Sunday, March 18, 2012

poorest students pass through the network of schools are allowed to allocate the limited budget of EMA replacement

A year after disposing of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), the replacement of 16 to 19 grants is proving to be grossly inadequate, with the stay and sink rate warning Barnados youth who are "skipping meals to pay the bus to college." It became increasingly clear that the years spent as the plan is thought through poor quality, the disorder is both bad as demeaning to students and horribly directed. The analysis also suggests that the Guardian has led to a postcode lottery of financial assistance for poor students.

Michael Gove promised people like me

youth in education, in addition, that the replacement of the EMA would be more than sufficient to meet the needs of students, however, the pot of money that is funded program has been significantly reduced. Considering that the EMA has received funding of £ 560 million, the grant has a jackpot of £ 180. But the question is not only the amount of money, but how it is allocated.

For starters, there is no correlation between the amount of money schools are allocated and how much you spend. The distribution is based on the number of students who aspired to the highest rate of EMA in 2009-10, however, the system is designed for people with disabilities or attention by a category of "special needs" priority. This means that schools receive little resemblance to the needs of their students. The only requirement is that the government establish schools give £ 1.200 per year for those in the category of exceptional needs. However, if a school has a high number of students in care or with disabilities, much of its scholarship funds have been exhausted and there is little or no additional funding for low-income students. Potentially schools could actually be penalized for having more students who need it most, which could discourage them from having good access policy.

The government says vaguely that a fund has "very low" emergency, but there is no guarantee that low-income students in some schools (who are not disabled or caring ) to receive any support. The provision for the category of exceptional needs is not related to income, there is no guarantee that this support reaches those in financial need.


The responsibility for organizing and chaotic distribution system is based entirely on the door of ministers who have failed to realize that the background is a place of hope for EMA. Failing to help young people stay in education and forced to join the queue growing unemployment will increase social spending and the deficit up, not down. Ministers must admit that this evil and restore the EMA.


Comment is free . Follow on Twitter @ commentisfree


Find best price for : --Gove----Barnados--

0 comments:

Blog Archive