to think we should all be doing our bit.

[TotsDaddy]

As I'm now doing my bit to the tune of an extra £2500 per year, I had a look at some of the other universal benefits that us high rate tax payers might be eligible for. My eye came across the state pension, winter fuel allowances and free TV licences for the over 75. I know quite a few OAPs with pensions far in excess of my income (you have to move in the right circles to hope some of it rubs off), so why do they need these? As Dave said, "We all need to do our bit".

In the mean time, I'm off to gift aid what's left of the CB, after all, there's only so much wine you can buy at Waitrose and will be working our what jobs I can employ my 3DCs doing to repay their trust funds out of untaxed income

Dreaming, as far as I am concerned. the £30 going to the children is actually better because it gives them a reason to continue studying and being able to provide on some level for themselves.

what type of jobs?

How many hours - how many people applying for those jobs??

The EMA system is totally unfair. The money should either be to contribute towards the parents' expenses, or for books/stationary.
I didn't get it because my family had a highish income. I was fine with that, I didn't need it.
But some other students with parents on lower incomes got it, even though their parents really weren't much worse off from mine once you'd counted differences in mortgage, council tax etc.
The parents ability to support the child was the same, but because the income was different, eligibility for EMA was different. It's a ridiculous system which doesn't assess everything it needs to assess.

And I wouldn't be saying this if my friends who got EMA had spent it on rent/food/books. They spent it on CDs. Every week.
I couldn't afford CDs...

mamot - working in shops or pubs. no idea how many people have applied - but he's gone for about 12, had interviews for 3, rejected by 1, offered the other, awaiting feedback on 3rd. Most of his friends work too - so there are definately jobs out there where we live.

your arguements aren't convincing me about EMA. I still think its getting people used to being given money by the gov and not working for it. but then i've always had to work for what i've had - with the one exception of child maintenance which we will now lose

the ema is rediculous, why should young people be paid to stay in education, something that will benefit them in the long run? the real issue here is that young people arent being made to realise how much eduction will help them and so they are being paid to keep doing it. I think it should be scrppaed, if its an issue of not affording to egt to colllege or 6ht form there are are grants and free bus passes available to those on low incomes. If you can afford a 15yr old to not be paid to attend school why does this need to change at age 16?

MaMoTTaT - recently had a Saturday job in shop where I work in University town - we had over 25 applicants.

About the EMA thing, I thinkits a great idea that this is available. It's given to A Level students as well as those on foundation learning programmes and IMO teaches young people a bit about responsibility as well as giving them a small amount of cash to budget themselves. It came in very handy for my sister who used it to save for her bus pass and buy bit of clothes, toiletries, hair cuts etc. Which were little luxuries that other wise she would not afford. She and her friends did honestly try to get part time jobs but there was litterally a few jobs and a few hundred students who wanted them! My sis did manage to get some voluntary work but even that was hard to come across. There just isn't the opportunities in my area that there used to be.

It might be seen as something for nothing but at the end of the day it £30 a week. Some people NEED that to pay for bus fairs and dinners etc, they wouldnt be able to afford to attend college without it. some contribute to family income, some do piss it up the wall I suppose but that's no reason not to offer it when it could benefit others so much.

I'm not so sure about the means tested part though, or the way it's worked out. Not many parents who earn a slightly better income could afford to give their children 30 a week, so some kids from 'better off' families end up worse off and seeing others get £30 a week for attending college which must be a bit

Copying and pasting my post from the other week in the FE forum, with a few additions -

"EMA is not about recognition for turning up and working hard (though it is expected of those who get the money - [edited to add] if they miss a single lesson or even a sign-in for the lesson, they lose it). The EMA is a benefit paid to those students whose families have a very low or limited income, who might otherwise struggle to stay on at college for sixth form: it helps with the costs of books and equipment and for travel expenses. It helps when the student might consider leaving school with just GCSE's because financially, leaving to get a job, might help support the family more. If a teen leaves after GCSE's they are however more likely to end up on the dole than finding work (particularly at the moment, with not YTS or similar as in the old days - in fact the Tories have just axed a bundle of youth training organisations) and it is cheaper to encourage them to stay in education than to pay the dole money for an unemployed and possibly unemployable 16 yr old.

But mostly it is to help those on a low family income to manage those years financially. One of the close mates of one of my kids got EMA and needed every penny to survive and get travel and pay for books. Even with it he had hardly enough money to buy paper and pens - my DC provided some for him - and although he did well in A levels, couldn't afford to go to uni, but at least he had A levels.

The closer you get to the cut-off limit, the less money you get anyway. Only those with a combined parental income of less than £20,000 get the full £30. And that seems fair enough.

My kids have had/have EMA to the full amount and it is immensely valued, not spent on CDs. Also there are virtually no part-time jobs to be had in many places. One of mine tried for a few hours Saturday job and there were 60 applicants. It took another of mine a year and a half of job hunting and applicantions to find a few hours' washing-up job.

DandyDan. I understand the value of the EMA, I really do. I would certainly not want to remove it for those teenagers who need it to go on in education.

My problems with it come mainly from the fact that it is only based on income, and not on requirements.
An EMA eligible student may live right next to college, go home for lunch and have everything they need for the course (rich grandparents?) They don't need EMA.
Another one might need money for travel and lunch, their parents may want rent, etc. Now, in their case, £30 might not actually be enough for this plus the books/files/paper/pens etc they need.

I also don't see how it helps the parents of these kids.

There is another issue, which is whether or not the student in question wants to get their A-Levels (or equivalent). Some don't, they're persuaded to go to the lessons to get the EMA, and they mess around, don't listen, distract others and ultimately fail. I don't think these kids should be paid for this. I think they should be allowed to go straight to work (which is what most of them want) to see how the real world works. Perhaps then they'll go back to college with real enthusiasm.

squarehat - its teaching my son that hard work, good qualifications and a high paying job = you don't get anything from the gov.

I don't think guessing about grandparents and their financial support or suggesting it's all about bus fares makes any difference to the worth of this government grant for poorer students. The student I mentioned above who needed it for books and paper and such, lived close to the 6th form but his family were struggling financially. With any student who is in a home with a combined parental income of under £20,000, that money is going to be valued to help towards staying on, instead of attempting to get a job (esp in a climate of 2 million unemployed and the public sector cuts not even happened yet) and drawing dole instead to the cost of even more money. With two of mine having received it, I also get discussion about it with them, and they have never said there were students who claimed EMA but who played the system and mucked about in lessons. Perhaps you have first-hand experience of this, but I've not heard of it andI can't imagine most A level teachers would put up with it.

I wasn't guessing about grandparents or suggesting it's all about bus fares.
I was trying to point out that some students have money other than from parents. Through support of extended family was just one example.
Regarding bus fares, my point was that they should test other elements rather than just income. Eg, does the student have to pay for travel/rent/lunch.
I do have first hand experience of this, some of them were in my class. Most of them just picked subjects at random, without thinking about what they wanted to do ultimately. There was very little support or advice from careers advisors.
A Level teachers have to put up with it, what choice have they got?
One of my parents works in a college. He teaches a class of kids where about 80% of them can't be arsed to do any work. The college loses funding if it lets them fail, so the teachers have to do their work. These kids claim EMA. They're either going to pass the course with no understanding of the subject, or fail it. How is that a good use of their time or government funding?

why can't the student use school books and the internet like the children of richer parents have to ? How much paper do they need a month? If the parents need it so the students can stay on then it should go to them - this would stop my son's friends frittering it away on luxuries - which still suggests to me its not essential in the first place.

Doesn't measuring the income give the fairest basis of assessing whether students might need financial support and incentives to stay in education? A student will rarely have to pay for rent at the age of 16 (which would mean that parental income is void as a measure, as the student would be living independently); the cost of lunch would still be a cost, whether taken at home or munching a pastie from Greggs. Free bus fares to 6th form are available dependent on the choice of 6th form and subjects chosen vs. the location, not dependent on income.

