If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
What do you think of EMA?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hello :wave:
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) are currently looking for some feedback on Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) as well as EMA bonus payments (additional payments if you do well and meet targets set by your teacher, tutor or provider).
Here's what they'd like to know:
Have you heard of EMA before?
What's been your experience, if any, of EMA payments and bonus payments?
Would the prospect of getting an EMA bonus influence you? For example, encourage you to work harder on your course, attend classes more regularly or anything else?
If you don't know much about it you can get more info here.
:thumb:
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) are currently looking for some feedback on Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) as well as EMA bonus payments (additional payments if you do well and meet targets set by your teacher, tutor or provider).
Here's what they'd like to know:
Have you heard of EMA before?
What's been your experience, if any, of EMA payments and bonus payments?
Would the prospect of getting an EMA bonus influence you? For example, encourage you to work harder on your course, attend classes more regularly or anything else?
If you don't know much about it you can get more info here.
:thumb:
0
Comments
EMA came in after I left school.
EMA bonuses seem unfair as rewards for performance should be open to everyone, not just those on low income.
Some of my friends at school got it. I think the way it's worked out is a bit funny though ie on household income. A friend of mine lives with her mum who has a low paying office job. What they don't see is her dad's income. He works for the UN and and has a huge property empire that she was set to inherit at 18 until they realised how this would effect her being able to apply for student finance andt whatnot. Her dad used to pay for her to go to boarding school until she decided she'd rather move back to England and live with her mum. I know this is a one off case but I do think that if there is still contact between both parents and money is being given to the child from both parents that they should be able to take that into account.
It used to piss me off when people complained that their EMA payments were late or wrong. I used to work in an ice rink for minimum wage, for more hours than I legally should have due to a contract loophole, to pay for anything I wanted to buy or do. Some friends just had to turn up to 6th form and do their work to get £30. I had to work nearly 9 hours in unpleasant conditions to earn that, on top of turning up for 6th form. I got AAC in English Lit, politics and chemistry - hardly easy subjects - where was my bonus? Nowhere other than knowing I'd gotten into my first choice uni.
After that rant, all I'll say is, they should give it to everyone or not at all.
It didn't make much of a difference for me as I had a part time job all the way through college and made about £250 a month from that working way too many hours for just £2.86 p/h (stupid JJB Sports!). Although I had friends who didn't have part time jobs and just relied on the EMA and constantly moaned if it was late or they didn't get it one week (probably because they had some time off that week). I don't know how they just survived on £30 a week though!
I can see how it would be a good insentive for people who wouldn't go to college due to lack of money but still £30 is not alot, espcially at the moment. I can also understand why they look at your household income.
EMA came in after I left school.
I agree with Scary Monster. Money should be allocated based on need, rather than because of some dodgy social engineering project. I think the money would be better spent contributing to the living costs of people who actually need the money, such as university students. I think that would go much further in terms of encouraging young people to stay on into FE too. I went to college because I wanted to go to university, so no, money wouldn't have convinced me to go or improved my attendence. It might've encouraged my classes to be filled up with a bunch of people who didn't really give a shit about what was being taught though.
It would be a much better system if the colleges got the money and paid for everything that you needed to do the courses. It would save the age old people doing art need lots of expensive equipment, people doing maths only need a calculator arguement.
Which is clearly bollocks, because I've been to college, and at no point did my course costs rise to anywhere near even £10 a week, never mind £30. If your parents are struggling with costs, then that's an issue for the benefits system, not a reason to give kids a disposible income that a lot of people could use for more constructive purposes than buying CDs, clothes, and going out (the only things I've ever seen them being used for, with the exception of my cousin's moped).
Yeh, so I'm bitter, and it would piss me right off if the people who got EMA complained about it being late or whatever. Fuck off, you're getting free money just for doing what the rest of us have to do for nothing, shut the fuck up complaining and actually turn up next time.
How exactly? College education is free.
It keeps people in education who would rather just turn up and get their £30, instead of getting a job. And yeah, I know everyone's not like that, but the vast majority of people at my old school were.
They need to change this. And they need to look at savings too.
Would you like to on £19k per year as a family of 5 and not get any treats, such as holidays?
Yes, but rent, food, clothes, books, pens and travel are not free.
For children from the lowest income families, EMA is the difference between having to go to work and being able to go to college.
I got about £5 a week because my dad had retired early. which isn't much, but the cheques at the end of each term were great.
i also worked 16 hours a week at a demoralising low wage
Using what?
For like 6 hours on a Sunday at £5 an hour?
And as others have already pointed out, the vast majority of people choose to spend that £30 on crap they didn't need. How many people gave that £30 to their parents to help with the rent or used that £30 to pay for a monthly bus pass? I know my mates who got it certainly didn't.
There are some problems with EMA- personally I don't think it's enough and I think it's targeted at too many families who can do without it- but the general policy decision is right.
However I'm not aged 16-19 so I doubt DSCF/DIUS care what I think.
You do realise how hard it is currently to find a job?
The last time I went on holiday was a long time ago. I haven't been with the family that I LIVE WITH (which is what EMA is based on, remember) since the special treat trip to Florida for finishing our GCSE's. That was five years ago and I didn't go AT ALL throughout college.
The people that I knew that got EMA didn't spend it on college stuff because they had no college stuff to spend it on and didn't have a hell of a lot of work to do even, whereas I, who was doing six fucking subjects and working my fucking butt off just to stay ahead of myself, and was in college every day unless I was really sick, got nothing whereas they got a reward for turning up?
No, I don't think it's fair. It's like me not getting enough to pay my rent for university last year because my stepdad's income was too high, yet we saw none of it except for the difference between my loan and my rent that my mum WAS FORCED to pay for. Why should someone else get a reward just for showing up compared to another person just because of income? That's not a reward, that's bribery and it leads to people going to college who don't even want to be there. Granted, I know that a lot of people genuinely need it and fair play to them, but it should be available to everyone if it's supposed to be a replacement for them working.
Incidentally, the jobs that most college students have (supermarkets/fast food) are still hiring so the recession crap doesn't work in this case.
some stuff ive noticed about it are
one: i dont work, at all. ive got an income, and im highly unlikly to becuase i have some kind of "income", although i think the 6 weeks holiday should give me a kick up the arse.
two: alot of people complained about the boundries, and who some people would prehaps "misuse" the money. and how some people prehaps deserved it more than others.
three: the bonus's. i just dont get it. you get paid to go, and if you dont miss a day, they give you more? ok, i can see where they are coming from, but isnt that like dressing it up with a chery on top? i didnt claim my january bonus (£100) because i didnt see the point of a. acctually claiming it. they have all my bank details, so why do they need me to say im ok with reciving £100, and b. why? i dont need it that much. surly there is another use for it than give it me to squander?
so that means no, the bonus's dont influence me at all. they dont even get me to "try harder" at my lessons, becuase im either going to try or im not. its my education and ive chosen the stuff i enjoy. of corse im going to try!
overall, i dont know what i think of it. it most certainly has been valuable to me, but i think that there are those who dont need it even thought their perents are below the boaderline.
Both GWST and myself are routinely advising clients that if their kid doesn't get EMA they can't afford to go to college. It's making a big difference to people's lives.
Franki, a couple of points about your post:
1. In the last couple of years you've been to France (twice) and your father paid for you to go to Kenya for a month. That isn't a brilliant position to claim poverty from.
2. The minimum amount of student loan you're entitled to receive is about £3500 for the academic year 09/10, slightly less last year. You only get the minimum if your sponsors (resident parents, step-parents and guardians) are earning more than about £54k per year, or you don't fill in the income-assessed section of the application form. Therefore if your stepfather's income is large enough to knacker your student loan he must be earning a fairly decent wedge of cash and it's not unreasonable to expect him to pay towards your education. If he chose not to pay towards your education then your anger should be directed at him, not at the student loans system.
3. If I had my way I'd make non-resident parents responsible for their children's education too. At the moment if the non-resident parent earns a fortune it doesn't count towards the assessment, it's only the resident parent's income that does, which is really really unfair to two-parent families. That would almost certainly reduce your entitlement to student finance and it would be the same for most children of divorced couples (as it's usually the resident parent earning less).
As for social mobility, I suspect a far bigger barrier is forcing people to take out loans for living costs and pay fees to go to university. And if you've got a pot of cash to use to improve social mobility, then I think it's far more of an issue to remove that barrier.
A recent report into child welfare criticised this country massively, and pointed out means-tested services as a barrier to social mobility, not a help. And judging by this government's record on the issue, I suspect they have a point.
EMA isn't about removing barriers, and never has been. It's been about providing incentives. But I think the money would be far better spent removing the barriers that are already there, before trying to bribe people into getting to the stage where they go, "actually, I don't fancy £15k of debt." College education is free. University education isn't, and it should be. And while there's a limited pot of money, providing free education to those who really want it should be the priority.
The money is given to the kids to pay for their own travel costs and course costs. Parents should be making their children use the money for this purpose. Parents that we see are told that they have to; not all of them are happy about it, but that's why they're in severe debt.
You assume that everyone in a deficit budget is in receipt of benefit. That's really not the case at all.
I don't think University education should be free, it's only fair that the people who benefit from the education pay towards that education. When it's a public service (e.g. doctors) benefitting then the public service pays, but why should the people on low wages pay out for some rich kid to go and become a hotshot lawyer? He can pay for it himself from his increased earning potential.
I think the student loan should be larger but it's right that students pay for their own upkeep and contribute towards their own education. And it's still only a small contribution: top-up fees are about £3200pa, but international students are typically charged between £10k and £20k per year, depending on course.
People do pay for education through taxes. Scandanavian countries are successful because they offer free education for anyone who pays taxes, free childcare for everyone who pays taxes, etc. They don't take money off people to fund a public service, and then demand the people who contributed most in tax in the first place then have to pay for the thing their money is going towards.
As for University education, I don't think taxpayers should be paying the living costs of students. The students should be paying for their own living costs, either through student loans or part time work. I don't think students from poor backgrounds should get grants, except for childcare and disability related costs, and I think everyone should get a flat rate that's enough to live on.
If these students went to work they'd have to pay their way and I don't see why University should be any different. Why should the guy earning £12k per year have to pay towards students' subsidised beer money? They can pay for it themselves.
And the £12k a year bloke should have to pay taxes towards the students fees for the same reason that the student has to pay taxes towards his education. Incidentally, I think we were talking about the education being free, not the living costs. Why should the bloke on £12k a year have to pay for the "living costs" of a college student who still lives with his parents, and already claims all manner of benefits towards them? If you're against it for university students, at least be consistant and oppose it for college students too.
Also I was never claiming poverty. I was replying to a point that was made about 'treats like holidays'.
I didn't get the minimum, but I didn't get much more. My mum had to subsidise not only mine, but my sister's rent in our first year. Why should he have to pay towards it? I'm not his child and they've spent enough on bringing me up for the last eight years. I am justifiably angry at the student loans system and not only because of this.
Actually if I was using both parents income (not both households, both PARENTS) I would get a whole lot more than I did in my first year since my dad is retired now and mum's income is less-than-average. Maybe I'm unique in that my step-parents contribute not a great deal to my education, but the fact that their income is used to figure out how much I 'need' to get through the year is ridiculous. Even this year when we're 'living with my dad' I'm not sure how my sister would eat if it wasn't for her job, because she is at university in London and is therefore at a major disadvantage from the off.
Like I said above, the system isn't perfect but it's playing the averages. I know there are people who get £12k+ in various benefits and just whack it all in high interest savings accounts, but at the same time I am sure there are people who need that.
I would change it to those who really need [the help]. Otherwise what if Prince William 'really wanted' an education, would you be happy to say "well, since you really want it, you can have it free, but Joe Bloggs who only kind of wants it has to pay" - despite the facts Joe Bloggs might not be able to. Shouldn't he be afforded the same opportunity?
I'm all for the student loan though as Kermit suggests. Although that would be shooting myself in the foot, when I graduate I will already have ~£24k of debt to pay back which I expect will take the better part of 10 years.
It is a tricky situation but I think the current mis-match of various different funding schemes through a levels and university is better than nothing. After all, nobody would complain if there was no EMA would they? The government identified a need that is verifiable - people from lower income backgrounds dont carry onto sixth form but instead take jobs compared to those from higher income background - and so introduced a probably blunt measure to rectify this to some extent. Still, if you are from a high income background, your chances are still far superior that you will carry on throughout your education than get a job.
But as I said, envy sets in and everyone whinges about it. One of my friends truly conned the system and got the full entitlement despite being very wealthy, but just because of that I wouldn't deprive anyone else of it because I have three friends except for the fact EMA was there, would have left education and got a job. I know two girls who did leave to get a job DESPITE the EMA being there. (they both wanted to carry on and go to University, but for some god awful reason thought it was 'selfish' because their parents had to pay for their upkeep - even told those of us who stayed on that we were selfish putting our own needs first etc.)
And saying "well they are obviously not committed enough then, I had to get a part time job!" is the most utterly middle class perspective on things.
I am happy to socially bribe people if it affords them a better life, even if 50% of the people who get the EMA do not truly need it. I guess that makes me a raving socialist
I was asking where you'd get the money from if you think everyone should have EMA.
Why should taxpayers have to?
Does it?
I did. I went to the same place where I went to school. I don't ever remember having to buy things such as paper, paying for photocopies or to resit exams.