The Student Room Group

Every high school student should get 20 pound a week from the government

If we really value education, and value things like attendance and hard work and effort, high school students, who often have no income except for their parents, should be rewarded if they make an effort.

We need to increase motivation and the desire to learn within schools.

What do people think ?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Nalk1573
If we really value education, and value things like attendance and hard work and effort, high school students, who often have no income except for their parents, should be rewarded if they make an effort.

We need to increase motivation and the desire to learn within schools.

What do people think ?


No thanks.

This will be a huge waste of public money.

I'm using 2014 demographics so this could be slightly out but i just wish to give you an idea of how much this could cost- the scale of it

Based on 2014 statistics there was a total of 4,307,534 in school age- using todays figures this would be higher due to an influx of younger population due to many years of having a net influx of 150,000+ through birth however this can not be controlled.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/february2016

Now all people have to be in some form of education- this includes apprentices up to the age of 18.

So if we include those the figure will further increase but for the purposes of this test from the age of 16 a lot of people go into part time employment so I will be only accounting for 11-16 year olds.

20*52= £1040

£1040 * 4,307,534 = £4,479,835,360 +

Creating further money to do this or to increase taxes will be unfair on the rest of society- It currently is unfair on people who get a job straight after A-levels, Why? When these people go into employment and start paying taxes they are paying towards education budgets which includes funding for universities which they do not benefit from and I would quite comfortably say that 70% of students do not pay off their student loans.

In 2016 26% of university funding comes from central government or roughly 8 Billion- remove this funding remove student loans and then you can lower taxes for the working population
No because they might buy condoms or drugs.
Reply 3
Getting money for nothing does not increase motivation. There's little to stop them getting a part time job at 16.
Original post by Nalk1573
If we really value education, and value things like attendance and hard work and effort, high school students, who often have no income except for their parents, should be rewarded if they make an effort.

We need to increase motivation and the desire to learn within schools.

What do people think ?


I honestly doubt that high school students are hard workers whether you're that person who gets sent out of class every lesson or not. Let's be honest, we all mucked about until two weeks before our first GCSE exam, we weren't committed until A Levels or uni (or for some even never). High school as others have stated is free since it's paid by the tax payers, school is compulsory up to the age of 16 (i.e. Year 11) therefore each child in this country would be paid, not even gonna do the maths but I know it's going to be a ridiculously extremely high amount.

Tuition fees should be tackled, every student who studied 3 year full time will leave with at least £27,000 debt but no, of course we should give £20 to every child who mucks about in school. We already had EMAs several years ago, £30 each week to college/A Level students I believe, waste of money.

Don't ever think money will incentive a person to work harder, look at the flip side of the coin.

Attendance, hard work and effort is something you should always put in your life like studies and work etc.
(edited 5 years ago)
Think about the number of kids and multiply that by 20. What a waste of money. That money could be used to fund for more important causes like the NHS etc. Not bunch of high school kids. Yes, there are some kids living in poverty that need that 20 pounds, but throwing it out to any kid is stupid.
Not quite high school but I remember when the EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance) was still available in England. Helped pay for the bus/train fair to college (well, I got a bus pass for free due to a low family income but I knew a few people who relied on the EMA to cover their commuting costs), lunch, books, stationary, and of course beer and condoms. Some mis-used their EMA, but for many others it helped them cover their costs without relying too much on their parents.

Of course you had to attend every class, or have a very good reason as to why not, each week otherwise you’d miss out on a weeks payment.
Reply 7
Original post by Compost
Getting money for nothing does not increase motivation. There's little to stop them getting a part time job at 16.


Yes i never thought of it encouraging a life of welfare!
No thanks. I’d rather pay for defence and the NHS etc with tax.
Reply 9
EMA was a lot less costly then this policy I believe EMA applied from 16-19's

EMA cost £560,000,000 per year less than the OP's proposal that being said it would cost more now due to the requirement of being in education until the age of 18.


Original post by Salostar
Not quite high school but I remember when the EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance) was still available in England. Helped pay for the bus/train fair to college (well, I got a bus pass for free due to a low family income but I knew a few people who relied on the EMA to cover their commuting costs), lunch, books, stationary, and of course beer and condoms. Some mis-used their EMA, but for many others it helped them cover their costs without relying too much on their parents.

Of course you had to attend every class, or have a very good reason as to why not, each week otherwise you’d miss out on a weeks payment.
The Government is already providing you with FREE education to age 18...

If you won't try hard in school without a financial incentive then honestly you deserve to fail and not surmount to much in life! School is there for YOUR benefit, embrace it and succeed or don't and regret it later in life.
Kids with more access to resources generally get better grades. But I think this is why more schools require funding to access these resources to help those kids and essentially giving adults the power to help reduces the burden overall. I live in a deprived area I'm quite privileged but since my school has access to tassomai it means that the average class performance for triple science has increased significantly since my school signed up to the program. I feel confident that my grades in GCSEs will be around 7s-9s because of the support and motivation I had. The feeling of success is what made me feel good not the fact that I get a 'reward' from it. Plus other posters have mentioned lots of factual points and the numbers do show that it would be a waste of money.

i'm sure there are more practical ways of helping students engage then handing out money. It's vital to teach secondary school kids that doing basic things like showing up on time doesn't require a reward. Struggle is what shapes people to become better. Otherwise adults are giving us little exposure to how the world really is. The blame game can only go so far. The effort and motivation has to come from the responsible adults teenagers are surrounded by (parents, carers, staff, teachers etc.) but it also needs to come from teens themselves. When you're a teenager you want to be treated respectfully and equally by adults and teenager aren't entitled to this privilege because everyone has to struggle. And students who don't put in the effort eventually realise they have catching up to do.

Anyway the truth is that the majority of high school students don't value education neither do they realise how fortunate they are to be in high school. Sure we have so many issues (cyberbullying, the influence of the media, homework while trying to revise at the same time and then stressing out about which one is the bigger priority, family responsibilities like young carers who have to cope with a lot, social life struggles, peer pressure) but that money will not be put into good use.

Instead better strategies would include more funding for our services. Definitely more funding for teachers who have to plan lessons, deal with awful behaviour on a daily basis and spend their time trying to make sure everyone understands the lesson objectives. More empathy for each other and more recognition... these are things that can be freely given but only some people really provide that.

Spoiler

Original post by Nalk1573
If we really value education, and value things like attendance and hard work and effort, high school students, who often have no income except for their parents, should be rewarded if they make an effort.

We need to increase motivation and the desire to learn within schools.

What do people think ?


the government all ready pays 20.70 or 13.70 gbp a week unless your parent earnings are well in excess of 50 k
Original post by Nalk1573
If we really value education, and value things like attendance and hard work and effort, high school students, who often have no income except for their parents, should be rewarded if they make an effort.


You are rewarded. You are rewarded by a good education that will stand you in good stead throughout the rest of your life. There is no job that pays you for turning up. I don't see why paying students to attend school should be any different. Perhaps you could receive a small bonus if you do well in your exams, but paying students to turn up helps no one.
Reply 14
Original post by Salostar
Not quite high school but I remember when the EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance) was still available in England. Helped pay for the bus/train fair to college (well, I got a bus pass for free due to a low family income but I knew a few people who relied on the EMA to cover their commuting costs), lunch, books, stationary, and of course beer and condoms. Some mis-used their EMA, but for many others it helped them cover their costs without relying too much on their parents.

Of course you had to attend every class, or have a very good reason as to why not, each week otherwise you’d miss out on a weeks payment.


This still exists in Scotland and I think elsewhere as well. I don't see how setting up even more for everyone would help.
Why not £30? Why not £70? Actually what about £230? £480?

All we need to do is plant more money trees right?
Original post by Bio 7
This still exists in Scotland and I think elsewhere as well. I don't see how setting up even more for everyone would help.


Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Original post by NOBAME
EMA was a lot less costly then this policy I believe EMA applied from 16-19's

EMA cost £560,000,000 per year less than the OP's proposal that being said it would cost more now due to the requirement of being in education until the age of 18.


16-19 as long as in some form of education. While I don’t advocate for providing money to secondary school students, I do for the return of support for those seeking to continue their education past GCSE’s. Not every student was eligible for EMA, I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the amount was reduced if your family income was above a certain level until cut off entirely.

Current requirements require to remain in education or work until 18 apprenticeships count as would working full time such as joining the armed forces.
EMA was brilliant, made getting to and from education a hell of a lot easier.

My brother had to travel over 40 miles a day, there and back, or his first year of college, that was a car journey, then a train, then a bus at the other end.

EMA was taken away that year and had he not had the tenacity to hassle and harry our MP into personally forcing a more local college to let him in then he would not have been able to continue his A levels.

The money gives away absolutely tonnes of money incentivising people to do what they want. Using government money to facilitate people getting an education and becoming more employable is money well spent in my book.
Only for the poorest of students who need it for things like travel and food.
Bribing children to do well at school isn't going to do anyone any favours, it only sets them up to expect to be rewarded for doing the most basic of things in later life. There are plenty of kids who go to school and work hard because they simply just want to do well, they know that grades are important and whilst good marks aren't the most important things in life, they certainly do make a lot of things easier in the long run. If you work hard, you get rewarded by achieving good grades, which leads to a university place, which leads to a decent job etc.

EMA was brilliant for the kids in the lower income bracket, though. I'm sure some abused the system, like every system gets abused, but it would have made a huge difference to the large majority.

Quick Reply

Latest