• aged 18 or over but below State Pension age
• working less than 16 hours per week on average
• in Great Britain

Jobseeker's Allowance isn't normally paid to 16 or 17 year olds, except in special cases.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It's not a good point! For the umpteenth time, 16 and 17 year olds cannot claim JSA and their parents will lose their child benefit and child tax credits if they leave education.

Low income families will be enormously worst off if their children leave education, even without EMA!

savemoney

I do think its very short sighted of this government to cut EMA. Yes it may get abused like any benefits but my two daughters case they want to learn, they dont spend money on expensive things like cars, mobiles, designer goods etc they truly want to better themselves and I encourage them to do that because partly I didn't get there chance to go to higher education until much later in life

I also heard several times government said they will support poorer families when they scrap EMA yet what do they have in mind?

I think most students want to excel and able to better there parents and ema helps pay for transport, books etc its wrong to put everyone the same brush, perhaps if they cut ema a little whilst still keeping some of it it would have much lesser impact on students