Students Hit By Scrapping Of Education Maintenance Allowance
Before the general election, Education Guardian readers interviewed Michael Gove, the education secretary, who denied scrapping the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). EMA, a national means-tested program that supports students from underprivileged backgrounds in further education, was, however, removed in last week’s spending review. The chancellor, George Osborne, claimed that the payment would be replaced with "more targeted support" but did not indicate what that would entail. Although the administration claims to be investing more in school-aged children, 16- to 19-year-olds seem to be left out in the cold. The government has promised to double the number of scholarships but only for those over 19, reduce the funding per student for sixth-formers, and lift the cap on tuition fees. John Stone, the Learning and Skills Network’s CEO, claimed funding cuts to adult learners and 16- to 19-year-olds would affect teaching and learning, emphasizing the sector’s challenge of finding ways to protect learners.
Toni Pearce, Cornwall College’s Student Union President, reported increased travel costs as a potential barrier to participation in education and training, affecting many young people in rural areas like Cornwall. She was disappointed with the abolition of EMA as David Cameron pledged that he wouldn’t destroy the scheme when he visited their school. Lee Christian is a 17-year-old from Harlow College studying A-levels. Lee, studying hard, bought a computer with his EMA payment, and it has turned out to be vital to his studies. His nan is his roommate, and her pension can’t support them, and rising tuition fees make matters worse. Alex Maynard, 17, says that the EMA’s abolition was expected and open to abuse by many young people. Alex is saving her payment for her future University bills. James Roushas, 17, working towards an apprenticeship, is assured with the removal of the tuition fees and indicated that more young people would be interested in apprenticeship programs.
The recent spending review has impacted those who are already struggling. As a child, I lost my mother, and now my father is the sole provider for our family. Unfortunately, he lost his job two years ago, which has made finances very tight. I rely on the EMA to get to college every day from Basingstoke to Winchester. Despite it only being an 18-minute train ride, it costs me over £350 each term. Additionally, the news of a 3% increase in rail fares has further added to my financial concerns. I cannot help but wonder if the government is attempting to discourage young people from pursuing higher education by increasing tuition fees. Despite these concerns, I remain determined to achieve my goal of becoming a barrister, although the prospect of accruing £40k of debt is disheartening.
During the election campaign, all three party leaders produced videos to be presented at the NUS conference. Nick Clegg declared in his video that he opposed education cuts. However, clearly, this is not the case. It is challenging to trust the government’s assurances that "more targeted support" will replace the EMA. Nearly half of our 16-19 students rely on this support, and if it is cut, they will struggle to complete post-16 education, making it less likely for them to attend university or join apprenticeships. This government decision removes the link between school and higher education or training. Furthermore, with tuition fees becoming unaffordable for many, apprenticeships may become an option solely available to the middle class.
As a student at Campbell College in Belfast, I am aware of the difficulties faced by young people. While few students use EMA for educational purposes, cutting it entirely is concerning. I am unhappy with rising tuition fees as many students enroll in university, believing it will provide an advantage over others in the workforce. This trend has resulted in useless degrees like sports management and has created a problem of job scarcity. Unfortunately, due to the current job climate, many attend university under the assumption it will make them more employable.
Removing the EMA is incredibly damaging to those who rely on it to continue their post-16 education. The government claims that it is an "incentive" when, in reality, it is an essential source of support for students from low-income families. Further concerning is the potential loss of funding for level 2 qualifications for those over the age of 25, which would close educational doors for many who already feel disenfranchised from the system.
