Rules for teacher not signing EMA card?

timnicebutdim_2 · 15 March 2009 at 9:56AM

sarymclary wrote: »

I've read the EMA booklet, and unfortunately the wording is very vague, speaking in terms of 'appropriate behaviour and effort', which is left to the school/college in question to dictate.

Just to reiterate what Brucey was saying, presumably the below has been done?? (taken from page 16 of bruceybonus' link)

In signing the Contract Part 1 with the learner, the
provider must explain:
• the attendance monitoring system that operates
in the organisation including attendance patterns
and standards of learner behaviour and effort,
unless this was covered when the learner
enrolled on their learning programme;
.......
• the query and appeals process operated by
the provider for disputed stopped payments.
Note: Recourse is always through the provider
who makes payment decisions. The LSS will have
no knowledge of reasons for stopped payments,
therefore the provider should always inform the
learner, within two days, if they are not going
to receive their EMA, and why this action is
being taken;

percymoneysaver · 15 March 2009 at 1:03PM

I think Oldernotwiser and I have had the same experiences with EMA. I have been involved with it since it started as a pilot scheme and while there was a stigma attached to begin with - we had a signing after each lesson system as well - within a few years it became almost a badge of honor and the EMA students were generally happy to boast about their "free money", especially the bonus payments. I appreciate there must be some who are still sensitive about it - especially where family income has recently gone down - and if these students were to come to us we would happily work out a way to make their payments more discreet. Quite a few of the students in my college get it through what can only be called "creative accounting" and are very happy to talk about how they use it for petrol for their cars, or their holiday funds etc. Sad but true, especially when there are so many just above the cutoff who really could do with it.

In terms of interpreting EMA guidelines for the OP, your guess is as good as ours. The rules are incredibly vague. When the guidelines changed this year, we interpreted them to mean that if a student has a pattern of absence, or does not hand in assessed coursework on time, or is thrown out of a lesson etc, we don't have to pay them for that week. This is clearly stated in our Contract Part One and in the guidelines we give them at the beginning of the year. If we don't pay them one week, we let them know straight away why we stopped the payment.

I don't know what we would have done with the OPs son - I expect it depends on what "not paying attention" means. If he was disrupting the class, or playing on a mobile etc, I think we would have stopped it as well. If he was just daydreaming and hadn't done anything like this before, we probably would have called him in to say the teacher was minded not to pay but on this occasion we would, and not to let it happen again.

With the guidelines so vague, parents and students have to understand that it is really hard for those of us who have to work with EMA. They basically leave it up to us, and different schools and colleges have different rules about what constitutes "acceptable" behaviour. The OPs son obviously goes to a very strict school, but they have the right to adminster EMA to very strict guidelines in that case. You can't compare what they are doing to what another non-comparable school or college is doing. Presumable the OPs son's school is also high achieving, and a strict behaviour policy is one of the ways they get their students to achieve the grades.

I'm sorry this is a bit rambling but I am constantly having to defend our college policy to parents, especially those who have other children in a different 6th form, and that school interprets the rules in a different way. We would be really happy if they'd give us a national policy with clear rules, honest!

poet123 · 15 March 2009 at 1:34PM

I completely agree with the above,we do have discretion,and the guidelines are quite vague.

As Lecturers we do think carefully about using the non signing sanction,and if this is a one off incident I would not have used it.

However,as with anything, different people have different triggers,and your son may have been the 10th student that day to be playing on a mobile,fiddling with earphones,gazing out of the window etc etc,and the repeating of information for the 10th time may have been the straw that broke the camels back. So the Lecturer may have used him as an example.

I would have a quiet non confrontational word with the teacher,and hope to resolve the situation without giving the impression you wish to undermine her authority.

You may even get the full story,which may not be the one you have heard up to now!(no offence meant,just that in my experience a bit of minimising of the event goes on by most students in cases such as this...only human nature)

Good luck.

Oldernotwiser · 15 March 2009 at 1:46PM

sarymclary wrote: »

My concern here is that the EMA is being used as a disciplinary weapon,

EMA was always intended as a disciplinary weapon; after encouraging students from poorer families to remain in education, this is its major function.

I agree that I don't think that I would have used it here but, as poet says, you may not be getting the whole story. I'd try to find out more, without going in with all guns blazing. As this has been intended as a punishment, I hope you let your son bear the loss; it really shouldn't make any difference to the family income.

sarymclary · 15 March 2009 at 7:11PM

Thank you for the further replies.

It is interesting to hear from those administering EMA, to see how it is viewed from the 'other side'.

Just to clarify, we are a very low income family, I support 4 children on the minimum £14,600, therefore, obtaining the EMA has been quite a huge thing. The fact that we have had to wait 7 months until receiving even 1 payment has been difficult - he's been through 2 pairs of school trousers already, and needed new shoes again, but I simply do not have that kind of money available. Yesterday he spent his first payment of EMA on new sports shorts/shirt for his AS Sports Studies assessment next week, as other pupils have commented on his attire being a bit snug (his shorts are age 13)! His EMA will help to support him through his education, I do not give any of my children pocket money, so he's hoping that his money can help to enable him to socialise with friends, and also put a bit aside for himself for the future, should he be going on to Uni, as I'm obviously not in a position to help there either.

He is a very bright boy, and has natural ability, which is why he goes to the Grammar, and got accepted into their 6th form. It is a strict school, which on the whole I agree with, it's just that I would like them to be allowed to grow up and mature more, as I do not think it encourages them to be free-thinking and independent, or ready for the workplace.

I've asked about the incident in question, and it seems he was in the learning resources room, doing some revision with another pupil. They finished completing the revision paper, had read through some work, and had little else to do. The teacher monitoring them is a support or supply member of staff. My son and the other pupil decided they had done what they could to revise, and started to play a game of 'squares' (dots on a piece of paper, joined up). The teacher spotted them, and imposed the sanction. This wasn't a classroom teaching environment, but more a period of independent study time from what I can see.

I can appreciate that he wasn't working, as expected, but the sanction still seems somewhat harsh. He isn't the kind of person to be disruptive, or misbehave, he simply isn't that sort of lad. He's rather quiet, not part of the main 'in' group of his peers, and spends the majority of his spare time at home. He's not your average teenage lad, and not at all like his younger siblings. If it had been my 15 y/o I wouldn't even be questioning it - I would have anticipated he'd blatently broken a rule!

My main gripe here is that if they are using the EMA sanction on the children from lower income families, as well as imposing detentions and usual school sanctions, how on earth is that a level playing field alongside their more wealthy non-EMA pupils, who can disrupt a lesson, not do coursework and only get the usual school sanctions? It does seem like a double-whammy against the EMA pupils. Whilst I am extremely grateful for the extra financial help EMA offers, I don't care for the attitude this particular teacher has been displaying that she 'doesn't see why she should be paying the pupil's benefits twice out of her tax'! Not all low income families are in a position of their choosing, and to provide the same uniform and equipment standards required at a Grammar school does cost, but I have been happy to make sacrifices in order to ensure my sons receive a good education, and fulfil their potential, and hope that it gives them the chance to have a more financially secure future for themselves.

timnicebutdim_2 · 15 March 2009 at 7:21PM

From what you've said it sounds like your son has good grounds to appeal. He should definitely receive something in writing to say his payment will be stopped before the payment is withheld. There should also be a clear appeals process for your son to follow. This is the process I follow when stopping payments (once a tutor has informed me to not pay someone) and as far as I know all EMA co-ordinators have to do this.

Blacksheep1979 · 15 March 2009 at 7:34PM

sarymclary wrote: »

Many thanks for your replies.

I do think it's rather harsh, especially as it's a 'disciplinary' procedure not able to be used across the board, so if a child not in receipt of EMA had not been paying attention, he would have got either a ticking off, or at worst a yellow/green card.

It is parents evening next week, so I think I will tackle this in person, and try to speak to the headmaster if possible too. It's a grammar school, and I have a slight issue with the babyish manner with which they're treating the lower 6th pupils anyway, as I don't feel they are preparing them for the real world.

I'm very grateful for your replies.

There's always two sides to every story and pandering to your kids/always sticking up for them isn't preparing them for the real world either.

Discipline and structure is what a lot of young people need these days to stop them turning into the layabout chav inbreds that seem to be overtaking this country.

(Not saying your kid is like that though)

poet123 · 15 March 2009 at 7:34PM

Tbh the sanction is used mainly against those who are only in post 16 education for the money. It is sometimes the only sanction that works,it concentrates the mind wonderfully to think that if you behave as though you have no interest in the course,disrupt the lesson for those who want to learn,then you will lose financially.

I agree from your explanation it does sound unfair in this instance. However,is there a rule that you should only be in the resource area if you are working? if so then maybe that is why.

I would have thought it unusual for a supply teacher to impose the sanction for independent study time though...although I suspect the defence would be that no one ever has "little to do" especially at this stage of the year.

I would gently question and ask the form Tutor if the sanction was correctly imposed according to school rules.

poet123 · 15 March 2009 at 7:36PM

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

There's always two sides to every story and pandering to your kids/always sticking up for them isn't preparing them for the real world either.

Discipline and structure is what a lot of young people need these days to stop them turning into the layabout chav inbreds that seem to be overtaking this country.

Extremely unfair and judgmental imo. The OP is not seeking to have her son exonerated for a punishment,merely asking for clarification if the sanction was warranted. Which she is fully entitled to do.

dmg24 · 15 March 2009 at 7:44PM

poet123 wrote: »

Extremely unfair and judgmental imo. The OP is not seeking to have her son exonerated for a punishment,merely asking for clarification if the sanction was warranted. Which she is fully entitled to do.

I think Blacksheep1979 makes a good point. We only know one side of this, and I doubt that the same opinions would be given if it was the teacher/ support worker giving their version of events.

You also misquoted Blacksheep1979, seemingly to make their post look worse than it is.

Rules for teacher not signing EMA card?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free