The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The abolition of EMA played more of a role in the riots than its creation

EMA helped the poorest working class pupils to struggle on in education and avoid dropping out.

By James Mills Published 30 August 2011 13:37

Perhaps it was wrong to except much of a Telegraph article that begins with "in my day". Brendan O'Neil, who describes himself as someone who wages a "culture war of words" against prejudice and misanthropy, claimed that the Education Maintenance Allowance [EMA] scheme provided a rock star lifestyle to teenage recipients, regardless of the fact that 80 per cent come from families whose household income is below £21,000 a year.

Of course there will be those who misuse any payment scheme - the MPs' expenses scandal is one obvious example. However, other than anecdotal evidence, there is no proof that the level of misuse of EMA is endemic. In fact, any research into what EMA recipients actually spend their money on has consistently shown that "Young people who were receiving EMA were more likely than other groups of eligible young people to be making a contribution to housekeeping costs, transport and books and equipment for school".

So far, so Jan Moir. More worrying were his other claims. Apparently EMA caused the riots. How you ask? By creating a "new state yoof (sic) gang" filled with a "sense of entitlement and disrespect for local community and parental authority". And by failing to put a "strong, moral case for the importance of education" to working class pupils.

The sad truth is that, if anything, EMA probably helped the poorest working class pupils to struggle on in education and avoid dropping out. Ironically, the best evidence for this comes from the one report the government tried to use to justify the abolition of EMA. The report, by the National Foundation for Educational Research, was not actually about EMA but instead barriers to education. In June, its author, Thomas Spielhofer, gave evidence to parliament in which he said the government "misinterpreted" his report and that he "opposes" EMA's abolition.

The poll of 838 recipients of EMA, cited by the government, found that 88 per cent of them would like to continue participating in their course regardless of financial incentives. What this really showed, according to Spielhofer, was the level of resilience and commitment among those teenagers who wanted to stay in education. He compared it to pensioners receiving free bus passes - many would still like to use buses if they didn't receive them. But, naturally, their use of that service would be affected by their ability to pay for it.

As Spielhofer went to lengths to point out to the select committee, there were no supplementary questions about whether they would have dropped out without the payments due to the cost of studying. When that question was asked of EMA recipients earlier this year, 70 per cent said they would be forced to drop out if they lost their EMA. It was probably no surprise, therefore, that the very next month the education select committee published a report that said the government "rushed" its decision to scrap EMA.

Brendan O'Neil offered not one strand of evidence showing EMA caused the riots. If anything, those teenagers who told journalists its abolition influenced them had more proof. Despite Michael Gove on Newsnight protesting that EMA has not yet been cut, he and others forget that those planning to start courses this September may not be able to without prior knowledge of their funding. According to research by the University and College Union, 40 per cent of EMA recipients would not have even started courses without the payments.

Nevertheless, there is no excuse for violence and many recipients of EMA played no part in the riots. But it's clear that the abolition of EMA, not its introduction, was to blame for the actions of some.

James Mills is campaign director of the Save EMA campaign.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: EMA

More from James Mills

13 comments

Wed, 2011-08-31 14:44 — john woods (not verified)

EMA just encouraged large numbers of thick kids to stay on in school when they should have been sent out of education early to sweep the streets.

Wed, 2011-08-31 15:37 — JacobJVW (not verified)

@John Woods

You seem to have confused the notion of being 'thick' with that of being 'poor'. The two are, contrary to your blinkered, reactionary implication, independent of one another.

What is more, I hope you understand that correlation does not automatically signify causation; the fact that you seem to equate the poor of society with the 'thick' says more about the steep decline in social mobility paired with the widening of the poverty gap resulting in a vast decrease in opportunity for young people from considerably disadvantaged backgrounds to educate themselves. Which is precisely why the EMA was brought in in the first place- to put a stop to the poor of society being condemned to a life of menial labour regardless of their intelligence or potential.

But I doubt social mobility is much of a concern to you John- I suppose back 'In your day' the 'thick kids' provided a nice thick layer of working class peasants for the rest of you sparkling intellectuals to float upon.

Wed, 2011-08-31 18:00 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

The poor do no appear to be condemned to menial labour since they ever get out of bed. We get furriners in to do the menial stuff.

Tue, 2011-08-30 14:11 — swatantra nandanwar

The fact is that here was a case of 'using it', and so not 'losing it'. The EMA was a great idea which was working ie in getting more poorer kids staying in education.
That is why it was foolish to scrap it for ideological reasons. And the Lib Dems were complicit in scrapping it.
No dpubt the Coalition will be forced to reintroduce, it in a different guise, claiming their new grant is more geared to students needs. Tosh!.

Tue, 2011-08-30 15:42 — Shinsei67

I wholly agree with Brendan O'Neill. In my day people worked during the school holidays and rode a bike to school. Why do 18 year olds need free buses to get to college unless they live in the middle of nowhere.

One week's holiday work at McDonalds funds a whole term of EMA.

Thu, 2011-09-08 12:38 — Awake!

John woods
well said. It seems that there is a positive correlation between the decline of education that teaches to think intelligently and the drive to 'help' people educate themselves, You can lead a horse to water..

Tue, 2011-08-30 16:29 — Graeme (not verified)

Nick, you are just grumpy old man (in manner even if not in years).

Tue, 2011-08-30 17:05 — James Mills (not verified)

@Nick I think Graeme has got your number... also EMA is from 16-19...

Tue, 2011-08-30 17:50 — Seb Mann (not verified)

@Nick So the youth of today don't work summer holidays (and weekends!) and cycle to school any more? Sometimes even to supplement the meagre income EMA used to provide? You know that, do you?

Thu, 2011-09-01 03:32 — NM (not verified)

"except"..tsk tsk

Tue, 2011-08-30 21:49 — Stuart (not verified)

Three things are worth pointing out:
1) O'Neill's article consciously eschews the words 'in my day' and is aware of their impact('Everyone hates sentences that begin with the words “In my day"')
2) The evidence for spending of EMAs in the report as 'educational' is not without question: including specifically 'leisure activities,''clothes' and 'transport' (32-33) any of which may not be wholly applicable for education.
3) That 70% of recipients stated they could not continue is to take them at face value. It is possible that they have another motive, i.e. keeping the extra income. Cynical maybe, but I doubt that almost anyone actually rejects free-money on fine social principles.

Thu, 2011-09-01 13:01 — john woods (not verified)

To Jacob JVW:

No, I do not confuse "thick" with "poor" Like everyone else, I know perfectly well that there are lots of intelligent poor kids and lots of dumb middle class kids ( I think they call em dyslexics these days)

However, painful as it is for the left-egalitarian to admit this obvious fact, there are also lots and lots of thick poor kids as well.

Low IQ parents tend to have low IQ kids: - not a universal rule, but there is obviously a co-relation. Low IQ kids will stay in low skill jobs, and generally speaking not be able to achieve social mobility cos, well, they've got low IQs. Duh.

Somebody has to sweep the streets whichever government is in power. I worked as a labourer myself to pay my way through college. Live with it. Brendan O'Neill's comments in Spiked re this scheme were absolutely spot on.

You state: "I hope you understand that correlation does not automatically signify causation; the fact that you seem to equate the poor of society with the 'thick' says more about the steep decline in social mobility paired with the widening of the poverty gap resulting in a vast decrease in opportunity for young people from considerably disadvantaged backgrounds to educate themselves"

Firstly, I fully understand that there is a difference between causation and corelation.

Secondly, as every leftist for the last thirty years knows full well but will not say out loud: SOCIAL MOBILITY DECLINED BECUASE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GRAMMAR SCHOOLS. End of.

Thirdly, WHAT "widening of the poverty gap"? This is the type of literally meaningless statement so beloved of NS readers.

Fourthly, people from disadvantaged backgrounds dont necessaruily need to go to college to educate themselves: the libraries, museums etc are all free.

Fifthly, you, like so many people, appear to believe that tertiary ed is the only way to achieve social mobilty: aint so. Consider Alan Sugar: there are plenty of people in my extended family who were kicked out of school at 15 but made it through self employment, work promotion etc. Because journos editors academics etc have all come up through the college route, they think (erroneously) that this is for everyone.

Incidentally, Im glad you think I'm a sparkling intellectual.