Gove’s justification for axing EMA doesn’t add up


Jonathan Clifton is a research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr)

Last year the government announced they would be cutting the £560 million Education Maintenance Allowance – a scheme which provides up to £30 a week for low income students to stay in school or college after age 16. This week they revealed what will replace it: a £180m bursary targeted to the poorest students.

Michael-GoveIn justifying this cut, the education secretary asked 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 that 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%.

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 that 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.

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, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome.

So the evidence suggests that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just.

This entry was posted in Public Services for All and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • Pingback: Alex Butler

  • Pingback: Citizen Smith

  • Pingback: Will Straw

  • Fabian

    Even though the bursary is targeted at the poorest, They actually recieve less than they would under EMA- it’s £800 per student over the course of 38 weeks, which totals £21 a week, give or take 5p or so. It may well be more targeted at the poorest, but only in the sense that the slightly better off are having allowance cut by 100% as opposed to a third.

  • Pingback: NUS Student Media

  • Pingback: CRC

  • 13eastie

    Instead of trying to lure teenagers into school with the offer of half a billion quid (the annual cost of 2,000 hospital consultants) to be spent on fried chicken (thus keeping said doctors in such demand), why doesn’t the Govt introduce legislation to make school compulsory?

  • Julian

    “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”

    Not true. My niece received EMA while her father was earning probably £70+k. He had been unemployed for a while the year before so, apparently, she was entitled to claim it based on his income the previous year.

    Also, I know of a child of divorced parents at a private school who claimed EMA. I don’t know but I imagine her father paid the fees while she lived with her mother.

    “the costs of the scheme are exceeded by the higher wages recipients go on to earn in the future”

    So what? The extra wages they earn in future won’t pay for their EMA. It’s paid for now out of the taxes of everyone who pays taxes, many of whom earn a lot less than £20,817.

  • Pingback: blogs of the world

  • YouGov Tracker

  • Touchstone Economic Tracker

  • Best of the web

  • Archive

7ads6x98y