| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Jan 2004 : Column 134W—continued
Children's Green Paper
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is, under the proposals outlined in the Children's Green Paper, on retention of data files kept on children when they become adults; and under what circumstances (a) children and (b) those with parental responsibility will have access to them. [145707]
Margaret Hodge: The Queen's Speech said that a Bill will be introduced to improve services designed to protect children. This will implement proposals contained in the Children's Green Paper "Every Child
26 Jan 2004 : Column 135W
Matters", and, subject to consideration of responses to the Green Paper consultation, will include proposals that each local authority should set up a local information sharing system to enable practitioners to share early information about children and young people so that better services can be provided to them and their families.
The Green Paper proposals relate to children and young people to age 19. Local authorities will be responsible for the proposed local information hubs and will be required to comply with the Data Protection Act in the way they manage and run the hubs. The data protection principles set out in the Act include requirements that personal data shall be accurate and up to date, not excessive for the purpose for which it is held and that it is kept for no longer than necessary. Data held on information hubs will be held in accordance with these requirements. How long data on any particular child is held will depend upon individual
26 Jan 2004 : Column 136W
circumstances.
Except where there is an exemption under the Data Protection Act, children or those with parental responsibility for them would have access to the information held about them on the proposed information hubs, under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act. They would also be able to comment on any information held on the system that was inaccurate or which needed updating.
Class Sizes
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size for (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) Brent East constituency, (ii) the London Borough of Brent, (iii) London and (iv) England was in each year since 1997. [149897]
Mr. Stephen Twigg: The requested information is given in the tables.
| Classes taught by one teacher | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
| Brent East Constituency | 26.1 | 27.0 | 27.1 | 27.3 | 27.4 | 26.4 | 26.9 |
| Brent LEA | 26.5 | 26.7 | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.3 | 27.1 | 27.6 |
| London | 27.1 | 27.2 | 27.3 | 27.3 | 27.0 | 26.9 | 26.9 |
| England | 27.5 | 27.7 | 27.5 | 27.1 | 26.7 | 26.3 | 26.3 |
(22) Includes middle schools as deemed.
(23) Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.
Source:
Annual Schools' Census
| Classes taught by one teacher | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
| Brent East Constituency | 20.3 | 19.9 | 20.2 | 20.9 | 21.8 | 21.0 | 22.4 |
| Brent LEA | 20.5 | 20.2 | 20.0 | 20.5 | 22.2 | 21.5 | 21.3 |
| London | 21.7 | 21.7 | 21.8 | 22.0 | 22.1 | 22.1 | 21.9 |
| England | 21.7 | 21.7 | 21.9 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 21.9 | 21.9 |
(24) Includes middle schools as deemed.
(25) Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.
Source:
Annual Schools' Census
Divorce Courts
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of Mr. Justice Nicholas Wall's recommendations regarding the divorce courts system have been implemented. [148940]
Margaret Hodge: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 293W.
Failing Schools
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of failing schools of providing a higher score as a result of failing in English than of failing in maths and science. [149873]
Mr. Miliband [holding answer 22 January 2004]: The Department has made no assessment of this particular matter. The weight attached to particular judgments within an individual school inspection is a matter for Ofsted. I have asked HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, to write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.
Formula Spending Share (Deprivation)
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value of the formula spending share for each primary school pupil for deprivation is in each local authority for 2004–05. [150070]
Mr. Miliband [holding answer 22 January 2004]: The education formula spending share allocates the same value for each primary aged pupil with additional educational needs. For 2004–05, this value is £1,370. The proportion of primary aged pupils with additional educational needs is estimated in each authority using
26 Jan 2004 : Column 137W
measures of children in families in receipt of income support, children in families in receipt of working families tax credit and pupils who do not have English as their mother tongue.
Further Education Funding
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of funding per pupil in further education was in (a) Brent East, (b) the London borough of Brent, (c) London and (d) England in each year since 1997. [149901]
Alan Johnson: The Department does not collect information on the level of funding per pupil in further education at the local or regional level. Mark Haysom the Learning and Skills Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Member with details of further education spend per pupil in (a) Brent East, (b) the London borough of Brent, and (c) London. A copy of his letter will be placed in the House Library.
The following table shows funding per full-time equivalent student in further education in England from 1997–98 to 2003–04. These are cash figures that show total funding for the further education (FE) sector. The figures include monies provided for participation and certain funding for earmarked purposes, including capital, the Standards Fund and other special grants to colleges. These figures are consistent with those published in the 'Departmental Annual Report 2003'.
| Total funding | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98(26) | 3,070 |
| 1998–99(26) | 3,090 |
| 1999–2000(26) | 3,380 |
| 2000–01(26) | 3,640 |
| 2001–02(27) | 3,890 |
| 2002–03(28) | 4,020 |
| 2003–04(28) | 4,240 |
(26) Actual
(27) Provisional
(28) Planned
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has undertaken to examine what the effect on provision would be were all the further education colleges funded by the Further Education Funding Council to withdraw from all work-based learning provision. [150006]
Alan Johnson: None. There is no evidence of which the Department is aware that further education providers are considering withdrawal from Work Based Learning for Young People (WBL) on a large scale. Further education providers currently deliver around 20 per cent. of WBL provision and are an important and valued means of delivering such learning to young people. Further education providers are now funded by the Learning and Skills Council, the body responsible for planning and funding all post-16 learning (other than higher education).
26 Jan 2004 : Column 138W
Higher Education
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the reasons why 10 per cent. of the pupils who achieve two A level passes do not go into higher education. [147015]
Alan Johnson: The Youth Cohort Study shows that around nine in 10 young people who achieve two or more A-levels by the age of 18 progress to Higher Education by the time they are 21.
Research published by the Department in 2001 ("Social Class and Higher Education: Issues Affecting Participation by Lower Social Class groups" Connor, H. at al DfEE Research Report No. 246) looked at the factors affecting participation in HE by different social class groups. It found that among those who were qualified to enter higher education but had decided against going, the main reasons were because they wanted to start work, because they did not need a higher education qualification for their chosen career or because of the expected costs involved.
In addition, the Youth Cohort Study identified other reasons for choosing not to enter HE:
- to earn money and become financially independent;
- not achieving the grades for their chosen course;
- self belief, with young people thinking they could not get in or they would find higher education too difficult.;
- lack of interest.
Other research has identified ethnicity, housing tenure and parental education as significantly affecting the decision to enter higher education.
Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into the effects of tuition fees on medical manpower planning. [149759]
Alan Johnson: I have not commissioned such research. Since the introduction of tuition fees in 1998, demand for places on medical courses has continued to outstrip significantly the number of places, despite an increase in the number of places available. Between 1999 and 2001, plans for some 2,250 more medical school places in the UK were announced. As a result of the extra investment, the number of students entering medical school will increase to over 7,300 in 2005. The number of UK applicants to study medicine at UK universities is also at its highest since 1986 (the earliest year for which data is available).
We do not anticipate any significant impact on demand for medical courses after the introduction of variable fees. The Department of Health will, however, be monitoring demand for, and take-up of, places on medical courses. Department of Health Ministers have made it clear that they will, if necessary, take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.
Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into the repayment of tuition fees by women medical students. [149760]
26 Jan 2004 : Column 139W
Alan Johnson: I have not commissioned such research. Medical students do not have to repay student loans until they graduate and earn over £15,000 per year. Doctors earn considerably in excess of the national average: a newly qualified GP can expect to earn over £45,000, and will receive considerably more than that in time. Consultants will earn even more. So medical graduates will be able to pay off their student loan for living costs and for tuition fees comparatively rapidly.
If, despite the high salary levels generally, some doctors who work part time or take career breaks pay off their student loans more slowly, the student support proposals announced by my right. hon. Friend on 8 January are helpful. The Government intend to write-off outstanding student loan balances after 25 years. This will apply to those entering HE from 2006 and cover maintenance and fee loans.
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the number of higher education students who will be affected by the introduction of top-up fees. [149774]
Alan Johnson: The number of students affected by variable fees will depend on a wide range of factors, including decisions on fee levels to be taken by institutions providing higher education to full time undergraduates.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he will require universities charging higher than average variable fees to pay their academic staff more. [149947]
Alan Johnson: Higher education institutions are responsible for their own academic and administrative affairs, including pay for their staff. The Government plays no part in setting levels of pay in the higher education sector. Universities themselves are the best judges of how to deploy the funding they receive.
Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the current higher education participation rate in England is with respect to people under the age of 30. [149509]
Alan Johnson [holding answer 20 January 2004]: The current Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR) is 43.9 per cent. for 2001/02.
The HEIPR covers English-domiciled 17 to 30-year-old first-time entrants to Higher Education courses who remain on their course for six months or more.
The HEIPR will replace the Initial Entry Rate (IER) as the way that we measure progress toward 50 per cent. A time-series of HEIPR figures will be published in Spring 2004.
The IER was recently quality-reviewed under guidelines issued by the Office for National Statistics. The review (published in November 2003) concluded that the IER was "basically robust" 1 but highlighted some minor shortcomings which the HEIPR corrects for. More detail can be found in the report of the review, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
26 Jan 2004 : Column 140W
An Age Participation Index (API) also exists for Great Britain—though does not include students aged over 20 or part-time students. The current figure for 2001/02 is 35 per cent.
- 1 Review of the Initial Entry Rate into Higher Education, DfES, p6.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |