Visits

Wednesday 10 August 2011

Education Maintenance Allowance? More like Ecstasy Maintenance Allowance






Last night on BBC Newsnight, Harriet Harman MP claimed that the cutting of Educational Maintenance Allowance had contributed to the recent appalling riots. Further to this, James Mills (the Labour researcher behind the ‘Save the EMA’ campaign) today tweeted his agreement with Harman that EMA was a factor behind the social unrest on our streets.
In this excellent article, guest blogger @JoshPugs explains in detail and first hand why Harriet Harman and the Left are so wrong.

'EMA was inefficient, wasteful and essentially corrupt'

During the autumn and winter of 2010 we witnessed the clamorous outcry of thousands of students who were furious with the Coalition Government’s education policies. Angry and bespotted quasi-academic youths filled our streets and television screens with ever-so-trendy Arabic neck scarves and defiant placards. Ostensibly, they demanded a Government U-Turn on the plans to raise tuition fees and to scrap Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). However, when it comes to EMA, their protests were either based in ignorance, or mired the same greed with which they scornfully brand the Bankers.

In 2004, the Labour Government introduced the Education Maintenance Allowance. Officially, its purpose was to assist certain college students who come from lower income families with the day-to-day expenses associated with their further education. However, whilst removing barriers to education appears to be a worthy and noble objective, the reality is that EMA was an inefficient, wasteful and essentially corrupt system.
Under EMA, students who were eligible (their family income would have to be at least below £30,000) would be able to receive weekly awards of £10, £20, or £30 so long as they attended college. Additionally, if their attendance was high enough, they would qualify for termly £100 bonuses. The logic is clear, with these payments students could afford to attend college, be incentivised to keep their attendance up, and be rewarded with cash for pursuing further education… So far so good!

'EMA was paid to students directly in cash to be spent exactly how the individual wished'

However , the problems with EMA were huge. Firstly it was poorly targeted. Students with divorced parents could qualify for cash awards despite the fact that the Mum or Dad who didn’t live with them might be on £30k + and be providing them with regular stipends anyway. Secondly, and of far greater significance, EMA was paid to students directly in cash to be spent exactly how the individual wished. Whilst some students most certainly spent their EMAs on those items which were necessary for education, a vast amount was undoubtedly spent in TopShop and Starbucks across the nation. Or as one student commenting on The Guardian website (of all places) wrote: “The local drug dealer did very well out of EMA”. Just as duck ponds and pay-per-view porn were inappropriate uses of taxpayers' money when it comes to MPs' expenses, surely pairs of Nike trainers, tickets to V Festival and bottles of Lambrini are an equally wasteful and equally corrupt use of state coffers?

'...students who have genuine need will be able to get more support through the Bursary scheme than through the rightfully scrapped EMA'

Generic Lefty Protest Scarf, 'Buy it now with EMA'.
I’m not saying that some students don’t need financial support for further education. I firmly believe some provision is absolutely necessary. But rather than huge state-led blanket hand-outs, we need a system of support which takes into account the real need and real requirement of individuals who are committed to improving their educational lot. Fortunately Michael Gove has established the ‘16 – 19 Bursary’ which provides this. Unlike the EMA, schools, colleges and training providers will be responsible for awarding individual bursaries to students. They will also decide when bursaries are paid, and will set conditions that students should meet to receive a bursary, for example, linked to behaviour or attendance. In fact, students who have genuine need will be able to get more support through the Bursary scheme than through the rightfully scrapped EMA.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I can understand where those angry and protesting students were coming from. If I were a 17 year old student from a left-wing family who’d seen my £30 weekend money get denied to them by those “…what are they Mum and Dad? Oh yeah.. Tory Bastards!!!” I’d probably be protesting too. But let’s not take the piss. Get a part-time job. Or even better, found your own multi-million pound company.

'...graduate 3 years later with a 2:2 in media studies expecting decent employment to fall into their hands like manna from state-heaven'

This approach worked for Richard Branson and it worked for ‘Lord’ Alan Sugar. Do we really think that these business moguls would emerge as entrepreneurs if they had grown up in the benefit-centric hand-out culture of today? Is it in-fact more likely that they would be massaged into college, given their £30 a week (and their £100 bonus for actually turning up) and then ushered into University to graduate 3 years later with a 2:2 in media studies expecting decent employment to fall into their hands like manna from state-heaven?
No, far better for college students to get a part-time job (I was an Argos Monkey at the weekends) and learn the value of money. Let them gain some real work experience and some talking points on their CVs. Let them, like many others their age, learn that one must put something into society to get something out. And then yes, if they want to spend their hard-earned cash on clothes, booze and drugs – then I say ‘Go crazy!’ ‘Go mental!’ ‘ENJOY!’ But don’t expect the state to fund all this, and don’t march through the street protesting for yourright’ to largely disposable cash.
Last night on BBC Newsnight, Harriet Harman MP even claimed that the cutting of Educational Maintenance Allowance has contributed to the recent and appalling riots. Further to this, James Mills (the Labour researcher behind the ‘Save the EMA’ campaign) today tweeted his agreement with Harman that EMA was a factor behind the social unrest on our streets. And Harman and Mills will not be alone among the Left to voice such claims. And here, the Left might just have a point… After all, if you were a local drug dealer who’d seen your business with local Sixth Form smoking-area dry up, you’d probably have enough beef with Gove and Big Dave to smash a few shops up. But to suggest the scrapping of EMA led these young people to those awful deeds is simply absurd.
Let’s see EMA for what it was: an expensive Labourite bribe to gain young people’s votes. Now without it, the 16 – 19 Bursary is far better placed to provide for those who are truly in need.

Click now to follow @JoshPugs on Twitter

Click now to follow DPRUK.blogspot.com on Twitter

Related articles you may enjoy:






13 comments:

  1. While at college i spent the majority of my EMA on tobacco and going out. Although there was a few books that were necessary to buy for college, the amount required never added up to £30 a week. I even studied art at college for a year (one of the most expensive subjects) and still never spent all my EMA per week on equiptment. The college provided alternative ways, nothing to do with the EMA system to provide funding for those students who couldn't afford transport costs.

    The system was extremely easy to abuse, you didn't even have to comply to the rule of full attendence, i used to take friday at college off (usually due to a hangover) and if you called in sick and got a log number you could still get your EMA. There was no doctors note needed, just a parents one, which was very easy to fake. My mum was at work and would not know if I had left the house or not.

    After I saw the error of my ways (when I started at university and after I'd seen how much the people in Kenya who really have a lot to complain about value their education), the conservative government cut the EMA. I brought up how abused and wastefull the EMA system is with a friend of mine, who was horrified that I had suggested that it may be a good thing, claiming she'd would have had no motivation to go to college if she hadn't recieved a crisp £30 in her bank every week. I told her that obviously her priorities were not in the right place when it came to her education. She really believed it was okay for the government to give her handouts to go to college, exspecially in the UK when college is paid for by the government (unless you are a mature student or have failed multiple times).

    I also know that this friend EMA transfer had a few problems and for around 6 months she had recieved £90 (unreported) into her bank account per week. She was also one of those with seperated parents, she lived with her mum who had a very small income, but her dad was earning a massive amount of money in London and gave her mum alot of money. She never wanted for anything, and always had the newest clothes and technology.

    This friend also had a college trip to Venice/Florence paid for by the college. As I mentioned earlier, her father was very wealthy.

    The EMA system was very easy to exploit if you knew how. I understand that many college students do need help, but from a new system. A new system that allows people who really need this money to get it and for it not to go to people who really do not need it or deserve it. I admit my past mistakes and I really do not think I am along in my past actions within the EMA system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Completely agree, (as I blogged a while ago here - http://joshualachkovic.com/2011/01/18/why-does-no-one-tell-the-truth-the-ema-is-30-of-free-cigarettes-and-alcohol/).

    Pretty much all of my friends during sixth form had part-time jobs, but as I could just about scrape by on my EMA (i.e. enough to buy beer and ciggys etc for the week) I didn't bother. It wasn't until university I started getting part-time employment - and it was always far harder than my friends who *had* got a job.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let’s see EMA for what it was: an expensive Labourite bribe to gain young people’s votes.

    Yes I agree with that 100%. Labour bribing it's core vote with other peoples tax money. Absolutely what Labour is all about. It works completely until you run out of other peoples money.

    Let's not forget Gordons other wheeze's. Borrowing to the hilt, printing funny money and using that money to buy UK Government Debt. So the sole purpose of a lot of the debt now incurred was simply to keep Labour and Gordon in power for as long as possible.

    Never has any country been so utterly ruined by so base a knave as Gordon Brown and Labour.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The EMA was appalling and actively damaging to education. In the year I spent teaching, I saw many students who were there purely for the free cash and who were able to use EMA to blackmail colleges. "I'm late so I don't get EMA? Oh, well sod turning up the rest of the week" result: fail at the end of the year, but in colleges, students are not allowed to fail cos then the college loses money. Or worse "I'm late because ...., but if I don't get EMA, I won't eat this week" What lovely emotional blackmail. Many times as teachers we put our hands in our own pockets so that our students could eat, which we don't mind when it's the odd occassion, or in a special case where a student is trapped in poverty, but not when it's 10 students every week, all of whom expect cash from others and have no intention of learning a work ethic, rather than going out and getting part time jobs to support themselves, then it does become galling.

    Harriet Harman is a dangerous socialist who should never be let near power ever again. Neither should Labour. Michael Gove was right to be angry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What ever happened to getting a saturday job whilst at 6th form? Back in the late 80s/early 90s when I was in that situation, the £50 a week I was paid by Sainsburys for working a saturday and for a few hours two nights in the week was most welcome, and I bet it's a lot more that £50 these days.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exceptionally good and accurate argument.

    My wife and I are not well off, but our combined income was just over the threshold for EMA and therefore my daughter was ineligible. We are not a rich family, not even comfortable, but I cannot see how students who live at home with their parent(s) need 30 quid a week to attend sixth form college. Suggesting that scrapping EMA physically stops people from attending college is pure fallacy.

    My daughter completed her college career by working part time, firstly in a kitchen cleaning plates, then in a pub, cleaning plates, then in a coffee shop serving the public.

    She is now about to commence her master's degree in biological sciences, which includes her full time university study, in addition to 2 days per week lab work conducting research, whilst also working as a part time supervisor in a national chain book shop.

    If you are prepared to put in the effort, you can and often do reap the rewards and there is NO need for state bribery.

    Scrapping EMA is a very very sensible policy, it was a waste of money which ended up going behind the bar on Friday nights, NOT on education.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for all your comments guys. Nice to know my views are widely shared!

    ReplyDelete
  8. You manage here to COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY miss the entire point of EMA... It was never intended to be spent on materials that college students required to complete their A-levels, which are in the most part provided by schools/colleges anyway. It was designed as an enabler for 16-year-olds from poor families to stay in education rather than being forced to go straight into employment because of their financial situation. Contrary to your article, colleges had the right to withdraw pupils' right to withdraw EMA based on behaviour and attendance. What these young people decided to spend the money on was entirely their own business. As for what people have said in comments about having a part-time job- open your eyes. Do you have any idea of how difficult it is for an under-18 with no prior experience to get a part-time job in the current economic climate?!

    The only worthwhile point in this article is that means-testing for the EMA was entirely flawed, and many well-to-do pupils with separated/self-employed parents were able to claim. But overall a poor article, then again I would expect little more from someone who venerates Oswald Moseley...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for your anonymous post.

    In response I would say:

    1. I don't believe young people should be paid a stipend to recieve an fantastic education which already costs £6000 a year. If students goto college simply because they will receive EMA payements I'm skeptical if they should even be there. Clearly we differ there.

    2. "Contrary to your article, colleges had the right to withdraw pupils' right to withdraw EMA based on behaviour and attendance."
    I didn't say that they didn't have the right. But the new 16 - 19 system will put more independence in the college's hands and not the states.

    3. "What these young people decided to spend the money on was entirely their own business." As a taxpayer I utterly disagree. Basic costs should be covered by a scheme, but money should not be given which can be mispent - unless we give a mini-student maintenance loan perhaps? Are you a taxpayer?

    4. "Do you have any idea of how difficult it is for an under-18 with no prior experience to get a part-time job in the current economic climate?!"
    I have ten years experience of work and the difficulty of seeking employment in highly competitive areas have forced me to work harder, strive futher, and compete to gain jobs. This is a good lesson. Essentially you are arguing for a college to become a replacement for a dole queue then?

    4. "But overall a poor article, then again I would expect little more from someone who venerates Oswald Moseley..."
    If you had read the article properly you would have seen that this is written be guest writer and not the usual blogger. You can ask him directly if he "venerates Oswald Moseley".

    Thanks though. Perhaps you would like to send your suggestions to Ed Milliband? When he gets into office I'm sure he'll be able to help.



    'What these young people decided to spend the money on was entirely their own business.'

    This I have a huge problem with - why should that be the case? Do you think that taxpayers money should be spent on anything young people want to spend it on?

    Or, if young people don't have enough money for


    And if you had read the article properly you would have realised that this is a guest article and not one by the usual writer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with the above comment

    While at college I worked part-time on both building sites and kitchens and EMA allowed me to go to the college I wanted as cuts to the local bus service meant it was impossible to get to college without a car. While, of course some of my Ecstasy Maintenance Allowance was spent on things other than petrol and lessons it was a god-send to many of us at college.

    Without EMA it is unlikely I would have had the chance to go to the college I wanted to go to and in the grand scheme of things it was never the huge burden on the economy that is claimed on this page.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This blog does in no way 'venerate' or otherwise endorse the views, opinions or politics of Sir Oswald Mosley. Despite 'anonymous 14 Aug 14:44hrs' comment above being completely unfounded and ill-educated, we have published it anyway because of a fundamental belief in free speech as a corner stone of democratic values. To censor would be fascist, or worse, socialist. The evidence is clear; you have read neither this blog nor the Oswald Mosley blog in any detail as it escaped your attention that they are written by entirely different authors. If you're honest, you spent quite a bit of your EMA on Marijuana didn't you? That might explain your impaired concentration skills now. Finally, here IS a quote by someone who DID 'venerate' Oswald Mosley, former Labour leader and left-wing darling Michael Foot:

    "No rising star in the political firmament ever shone more brightly than Sir Oswald Mosley. Since by general assent he could have become the leader of either the Labour or the Conservative Party. What Mosley so valiantly stood for could have saved this country from the Hungry Thirties and the Second World War". - Michael Foot, M.P.

    Please, DO pay attention. If you're going to comment on a political blog, follow these basic rules:
    1.) Know something about politics.
    2.) Read the articles you are commenting on.
    Finally, thanks for the advertising revenue that your visit provided. (Ed.)

    ReplyDelete