The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I don't know if it's all over the country or just in the North East, but last year they brought in the EMA (I forget what it stands for) where they pay kids to go to school (6th form) if their parents don't make a certain amount of money. It's meant to go towards the cost of keeping a kid instead of them going out to work. It's a bid to get the kids more education and qualifications so they can get better jobs in the future.
The less money your parents make, the more you get. The maximum is £30... a WEEK. You miss lessons and you don't get the money for the week.
Does anyone else think this is a stupid idea?
Although the money goes into the parent’s accounts, blatantly the kids themselves get it from them and this money fuels their drinking. And believe me, every single person who gets it at my 6th form spends the money on drink and going out.
There's no difference for someone who does 4 subjects, or someone who does 2. You get the same amount. Is that fair? Kids who are in once a week for one day get the same as kids who are in almost every day with full days worth of lessons.
First off, it just brings in a lot of idiots who are only there for the money. When they leave, they leave as ignorant as when they first arrived. Then there are the kids who would be there anyway, regardless of the money. All it means for them is extra drinking money.
None of it goes towards books, pens, paper etc. Anyway, who really need to spend £30 a week going to school?
Then there's the problem of the kids who just miss out because their parents make slightly more than the cut off point (£30 grand a year I think) I for one don't get the EMA. Is that fair? Surely if you give it to the less fortunate kids, who spend it on drink, then everyone should get it?
OK, fair enough, I wouldn't be complaining if everyone got it and I was being paid to go to school. I have a huge history of knocking off lessons, but I know for a fact that if I was being PAID to go to school, I would never, ever miss a lesson. I should have 100% attendance for last year, but I slept in and knocked off so much it was more like 60%
We are now in the second year of the EMA, and has it helped? No. The kids who were there solely for the money have either failed and left, or have finished their one year course and left with some worthless grades. They'll end up in exactly the same jobs as they would if they'd never gone to 6th form or college at all.
Everyone else? They can afford to go out drinking every week, lessening the chances of getting some work done at home. I always get my homework done when I can't afford to go out, this problem isn't there for the kids who get EMA.
I'm in the minority by not getting it, almost every single kid in lower and upper 6th form gets the EMA. They're all out drinking every Monday night, every Friday and every Saturday.
Is this what the EMA was designed for?
All the years before me got on just fine without it, why do we suddenly need it?
They should either scrap it now, or reduce the payments gradually until it’s non-existent
OK, rant over
The less money your parents make, the more you get. The maximum is £30... a WEEK. You miss lessons and you don't get the money for the week.
Does anyone else think this is a stupid idea?
Although the money goes into the parent’s accounts, blatantly the kids themselves get it from them and this money fuels their drinking. And believe me, every single person who gets it at my 6th form spends the money on drink and going out.
There's no difference for someone who does 4 subjects, or someone who does 2. You get the same amount. Is that fair? Kids who are in once a week for one day get the same as kids who are in almost every day with full days worth of lessons.
First off, it just brings in a lot of idiots who are only there for the money. When they leave, they leave as ignorant as when they first arrived. Then there are the kids who would be there anyway, regardless of the money. All it means for them is extra drinking money.
None of it goes towards books, pens, paper etc. Anyway, who really need to spend £30 a week going to school?
Then there's the problem of the kids who just miss out because their parents make slightly more than the cut off point (£30 grand a year I think) I for one don't get the EMA. Is that fair? Surely if you give it to the less fortunate kids, who spend it on drink, then everyone should get it?
OK, fair enough, I wouldn't be complaining if everyone got it and I was being paid to go to school. I have a huge history of knocking off lessons, but I know for a fact that if I was being PAID to go to school, I would never, ever miss a lesson. I should have 100% attendance for last year, but I slept in and knocked off so much it was more like 60%
We are now in the second year of the EMA, and has it helped? No. The kids who were there solely for the money have either failed and left, or have finished their one year course and left with some worthless grades. They'll end up in exactly the same jobs as they would if they'd never gone to 6th form or college at all.
Everyone else? They can afford to go out drinking every week, lessening the chances of getting some work done at home. I always get my homework done when I can't afford to go out, this problem isn't there for the kids who get EMA.
I'm in the minority by not getting it, almost every single kid in lower and upper 6th form gets the EMA. They're all out drinking every Monday night, every Friday and every Saturday.
Is this what the EMA was designed for?
All the years before me got on just fine without it, why do we suddenly need it?
They should either scrap it now, or reduce the payments gradually until it’s non-existent
OK, rant over
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
I don't know if it's all over the country or just in the North East, but last year they brought in the EMA (I forget what it stands for) where they pay kids to go to school (6th form) if their parents don't make a certain amount of money. It's meant to go towards the cost of keeping a kid instead of them going out to work. It's a bid to get the kids more education and qualifications so they can get better jobs in the future.
The less money your parents make, the more you get. The maximum is £30... a WEEK. You miss lessons and you don't get the money for the week.
Does anyone else think this is a stupid idea?
Although the money goes into the parent’s accounts, blatantly the kids themselves get it from them and this money fuels their drinking. And believe me, every single person who gets it at my 6th form spends the money on drink and going out.
There's no difference for someone who does 4 subjects, or someone who does 2. You get the same amount. Is that fair? Kids who are in once a week for one day get the same as kids who are in almost every day with full days worth of lessons.
First off, it just brings in a lot of idiots who are only there for the money. When they leave, they leave as ignorant as when they first arrived. Then there are the kids who would be there anyway, regardless of the money. All it means for them is extra drinking money.
None of it goes towards books, pens, paper etc. Anyway, who really need to spend £30 a week going to school?
Then there's the problem of the kids who just miss out because their parents make slightly more than the cut off point (£30 grand a year I think) I for one don't get the EMA. Is that fair? Surely if you give it to the less fortunate kids, who spend it on drink, then everyone should get it?
OK, fair enough, I wouldn't be complaining if everyone got it and I was being paid to go to school. I have a huge history of knocking off lessons, but I know for a fact that if I was being PAID to go to school, I would never, ever miss a lesson. I should have 100% attendance for last year, but I slept in and knocked off so much it was more like 60%
We are now in the second year of the EMA, and has it helped? No. The kids who were there solely for the money have either failed and left, or have finished their one year course and left with some worthless grades. They'll end up in exactly the same jobs as they would if they'd never gone to 6th form or college at all.
Everyone else? They can afford to go out drinking every week, lessening the chances of getting some work done at home. I always get my homework done when I can't afford to go out, this problem isn't there for the kids who get EMA.
I'm in the minority by not getting it, almost every single kid in lower and upper 6th form gets the EMA. They're all out drinking every Monday night, every Friday and every Saturday.
Is this what the EMA was designed for?
All the years before me got on just fine without it, why do we suddenly need it?
They should either scrap it now, or reduce the payments gradually until it’s non-existent
OK, rant over
The less money your parents make, the more you get. The maximum is £30... a WEEK. You miss lessons and you don't get the money for the week.
Does anyone else think this is a stupid idea?
Although the money goes into the parent’s accounts, blatantly the kids themselves get it from them and this money fuels their drinking. And believe me, every single person who gets it at my 6th form spends the money on drink and going out.
There's no difference for someone who does 4 subjects, or someone who does 2. You get the same amount. Is that fair? Kids who are in once a week for one day get the same as kids who are in almost every day with full days worth of lessons.
First off, it just brings in a lot of idiots who are only there for the money. When they leave, they leave as ignorant as when they first arrived. Then there are the kids who would be there anyway, regardless of the money. All it means for them is extra drinking money.
None of it goes towards books, pens, paper etc. Anyway, who really need to spend £30 a week going to school?
Then there's the problem of the kids who just miss out because their parents make slightly more than the cut off point (£30 grand a year I think) I for one don't get the EMA. Is that fair? Surely if you give it to the less fortunate kids, who spend it on drink, then everyone should get it?
OK, fair enough, I wouldn't be complaining if everyone got it and I was being paid to go to school. I have a huge history of knocking off lessons, but I know for a fact that if I was being PAID to go to school, I would never, ever miss a lesson. I should have 100% attendance for last year, but I slept in and knocked off so much it was more like 60%
We are now in the second year of the EMA, and has it helped? No. The kids who were there solely for the money have either failed and left, or have finished their one year course and left with some worthless grades. They'll end up in exactly the same jobs as they would if they'd never gone to 6th form or college at all.
Everyone else? They can afford to go out drinking every week, lessening the chances of getting some work done at home. I always get my homework done when I can't afford to go out, this problem isn't there for the kids who get EMA.
I'm in the minority by not getting it, almost every single kid in lower and upper 6th form gets the EMA. They're all out drinking every Monday night, every Friday and every Saturday.
Is this what the EMA was designed for?
All the years before me got on just fine without it, why do we suddenly need it?
They should either scrap it now, or reduce the payments gradually until it’s non-existent
OK, rant over