Ministers accused of cherry-picking research in order to scrap the EMA
9 June 2011
The government was today accused of cherry-picking research in order to scrap the education maintenance allowance (EMA).
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', told MPs that ministers had 'misinterpreted' key findings.
The government said the report stated that 88% of EMA recipients did not need the weekly money they received to help with course costs and said this was proof it was a deadweight cost.
However, giving evidence to the education select committee, Mr Spielhofer said: 'You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88% that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense.'
When asked directly if he was happy with the concept that EMA has a deadweight cost of 88%, he said 'no'. He also said he was unhappy that the change in government policy had been based on his research and that ministers should have paid closer attention to work by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which showed that the EMA paid for itself.
UCU said the revelations were proof that the government's cuts are ideologically driven and pointed to a survey it carried out in January which showed that 70% of EMA recipients would consider dropping out of college if the allowance was axed.
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The government has clearly cherry-picked one statistic from one report in order to justify scrapping an entire system of financial support for young people. As the research's author told MPs, it should have paid closer attention to work carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which showed that the EMA paid for itself.
'It says much about this government's ideological cuts agenda that it chose to ignore this. The EMA, as a recent study carried out by UCU proved, makes a huge difference in keeping young people in education and can often be the difference between them staying on at college or not.'
The government said the report stated that 88% of EMA recipients did not need the weekly money they received to help with course costs and said this was proof it was a deadweight cost.
However, giving evidence to the education select committee, Mr Spielhofer said: 'You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88% that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense.'
When asked directly if he was happy with the concept that EMA has a deadweight cost of 88%, he said 'no'. He also said he was unhappy that the change in government policy had been based on his research and that ministers should have paid closer attention to work by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which showed that the EMA paid for itself.
UCU said the revelations were proof that the government's cuts are ideologically driven and pointed to a survey it carried out in January which showed that 70% of EMA recipients would consider dropping out of college if the allowance was axed.
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The government has clearly cherry-picked one statistic from one report in order to justify scrapping an entire system of financial support for young people. As the research's author told MPs, it should have paid closer attention to work carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which showed that the EMA paid for itself.
'It says much about this government's ideological cuts agenda that it chose to ignore this. The EMA, as a recent study carried out by UCU proved, makes a huge difference in keeping young people in education and can often be the difference between them staying on at college or not.'
- PrintPrint this page
- Share
Comments