Ema

IronWolf

Compulsory education is being extended to 18 soon anyway so no need for EMA to incentivise education

RobertoMoir

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I understood that because the colleges know who is in need, then that's why the EMA was being stopped and money being given to the College to give to appropriate students. Is that how it works?

That's the gist of it yes. Have a read here if you're interested.

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Also, isn't there a statutory obligation by councils to transport students? I've only ever heard of this from the Minister on 'Parliament Live', and I'm unsure if any councils are, in fact, doing anything about this, or if parents know about it.

Can't answer that one I'm afraid, I'm not part of the team that provides support to students for this kind of thing and we don't come under the local council anyway.

Mrs_Optimist

WOW didn't expect such varied responses. Was in a bad mood yesterday and was just venting. More annoyed with myself for being so ignorant of the whole grant (not that I had any reason TO know about it).

Someone posted that having two children would mean that I would be receiving large sums in CHB/WFTC/HB/LHA/CTB "whether I worked or not". Actually that is complete BS. I receive CHB of £134 per month and WFTC of £25 per week. I work (thankfully) as we simply could not manage to survive on Contribution based JSA of £67.50 per week which my DH has claimed (rightfully) since being made redundant 2 months ago - after paying into the system for the past 25 + years. Had he NOT worked previously, and I decided to retire early (!) he could claim Income based JSA and claim all the other benefits listed by the previous poster. I pay out more in tax and NI every month that I claim , but that wasn't really my point. I am not venting about benefits per se as everyone's needs are different. I was just amazed that kids were receiving £30 per week to spend on what they liked - seemingly whether they had a NEED for that money or not, and seemingly to massage the unemployment figures (good point by whomever posted that opinion!).

silvercar

I was just amazed that kids were receiving £30 per week to spend on what they liked -

Well some were spending it on their education - books, stationary and transport to college.

Others were using it to fund their social life.

Anyway it is history now.

silvercar

Also, isn't there a statutory obligation by councils to transport students? I've only ever heard of this from the Minister on 'Parliament Live', and I'm unsure if any councils are, in fact, doing anything about this, or if parents know about it.

There is a statutory obligation by councils to transport students of compulsary school age to their nearest suitable school where that is more than 3 miles (2 miles for under 8s) from their home.

It doesn't apply to students who don't choose their nearest school with places and it doesn't apply to nurseries or post 16 education as both these are not of compulsary school age. Most councils used to be more generous than the minimum, but this is an easy area to cut back on.

SingleSue

BigAunty wrote: »

Well someone did as they kept in government for numerous successive terms!

I know that broadly speaking Labour is regarded as the party for the poor and Conservatives for the rich.

So labour does very well in poorer and thus more benefit dependent areas. Strong correlation there between voting and benefit receipt.

I think tax credits, EMA, new baby grants, child trust grants, winter fuel allowance, etc, were labour's way of buying votes as they massively increased recipients of state benefits.

I know that labour were sincere about targetting poverty but this should have been done via taxation, cheap child care provision, house building and job creation, not letting households trouser money just for having kids or having their kids attend college.

Not that the Tories are any better - the way they moved poor people out of westminster under dame porter.

I'm rich in my head then :rotfl:. I have always bucked the trend and tend not to do the stereotypical thing expected of someone reliant on benefits.

But then, I have always been a bit strange

Re EMA giving students the incentive to stay on at school rather than join the job queue, it was never a consideration for eldest, he has a dream and that dream includes getting A levels and eventually, his degree. Without EMA, we would still have found a way of providing the books etc as needed as a decent education is vitally important in my opinion.

I would much rather give up a meal or two for myself, or sell a prized object to ensure my children have that education, it is a sacrifice worth doing.

Jennifer_Jane

silvercar wrote: »

There is a statutory obligation by councils to transport students of compulsary school age to their nearest suitable school where that is more than 3 miles (2 miles for under 8s) from their home.

It doesn't apply to students who don't choose their nearest school with places and it doesn't apply to nurseries or post 16 education as both these are not of compulsary school age. Most councils used to be more generous than the minimum, but this is an easy area to cut back on.

Thanks so much, silvercar. It's interesting that I heard the Minister on several occasions in Parliament, saying that the EMA was being not necessary as Councils had a statutory obligation to transport students - and no-one contradicted her.