More pressure on government to look again at decision to axe the EMA
16 August 2011
Public accounts committee says department for education has not assessed impact of EMA axe
UCU today agreed with Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee, who said the department for education had not assessed the potential impact axing the education maintenance allowance (EMA) would have on participation in education and training by students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The public accounts committee today published a report examining the current education system for 16- to 18-year-olds. As well as criticising the axing of the EMA, the report questions the effectiveness of 16-19 education being covered by two different government departments.
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The government has been criticised from all sides over how it has handled the EMA. The minister has been accused misrepresenting key findings of the report he cited to call the EMA a deadweight cost. The select committee has said the decision to axe the grant was rushed and ill-thought through and now the public accounts committee says the department did not consider what the impact of axing the EMA would be.
'Ever since the government started cherry-picking research to drive through the end of the EMA it has been clear to us that thousands of the country's poorest teenagers would suffer. The very least the government can do is look again at the necessary level of support needed to give this country's poorest teenagers a fair crack at an education.
'We agree with the report that 16-19 education would be far better served if it was focused in one government department.'
Today's recognition that the government has not properly assessed the impact of axing the EMA comes less than a month after the education select committee said axing the EMA was 'rushed and ill-thought through'.
The EMA was a weekly payment to teenagers from the poorest backgrounds to help them stay on in education or training criticised by education secretary, Michael Gove, as a deadweight cost. However, Thomas Spielhofer, the former research manager at the National Foundation for Educational Research, whose report the government frequently cited to call the EMA a deadweight cost, recently told MPs that ministers had misinterpreted key findings.
Last year over 600,000 students received the EMA, with 80% (those whose household income is less than £20,800) receiving the full £30 weekly allowance. From September, following a cut of £390m, only 12,000 new students, who are either disabled, in care or from families on income support will be guaranteed funding. Others will be forced to apply to a discretionary fund managed by individual colleges.
In its Going for Growth report published in April, the OECD said that improving the educational achievement of young people, by reintroducing the EMA, could boost youth employment in Britain, propel economic growth and help it cut a record budget deficit.
A UCU survey of EMA recipients, published in January, revealed that 70% would drop out of college if the financial aid was removed, and the union said that despite promises of 'targeted support' many could still be faced with that choice.
The public accounts committee today published a report examining the current education system for 16- to 18-year-olds. As well as criticising the axing of the EMA, the report questions the effectiveness of 16-19 education being covered by two different government departments.
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The government has been criticised from all sides over how it has handled the EMA. The minister has been accused misrepresenting key findings of the report he cited to call the EMA a deadweight cost. The select committee has said the decision to axe the grant was rushed and ill-thought through and now the public accounts committee says the department did not consider what the impact of axing the EMA would be.
'Ever since the government started cherry-picking research to drive through the end of the EMA it has been clear to us that thousands of the country's poorest teenagers would suffer. The very least the government can do is look again at the necessary level of support needed to give this country's poorest teenagers a fair crack at an education.
'We agree with the report that 16-19 education would be far better served if it was focused in one government department.'
Today's recognition that the government has not properly assessed the impact of axing the EMA comes less than a month after the education select committee said axing the EMA was 'rushed and ill-thought through'.
The EMA was a weekly payment to teenagers from the poorest backgrounds to help them stay on in education or training criticised by education secretary, Michael Gove, as a deadweight cost. However, Thomas Spielhofer, the former research manager at the National Foundation for Educational Research, whose report the government frequently cited to call the EMA a deadweight cost, recently told MPs that ministers had misinterpreted key findings.
Last year over 600,000 students received the EMA, with 80% (those whose household income is less than £20,800) receiving the full £30 weekly allowance. From September, following a cut of £390m, only 12,000 new students, who are either disabled, in care or from families on income support will be guaranteed funding. Others will be forced to apply to a discretionary fund managed by individual colleges.
In its Going for Growth report published in April, the OECD said that improving the educational achievement of young people, by reintroducing the EMA, could boost youth employment in Britain, propel economic growth and help it cut a record budget deficit.
A UCU survey of EMA recipients, published in January, revealed that 70% would drop out of college if the financial aid was removed, and the union said that despite promises of 'targeted support' many could still be faced with that choice.
- PrintPrint this page
- Share
Comments