Previous Section Index Home Page

30 Jun 2005 : Column 1694W—continued

Building Schools for the Future

Kitty Ussher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the capital costs of building new (a) schools that offer A-levels under the Building Schools for the Future programme and (b) colleges that predominantly serve 16 to 19-year-olds was financed by her Department in the last year for which figures are available. [2599]

Jacqui Smith: Information on the funding contributions to be made by local authorities to schools in the Building Schools for the Future programme is not held by the department. Local authorities are free to make their own investment decisions in accordance with their asset management plans. Total capital funding of around £2.2 billion per year to 2007–08 has been
30 Jun 2005 : Column 1696W
committed as part of Building Schools for the Future and this will benefit 47 schools that offer A-levels in the first wave (2005–06) of the programme. This information is not yet available for waves 2 and 3.

The Learning and Skills Council administers funding for Further Education capital projects and contributes grant aid towards the costs. Assessments of the appropriate level of contribution are made against affordability criteria. Levels of grant support vary from around 10–50 per cent. of the total project costs, with an average of 35 per cent.

Burnley College

Kitty Ussher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if her Department will provide funding to relocate Burnley College. [2596]

Jacqui Smith: The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) determines the appropriate level of funding for capital projects in further education colleges from the funds allocated to it by the Department for capital investment in the post-16 learning and skills sector, including relocation.

This is an operational matter for the LSC. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

Letter from Mark Haysom to Kitty Ussher, dated 22 June 2005:

Child Review 2004

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what progress there has been on the commitment in the Child Review 2004 to review the way in which education formulae operate in relation to schools in deprived areas; [6780]
30 Jun 2005 : Column 1697W

(2) what the spending per pupil was in (a) the 10 per cent. least deprived authorities and (b) the 10 per cent. most deprived authorities in (i) 1997, (ii) 2002–03, (iii)2003–04 and (iv) 2004–05' [6781]

(3) what the percentage difference in spending per pupil between the 10 per cent. most deprived authorities and the 10 per cent. least deprived authorities was in (a) 1997, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04 and (d) 2004–05. [6782]

Jacqui Smith [holding answer 23 June 2005]: The Government target additional resource to authorities where there are higher numbers of pupils living in deprived circumstances because these pupils are more likely to have additional educational needs, and they will require higher levels of funding if they are to have equality of opportunity. At national level, the formula for distributing funding for schools to local authorities comprises a basic entitlement for each pupil of the same age, which is the same across the country, plus top-ups reflecting the relative needs of each area, including a top-up for each pupil with additional educational needs. (The other top-ups are for higher area costs in some areas and sparsity in others). In addition, some specific grants such as Excellence in Cities have been directed towards deprived areas.

The funding that individual schools receive in their budget shares is a matter for local authorities through their local funding formulae. Each authority's local formula should direct resources according to the relative needs of the schools in the area and their pupils. Work on the joint HM Treasury/Department for Education and Skills review of the ways in which local education authorities fund schools for the effects of social deprivation started in the autumn of 2004. The collection of evidence from stakeholders and drafting of the report is largely complete and the review will be published when conclusions have been finalised. As stated in the Child Poverty Review document published in July 2004, those conclusions will need to recognise the priority of maintaining stability and predictability in school funding, while ensuring that funds are accurately targeted according to need.

The table sets out the spending figures for the least and most deprived authorities for 1997–98, 1998–99, 2002–03 and 2003–04. Figures for 2004–05 are not yet available. The figures reflect the Government's commitment to fund adequately pupils living in deprived circumstances.

The figures given include those for 1998–99 because those figures are more comparable with later years. That is because spending in 1997–98 reflected the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme: these were returned to local government from 1998–99. Also, because of local government reorganisation some authorities included in the calculations have only existed in their current form since 1998–99.
30 Jun 2005 : Column 1698W

Combined LEA and school based expenditure(1) per pupil(2)Cash terms figures as reported by LEAs as at 22 June 2005

In the top 10 per cent. least deprived local authorities(3)(£)In the top 10 per cent. most deprived local authorities(3)(£)Percentage difference(4)

(1)The combined LEA and school based expenditure includes all expenditure on the education of children in LEA maintained establishments and pupils educated by the LEA other than in maintained establishments. This includes both school based expenditure and all elements of central LEA expenditure except youth and community and capital expenditure from revenue (CERA). Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are drawn from the Revenue Outturn (RO1) spending returns which local authorities submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. Figures for 2002–03 onwards are drawn from the Section 52 Outturn Statement (Table A) submitted to the DfES.
(2)Pupil figures include all pre-primary pupils, including those under-fives funded by the LEA and being educated in private settings, pupils educated in maintained mainstream schools and other LEA maintained pupils. The pupil data for pupils attending maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools are taken from the DfES Annual Schools Census. Private voluntary and independent (PVI) under-five pupil numbers are taken from the Early Years census but are only available since 1999–2000. Other LEA maintained pupils includes all pupils attending schools not maintained by the authority for whom the authority is paying full tuition fees, or educated otherwise than in schools and pupil referral units under arrangements made by the authority drawn from the Form 8b submitted to the DfES. Also included as other LEA maintained pupils are all pupils attending pupil referral units who are not registered at a maintained mainstream school drawn from the DfES Annual Schools Census. All pupil numbers are adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
(3)The AEN Index used in the allocation of Education Formula Spending Shares to LEAs in 2004–05 is used to identify the top and bottom 10 per cent. most deprived local authorities in 2003 and these LEAs have been compared over the years listed in the above table. The Index is calculated using the percentage of children in families in receipt of income support, job seekers allowance and working families tax credit, the percentage of primary pupils with mother tongue other than English and of secondary pupils from low achieving ethnic groups. However, due to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1998, five LEAs included in the 10 per cent. least deprived LEAs and did not exist in 1997–98 and have therefore been excluded for this year.
(4)The percentage difference is defined as the difference between spending per pupil in the 10 per cent. most deprived LEAs and 10 per cent. least deprived LEAs as a percentage of spending per pupil in the 10 per cent. least deprived LEAs (i.e. (column (b)—column (a))/(column (a)).
(5)Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99.
(6)Expenditure data for 2004–05 are not due to be collected by the Department until October 2005.
Unit cost figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

Next Section Index Home Page