Young learners from disadvantaged backgrounds are being let down by the 16-19 Bursary Fund because it is inadequate, inconsistent and under-funded, according to a report by Barnardo’s.

The children’s charity says the replacement for the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is discouraging poor students from staying in further education because they are unable to pay for everyday expenses such as food, travel and books.

Anne Marie Carrie, chief executive of Barnardo’s, said: “It is an absolute disgrace that some students are now being forced to skip meals in order to afford the bus to college.

“The Bursary Fund is an unfair and totally inadequate replacement for the Education Maintenance Allowance.”

The Barnardo’s report, entitled “Staying the course: Disadvantaged young people’s experiences in the first term of the 16-19 Bursary Fund”, says the varying payment models used by providers has quickly created a “postcode lottery” for young people.

The charity says the government risks losing a significant number of young people to long-term unemployment unless the system is re-examined and fixed.

“The government has a moral duty to urgently invest in adequate help for 16 to 19 year-olds from poorer backgrounds to stay the course and complete their education or training,” Anne Marie Carrie said.

“The alternative is to risk losing a whole generation to the trap of long-term unemployment because they don’t have any qualifications.”

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, added: “The very least the Government must do is look again at providing the financial support required to give the poorest teenagers in the country a fair crack at an education.

“We see no benefit whatsoever in consigning them to the ever-increasing number of young people in the dole queue.”

The EMA scheme, which gave students weekly payments for staying in further education, was scrapped by the government last year.

The new system, known as the 16-19 Bursary Fund, gives out a guaranteed payment of £1,200 to young people who are in care, have been in care, claiming Disability Living Allowance, Employment Support Allowance or claiming income support.

The remaining funds are then allocated to other students at the discretion of the college, school or training provider.

“The decision to axe the EMA was rushed and ill-thought through and has been a farce from start to finish,” Sally Hunt said.

“Ever since ministers started cherry-picking research to drive through the end of the grant it has been clear to us that thousands of the country’s poorest teenagers would suffer.”

The Barnardo’s report, based on 51 face to face interviews, says the administration of the 16-19 Bursary Fund is overly-complex and fails to give “a reasonable, predictable level of financial support” to disadvantaged young people.

Anne Marie Carrie said: “Immediate improvements to the way the Bursary Fund is targeted and administered are urgently needed to prevent a shameful waste of young talent.

“Without access to vital funds, our most vulnerable young people may lose the opportunity to improve their life chances.”

Recommendations in the report include giving a bursary, in line with the Pupil Premium, to all young people who used to receive free school meals.

The report also suggests giving bursary support to all young people undertaking a foundation learning course, as well as learners who are care experienced.

“This is in keeping with the Government’s aspirations to improve social mobility and educational outcomes for this particularly challenged group,” the report states.

Darryl, 18, a trainee warehouse operative from the Newcastle area, said: “If you’re training, you don’t get much help, but if you sit around doing nothing you can still get benefits, which doesn’t seem fair.

“My family is finding it hard to afford the everyday costs of living, so they can’t always help me out.

“I want to train to get a job to support myself, but how can I finish my course if I can’t afford the costs?”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One comment

  1. As an FE college our experience of the new bursary system has been very positive. Despite a labour intensive process in setting up systems we now find the Guaranteed Bursary enables us to be flexible in our support of our most vulnerable students and to provide them with what they really need to come to college.

    EMA was flawed in the fact that it did not provide for the front loaded expenditure of courses; a student could not take advantage of buying a termly bus pass or buy all the equipment they needed for a course but instead had to scrimp and save from their £40/ week, this led to many of the most disadvantaged students going without.

    Our system of administering the bursary means that every student is involved in a personal budgeting exercise with a finance advisor to decide how their funds would be best spent. We find out about these most vulnerable of learners earlier than ever and (with their permission) are able to engage pastoral support and other support networks. This has improved our ability to support these students and has impacted positively on our retention figures, our relationships with external agencies and support workers have improved. One cohort which seems to have benefited greatly are students under 19 living independantly and claiming income support, these most vulnerable of students were often unkown to us and did not recieve support until close to disengaging, now they can get assistance from day one.

    Barnardos suggestion of expanding the fund is a sensible one although I would question whether all foundation level students needed this help. I hope that this negative report doesn’t add to the speculation that the bursary arrangements may be taken back under central administration which I personally feel would be a huge retrograde step.