Financial Support for 16 to 19 year olds in Education or Training: NUT Response

1To begin our response to the consultation on the 16-19 bursary scheme to replace the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), we must emphasise that the £180 million per academic year for the new scheme is an unacceptable cut compared to EMA funding of £570 million.

2We believe that a national scheme is needed that is based on defined entitlements of students to support, with national application and distribution. Such a scheme would result in more young people staying on at college and going to university.

3EMA was a considerable success in this regard, as evidenced by research. A report by Mick Fletcher for the CfBT Education Trust noted that EMA increased participation rates and achievement among 16 and 17 year olds, contributing to improved motivation and performance. The report stated that EMA had an effective focus on the target group. The allowance was restricted to low-income households and disproportionately taken up by those with low achievement levels at school, those from ethnic minorities and those from single-parent families.

4Early pilots undertaken from 2001 on EMA show that young people who were receiving the EMA were more likely than other groups of eligible young people to be making a contribution to housekeeping costs, transport and equipment for school. They were also more likely to identify transport, books and equipment as their main items of expenditure.

5A more recent study for the Scottish Executive by York Consulting (2007) showed that EMA was: “widely recognised as having a positive effect on attendance and that the funds generally made life a lot easier for those students.”

6The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies found that EMA improved participation rates at 17 by 7 per cent, as well as improving attainment. The new bursaries, based on much lower national levels of provision and discretionary in nature, are unlikely to make a similarly effective contribution to increasing participation. There should be close monitoring of student participation following the introduction of the new scheme, to assess its impact on students who would otherwise have been eligible for the EMA.

7Not a single respondent to the recent joint survey by the NUT and UCU thought that students in their colleges believed the proposed replacement for EMA to be adequate. Two-thirds of respondents believed that recruitment to their college would be adversely affected.

8The value of the EMA has been recognised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD has recommended that the Government should reinstate the EMA due to the economic value resulting from the improved student skills to which the scheme has contributed to by raising participation rates.

9It is clear that thousands of young people will lose out in funding terms as a result of the two-thirds cut in the overall level of provision. The Government’s decision to transfer responsibility for deciding which students should receive support to school and college leaders will mean that resources will not be distributed equitably.

10Other cuts in post-16 funding will impose significant budgetary reductions on schools and colleges, including many with the highest proportion of disadvantaged students. They will be less able to provide discretionary support for students, and will have to ration provision even among students from poorer backgrounds.

11Colleges’ ability to offer support will also depend on the extent to which they can attract donations. Again, this will vary and will often see areas with the highest needs least able to attract funding.

12In addition to the inequity between colleges, discretion will also lead to inequity between individual students. Students suffering from similar or worse levels of deprivation will receive significantly differing levels of support depending on decisions taken by their school or college. The system should be based on defined entitlements, not on discretionary decisions.

13Making support discretionary will lead to a lack of clarity for learners. They will not know what – if any – level of financial assistance they will receive. This will deter many from participating in post-16 education.

14Institutions establishing bursary arrangements will incur administrative costs. School and college staff will also be exposed to the anger of students, due to the Government handing institutions the difficult task of deciding between equally deserving cases.

15The impact of the cuts to student support will be compounded by the impact of severe local authority funding cuts. Some local authorities have acted to remove post-16 transport subsidies due to the cuts. It is essential that sufficient resources are provided for student transport in both rural and urban areas, to secure access to education for young people.

16The transitional protection for young people currently in receipt of EMA is not sufficient to protect them from actual or real terms cuts in support. We favour the restoration of the full value and scope of EMA, but if the Government refuses to act on this then it should at least provide transitional protection for the full value of existing awards.

National Union of Teachers

May 2011

1