I read an article the other day through my handy little BBC News application on my phone about a 15-year-old boy who got a standing ovation from the National Union of Teachers after he basically slammed the government's decision to axe the EMA - otherwise known as Labour's financial plan to pay teenagers to go to college.
When the EMA was introduced back in 2005, I was simply astounded at the government's blatant call to pay students to stay in education after 16. This was even before I found out (to my incredulity) that I wasn't eligible. It was, to me, a totally ridiculous idea that sounded too good to be true for the hundreds of students who would, in my experience, not turn up to their lessons and then beg their teachers to mark them present because otherwise they wouldn't "receive the financial support that their education requires". *Rolls eyes*.
Now, by this stage you're probably thinking that I'm just a stuck-up rich boy who thinks that you shouldn't need support to be able to continue your education into college. Not true. My incredulity at not being eligible for EMA is actually, I believe, well-founded. My Dad worked an averagely-paid job as a town clerk, and my Mum moved between jobs as a carer and pharmaceutical dispenser. I didn't receive a penny. Friends, whose parents ran successful local businesses, received £20 a week and saved it for their annual trips to Switzerland.
I agree with Joe Cotton on the principle point that he was making. He urges the NUT to do all they can to keep education affordable and accessible. Fair enough. But the whole concept of EMA was flawed from the beginning. The process by which the Department of Education processed eligibility was too simple, and did not take into consideration family savings or assets; doled out money as cash directly to the students; and was, in my opinion, far too high for something claimed to be simply "education maintenance". I agree with the principle point being made: some students who want to go to college can't afford to. Fair enough. But - and I know this might sound a little counter-productive and slightly strange - the system was too easy. Too simple. There should have been better measures in place and a more concise eligibility test enabled for the scheme. And they shouldn't have been doling out cash. It was like being paid to be educated. It was... well, rather crass.
I don't know what the Conservatives have planned, but the allowance in the first place should have been more streamlined at school level. Instead of handing out pay packets, the schools should have handed out free dinner cards to the eligible, and given those with EMA the books relevant to their courses through their teachers. Or made the allowance tokens for certain purchases at stationary shops, like WH Smith.
Joe Cotton has a point. At a time when everything seems to be getting sacrificed in the name of the "financial crisis", is there not one department in government that's not putting a limb on the chopping block? Let's save the EMA, but do it differently. Like my view of AV, a financial situation is not a reason to suspend logic (or, in the case of an electoral system, democracy).
If you're on twitter, and want to subscribe to somebody who tweets once in a blue moon, follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie
No comments:
Post a Comment