| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1698W—continued
Head Teachers
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to reduce the burden of administration on head teachers. [35511]
Jacqui Smith: First we are determined that head teachers have the time and support to provide good leadership to manage their schools. That is why from the start of this school year every head teacher has a contractual entitlement to dedicated headship time". Head teachers must have dedicated time to lead their schools, as well as manage them.
And with the right leadership much school management can be delegated effectively. Through our workforce remodelling agenda we are supporting schools in recruiting very many numbers of administrative and support staff to free school leaders to lead and teachers time to teach. This ensures the best use of resources to improve outcomes for children.
We are also establishing a new relationship with schools; this will strip away clutter and bureaucracy in schools. Key aspects include the introduction of an improved and streamlined data collection system, more user-friendly communications (ordering publications online when the schools require them rather than when DfES sends them out automatically) and fewer of them; and a Single Plan from which Ofsted and other bodies will draw on information about the school and its performance. This will make the planning process more coherent and less time-consuming.
We remain determined to make sure our policies have the maximum impact on standards with the minimum burden on head teachers. That is why we have announced in the recent Schools White Paper that the independent Implementation Review Unit, (IRU) will continue to serve until at least 2008. The IRU, which is a group of practising head teachers and senior staff in schools will therefore continue to scrutinise our policies and ensure that we understand the impact of our initiatives on schools and how best to introduce them from a schools perspective.
Higher Education
Mr. Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what (a) the cash cost and (b) the resource cost for income contingent loans for full-time higher education students was in England in 2003–04; and what the equivalent allocations are for (i) 2005–06, (ii) 2006–07 and (iii) 2007–08. [35187]
Bill Rammell: Student loans are budgeted and accounted for using resource costs: forecasts of future cash expenditure on student loans are used only to help cash management in the Department and across Government.
(a) The cash costs for income contingent loans for full-time higher education students are shown in table 1.
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1699W
| Financial year | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2003–04 | (23)2,399 |
| 2004–05 | (23)2,474 |
| 2005–06 | (24)2,679 |
| 2006–07 | (24)3,290 |
| 2007–08 | (24)4,050 |
(23)Outturn.
(24)Allocation.
Note:
Table 1—Cash costs/allocations for income contingent loans for full-time higher education students.
The figures are given for England and Wales because the cash implications of the devolution of student support to the National Assembly for Wales from Academic Year 2006/07 have yet to be completed.
(b) The resource costs for income contingent loans for full-time higher education students are shown in table 2.
| Financial year | Maintenance loans | Fee loans |
|---|---|---|
| 2003–04 | 745 | — |
| 2004–05 | 755 | — |
| 2005–06 | 598 | — |
| Resource allocations England(26) | ||
| 2006–07 | 572 | 141 |
| 2007–08 | 576 | 349 |
(25)DfES Departmental Annual Report 2005, table 12.2.
(26)DfES DAR 2005, table 12.2, adjusted to take account of Wales Devolution (England only).
Note:
Table 2—Resource costs/allocations for income contingent loans for full-time higher education students.
Resource costs/allocations are shown for England and Wales prior to the devolution of student support to the National Assembly for Wales in financial year 2006–07, and for England only thereafter.
From financial year 2005–06 the student loans resource accounting and budgeting charge is reduced as a result of the change in the Treasury Discount Rate from 3.5 per cent. to 2.2 per cent. This affects comparison of resource costs between financial year 2004–05 and financial year 2005–06.
Learning and Skills Council
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 9 November 2005, Official Report, column 598W, on the Learning and Skills Council, why the figure for the administration costs in 2004–05 differs from that provided in Learning and Skills Council Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04. [35824]
Bill Rammell:
The apparent difference is presentational and the following table shows the separate components that made up the LSC Administration costs for the 2003–04 LSC Annual Accounts, and the answer of 9 November. The costs in both cases total the same. The difference is that the LSC Accounts show five categories under the Administration
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1700W
heading. The written reply of 9 November has combined three of these categories, Depreciation, Loss on Disposal, and Loss on Impairment categories into one.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 28November 2005, Official Report, column 178W, on the Learning and Skills Council, what the reason is for the difference between the sum reported for expenditure on Local Intervention and Development in the answer and the total expenditure on Local Intervention and Development reported in the Learning and Skills Council Annual Report and Accounts 2004–05. [36581]
Bill Rammell: The figures in the following table are from the statutory accounts and are correct. The reason for the discrepancy with the figures quoted pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2005, Official Report, column 178W on the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is that, for operational purposes, the LSC combine the Learner Participation and Local Intervention and Development Fund (LIDF) into one budget. The reporting of these budgets separately is purely for statutory reporting purposes and cannot be accurately disaggregated.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2005, Official Report, column 178W on the Learning and Skills Council, what the reason is for the difference between the figures reported and the figures in the Learning and Skills Council Annual Report and Accounts 2004–05. [36582]
Bill Rammell
[pursuant to the reply, 28 November 2005, Official Report, c. 178W]: On the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) I confirm that the figures in the following table from the LSC 2004–05 statutory accounts and are correct. The reason for the discrepancy with the figures quoted in the answer on 28 November is that for operational purposes the LSC combine the Learner Participation and Local Intervention and Development Fund (LIDF) into one budget and some
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1701W
£152.1 million appropriate to LIDF was included under Learning Participation. The disaggregation of these budgets is purely for statutory reporting.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |