Do you know what we did before EMA? We worked, we took part-time jobs, we earned our way, now I know this will seem like a foreign concept to many of my younger compatriots in this country, but alas such was the awful state of affairs back in the dark ages. 16-year olds were forced to work, the sheer horror I can see on some people's faces when announcing this. The thought; 'Me work? Never, I might get dirty I might actually have to push myself, someone will tell me what to do - oh Lord why did the evil government scrap my "lifeline" that is the EMA'.
Here is some inside information for you, coming from someone who grew up in one of the worst parts of London (no not me); the EMA was used almost exclusively for leisure. Never anything even remotely relevant to study such as pens, books and software (most of which the school gives you anyway and kids these days are so IT savvy that they download anything they need illegally if so needs be - schools tend to have computers by the way, if they don't that's not the EMA's fault). It really would do well if the government just once in a fucking while figured out where all the money went. You know, just have a peak, just a sneak peak, maybe a little market research perhaps? Maybe see if those billions upon billions of pounds are actually having a tangible difference upon British society. Or worse, if they are having a detrimental effect upon the youth of today, who apparently now believe that you can glide through to the top, on the back of a BA in Media Studies (no really).
The worst part of this is not the grant in itself, it is the mere notion/concept that someone should need financial incentive to stay in school. There is something seriously fucking wrong with society if such is the case, where you instead of making the case for further education bribe pupils, in the hope that some will realise for themselves the benefits of knowing more than nothing, the nothing which is currently provided by the GCSEs (I taught GCSE maths last year and it was a bit of a joke lets just leave it at that).
If you could not be bothered to read the above and decided to skip to the end, then my views can be summarised as such; give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish you will feed him for a lifetime.
5 comments:
Well that was an op-ed piece worthy of the express or daily laim.
First off, get a job you say, doing what my I ask? I'm talking 16-18 year olds here. We used to do a milk or paper round, when was the last time you saw one of these? Then there was shelf stacking/the till at the supermarket. Not any more, I've tried every supermarket chain going, and none will employ anyone under the age of 18, insurance liabilities doncha know.
Secondly I can assure you that EMA is used by students and can verify that all 3 of mine used theirs for their travel expenses currently £16.40 a week, and stationary and books only this week my young un paid £20 for his construction handbook. This doesn't leave all that much left for "Leisure" let alone exclusively.
Thirdly, not all students come from some psuedo middle class background where daddy pays for them to toss it off for 3+ years. It's not as if young uns today can learn a trade "On the job" as it were as apprenticeships went out the window in about 1980 when Thatcher scrapped the training levy and brought in the £25 a week YOP scheme (remember those) where instead of teaching young uns a trade (they were paying through the training levy remember) companies had a gopher for 2 years sweeping up and making the tea, paid for by the state. I know as I left school in 79, and was one of the last intake of apprentices, those that left a year possibly 2 later weren't so lucky.
Yes you have a point about wanker degrees and other qualifications like media studies (which to be fair is reading the paper and watching the telly), Klingon, womens studies, political science/studies and soci-fucking-ology.
Our local college has acres of engineering (or did until recently) you know laithes, milling machines etc. The last course they did was 198-fucking-4.
Teaching kids to sit at home tossing it off signing on teaches them only one thing, and that's to sit at home tossing it off and sign on.
This £30 a week paid only during term time (about 36 weeks a year) and they use any excuse they can think of not to pay them being late or missing lessons even if the tutor doesn't turn up.
This £30 is not a universal benefit, but is income related to the parents with those earning over £30k getting nothing and those on a deceasing scale of earnings getting £10, £20 and those basically on benefits the full £30.
We have areas of the country with generational unemployment, with kids who almost always fail to see the bigger picture will say to themselves "Why should I get up in a morning and trail all that way to college for nothing when I can toss it off in bed for the same amount and once I reach 18 I can sign on and still toss it off.
So, can you kindly explain how saving £30 a week for the the few poor kids is going to save the country money in the long run?
When you raise the school leaving age to 18 you don't need EMA.
End of Story.
Budvar I will write a reply to your very good comment, not to worry, I just need to muster up strength again because currently blogger is pissing me off.
Spitty, blogger did the same to me, but it still went through, so no worries.
A summary of how it will save money in the long run would be interesting.
Tommy, in what way will 18 year old school leavers signing on (that is a universal benefit unlike EMA) whilst studying save the country money?
I wrote a proper bloody essay, it took me over 30 minutes and then it just "couldn't transfer my request" FFS!
Post a Comment