| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 Jun 2005 : Column 694W—continued
Private Finance Projects
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnership projects her Department is undertaking; and what the status of each is. [2364]
Jacqui Smith: The Department for Education and Skills does not itself undertake Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects. PFI projects for the provision of schools are delivered through contracts between local authorities and private sector contractors. There are currently 89 such projects with signed contracts, of which 50 have operational status. Further details can be accessed at www.teachernet.gov.uk/pfi.
The Department is itself undertaking one Public Private Partnership (PPP) project in partnership with Capita. This project has operational status and is for the delivery of the Connexions card across England. It is scheduled to continue until December 2008.
Pupil Exclusions
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her policy on exclusions in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [1617]
Jacqui Smith: Real progress has been made since 1997 in tackling poor behaviour in schools. Permanent exclusions are 25 per cent. lower than in 1997 and Ofsted indicate that pupil behaviour is good in most schools. We have made record investments in behaviour support for schools.
We have made it clear that we will not tolerate disruptive behaviour in the classroom and we are committed to backing head teachers' authority where pupils' behaviour warrants exclusion.
We expect all secondary schools to be working together in collaborations by September 2007, with funds devolved from their local authorities, to manage support and provision for pupils at risk of exclusion, persistent truants and excluded pupils. Evidence from schools already working together in this way shows that they are effective in improving behaviour and reducing the need for exclusion.
Pupil Spending
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department spent per pupil in (a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) further education in (i) Brent East and (ii) each local education authority in England in each year since 1997. [2545]
Jacqui Smith:
The available information concerning primary and secondary education has been placed in the Library of the House. The Department does not collect information on the level of funding per student in further education at a local or regional level.
9 Jun 2005 : Column 695W
Salary Sacrificing Schemes
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to enable teachers to participate in salary sacrificing schemes to secure tax relief on child care vouchers; and if she will make a statement. [2633]
Jacqui Smith: School teachers in England and Wales are not eligible to participate in salary sacrifice schemes. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, which is the statutory framework governing teachers' pay, makes no provision for permitting a reduction in salary in any circumstances. However, any teachers may be paid recruitment and retention incentives and benefits of any value or nature in addition to their salary.
School Administration
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to reduce the burden of administration in schools. [2956]
Jacqui Smith: The Government are determined that schools should undertake only essential administration and that this should be done by the most appropriate staff in the most efficient and effective ways. In particular, we are freeing up teachers' time so that they can concentrate on teaching.
We are developing a new relationship with schools that will halve the time and effort of inspection while focusing it even more closely on improving teaching and learning. We are working in my Department and with external parties which want data from schools to ensure that only essential data is collected, that it is then by sample wherever possible, and that data is collected once only and used many times.
We intend to focus a wide range of work concerned with raising standards through a "single conversation" with a dedicated school improvement partner for every school, leading as far as possible to a single school plan. We are consulting on future funding arrangements for schools that will increase local flexibility and simplify accounting.
We have replaced direct mailings to schools with free on-line ordering, prompted by regular emails setting out what is available. This means schools get only the publications they want, and in just the quantities they need.
Our efficiency targets will increase productive time in schools and will be achieved to a large extent through the effective use of a variety of information and communications technologies (ICT). That is why we continue to invest substantially in ICT in schools and encourage the new and more effective ways of working that ICT enables.
Through the national agreement on raising standards and tackling workload we have made contractual changes that from September will give every teacher 10 per cent. timetabled time for planning, preparation and assessment. Earlier provisions of the agreement mean teachers' obligations to cover for absent
9 Jun 2005 : Column 696W
colleagues are already greatly reduced and support staff have taken over from teachers a wide range of essential administrative tasks.
Crucially, we have set up the implementation review unit comprising heads and other school leaders currently working in successful schools. This is the first ever body with a remit to challenge the Department on every aspect of school policy. Their role is to hold my Department and its agencies accountable for ensuring that policies are practicable and have maximum impact on the achievements and well being of our children through simple and efficient delivery in the frontline.
School Funding
Mr. Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the revenue funding per (a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil from her Department to each English local education authority was in 2004–05, broken down by (i) basic amount, (ii) deprivation factor, (iii) funding to reflect higher recruitment and retention costs, (iv) rurality factor and (v) other amounts. [1015]
Jacqui Smith: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 11 December 2003, Official Report, column 608W.
Tables showing the breakdown for 2005–06 are now available on the Department's school funding website http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/schoolfunding/. accessible within the index under the title 'Education Funding Model 2005–06 (final settlement) 27 Jan 2005'.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the per capita pupil funding in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) Cheshire and (ii) England (A) is in 2005–06 and (B) has been in each of the last eight years; what assessment she has made of the differences between the figures; and if she will make a statement; [1753]
(2) if she will take steps to reduce the difference between the national average per capita pupil funding in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools and that in Cheshire. [1754]
Jacqui Smith: The following table shows the per pupil figures for the years in question apart from the 2005–06 financial year for which we do not yet have final figures. Total funding includes funding via education formula spending/standard spending assessment and grants allocated at an LEA level. It excludes the pensions transfer to EFS and the Learning and Skills Council, and is in real terms. It should be noted that the information also relates to education funding provision for children aged 3–10 and 11–15 rather than that which is allocated to an authority's primary and secondary schools through its school funding formula.
The funding that local authorities receive for schools reflects their relative need compared with other authorities. LEAs have a good deal of freedom to decide how to allocate the available resources for education through their funding formulae and under the Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations, it is for each LEA to decide for itself what balance to strike
9 Jun 2005 : Column 697W
between the relative funding of primary and secondary schools, after consulting its schools and its Schools Forum.
Notes:
1. Price Base: Real terms at 2003–04 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 23 March 2005.
2. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of education SSA/EFS settlements and exclude the pensions transfer to EFS and LSC.
3. Total funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged 3–10 and 11–15 and exclude grants not allocated at LEA level.
4. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to per pupil are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC 3-year-old maintained pupils and estimated 3 to 4-year-olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers.
5. Rounding: Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.
6. Status: 2003–04 and 2004–05 figures are provisional as some grants have not yet been finalised/audited.
7. 1997–98 figures for Cheshire, which was subject to local government reorganisation in that year, have been estimated, pro-rata to their post LGR figures.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent per student in secondary schools in England in each year since 1997. [2953]
Jacqui Smith: The information requested is contained within the following table:
| £ | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98 | 2,360 |
| 1998–99 | 2,450 |
| 1999–2000(32)(35) | 2,610 |
| 2000–01 | 2,830 |
| 2001–02 | 3,150 |
| 2002–03(32)(34) | 3,230 |
| 2003–04(33) | 3,550 |
(30) School based expenditure includes only expenditure incurred directly by the schools. This includes the pay of teachers and school-based support staff, school premises costs, books and equipment, and certain other supplies and services, less any capital items funded from recurrent spending and income from sales, fees and charges and rents and rates. This excludes the central cost of support services such as home to school transport, local authority administration and the financing of capital expenditure.
(31) Pupil numbers include only those pupils attending LEA maintained secondary schools and are drawn from the DfES Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
(32) 1999–2000 saw a change in data source when the data collection moved from the RO1 form collected by the ODPM to the Section 52 form from the DfES. 2002–03 saw a further break in the time series following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) and the associated restructuring of the outturn tables. The change in sources is shown by the dotted lines.
(33) The 2002–03 and 2003–04 calculation is broadly similar to the calculation in previous years. However, 2001–02 and earlier years includes all premature retirement compensation (PRC) and Crombie payments, mandatory PRC payments and other indirect employee expenses, while in 2002–03 and 2003–04 only the schools element of these categories is included. In 2001–02 this accounted for approximately 70 per pupil of the England total, while the schools element of these categories accounted for approximately 50 per pupil of the England total in 2002–03. Also, for some LEAs, expenditure that had previously been attributed to the school sectors was reported within the LEA part of the form in 2002–03 and 2003–04 and would therefore be excluded, though this is not quantifiable from existing sources.
(34) The 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of grant maintained schools to local authority maintenance.
Note:
Figures are reported in cash terms and rounded to the nearest 10 as reported by the LEA.
9 Jun 2005 : Column 698W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |