EMA - reform eligibility criteria

[ukyp]

Campaign proposal

Reform the eligibility criteria of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), so that it’s no longer just based on household income

Purpose of campaign

Nationwide there are many sixth form and college students who receive EMA. However, this similarly brings along with it many who do not receive EMA, and in some cases who should receive EMA and need EMA. The root of this problem is with the criteria and means testing they use for EMA which is purely based on household income.

We propose that the means testing for EMA be reformed. We would suggest that there would be better criteria to test whether someone receives EMA such as asking how many people are in the household and asking about all sources of income which the parents/ guardians may use to support a student.

Read more about this campaign

Discuss

· What do you think of this campaign idea?
· Is this issue important to you?
· Is the campaign realistic and achievable?
· What challenges would this campaign face?
· How could we make this campaign successful?

Vote

Click here to cast your vote

If you haven’t registered to vote, REGISTER NOW. It will only take a minute to do. Click here to register.

[LordAnubis]

I also think it should take into account current part time jobs held by the student - and more importantly how much they earn from it. Ideally, I'd have it scrapped altogether, but that's another story.

Reform certainly is needed on several fronts, and I think it needs more than what has currently been suggested.

[ciara_squires]

Originally Posted by LordAnubis

I also think it should take into account current part time jobs held by the student - and more importantly how much they earn from it. Ideally, I'd have it scrapped altogether, but that's another story.

Reform certainly is needed on several fronts, and I think it needs more than what has currently been suggested.

Why? why can't young people have a job and spend their own money, EMA is for travel, books, trips and some people need it (yes i know some people just spend it on junks but it's their money)

why would you scrap it?
i couldn't even afford train fare if i didn't get any EMA...someone i know who is anti-EMA said 'well you should just go to your local college' why should i? it's crap

[EmmaGallen]

Originally Posted by ciara_squires

Why? why can't young people have a job and spend their own money, EMA is for travel, books, trips and some people need it (yes i know some people just spend it on junks but it's their money)

why would you scrap it?
i couldn't even afford train fare if i didn't get any EMA...someone i know who is anti-EMA said 'well you should just go to your local college' why should i? it's crap

EMA isn't for travel though. Here, train and bus passes are given as well.
EMA is in some ways a good idea. But I only know one girl who actually uses it for school stuff. I know that my boyfriend would use it for school stuff but music equipment is an awful lot bigger than the allowance. My main issue with EMA is that it's based on if you live with a poor parent and turn up at school. And t that, if you turn up in the morning for registration and are back in time for afternoon registration then you still get the money.

[LordAnubis]

I just think that EMA should be replaced by a system that doesn't give money directly, as I am aware of many people who spend it on drugs, alcohol and games, all of which detract from the idea of it. It is there for giving money for travel, food, books and other school supplies. This means that the money is ensured to be spent wisely, but still retains the usefulness of teaching people how to handle money responsibly (I know not everyone is like this, but I know of very few). Otherwise, if/when they go to uni, they will get into problems with just spending their student loans on alcohol etc, like they did with their EMA.

Slightly different circumstances I know, but hopefully you get my drift?

I suggest that it is replaced by something similar to a token system, or ultimately just make travel fares and school equipment free. Rather than giving money that can then be spent on alternative things, have tokens of value that can be spent at schools and other education outlets (WHS Smiths, Partners etc).

And as for the job, I'm not sure really, it's fair enough if people get a job, but seems a little unfair that people can have a job, get money from their parents, and the full £30 EMA (I know several people in this position) when they don't actually need the £30 EMA? Still, like you say, getting a job is their choice, but seems a bit unfair which is what the system is there to try and rule out.

Ultimately, it is the fact that EMA ends up being spent on things that detract from education - video games and the like, and therefore makes itself redundant. I know it does - I do it!

[Liam Hannan]

I think you have misunderstood the point of the system
(don't want to generalise, however this does seem particularly common amongst English young people)

Just to clear it up - the point of EMA is not to cover your school supplies. It is to enable young people from poorer backgrounds to stay at school by removing the need for them to have a job.

The reason the school supplies thing was tagged on is because that was one of the things that EMA could be spent on, and because politicians can hardly turn around and say
"look, we're going to fund your social life. Have a drink on us"

Everybody knows that EMA will be spent on socialising, including the government. The reason action has not been taken before now was that if we went to a voucher system then these kids would either pick up a job to fund their social life - which can impair their academic results - or drop out of school altogether in search of work; which would continue the poverty cycle.

[EmmaGallen]

Originally Posted by Liam Hannan

I think you have misunderstood the point of the system
(don't want to generalise, however this does seem particularly common amongst English young people)

Just to clear it up - the point of EMA is not to cover your school supplies. It is to enable young people from poorer backgrounds to stay at school by removing the need for them to have a job.

The reason the school supplies thing was tagged on is because that was one of the things that EMA could be spent on, and because politicians can hardly turn around and say
"look, we're going to fund your social life. Have a drink on us"

Everybody knows that EMA will be spent on socialising, including the government. The reason action has not been taken before now was that if we went to a voucher system then these kids would either pick up a job to fund their social life - which can impair their academic results - or drop out of school altogether in search of work; which would continue the poverty cycle.

Right but I'm not from a poorer background and so is ti expected my parents will pay for my social life? As it stand they don't and when off for Easter those who receive EMA/work are going out to party and then there are others like me who don't hae enough time for a job with the amount of school work but whose parents are too rich for the governement to give anythign to.

[LordAnubis]

Then surely it would be better to give anyone and everyone who wants to stay on for A-levels (or whatever) some sort of incentive, and reward people who want to be there alltogether, rather than those who just sign up for it for the money but because they don't want to be there, may not gain great results anyway?

There are several people I know who don't get money from their parents, but want to be in school more than people who recieve EMA do. Surely those people deserve it just as much, if not more?

Having said this, I still think that people should understand the advatages of the system anyway, without needing blatant bribery, but hey, that's in a perfect world :P

[Ethan]

I agree with Lord Anubis, as many of whom receive EMA abuse the sheer fact of such a privilege to a certain extent; pay day for EMA receivers is rather delightful.

I personally question the need for EMA, surely it's purpose is to ensure the student is prepared for lessons, has the right equipment, books and so on; if so, shouldn't it be received by the parents, not the child? Is it similarity to child maintenance, but the child receives the full benefit?

[Liam Hannan]

In a perfect world there would be enough money and some system of devising who "deserves it".

Unfortunately there isn't, so we deal with trends.

The trend is for better off parents to fund their kids social lives, and that it is easier for them to find part time employment than working class kids - and that those who are in part time employment tend to see less detriment to their studies from working than the children from low income families do.

That is not true in every case, but in the majority - and so low income families have their children subsidised