The Government’s own child poverty and social mobility tsar has today come out and said that they should not of abolished the education maintenanceallowance (EMA). Speaking to the Guardian newspaper Alan Milburn said that he thought it was “a very bad mistake”.

The rest of the Guardian article is even more interesting:

Milburn will report that EMA was “generally regarded by universities as an initiative that encouraged progression, attainment and good study habits because of the way it was awarded.

“Equally, teachers have expressed concern that EMA acted as a clear incentive for young people to stay on in education, and fear that its removal may have a damaging impact. Independent evaluations also found that it significantly increased staying-on rates and attainment.”

He also points out that when the Institute for Fiscal Studies looked into EMA, it found that it had significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults. It increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%, and of eligible 17-year-olds from 54% to 61%.

Milburn criticises the government’s alternative to the EMA, saying the bursary scheme is flawed since students have to apply for the bursary after enrolment. “As a consequence students do not know, when applying for a place in post-16 education, whether they will receive a bursary – and if so, what its value will be.”

The replacement, called the 16-19 bursary scheme, is worth £1,200 a year and goes only to the 12,000 poorest or most vulnerable students.

Milburn says: “Research into those in receipt of the new bursary fund has found that, while it is too soon to quantify the long-term impact on student numbers, many young people are not receiving the financial backup they need to support their everyday living expenses.”

His report concludes: “In summary, there is legitimate cause for concern that these changes may have a negative impact on widening participation.”

In the meantime, Milburn suggests that the government should increase the funding level and refine the targeting. He also proposes universities should consider providing EMA-style financial incentives directly for young people to stay on and succeed at school.

This adds further pressure on the Government to reinstate EMA, when not only has a Tory-chaired Education Select Committee report come out against the decision, the author of the one document the Government used to discredit the EMA says it should not have been abolished, and the former economic advisor to the Government opposed abolishing it too!

There is barely any credible support for abolishing EMA, and a whole lot of support for it being reinstated.