Young people are having to choose whether to eat or travel to college thanks to the government’s “disastrous” decision to axe education maintenance allowance.
Sally Hunt is the general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU)
Young people are having to choose whether to eat or travel to college thanks to the government’s “disastrous” decision to axe the education maintenance allowance, according to a report (pdf) released today by the children’s charity Barnardo’s.
The report not only criticises the government’s decision to axe the weekly grant – worth around £30 a week to the poorest students – but also describes the EMA’s replacement as insufficient to meet students’ needs.
It is shocking that youngsters have to skip meals to get to college. Lecturers want to be encouraging students to maximise their potential and they need to at least be fed when they turn up for class.
Sadly, the findings of today’s report do not come as much of a shock to those of us who led the vociferous campaign against the removal of EMA. We have argued from the start the government’s drive to cut EMA was an ideological move backed up by spurious evidence with absolutely no regard for the policy’s likely impact.
We produced a number of reports at the time that highlighted just how vital the money was for students. However, the government opted to cherry-pick its evidence from a survey that included hardly any students who actually depended on the EMA.
While we questioned how a cabinet of millionaires could have any understanding of the difference a few pounds a week makes to the poorest in society, the education secretary, Michael Gove, axed the grant, despite not having visited a single further education college.
Embarrassingly, but not surprisingly, the government’s evidence was later discredited by the man the government frequently cited to call the EMA a “deadweight cost”. Giving evidence to the education select committee in the summer, Mr Spielhofer said he was not happy with the concept that EMA had a deadweight cost of 88%.
He was also unhappy the axing of EMA had been based on his research and said ministers should have paid closer attention to other evidence, including work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which showed that EMA paid for itself. The select committee described the axing of the EMA as rushed and ill-though through.
After failing to listen to the evidence when axing EMA, the least the government can do now is take note of today’s findings and provide the financial support required to give the poorest teenagers a fair crack at an education. There is no benefit in consigning them to the ever-increasing number of young people on the dole queue.
See also:
• Five reasons Clegg can’t stand on his social mobility record – Alex Hern, January 12th 2012
• The devastating crisis hitting Britain’s young people – Rory Weal, November 9th 2011
• Fees, cuts… Is this what Cameron means by “giving young people back their future”? – Shamik Das, September 14th 2011
• It’s now official: The government lied when scrapping EMA – James Mills, June 9th 2011
• EMA replacement could breach equality law according to government – James Mills, May 5th 2011
• EMA replacement doesn’t make the grade – James Mills, March 31st 2011
• Gove’s justification for axing EMA doesn’t add up – Jonathan Clifton, March 30th 2011
31 Responses to “The shocking effect of Gove’s EMA axe: Youngsters skipping food to get to college”
David Warren
This article omits one extremely important point. It’s only in England that students have to make such unfair choices, thanks to legislation passed by Tony “education, education, education” Blair’s government. Thanks, Tone.
Ed's Talking Balls
‘worth around £30 a week to the poorest students’
It was also worth £30 a week to rich students who were also able to claim EMA.
Ed's Talking Balls
As an aside, some of the terminology used is ridiculous. ‘Students’? No. They’re pupils. And these ‘lecturers’ are teachers.
Councillor John Swin
The shocking effect of Gove’s EMA axe: Youngsters skipping food to get to college I Left Foot Forward – http://t.co/NSDtwbgb
Patrick
I remember when I was in further education back in the mid 1980s. There was no handout for going. You went because you knew the benefits of getting further qualifications WERE A BENEFIT IN THEMSELVES. If you wanted pocket money you got a Saturday job.
And while we are it, these people are not ‘students’. Students are people over the age of 18 and attending university. The people in this article are children under the age of 18. It is the responsibility of their parents to feed and clothe them, not the rest of society. Having a child means taking responsibility from 0 to 18, not requiring others to finance it.
All this rubbish about the choice between eating and college. Do me a favour. What do you think happens to most of this money? It goes on Ipods, trainers, and nights out.