See below for more info:

Of course Save EMA would just like him to say he would restore it or provide a better alternative to the current replacement, but this is at least a good start.

As 90% of pupils on Free School Meals go on to receive EMA, the Government should not be narrowing or even risking their educational prospects. The Government say the EMA has not yet been cut and we cant tell what effect it will have, but they forget that those planning to start courses this September may not be able to without prior knowledge if they will get funding. According research by the trade union UCU 40% of EMA recipients would not have even started courses without the funding. A further 70% said they would have dropped out without receiving EMA.

It is widely accepted by independent research centrers like the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) that the EMA is better than the new Government’s bursary scheme.

This is how the IFS describe the Government’s new bursary replacement:

“…any children on free school meals are currently entitled to the full £1,170 for EMA, if their circumstances do not change. It must be the case that most such students would be worse off under the bursary scheme that they would have been under the EMA – on average, to the tune of £370 a year.”

This is how the IFS describes the EMA:

“The EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults who were eligible to receive it. In particular, it 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%. The simple cost-benefit analysis mentioned above suggests that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found, the costs of EMA are completely offset.”

There is a clear divide between what went before for the poorest teenagers and those today looking at entering further education.

Although today will be a good day for many in this country, there will be hundreds of thousands of the poorest teenagers who for no fault of their own and regardless of their desire for an education but due to bad government policy will see their choices narrowed and their incomes cut. What’s even more disgraceful is that across the country there will be households now where one child is getting support to stay in education but the younger brother or sister, who should be starting college in September, is now instead in limbo and unsure of their future due to this Government’s actions.

In a week when the number of NEETs (those Not in Education, Employment or Training) has risen the government should not by scrapping EMA risk creating more NEETs otherwise it only helps create a lost generation of unqualified and unskilled young people, who feel that the government is against them and that they are not worth investing in. Recent weeks should show that’s not a good idea.

The government should while there is still time reverse their decision on EMA or at least put off scrapping it for another year until they have something better in place. It won’t cost anything other than face.

As pointed out previously, the Government are against the bulk of research which supports EMA, leading economists in the country and if recent polls are accurate, a Tory Chaired Select Committee, and they are also against public opinion. Even the author of the report, which the government originally based its entire case for scrapping EMA on, has come out and said he opposes the abolition of EMA.

It’s truly shameful to think that when it comes to education cuts, a Prime Minister and an Education Secretary, who were both privately educated, are not looking first at the gold plated subsidy to the private school sector, but instead to the pockets of the poorest teenagers.

The government are selling out the poorest teenagers in this country. It’s just another warning the education system in our country post 16 risks being one where a pupil’s finances and not their ability will determine how far they can go in the education system of our country…

If the Government got grades in the post today on this policy, it is clear they would have been failed…

The Save EMA campaign has warned previously that an increase in youth crime could be seen if the EMA is abolished, as some cuts can help cause crime. Talking to Sky News today, Diane Abbot MP and many others on other media platforms, have said today that many teenagers rioting have been spurred on by the abolition of EMA.

Now, Save EMA doesn’t fully agree with that view, but it does have a kernel of truth to it.

In the areas where riots took place last night involving teenagers there was almost 16,000 teenager in receipt of EMA. Those same areas which experienced riots over the weekend are also amongst the areas with the highest number of EMA recipients in London:

Lambeth (Brixton) has 3,799 recipients

Enfield has 4,424 recipients

Haringey has 3,689 recipients

Waltham Forest has 3,756 recipients

Total Number of EMA recipients: 15,934

Compare these figures with more tranquil areas such as Richmond-upon-Thames or Chelsea and Kensington who have only 900 EMA recipients each.

If you add to this the disturbance occruing in Hackney the 3,647 teenagers on EMA there, then this pushes the total number in receipt of EMA up to 19,581. This means almost a quarter of the total number of EMA recipients in London lived in areas experiencing rioting teenagers…

The Save EMA campaign believes in peaceful protest and completely rejects violence in all its forms. There is no excuse whatsoever for stealing or criminal damage. And Save EMA has previously condemned all such actions seen following education demonstrations. However, it also believes that some cuts can help cause crime by creating an environment in which it can grow.

There was no excuse for the violence over the weekend, and we must remember those teenagers who did not take part in any criminal activity at all. But as we survey the damage we cannot ignore that the environment which was created that made riots more likely in places like Brixton  than in places like Belgravia.

For example, as the figures above show, there are four times as many youngsters on EMA in Haringey than in Richmond-upon-Thames and there are four times as many youngsters on EMA in Lambeth than in Chelsea and Kensington. Is it hard therefore to wonder why we see more teenagers involved riots in some parts of London than others? The figures above of EMA recipients London highlight the disparity in poverty levels in those different parts of London.

It is hard to prove that removing EMA alone will increase crime, however, if it leads to lower levels of participation in education amongst 16-19 years olds then this is what one well respected academic, Mick Fletcher, who has advised the government has said the effects can be:

Youth Unemployment in London is above the national average, and combined with cuts to youth services and the abolition of the EMA there is an abandoned army of young people set adrift, one just has to ask any youth worker or sociologist or criminologist and they will tell you this is the environment that breeds crime.

The Save EMA campaign has met many young people over the last year and as the videos like the one below shows, many of them have been saying that if they don’t have successful schemes like EMA then they are more likely to get into trouble.

Although the Save EMA campaign doesn’t fully agree with Diane Abbott MP’s view that cutting EMA has led to the disturbances in London, we do share her fears that last weekend maybe a sign of more things to come if the abolition of successful schemes like EMA goes ahead.

The government should not risk creating a lost generation of unqualified and unskilled young people, who feel that the government is against them and that they are not worth investing in, otherwise it only helps create such scenes already seen…

Save EMA sends its sympathies to those who have been hurt or affected by the riots!

UPDATE: Following recent out bursts of violence in London, the figure has been revised up to over a third of EMA recipients in London living in riot hotspots.

The Education Select Committee’s report out today (covered by BBC here) responding to the Government’s abolition of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has poured criticism on the Government’s “rushed” actions in ending the scheme and also rubbished the argument’s put forward by the government for scrapping the scheme. It goes further recommending that instead of abolishing the scheme the Government should of instead merely “slimmed-down” the scheme.

The Tory Chaired Select Committee’s report strongly criticized the Government for rushing through the abolition of EMA:

“we would have welcomed a more measured and public analysis by the Government before it reached its decision to abolish the EMA.”

And the Committee’s report also blew out of the water the Government’s “deadweight” argument for abolishing EMA:

“…economic “deadweight” costs are a feature of many interventions and do not necessarily mean that the policy is invalidated. The Government should have done more to acknowledge the combined impact on students’ participation, attainment and retention, particularly amongst disadvantaged sub-groups, before determining how to restructure financial support.”

It would be nice if the Government can quote a credible independent report that supports the abolition of EMA, but so far they have not done so and they constantly dodge the question whenever asked.

It also recommended that a slimmed down version of EMA would have been better than a move to a discretionary fund.

“The Committee is not persuaded that a strong enough case has been made for distributing £180 million in student support as discretionary bursaries rather than as a slimmed-down, more targeted entitlement. We believe that the Department should have conducted an earlier, more public assessment of the options for better targeting of student support.”

This is yet another major condemnation of Government policy on EMA, this time by a cross-party group of MPs, especially as the Select Committee is chaired by a Conservative MP.

It is a sad day to see a cross party committee of MPs, pretty much confirm what everyone seems to know in this country, except the Government and Michael Gove, that scrapping EMA was a truly bad decision.

There are now next to no one outside Government who supports scrapping EMA…

The Government should, while there is still time, reverse their decision on EMA or at least put off scrapping it for another year until they have something better in place.

Unfortunately, it is a good day to bury bad news for the Government…

Remember when… teenagers on EMA, teachers, civil servants, social workers, care assistants, bin men, education officers, school support staff, librarians, social workers, nurses, doctors, lollipop ladies, and disabled people crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax?

No, we cant either…

That’s why Save EMA supports the strikes!

He started by declaring that “the research has been misrepresented in many ways”. He made it clear that his research “was first and foremost not about EMA” and that they “only had one question that referred to EMA.”

And that he never thought that his report would lead to the abolition of EMA, and was not happy that it did, especially without the government even asking for his opinion:

“It happened without any discussion with us…”

So the government didn’t even consult the report they constantly quote!

On the issue of “Deadweight”:

Asked whether he was “happy with the concept that EMA has a deadweight cost of 88%”, he said “no”.

He also replied that it was “completely correct” when asked if he was unhappy that the change in government policy had been based on his research.

This is clearly quite damming criticism!

Mr Spielhofer went further to make it clear he was not happy about the 88% figure being described as “deadweight” saying:

“You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88% that was wasted money, but I don’t actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense.”

