Andy Burnham Urged to Revive 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 disadvantaged students that was abolished in England 15 years ago, with Trades Union Congress general secretary Paul Nowak arguing that bringing back an Education Maintenance Allowance-style payment could help more young people remain in education and training.

The intervention puts the spotlight back on the Education Maintenance Allowance, commonly known as EMA, a means-tested scheme that provided weekly payments of up to £30 to young people from lower-income households who stayed in education after the compulsory school-leaving age.

The programme was introduced through pilot schemes in England in 1999 before being expanded nationally in 2004. It was eventually abolished in England in 2011 by the coalition government and replaced with the more limited 16 to 19 Bursary Fund. EMA-style support continues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although the systems operating in those nations have their own eligibility arrangements.

Nowak has described the abolition of EMA as a “hammer blow” for children from low-income backgrounds. He argues that young people should not have to choose between education and financial security and believes a new payment could help remove some of the economic pressures that discourage students from continuing with further education.

The TUC is proposing a new Youth Learning Allowance aimed at young people aged 16 to 20 who have started an education or training course in further education. The proposal is intended to apply the principle behind EMA to today’s education and labour-market environment rather than necessarily reproducing the old scheme in exactly the same form.

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

He argued that financial support can be decisive for young people considering whether they can afford to continue studying after 16. The TUC general secretary also pointed to government support for apprentices as evidence that financial assistance can be used to encourage young people to remain engaged in education and training.

His argument comes as policymakers continue to focus on the number of young people who are outside education, employment or training, commonly referred to as NEET.

The latest Department for Education statistics for England show that 13.3% of 16 to 24-year-olds were NEET in 2025, a fall of 0.3 percentage points from the previous year. Among 16 and 17-year-olds, the rate was 4.0%, while the figure for those aged 18 to 24 was substantially higher. The government is due to publish the next annual release in 2027.

The issue has particular relevance for Labour because Burnham has a long history with the EMA debate. As Shadow Education Secretary, he criticised the coalition government’s decision to abolish the scheme and called on the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to reconsider.

Burnham argued at the time that EMA had helped increase participation, attendance and attainment among young people continuing into post-16 education. He criticised then-Education Secretary Michael Gove over the replacement arrangements, arguing that a scheme he regarded as successful had been dismantled.

More than a decade later, the political circumstances are different, but the question remains similar: how far should government go in providing direct financial assistance to young people from disadvantaged families who want to remain in education?

There is evidence that EMA did have an effect on participation. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that abolishing the scheme in England reduced Year 12 participation by around 1.5 percentage points. The original programme was worth up to £1,200 a year and was conditional on students remaining in post-compulsory education.

However, more recent research has produced a considerably more complicated assessment of the policy.

An extensive IFS study published in 2025 examined the long-term consequences of EMA by following disadvantaged students through administrative records. It found that among students eligible for free school meals, EMA increased participation in full-time education in Year 12 by around 2.5 percentage points and by around one percentage point in Year 13.

But the research did not find evidence that the additional participation translated into improved A-level results, higher pass rates or increased achievement of Level 2 or Level 3 qualifications. Nor did researchers find an increase in university attendance.

The study also raised questions about the longer-term economic effects. Researchers found evidence that students receiving EMA reduced their participation in paid work while studying. The February 2025 analysis estimated cumulative earnings between ages 20 and 28 were around 3.5% lower among the disadvantaged group studied, with reduced work experience identified as one possible explanation.

That does not mean financial support for disadvantaged students has no value. Rather, it suggests that the design of such support matters enormously.

Interestingly, an updated IFS working paper published later in 2025 reached a more cautious conclusion on some of the longer-term effects. After tracking individuals further into adulthood, researchers found no significant overall effect of EMA on labour-market outcomes or criminality. The updated research nevertheless maintained that the scheme increased participation in education without producing clear improvements in higher-level educational attainment.

The conflicting or evolving evidence means that a new Youth Learning Allowance would need to be designed with more than participation in mind.

A payment could help cover transport, meals, course materials, clothing, equipment and other everyday expenses associated with remaining in education. For a teenager from a household under financial pressure, those costs can influence whether staying in college or training is realistically possible.

Yet increasing attendance alone does not guarantee better qualifications or employment prospects. A modern replacement for EMA would therefore need to be considered alongside the quality of further education, careers advice, apprenticeships, employer engagement and pathways into skilled work.

That is particularly important as the government attempts to address economic inactivity and improve the transition between education and employment.

The NEET figures demonstrate why the issue remains politically significant. Although the overall 16 to 24 NEET rate in England fell slightly in 2025, millions of young people are represented across the wider age group and the proportion varies significantly according to age, region and labour-market circumstances. The government continues to monitor both NEET and participation in education, employment and training as part of its wider skills and employment policies.

The debate is therefore not simply about restoring a policy from the past. It is about deciding what kind of financial support can help disadvantaged young people make successful transitions from compulsory schooling into further education, training and employment.

For Burnham, the proposal also revives an argument he made when he was in opposition. His previous criticism of the EMA’s abolition provides a clear political link to the TUC’s current demand, even though the evidence available today is more extensive than it was when the scheme was dismantled.

The cost would also be an important consideration. The EMA was a major public programme. The IFS estimates that it cost around £900 million a year across the UK by 2010, measured in 2023–24 prices.

Any new nationwide allowance would therefore require decisions about eligibility, payment levels, conditions and funding. Policymakers would also need to establish clear measures of success, including whether recipients achieve qualifications, move into employment and experience improved earnings over time.

The experience of EMA provides useful lessons in both directions. Its payments did encourage some disadvantaged young people to remain in full-time education, demonstrating that financial barriers can influence participation. But the long-term research also suggests that staying in education for longer does not automatically produce better qualifications or economic outcomes.

That distinction is likely to shape any future Labour debate over the proposal.

For the TUC, the case is straightforward: young people should not abandon education or training simply because their families cannot afford the associated costs. For policymakers, the challenge is more complex. Financial assistance must be sufficiently generous to make a difference while being targeted and structured in a way that produces lasting benefits.

The proposal for a Youth Learning Allowance consequently places a familiar policy question back on the political agenda. Fifteen years after EMA disappeared from England, the country is still confronting the challenge that the original scheme was designed to address: how to ensure that a young person’s financial circumstances do not determine whether they can continue learning beyond compulsory education.

Burnham’s earlier opposition to the abolition means he is an obvious political figure for campaigners to approach. Whether he, the wider Labour movement and the government ultimately support a new allowance will depend not only on the social argument but also on what the latest evidence says about value for money.

What is increasingly clear is that the debate cannot be reduced to whether EMA was simply a success or failure. Its record was mixed. It increased post-16 participation among some disadvantaged students, but the evidence has not established the broad long-term educational and economic improvements its supporters originally hoped for.

A new allowance, if introduced, would therefore have to learn from both sides of that experience. The central question would not simply be whether young people should receive more financial support, but how that support can be designed to help them stay in education, gain meaningful qualifications and ultimately move into secure and productive employment.

Checkout our latest news>>