Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

EMA was introduced a few years ago and was designed to offer financial support to students studying in full time eduacation post 16. A large number of our Deps and Grecians are awarded between 10 to £30 per week plus a bonus (once a term I believe). This has led to an increase in the amount of money in the pupils pockets and, sadly, an inevitable sense of envy. A signifcant number of students do not receive EMA and these pupils, and their parents, do feel hard done by. The limit for pupils receiving the EMA award is around £30,000 gross.

What does the forum think about this initiative and is it something that a new government should retain?

My two don't receive EMA and as far as I am aware it is not an issue among their friends.

I had not even thought about it but it does explain some things their friends have and they don't.

I regret that you will have to explain a bit more fully before the oldies like me can comment. I am not sure what EMA stands for and, not having either children or grandchildren at school, I do not really know what is involved. Do I understand correctly from your posting that the government (ie, we, the taxpayers) pay up to £30 per week to full-time students over 16 whose parental income meets some government-ordained limit? If that is correct - gosh!
Please expand,

I remember being told about this at school. Nearly all London boroughs were eligible and a few other places (it was only being trialled at this point). Naturally the Londoners were happy, but the rest of us were a bit annoyed because they were going to be getting more money than us (money that we all could have done with!)
I think at a boarding school its more of a problem because people come from lots of areas.

petard249 wrote:I regret that you will have to explain a bit more fully before the oldies like me can comment. I am not sure what EMA stands for and, not having either children or grandchildren at school, I do not really know what is involved. Do I understand correctly from your posting that the government (ie, we, the taxpayers) pay up to £30 per week to full-time students over 16 whose parental income meets some government-ordained limit? If that is correct - gosh!
Please expand,

Absolutely correct.

Education Maintenance Allowance. As advertised on TV by a man who is cunningly disguised as an apparatus wall in a lab/workshop.

However it does not take into account the fact that the breadwinner was out of work for 4 years and you are still paying back the debts run up at the time.

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/financialhelp/em ... ectionID=1

Not too much of an issue for my daughter , who doesn`t receive it, but.... , as she has said to me several times, one of the conditions of it being paid is full attendence to lessons and completion of work - she attends fully, does not take time off for holidays during term time, does all her work, fulfills all her school comittments - so why are others paid to do this when she isn`t?
It`s interesting to note how pupils see this "income" - some - far too many , IMHO, regard it as extra beer/ cigarette/sweet/pizza money - very few seem to be regarding it as a way of paying for school trips, saving for uni etc, which is what I `m sure the government intended it for.

Which leads to another question, on the subject of school trips- parental contributions towards trips are made according to the amount of fees paid, i believe. If a child receives the EMA allowance, does this make any difference to the parental contribution?

It`s a bit of a sore point with me, I`m afraid - if the Government want puplis to stay on at school , they should be treated equally.

I know of pupils who have more than one foreign holiday abroad every year, new phones, iPods etc every five minutes trainers costing £100 a pair and £30 a week from the State - and yet these pupils pay nothing towards their education here.
My husband works full-time, I work part-time - and yet we can`t afford these things.
I don`t for one second begrudge what CH offers financially to those who really do need it but when these same pupils tell of their travels , their latest purchase, etc, one does wonder whether the system for selecting levels of fees is actually the right one!

( I`ll probably get into trouble with someone over this now!! I`ll blame you, Ian!!)

I think the governement objective was purely bribery in order to achieve a higher level of students in post 16 education.
I completed a PGCE in post 16 education recently, conversations with those teaching in further education colleges were revealing.
Low level courses are packed with students who don't want to be there, they only attend for the £30 (they have no access to other income ie job seekrs allowance). Those who are there to study get overwhelmed by those who are there for £30. The net effect is that everyones education goes down the tube but the government have met their target of keeping pupils in full time education.

Mrs C. wrote: It`s interesting to note how pupils see this "income" - some - far too many , IMHO, regard it as extra beer/ cigarette/sweet/pizza money - very few seem to be regarding it as a way of paying for school trips, saving for uni etc, which is what I `m sure the government intended it for.

This isn't altogether surprising - that's pretty much how I would have spent any spare money when I was a teenager (probably records instead of pizza, though).

Why doesn't the government use our money to improve schools, buy books, give teachers decent salaries, etc.?

Bribing a lot of kids to do what they should be doing anyway does seem a bit strange. In cases of real need, could help not be given in a slightly more constructive manner?

Richard Ruck wrote:Why doesn't the government use our money to improve schools, buy books, give teachers decent salaries, etc.?

Bribing a lot of kids to do what they should be doing anyway does seem a bit strange. In cases of real need, could help not be given in a slightly more constructive manner?

Exactly!!
(But then politicians would appear to be very knowledgeable about bribery.......!)

Janet, I know this is off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask......

Why do your apostrophes slant the opposite way to everybody elses?

A silly question, I know. Sorry!

Surely at a boarding school, this initiative is pretty pointless as the kids have to be at school - they live there!

Also, £30 a week is a lot really - what I could have done with that sort of cash when I was at school...

Richard Ruck wrote:Janet, I know this is off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask......

Why do your apostrophes slant the opposite way to everybody elses?

A silly question, I know. Sorry!

I have absolutely no idea!!!
My computer seems to be a bit odd all round - doesn`t have several things it should have on Windows!

Thanks anyway! Perhaps someone out there has the answer....

Richard Ruck wrote:Thanks anyway! Perhaps someone out there has the answer....

It`s a DELL???? is that the reason perhaps??

Great Plum wrote:Surely at a boarding school, this initiative is pretty pointless as the kids have to be at school - they live there!

Also, £30 a week is a lot really - what I could have done with that sort of cash when I was at school...

What anyone could do with £30 a week - at school or not!