This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/education-13699829

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ministers 'misinterpreted' study to back EMA grant cut Ministers 'misinterpreted' study to back EMA grant cut
(about 9 hours later)
Ministers "misinterpreted" research they cited to justify axing education grants for low-income English 16-19 year olds, the study's author has said.Ministers "misinterpreted" research they cited to justify axing education grants for low-income English 16-19 year olds, the study's author has said.
The government axed the Education Maintenance Allowance of up to £30 a week, saying 88% of money spent on it was ineffective or "deadweight cost".The government axed the Education Maintenance Allowance of up to £30 a week, saying 88% of money spent on it was ineffective or "deadweight cost".
But Thomas Spielhofer, who led the study on which the claim was based, told MPs this was a misinterpretation.But Thomas Spielhofer, who led the study on which the claim was based, told MPs this was a misinterpretation.
The government said its decision was not based on just one study.The government said its decision was not based on just one study.
The £560m EMA scheme provided means-tested grants to help young people stay on at school or college.The £560m EMA scheme provided means-tested grants to help young people stay on at school or college.
Students protested when ministers scrapped the scheme and replaced it with a £180m bursary fund to be allocated mainly by colleges, which it said would be better targeted at the poorest students.Students protested when ministers scrapped the scheme and replaced it with a £180m bursary fund to be allocated mainly by colleges, which it said would be better targeted at the poorest students.
The government has frequently cited Mr Spielhofer's study, done for the National Foundation for Educational Research, in defence of its decision.The government has frequently cited Mr Spielhofer's study, done for the National Foundation for Educational Research, in defence of its decision.
The study questioned 2,029 students, of whom 838 said they received EMA.The study questioned 2,029 students, of whom 838 said they received EMA.
When asked whether they would have remained in education or training if they did not receive EMA, 88% of the 838 said "yes", while 12% said "no".When asked whether they would have remained in education or training if they did not receive EMA, 88% of the 838 said "yes", while 12% said "no".
'More cost effective''More cost effective'
Giving evidence to the Education Select Committee, Mr Spielhofer said: "You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88% that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense."Giving evidence to the Education Select Committee, Mr Spielhofer said: "You can interpret that in different ways. You can interpret it quite negatively, and say that for 88% that was wasted money, but I don't actually see it that way, I think it has been misinterpreted in that sense."
He said that for some of the 88%, the EMA payments would have "made no difference", but for others, finance would have been a consideration, and the fact that they would have stayed on showed "resilience".He said that for some of the 88%, the EMA payments would have "made no difference", but for others, finance would have been a consideration, and the fact that they would have stayed on showed "resilience".
Asked whether he was "happy with the concept that EMA has a deadweight cost of 88%", he said "no".Asked whether he was "happy with the concept that EMA has a deadweight cost of 88%", he said "no".
He also replied that it was "completely correct" when asked if he was unhappy that the change in government policy had been based on his research.He also replied that it was "completely correct" when asked if he was unhappy that the change in government policy had been based on his research.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said the decision to replace the EMA with "a far more cost effective and targeted scheme" was "not made on the back of one survey".A spokesman for the Department for Education said the decision to replace the EMA with "a far more cost effective and targeted scheme" was "not made on the back of one survey".
"There is a range of evidence which 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," the spokesman said."There is a range of evidence which 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," the spokesman said.
"We can no longer afford the luxury of paying substantial incentives to young people who would have stayed on anyway.""We can no longer afford the luxury of paying substantial incentives to young people who would have stayed on anyway."
The University and College Union said the government had "clearly cherry-picked one statistic from one report in order to justify scrapping an entire system of financial support for young people".The University and College Union said the government had "clearly cherry-picked one statistic from one report in order to justify scrapping an entire system of financial support for young people".
It said the EMA made a "huge difference in keeping young people in education".It said the EMA made a "huge difference in keeping young people in education".
James Mills, leader of the Save EMA campaign, said the government had "corrupted the evidence to pick the pockets of the poorest teenagers in this country during the worst possible time".
He called on the government to produce their evidence for scrapping EMA "as this report was the cornerstone of their entire argument".
Shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said: "These damning comments demolish the entire basis of the government's justification for scrapping EMA.
"[Education Secretary] 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," he said.