On the face of it, a compulsory requirement to remain in education or training beyond the age of 16 combined with discretionary support funds appears to be a more economically sound policy than nationally-available EMA payouts.
However, to conclude this would be to take a short-term view. Pupils from poorer backgrounds were enticed into staying on and achieving in an academic track as a consequence of EMA, while under compulsory requirements cohorts from low-income families may opt for more vocationally-related training in the future.
If their decision to follow a non-academic route is driven by a lack of aspiration and an underestimation of the labour market returns to academic qualifications, in turn influenced by financial constraints, then the scrapping of EMA represents a lost opportunity for the government to raise entrenched low levels of social mobility among students from economically-deprived backgrounds. Discretionary support funds will go little way towards reducing the costs of participation for these students relative to the EMA, since decisions on the amounts to be paid out and prioritisation of payments are made by schools and colleges themselves, with the potential for variability in receipt by institutions.
Additionally, although support funds can be used to cover travel costs, without a guarantee of being able to afford these costs — as was provided with more certainty under the EMA scheme — students may be discouraged from applying to institutions that are further away from their home, even if they are preferred or are of better quality.
Finally, as was noted in the IFS study, the EMA policy presented a form of redistribution to lower-income households with dependent children, and, judging by their findings, this seems to have been a very worthwhile strategy for targeting inequality of opportunity among these families. Click here to respond to this post. Please read our comments policy before posting. Your email address will not be published.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Search for:. Many are faced with a postcode lottery, depending on the area in which they live means they could be awarded strikingly different amounts. It has been close to 7 years since the government announced it was removing the allowance for those studying in England.
Inflation is real. He lost his job two years ago, so money is really tight and I rely on the EMA to cover my travel costs from Basingstoke to college in Winchester every day. I do wonder if the government is putting up tuition fees because it wants to discourage young people from going to university and set their sights a bit lower.
In the run-up to the election, all three party leaders made a video to shown at the NUS conference in April. In Nick Clegg's video, he said he would fight any cuts to education — and look what has happened.
So how are we to trust the government when they say they are going to replace the EMA with "more targeted support"? If students are not able to complete post, they are not likely to go on to university, apprenticeships or training. By cutting the EMA, the government has removed the bridge between school and higher education or training. And with higher education now out of reach for many because of rising fees, apprenticeships may well become the preserve of the middle classes. It's a tough time to be a teenager, because we're going to spend the next few decades paying for the excesses of our parents' generation.
I was pleased to see the EMA had been cut, because few young people use it to help with their education. Most spend it on alcohol and clothes. But I am very unhappy about rising tuition fees. The trouble is, everyone wants to go to university now, even if they are not academic. But we don't need people with degrees in silly subjects like sports management from some university in the middle of nowhere. But jobs for school-leavers are scarce. Many end up going to university simply because they believe they won't get a job.
However, this new package is still a shadow of its predecessor and it is not even clear if this last minute addition is new money or has been raided from careers guidance budgets.
Those who will receive automatic payments represent a tiny percentage of those eligible for EMA. Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union said: "While I'm pleased that the government has committed to continuing financial support for current EMA recipients and for families on income support, their U-turn doesn't go far enough.
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies. Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
0コメント