| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Oct 2004 : Column 292W—continued
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
A-Level Results
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students achieved (a) 1 and (b) 1–3 A-E grades at A Level (i) in England and (ii) at schools and colleges based in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 2001–02; and if he will provide breakdowns of those figures between (A) independent schools and colleges and (B) state schools and colleges. [189851]
Mr. Miliband: The percentage of students achieving (a) one and (b) one to three A-E grades at GCE/VCE A Level in independent schools and in maintained schools and FE Sector colleges in both England and the Buckingham constituency in 2001–02 and 2002–03:
| One GCE/VCE A level (or equivalent) pass | One to three GCE/VCE A level (or equivalent) passes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England | Buckingham constituency | England | Buckingham constituency | ||
| 2001/02 | Independent schools | 9.1 | 6.1 | 76.1 | 94.5 |
| Maintained schools and FE sector colleges | 16.6 | 7.7 | 75.1 | 85.3 | |
| All institutions | 15.6 | 7.1 | 75.2 | 88.8 | |
| 2002/03 | Independent schools | 9.0 | 5.6 | 77.4 | 93.2 |
| Maintained schools and FE sector colleges | 16.8 | 8.5- | 76.5 | 81.5 | |
| All institutions | 15.9 | 7.5 | 76.6 | 85.3 | |
AQA
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the errors made by AQA in marking key stage 2 English SATS tests at St. Martin's Junior School in Epsom; how many other schools have experienced similar levels of errors in marking; what steps he is taking to ensure that AQA improves its processes; and what steps he is taking to ensure that AQA compensate schools for additional administrative costs incurred as a result of the errors in marking. [190376]
Mr. Miliband: I understand from the National Assessment Agency (NAA) that St. Martin's Junior School had 11 overall level changes for Key Stage 2 English.
It is not possible to break down the number of schools experiencing similar levels of error in marking. I shall write to the hon. Member with overall national figures for 2004 level changes in Key Stage 2 English when they become available and also place a copy in the Library.
The NAA, who are responsible, on behalf of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), for test administration, has awarded the 2005 contract for marking of the National Curriculum tests to Pearson Assessment and Testing. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is working closely with Pearson to ensure that all lessons learnt from 2004 will be fed in to improving test delivery in 2005.
There is no provision for compensating schools for costs incurred by staff in checking pupils' scripts and preparing the application for review. However, where the outcome of the review shows that the quality of marking has not been to the expected standard, all review charges are refunded.
Education Funding Report
Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the Audit Commission's findings at paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 on page 11 of its report Education Funding 2004. [189749]
Mr. Miliband: The system of floors and ceilings referred to by the Audit Commission is in place to ensure that all councils receive an increase in funding each year and that there is stability in the funding of authorities. In setting the levels of floors and ceilings, Ministers are mindful of the need to make progression to the allocations implied by the formula in order to deliver the fairer distribution of funding which the formula review produced. We therefore agree with the Audit Commission that there is a balance to be struck in setting the level of the floors and ceilings.
The minimum funding guarantee that was introduced in 2004–05 has brought stability and certainty to schools budgets. It was considered appropriate to put in place such stability given the funding difficulties experienced by some schools in 2003–04. As a result of the introduction of the minimum funding guarantee two
13 Oct 2004 : Column 293W
thirds of schools nationally received an increase above the level of the minimum guarantee while the remaining third of schools received a per pupil increase in funding in line with the guarantee.
Changes to a local education authority's funding formulae are matters for local discretion provided that they operate within the framework of the regulations. While the Audit Commission reports that some councils have suspended proposed changes to their funding formula, the survey was based on a sample of LEAs and was carried out before the start of the financial year 2004–05. Evidence from other authorities shows that there is no inherent need to suspend changes to formulae as a result of the minimum funding guarantee. Some authorities, in fact, have used the guarantee to provide transitional protection to ensure that such changes are phased in appropriately to ensure stability in school budgets.
Higher Education Act
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with representatives of students in relation to the Higher Education Act 2004. [189658]
Dr. Howells [holding answer 11 October 2004]: We have regular discussions at ministerial and official level with student representative bodies including the National Union of Students.
Key Stage 2 Results
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of school pupils achieved level 4 at key stage 2 in (a) English and (b) Maths (i) in England and (ii) from schools based in the Buckingham constituency in (A) 2002 and (B) 2003. [189850]
Mr. Miliband: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 10 May 2004, Official Report, column 34W.
Ofsted Reports
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures are open to an individual teacher to seek independent re-examination of an Ofsted report; and if he will make a statement. [190031]
Mr. Miliband: This is a matter for the Ofsted. David Bell the HM Chief Inspector of Schools will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.
School Admissions
Mr. Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice his Department has issued to (a) local education authorities and (b) schools on the weight to be given to the separate addresses of divorced parents seeking access to a school on the basis of geographical proximity. [190420]
13 Oct 2004 : Column 294W
Mr. Miliband [holding answer 11 October 2004]: Admission authorities must have regard to the School Admissions Code of Practice which gives advice on admission issues. In the case of children who live with parents with shared responsibility, the Code of Practice recommends that admission authorities ensure that their oversubscription criteria make clear how the 'home' address will be decided in a fair and considered and consistent way. It is therefore for admission authorities themselves to set out the basis on which they will consider the geographical proximity aspect for applications for children with parents who are divorced.
School Closures
Mr. Dhanda: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures must be followed by a local education authority before it can close a non-selective single sex school where no similar alternative schools exist nearby; and what opportunities are available to parents of pupils at such a school who wish to make representations against proposed closure. [189738]
Mr. Miliband: The procedures for closing a non-selective single sex school are the same as those for closing any other maintained school. There are no special arrangements where there is no similar school nearby.
Those making proposals to close a school must first consult interested parties, ensuring that there is sufficient opportunity for interested parties to express their views. If they wish to proceed, they must then publish a notice in the local newspaper, at the entrance of the school and in a conspicuous place within the area (e.g. the local library). Following publication, there is a six-week representation period (or four weeks if the school is failing) during which anyone can make representations about the proposals. The proposals are normally then referred to the local School Organisation Committee (SOC). If the SOC cannot reach a unanimous decision, the proposals are referred to the schools adjudicator. The SOC and the adjudicator both have the power to approve the proposals, reject them or approve them with modifications.
In making their decision the SOC and schools adjudicator must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This sets out a range of factors that must be considered. These include the views of interested parties, the impact of what is proposed on local standards and equal opportunities issues including, for proposals of this nature, access to single sex schooling for both boys and girls where there is parental demand.
In making their decision the SOC and schools adjudicator must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This sets out a range of factors that must be considered. These include the views of interested parties, the impact of what is proposed on local standards and equal opportunities issues including, for proposals of this nature, access to single sex schooling for both boys and girls where there is parental demand.
13 Oct 2004 : Column 295W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |