Last year, in a thoughtless and deliberate attack on students, the government announced they would be cutting the £560 million Education Maintenance Allowance, This scheme was introduced by the last Labour government and provided up to £30 a week for low income students, allowing them to stay in school or college after age 16. Payment was determined in the first instance according to eligibility – depending on the income of the parents, but if the student was found to fall within its criteria, weekly payments could then be paid if they attended all classes/ lectures during the week. This week, Michael Gove announced a fundamental U-turn in the government’s policy by revealing they will replace it with a £180m bursary targeted to the poorest students. In a pathetic attempt to justify his about face, the education secretary defended the huge cut by asking whether: “…it is socially just to be paying 45% of students a cash incentive to stay in learning when we could be concentrating our resources on removing barriers to learning faced by the poorest.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has actually already answered his question. They found EMA increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%, and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. So clearly the answer is “yes” – a point that has been made by students since the government went on their attack on further and higher education. Even accounting for the ‘deadweight costs’ (people who would have stayed in education regardless of the allowance), the costs of the scheme are exceeded by the higher wages recipients go on to earn in the future.
Neither should Michael Gove use the high proportion of students who receive the EMA to justify concentrating it on ‘the poorest’. While it is undoubtedly a good thing the government are continuing to provide for the 12,000 or so most disadvantaged students, the full EMA was only ever given to those children from households earning up to £20,817 and no child from a household earning over £30,810 received any cash at all. In other words, EMA was always targeted for poorer families and never designed to be a universal benefit. This was already a more targeted transfer than – for example – child benefit. It was also a more conditional transfer than other benefits, because it could be removed if the student failed to attend school or college, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome. So the evidence suggests unequivocally that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just. The same is going to be far less likely when it comes to the government’s scheme. Their intention is to pay those school students who are in receipt of free school meals. What Gove is missing is only somewhere between a quarter and a half of the 16 percent of children who are eligible for Free School Meals are in the bottom 16 percent of the distribution of household income. Even worse, according to Child Poverty Action Group, only just over 6% of poor pupils receiving free school meals remain at school to take A levels, compared to around 40% of students overall. Some students choose to leave school and go on to further education. According to Gove’s announcement some of these students will be eligible for his allowance and the money will be distributed on a discretionary basis by the college. In other words, every college could easily have different criteria to determine eligibility – and with a much smaller purse available, it is inevitable many of our ‘most in need’ young people will be left by the wayside.
The Tories have pretended they have some kind of commitment towards young people. Just before the last general election Citizen Dave, the people’s toff said: “I am determined to ensure that the next Conservative Government provides a radical and exciting new opportunity for all the nation’s young people.” Well since he has been in power the opportunity he has offered is for the young to live in penury and with 25% of them having no hope of a job. Even those with aspirations for advancement and going to university will find their costs tripled thanks to the Tories. Nothing exciting or new there, Dave – it’s time to take another look at what you are doing.
Neither should Michael Gove use the high proportion of students who receive the EMA to justify concentrating it on ‘the poorest’. While it is undoubtedly a good thing the government are continuing to provide for the 12,000 or so most disadvantaged students, the full EMA was only ever given to those children from households earning up to £20,817 and no child from a household earning over £30,810 received any cash at all. In other words, EMA was always targeted for poorer families and never designed to be a universal benefit. This was already a more targeted transfer than – for example – child benefit. It was also a more conditional transfer than other benefits, because it could be removed if the student failed to attend school or college, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome. So the evidence suggests unequivocally that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just. The same is going to be far less likely when it comes to the government’s scheme. Their intention is to pay those school students who are in receipt of free school meals. What Gove is missing is only somewhere between a quarter and a half of the 16 percent of children who are eligible for Free School Meals are in the bottom 16 percent of the distribution of household income. Even worse, according to Child Poverty Action Group, only just over 6% of poor pupils receiving free school meals remain at school to take A levels, compared to around 40% of students overall. Some students choose to leave school and go on to further education. According to Gove’s announcement some of these students will be eligible for his allowance and the money will be distributed on a discretionary basis by the college. In other words, every college could easily have different criteria to determine eligibility – and with a much smaller purse available, it is inevitable many of our ‘most in need’ young people will be left by the wayside.
The Tories have pretended they have some kind of commitment towards young people. Just before the last general election Citizen Dave, the people’s toff said: “I am determined to ensure that the next Conservative Government provides a radical and exciting new opportunity for all the nation’s young people.” Well since he has been in power the opportunity he has offered is for the young to live in penury and with 25% of them having no hope of a job. Even those with aspirations for advancement and going to university will find their costs tripled thanks to the Tories. Nothing exciting or new there, Dave – it’s time to take another look at what you are doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment