EMA study was 'misinterpreted' by government
Joe Lepper
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The education expert whose work was used by the government to justify its decision to scrap the education maintenance allowance (EMA) has said his findings were "misinterpreted".
Thomas Spielhofer’s study for the National Foundation for Educational Research found that 88 per cent of students would have stayed in education or training even without the EMA.
More than 2,000 students were questioned for the survey, of which 838 received the grant.
But in giving evidence to the parliamentary education select committee, Speihofer said it was wrong to interpret this as meaning 88 per cent of money handed out through the EMA was wasted.
He told MPs: "You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88 per cent that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense."
He added that the findings show the resilience of young people to carry on in education or training even in the face of financial hardship.
Shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said Spielhofer’s comments "demolish the entire basis of the government’s justification for scrapping EMA".
He added: "Michael Gove needs to learn to listen and think twice before pursuing an ideological agenda that flies in the face of all the evidence about what works."
A Department for Education (DfE) spokesman said the decision to scrap the EMA was not made based only on this survey. "There is a range of evidence that shows that the bulk of the money was not getting to those who most needed it and that initial gains in participation had reached a plateau," he said.
The government is to replace the £560m EMA scheme with a £180m fund to be distributed by colleges to the poorest students.
The DfE spokesman added: "We can no longer afford the luxury of paying substantial incentives to young people who would have stayed on anyway. Instead, it’s right that we target money at those who have a genuine financial barrier to attendance and give colleges and schools, who know their pupils best, discretion in how they give this money out."
More than 2,000 students were questioned for the survey, of which 838 received the grant.
But in giving evidence to the parliamentary education select committee, Speihofer said it was wrong to interpret this as meaning 88 per cent of money handed out through the EMA was wasted.
He told MPs: "You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88 per cent that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense."
He added that the findings show the resilience of young people to carry on in education or training even in the face of financial hardship.
Shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said Spielhofer’s comments "demolish the entire basis of the government’s justification for scrapping EMA".
He added: "Michael Gove needs to learn to listen and think twice before pursuing an ideological agenda that flies in the face of all the evidence about what works."
A Department for Education (DfE) spokesman said the decision to scrap the EMA was not made based only on this survey. "There is a range of evidence that shows that the bulk of the money was not getting to those who most needed it and that initial gains in participation had reached a plateau," he said.
The government is to replace the £560m EMA scheme with a £180m fund to be distributed by colleges to the poorest students.
The DfE spokesman added: "We can no longer afford the luxury of paying substantial incentives to young people who would have stayed on anyway. Instead, it’s right that we target money at those who have a genuine financial barrier to attendance and give colleges and schools, who know their pupils best, discretion in how they give this money out."