He added:

“I think the 12% is quite a worrying statistic….”

Asked whether he agreed with the government that EMA has a deadweight of 88% he said “no” and he made it clear that out of the 88% who said they would stay on with their courses that he they “simply didn’t know” if they needed it and how taking EMA away would affect them. In other words they may want or have the desire to do their course but that does not mean they can…

He further acknowledges that the survey was not weighted to represent the 80% of EMA recipients who are from household incomes below £21,000 a year:

“We didn’t ask how much they were receiving so many could have just been receiving £10”.

He gave analogy of free bus travel that for people over 65 and said you wouldn’t use the same argument for abolishing EMA to abolish the the Free Buss Pass. Something which the Tory chair of the Select Committee, Graham Stewart MP said would also be a “good idea”… Nice…

Mr Spielhofer then slammed the government replacement for EMA, the Discretionary Support Fund, by saying that as it was discretionary many students “would think that they wouldn’t qualify and wouldn’t apply”.

Rather worryingly he also added that “it’s the most vulnerable who will be the hardest hit” and it may push many of them into trying to enter the workplace in unskilled jobs without training, which will be hard at a time when there’s no jobs. Something Save EMA has constantly warned is not a long term sensible economic plan as the number of unskilled, unqualified jobs is reducing in our economy.

The government’s response to all this on to the BBC has been that there is a “range of evidence” for scrapping EMA but as the Prime Minister and Michael Gove have used this “deadweight” figure continuously then where is this other research?

This is very damaging to the Government and Michael Gove as it destroys their entire augment for scrapping EMA and with only a few months before colleges and students start their courses. But the real worrying problem is that now they are deciding not what to study but if they can study what they may want to…

You can view the whole meeting HERE or below if you move the slider to the 27-45 minute mark.

One of the main argument made by the Government for replacing EMA is that they are “better targeting” the EMA by making the awarding of discretionary payments locally at the discretion of local schools and colleges. Instead of the current EMA scheme which distributes payments centrally by simple open and transparent means tests. However, the Save EMA campaign discovered while studying the recent EIA report that Michael Gove and the Government could be u-turning again on EMA only over a month after we forced them into a u-turn.

This is because (as Save EMA discovered and covered by the BBC) that according to their own EIA they acknowledge that the replacement of EMA ‘could be discriminatory’ and lead to a possible breach of equality laws.

This is section 51 of the EIA under the heading Local Administration:

It will be at the discretion of colleges to determine the relative merits of applications for financial support. This process is therefore open to unintended discrimination on the basis of disability; gender; ethnicity or other characteristics protected under equality law. We will consider whether there should be some central arbitration of the discretionary administration of funding or at least ensure transparency of administration to evaluate the impact achieved by providers, including value for public money.

To remind you how big a sea change in Government policy this could be, this is what Michael Gove said only on the 28^th March 2011:

“Schools and colleges will have the freedom to decide on the allocation of the bursary,” he added: “They are best placed to know the specific needs of their students, and we will give professionals full flexibility over allocating support.”

For those who don’t know, an Equality Impact Assessment is conducted by a Government Department ahead of the introduction of a certain initiative. It examines the likely or actual effects of policies or services on people in respect of disability, gender and racial equality to identify what effect its implementation may have on different groups in the country. It helps the Government Department make sure the needs of people are taken into account when they make a change to a current policy or service or when they develop and implement a new policy or service like what they are doing with EMA.

This report was done by the Department for Education themselves, which makes it all the more damning as this basically is the Department for Education acknowledging that their own policy will discriminate against the most vulnerable groups, which EMA was intended to help and target to get to remain in education.

Save EMA have been saying since day one that there would be grave equality issues brought up by removing EMA and the Government has finally admitted this by whispering it out in their own Equality Impact Assessment hoping no one would notice.

The proposed plans for the replacement of EMA will place the power of Herod into the hands of local more junior staff at a time when they will already be over worked, forcing them to make vital decisions over the future of some of the most vulnerable teenagers in our country. One just has to look at the views of self described “Tory Teacher” Katherine Birbalsingh to realise that the potential for discrimination through the lack of transparency in locally administered discretionary payments is severe.

It would be comical if this was not such a serious matter. Even this Government’s own figures show that after the national roll out of EMA in 2004 participation of 16-18-year-olds in full-time education rose.

This Government have taken a scheme viewed as successful by the IFS and created something now which ‘could be discriminatory‘.

