Andy Burnham Urged to Revive Education Allowance for Poorer Students

Published: 11 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Andy Burnham has been urged to revive a financial support scheme for students from poorer families, with Trades Union Congress general secretary Paul Nowak arguing that the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance created a serious barrier for young people trying to remain in education after the age of 16.

The call comes as the issue of young people who are not in education, employment or training remains a significant concern for policymakers. The TUC is proposing a new Youth Learning Allowance for 16 to 20-year-olds taking further-education or training courses, arguing that direct financial support could help young people stay engaged with education while improving their prospects of finding work later in life.

The Education Maintenance Allowance, commonly known as EMA, was introduced nationally in England after pilot schemes beginning in 1999. It provided means-tested weekly payments to young people from lower-income households who continued in full-time education after the compulsory school-leaving age. At its maximum, the allowance provided £30 a week, alongside additional incentives linked to attendance and achievement.

The scheme was abolished in England in 2011 by the coalition government and replaced with the more limited 16 to 19 Bursary Fund. EMA continues in different forms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Nowak has described the decision to abolish the English scheme as a “hammer blow” for children from low-income backgrounds. He argues that the financial pressures faced by young people can influence whether they remain in education or leave to seek employment, particularly when families are already struggling with household costs.

“A new youth learning allowance would support kids to stay in education – and help their long-term job prospects,” Nowak said in comments reported by the Mirror.

His argument is that the principle behind EMA should be reconsidered rather than simply treated as a policy of the past. Under the proposed approach, financial assistance would be aimed at young people who have already embarked on further education or training between the ages of 16 and 20.

The proposal also connects with the government’s wider concern about young people classified as NEET, meaning they are not in education, employment or training. The Department for Education continues to publish annual statistics on the 16-to-24 NEET population in England, while the government’s 2026 labour-market programme has placed renewed attention on regional differences and the transition from education into employment.

For Burnham, the debate has an additional political dimension. The Greater Manchester mayor has previously been an outspoken critic of the decision to abolish EMA. When he was Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary, Burnham criticised the coalition government’s plans and argued that the scheme had helped increase participation, attendance and attainment among young people continuing their education after 16.

At the time, Burnham accused then-Education Secretary Michael Gove of taking what he described as a successful programme and replacing it with an inadequate alternative. His earlier position has now become relevant again as Labour figures and trade union leaders debate how the government should tackle economic inactivity and improve opportunities for disadvantaged young people.

The case for revisiting the policy is supported by some historical evidence. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that replacing EMA with the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund reduced Year 12 participation by around 1.5 percentage points. Earlier IFS research had also found that the original EMA increased participation in post-16 education among eligible young people.

However, the evidence is not entirely straightforward, and that distinction matters in any discussion about a possible new allowance.

A major IFS study published in 2025 examined the longer-term consequences of EMA using linked administrative data. Researchers found that the scheme increased full-time education participation among disadvantaged young people, but the increase was relatively modest. Among students eligible for free school meals, participation in full-time education in Year 12 increased by around 2.5 percentage points.

The researchers did not find evidence that EMA significantly improved higher-level educational attainment or university attendance. Their analysis also suggested that some recipients reduced their participation in paid work while studying. The researchers estimated a reduction in cumulative earnings of around 3.5% between ages 20 and 28 among the disadvantaged group they studied, although a later working-paper update found no significant overall effect on labour-market outcomes when outcomes were tracked further into adulthood.

Those findings complicate the argument that simply restoring the old EMA would automatically solve the problems facing disadvantaged students. They nevertheless leave open the question of how financial assistance could be designed more effectively.

That is where the TUC’s proposed Youth Learning Allowance differs in emphasis. Rather than necessarily recreating the precise structure of the former EMA, the proposal is presented as a broader mechanism to reduce the financial pressures associated with post-16 education and training.

For families on low incomes, continuing education can involve costs that extend beyond tuition. Transport, food, equipment, clothing, digital access and the opportunity cost of not taking paid work can all affect a young person’s decision about whether to continue studying.

A young person may technically have access to an education or training place while still facing practical financial barriers to attending regularly. Support therefore becomes part of a wider debate about social mobility and whether young people from different economic backgrounds have genuinely equal opportunities after leaving compulsory education.

The political argument is particularly significant because Labour has made reducing economic inactivity and improving routes into employment important elements of its economic agenda. A large population of young people disconnected from education and work can have consequences not only for individual households but also for employers, productivity and public finances.

The government’s NEET statistics show that the issue requires close monitoring, although official figures are periodically revised and methodological changes mean that figures from different releases must be compared carefully. The Department for Education’s 2026 publication programme continues to track the education, employment and training status of people aged 16 to 24 in England.

The debate also raises a broader question about what type of financial intervention is most effective. A simple weekly payment may encourage participation, but it does not necessarily guarantee that a student will obtain useful qualifications, gain work experience or move successfully into employment.

The experience of EMA illustrates that distinction. The scheme was capable of changing behaviour by making continued education financially easier, but the longer-term evidence suggests that participation alone is not enough. Any successor would need to be considered alongside careers advice, high-quality further education, apprenticeships, employer links and targeted support for young people facing additional barriers.

For Burnham, however, the issue has a clear historical connection. He criticised the abolition of EMA more than a decade ago, and the TUC’s proposal now gives renewed prominence to an argument he made while in opposition: that financial circumstances should not determine whether a young person can afford to remain in education.

The challenge for policymakers will be to decide whether the answer lies in bringing back something resembling EMA or developing a substantially different model that learns from the scheme’s weaknesses as well as its successes.

There is also the question of cost. EMA was a substantial public investment. IFS research estimates that, at its peak, the English programme cost around £820 million a year in 2023-24 prices. Any national replacement would therefore require a clear assessment of eligibility, payment levels, fiscal cost and the outcomes expected in return.

The argument put forward by Nowak is ultimately about more than restoring an old policy. It is about whether financial insecurity should be allowed to become a barrier to post-16 education at a time when Britain is seeking to improve skills and strengthen its future workforce.

For young people deciding between college, training, apprenticeships or immediate employment, relatively modest sums can have a meaningful impact on the practical choices available to them. But the research also suggests that support needs to be carefully designed if it is to deliver lasting improvements rather than simply change participation in the short term.

As the government continues to consider how to reduce the number of young people outside education, employment and training, the debate over EMA is therefore likely to remain relevant. The political question is whether England should return to a familiar allowance scheme or build a new form of support that combines financial assistance with stronger routes into qualifications, training and sustainable employment.

For Burnham, the renewed call presents an opportunity to revisit a policy he once defended. For the government, it presents a more difficult test: whether it can create a system that provides disadvantaged young people with immediate financial support while also producing the long-term educational and economic gains that the original EMA ultimately failed to deliver consistently.

Checkout our latest news>>