The EMA forms have to include all financial information about the parents' income. As a 16 yr old in education is still "dependent", it would not be reasonable to take into account any personal trust funds they might have (from the Tory-defunct Baby Bonds or similar) as the students are not responsible for financial contributions to sustain their own education at this point (thank God!)

Picking A levels at random is hardly the preserve of would-be worthy A level students: the try-hards and the non-tryers will both do this. There is only a proportion of A level students who actually know what they want to do at the end of A levels, let alone at the end of a possibly uni degree. Lack of support from careers advisors is hardly their fault, and not the preserve of those students receiving EMA: other students not receiving EMA can be just as clueless as to why they're studying or what they might do in the end.

The comment about teachers - my meaning was that teachers don't have to allow students to be distracting in their classes: they can't force them to be working hard or taking in the info, but they can avoid students distracting others.

On students who take the courses but who don't work or seem to pay attention and either fail or get v low pass marks - it's a shame but not necessarily a waste. And the 6th form college or school should take more responsibility for assessing students' grades as the course proceeds and directing their learning more. Even if there are some who are from incomes that grant EMA, they will still have benefitted (and I don't mean financially): they won't have taken in nothing at all from their courses or they would have been thrown out - my kids told me of some of their peers who had this done - it can happen to kids who don't study and abide by their "Learning Contract", whether they receive EMA or not; what they have learned might still serve them well in later life; the discipline of getting to 6th form every day for two years has merit; and involvement with A levels opens the eyes to the possibility of education still being a way of furthering the student's life chances.

It's about equality of opportunity, opportunity which isn't readily available without this government funding.

i fail to see why having 30 a week to spend on clothes, cds and drink is about equal opportunity. i don't see why some students have to work to get this level of money - ie kids with higher earning parents and others just get handouts.

free bus fares aren't available here, unless you get EMA. you have to pay for them whereever you go to 6th form - our nearest school is 5 miles away so its a fare sum of money.

The money is to help poorer students to stay in full-time eduction which they might not otherwise do - it is economically worthwhile giving EMA to students in the lower income brackets to maximise the career possibilities and future life chances (and economic contributions) of those students. Only those with an income of under £20,000 total get the full £30. Many of those receiving it who buy clothes will be buying clothes which they might not otherwise be able to afford at all. Many will be spending it on bus fares, food, college equipment or saving it towards a university fund (which becomes even less affordable with a low income family). Some students will "waste" it on what other people might consider frivolities, but that is no reason to stop the grant for all those who really need it to assist their continuing education. And it's given incrementally to children of parents who are more well-off - £20 for those between £20,000-£25,000, and £10 for those between £25,000 and £29,999. So only the students with the least family income get the full £30.

No, it doesn't give the fairest basis, for reasons I've mentioned earlier. Income is not everything, and houses with the same income have have very different outgoings.
The cost of lunch would still be a cost yes, but it's a lot more expensive in college.
The very fact that free bus fares vary around the country rather proves my point I think, that students should be assessed more individually.

You're missing my point about random A-Level choices. I didn't know what I wanted to do but chose subjects that interested me, hoping one of them would lead to uni and/or a career.
Some people just randomly chose based on what they thought was easiest.
The lack of careers advice was connected to the other point I made, that some students are not ready to go to college.

Equality of opportunity, sadly, doesn't exist. A child, by the time they decide whether or not to go to college, has been influenced by hundreds of things, mostly by their parents.

Both my parents teach, they both disagree with EMA. Not in principle, but with the way it's done.

Half of my sons ema gos on busfare .At the minute I would struggle to find 60 quid a month for him to go to college ..he does not get a bus pass ..hes applied for loads of jobs

If you don't mind me asking usualsuspect, what does the rest of it go on?
Does he need more than he gets, or less?

The rest goes on whatever he likes ..I couldn't afford to give him the other £15 quid in his pocket ..dp was made redundant and could only get agency work

Sounds like it his case it's more than justified and needed.
Sounds like in your case it would be useful to have more support :(
Is he going to university? That's another area where the financial support is awful.