Last month we successfully forced a u-turn out of the government by threat of legal action, this month it seems the government are forcing u-turns out of themselves by not following the law. As we said, it would be comical if this was not such a serious matter.

Please see below for a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment, with section 51. Local Administration highlighted:
EMA Equality Impact Assessment

This is what the report states that as a result of:

“Secondary school completion rates are low and youth unemployment is high.”

And acknowledges the argument that the government uses for scrapping EMA being due to the School leaving age rising to 18:

“It also plans to raise the secondary school leaving age to 18 years by 2015.”

But recommends the government to “improve targeting mechanisms” and encourage participation:

“Increase further the resources for disadvantaged students and improve targeting mechanisms. Encourage participation in secondary education by reintroducing the Education Maintenance Allowance. Ensure that vocational programmes provide skills that are relevant for the labour market.”

For those unaware the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is one of the most respected international economic organizations made up of 34 countries and quoted by this government on many occasions to support many of their other education policies. For example, David Cameron called the OECD a “force for good” only last month.

This is David Cameron’s own words on the OECD only last month:

“As part of our work to get the global economy back on its feet the UK will continue to champion the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It’s one of the world’s major international economic organisations and a force for good in building the intellectual and political case for open markets.

“the OECD has the experience and the commitment to deliver on its declared aim: to promote ‘better policies for better lives’ in its Member States and in the wider world.”

This is yet further proof that the decision to scrap EMA is among one of the most ill thought out decisions this government has made. It seriously questions the judgement of George Osborne and Michael Gove and obviously the education and economic policy of our country.

The government are against almost half the British people on this, the bulk of independent research which supports EMA, the leading economists in the country and now the leading economist in the world. If this government really listens it will change its mind on EMA. This

The government are gambling with the future of some of the poorest teenagers in our country by scrapping the EMA, and now today according to the OECD they are also gambling with our country’s economy.

The OECD makes it very clear if you want to save the UK economy you have to Save EMA!

This is the bloke responsible for education in our country and if he is blind to how such a statement could cause offence to the over 200 Muslim soldiers in the army of our country, then one has to wonder about his ability and his judgement as a Secretary of State…

For Save EMA, this is not about whether or not a Mosque should be built at this location, as frankly we don’t care, but what does concern us is if the Secretary of State for Education is really the best man for the job, when he says things which could cause such offence. The rest of the people interviewed put forward more unquestionable and reasonable and less offensive arguments than their local MP and our Secretary of State for Education. Something just is not right about that…

if you don’t believe us you can watch the rest of the interviews here.

So what are his “other reasons”?

In Last night’s episode of BBC Question Time, Mayor of London, Boris Johnson said on EMA:

“I am concerned it will have a significant impact on lots of young people in London…”

“I very much hope the government recognises that there are a huge number of young people whose families are on very low incomes…”.

David Dimbleby asked: “So you want to have this reviewed?”

Boris Johnson replied: “Yes”

“As the Mayor of the City… I want have another look at this”.

This is in contrast to what his spokeswoman said to the BBC following the Save EMA demonstration attended by hundreds at the London Conservative Party Conference in February this year:

“A mayor of London spokeswoman said Mr Johnson had no control over the education budget.”

Boris Johnson has literally said more words in Greek and Latin in the last six months since the government scrapped the scheme than he has on EMA, despite there being almost 100,000 teenagers on EMA in London. If this is not an empty sentiment then he will sign our petition and call on the Government to reverse their decision to scrap the scheme, otherwise Londoners will feel this is just hot air and he is simply the Mayor of Bankers and not Londoners.

Our campaign has so far saved EMA for around 40,000 teenagers in London currently on EMA following the U-turn we forced the government into this week by threatening them with legal action. However, the bad news is that they still plan to scrap EMA for new students starting courses in September and cutting funding by almost 70%.

According to a recent YouGov poll almost half of Londoners oppose the abolition of EMA, almost a third of Tory voters and 50% of Lib Dem voters also think the government was wrong. So it’s not surprising that Boris needs to sound like he is changing his tune, the big question whether or not this is just hot air or does he mean it?

But what is undeniable is that Michael Gove has really brought himself some enemies by scrapping EMA, as according to recent polls, not only do almost half the British public oppose scrapping EMA, but also 50% of Lib Dem voters and a nearly a third of Tory voter. But now the Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson is calling on him to rethink his policy on EMA.

You can see it for yourself below:

Maybe it’s time for the Government to consider doing the right thing and just reinstate EMA…